Sir, – The forthcoming referendum on the 36th Amendment has been described as the “repeal” of the Eighth Amendment. This is false. It amounts to a replacement of the Eighth, 13th and 14th amendments with a new one. The radical nature of this replacement has not, in my opinion, been given the attention it deserves.
The proposed 36th Amendment replaces the present constitutional recognition of the equal right to life of both mother and the unborn child with a blanket permission to allow politicians to legislate for abortion, should they so wish. In other words, the proposed amendment seeks to insert into the fundamental rights section of our Constitution an implicit “right to abortion”.
Far from just being a “Repeal of the Eighth”, we are being asked to replace the one and only constitutional right to life of both mother and unborn child with what amounts to a constitutional right to abortion. No other Constitution explicitly or implicitly recognises such a “right”. The moral and legal implications of the proposed replacement are staggering.
The actual nature of what is being proposed is obfuscated even more by the wording of the ballot paper. It does not contain the actual wording of what will replace the existing constitutionally recognised human rights.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Irish citizens are not being asked to approve the replacement, namely that “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”. Instead, we are being asked to mark Yes or No with an X in the appropriate square to approve or not to approve the “Thirty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2018”.
No mention of abortion! No mention even of “termination of pregnancy”! And no mention of placing the rights of mother and child at the disposition of the politicians! This is pure Machiavellian politics.
“No” is the only responsible – the only moral – response to such manoeuvrings by the Government.
But the wording of the ballot paper does raise the more fundamental question: is it line with the letter and spirit of Article 47.1 of the Irish Constitution (on The Referendum)? – Yours, etc,
D VINCENT TWOMEY
SVD, Professor Emeritus of
Moral Theology,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – There are times when a woman is not healthy enough to sustain a pregnancy. There are times when a woman will not survive the mental or physical journey of being a mother. There are times when a woman has not consented to being a mother.
At present, the Eighth Amendment prevents a sympathetic response to these complex and difficult situations. Implicit in the language of the No voters is the notion that allowing women and their families to choose what to do in these situations will somehow unleash a spree of terminations by irresponsible women.
I ask; who do you think these women are? Do you really believe that the likely culprits to destabilise Irish life are Irish women?
Historically, the entire fabric of the Irish family has been held together by Irish women, despite, in almost every area, being denied equality. The agencies we trusted – church and State – have let the women of Ireland down catastrophically. A Yes vote will finally allow women to make their own choices.
It is not uncomplicated, it is not easy, and it requires the Yes voter to believe that the outcome of a pregnancy should be decided, not by church laws or secular laws, but by the pregnant woman, her doctor, and those who support her. – Yours, etc,
Dr NIAMH HAMILL,
Bundoran, Co Donegal.
A chara, – Reading your fair front-page report (May 10th) on Google’s bizarre, unexplained, (and surely inexplicable) decision to bar advertisements relating to the abortion referendum in Ireland, one cannot but note your reported suggestion that Google (and Facebook) seem concerned (“alarmed” is the term used) that a No vote might, in some way, embarrass them. Does this mean that they, as influential media channels, are (a) in favour of censorship on a dramatic scale, and (b) pro-abortion? – Is mise,
RAYMOND CASS
Louisburgh, Co Mayo.
Sir, – In his column (Business, May 11th), Mark Paul asks, “Does it not concern you that executives unknown, at a Californian-headquartered, New York-listed technology behemoth can take a sudden, seemingly arbitrary decision at the height of an Irish referendum campaign, potentially affecting the wording of Bunreacht na hÉireann? ”
My answer is that I would be far more concerned if the wording of the Constitution were to be affected by the distortions, misleading statements, and downright untruths that routinely appear on the social media accounts of the No campaign. – Yours, etc,
MARK HAYDEN,
Sauvian,
France.
Sir, – Blathnaid O’Loughlin (May 10th) asks a number of questions about what have pro-life people done since 1983 to support those who might otherwise have been able to have an abortion at home in Ireland? The answer is a lot.
Scores of people over the years have volunteered their time and skills in management and finance, have undertaken training in pregnancy and post-abortion counselling, being available and offering support every day of the year except Christmas Day, spent many days on the streets collecting money to pay the rent or purchase pregnancy test kits, all services being free, negotiated with government to get funding to support housing for women made homeless by an unexpected pregnancy. Unfortunately there is never enough “free money” to advertise at the level we would have wished. They have also had to put up with the activities of rogue counselling services. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK DAVEY,
Dublin 18.