https___adfam.ie_2017_02_20_an-8u-leasu-a-aisghairm-votalaigi-nil-leis-sin__lang_ga_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11.1 11.2 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1
Say ‘NO’ to a Referendum to Repeal of the 8th [Pro–Life] Amendment 1) Repeal would mean many more abortions. Abortion would have killed Mrs Savita Halappanavar, as well as her baby daughter, Prasa. The first paragraph of Article 40.3.3° is the 8th [Pro-Life] Amendment. If it is repealed, it certainly will mean that a lot more abortions of Irish unborn will occur than occur at present. Pro-liberalization medics, and media, have been all too keen to ignore or dismiss reports on the dire effects of abortion on the mothers involved. In reply to a question from Deputy Mattie McGrath at the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee of October 11, 2017, Dr Peter Boylan, who advised the Labour Party on their abortion policy, said that he couldn’t think of any maternal death, other than that of Mrs Savita Halappanavar, that was, in his opinion, due to the existence of the 8th Amendment. It should be pointed out that the prominent Indian obstetrician–gynaecologist, Dr Hema Divakar, has said that, had Mrs Halappanavar’s baby daughter, Prasa, been aborted on the Monday, the abortion would have killed Mrs Halappanavar also, because she was so weak [The Hindu, Bangalore, November 16, 2012]. ‘Sepsis is the leading cause of maternal death in the UK’ [National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), University of Oxford, March 29, 2016: npeu.ox.ac.uk]; ‘All forms of operative delivery were associated with increased risk of sepsis’ [ibid.]. 2) There is well-founded medical evidence that abortion is linked to breast cancer, and abuse of other children in the same family. There has been controversy recently over whether abortion is linked to breast cancer, and whether abortion leads to child abuse. The impression created in the media is that neither of these claims is valid. Doctors differ and patients die. The claim regarding breast cancer is corroborated strongly by a recent meta‑analysis from China –– see ‘Publications List’. See also the website of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. The claim regarding child abuse is corroborated, among other experts, by the Canadian psychiatrist and child psychologist, Dr Philip G. Ney, in his book Deeply Damaged –– An Explanation for the Profound Problems Arising from Infant Abortion and Child Abuse (Pioneer Publishing Co. Ltd: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 1997; 3rd Edition 2015) –– see Chapters 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. 3) In the law of the Republic of Ireland, the unborn is recognized as a human person, starting from fertilization. Neither Dutch law, nor English law, recognizes the unborn child as a human person. The right to life of the unborn as catered for in Article 40.3.3°, comes under the general title ‘Fundamental Rights – Personal Rights’. Not only is the right to life of the unborn considered to be a personal right, but the recognition of the human foetus as a human person has been corroborated by the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014, Interpretation 2. (1), under ‘body’. In doing so, that Act has undermined the original pro‑abortion interpretation in the ‘X’ Case judgement of Article 40.3.3°. Acknowledging in statute law also that the human foetus is a human person argues strongly against deliberately destroying him/her for any reason. The 2014 Act endorses DNA testing, and so the State now accepts that the individual human being begins his/her life at fertilization. The Supreme Court delivered a judgement on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, on the Humphreys ruling in the High Court, given July 29, 2016. The Supreme Court have ruled that the only Constitutional right the unborn has is the right to life as catered for by Article 40.3.3°. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court made no reference to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014, and so there is no reason to believe that they have restricted the clarification of the right provided by the 2014 Act. Neither in the Netherlands, nor in England, is the personhood of the unborn child before birth acknowledged at all [see in the Transcripts of the meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee, remarks by Professor Sjef Gevers at the meeting of November 23, 2017; and those of Mr Peter Thompson, at the meeting of November 29, 2017.] It is the intention of the Government to legislate for In Vitro Fertilization, during which 96% of human embryos conceived in vitro [i.e. ‘on glass’] are deliberately wasted [Nicholas Tonti–Fillipini, ‘Reproductive Technology Outcomes in Australia: Analysing the Data’, Bioethics Research Notes (March 2003, 15: 1, 2)]. Professor Fergal Malone, Master of the Rotunda, said at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, that about 30% to 40% of all human conceptions will end in a miscarriage (October 11, 2017). In other words, nature is much less profligate than IVF. It is also the Government’s intention to allow destructive research on ‘supernumerary’ or ‘left–over’ human embryos until the 14th day after fertilization [General Scheme of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017, PART 7, pp. 143–152]. The law at present allows the deliberate destruction of unborn human life only in the circumstances set out in sections 7, 8, 9 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, and allows such destruction only ‘after implantation’, not before implantation [see the word ‘unborn’, Intepretation 2. (1), Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013]. That is another reason why the Government want to repeal Article 40.3.3°; and also want to repeal the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Pro–lifers would have different reasons for repealing the 2013 Act. 4) Abortion is capital punishment, but of the innocent. Arguably animals are treated more humanely than the human unborn. In most Western democracies the death penalty has been done away with, practically speaking. By allowing abortion, or expanding the permission to abort, we confirm that we are condemning the innocent unborn to death, a very cruel death in the case of surgical abortion. In the Republic of Ireland, if one were to kill a dog the way unborn children are butchered in many abortions, if convicted, one would be heavily fined, if not given a prison sentence. 5) Further liberalization of abortion will make obstetrics a lot riskier, financially. Infection and substantial risk in pregnancy are unpredictable. ‘Lethal’ and ‘fatal’ have no precise meaning in relation to life–limiting conditions. The State annual budget for obstetrics is about €1 billion; 60% of the State medical negligence bill of €1.6 billion is for obstetrics cases. It was admitted by pro-liberalization medics during the meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment that it isn’t possible to predict whether infection in pregnancy will become lethal [remarks of Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of Holles Street, meeting of October 11, 2017]. It was also admitted by the pro–liberalization medics that there is no precise scientific definition of ‘lethal’ or ‘fatal’ in relation to life–limiting conditions [Mr Peter Thompson, loc. It was admitted, moreover, that the State’s budget for obstetrics is about €1 billion; 60% of the State’s medical negligence bill of €1.6 billion is for obstetrics cases [remarks of Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of Holles Street, meeting of October 11, 2017]. The logical conclusion is that the push for more abortion has nothing to do with medicine, and a lot to do with litigation. Young doctors in pro–abortion countries are shunning obstetrics and gynaecology, because the young doctors wish to remain faithful to the ancient medical principle of primum non nocere, ‘first, to do no harm.’ The principle of the pro‑liberalization medics clearly is ‘abort first, and ask questions later.’ Remember that at least some of these pro-liberalization medics have a higher salary than the Taoiseach! 6) Wider, free–of–charge, access to contraceptives and abortifacients, doesn’t result in fewer teenage pregnancies. Compulsory sex education for children from a very young age is a form of child sexual abuse, it violates parental rights, conscientious rights and religious liberty. There has actually been a reduction in sexual activity among high school students in the U.S., 2005–2015, and a reduction in pregnancy among high school girls also. In the Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution there was support for free access to contraceptives, and abortifacients, as a way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies [Chapter 3 – Ancillary Recommendations, pp. 12–15]. The Netherlands was held up as an example to the Republic of Ireland of how to approach the problem. This approach involves downright deception [meeting of November 23, 2017]. The Netherlands actually don’t count abortions in the first several weeks of pregnancy. The pro-liberalization speakers admitted, as have prominent pro‑abortion advocates for decades, that contraceptives and abortifacients have a significant ‘failure’ rate, and later medical abortion, or surgical abortion, are ‘necessary’ in order to deal with these ‘failures’. Economics Professor David Patton of Nottingham University, England, for years has been disputing the claim that wider access to contraceptives and abortifacients is the answer. For a good summary of his ideas, and of those who agree with him, see the version of March 14, 2017, of http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the–fix/wp/2016/05/14/abortion–rates–are . In the Ancillary Recommendations in the Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution it was argued that sex education should be made even more compulsory than it is at present. That would ignore totally the rights of parents to educate their children, and ignore conscientious rights, and rights to freedom of religion. There actually has been a reduction in sexual activity among high school students in the U.S., 2005–2015, and a reduction in pregnancy among high school girls also [‘Sexual Intercourse Among High School Students –– 29 States and U.S. Overall, 2005–2015’, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, January 5, 2018.] The Government are just ignoring all contrary evidence, and intend to apply the above-mentioned part of the Ancillary Recommendations, if voters vote to Repeal the 8th Amendment –– see Fiach Kelly, ‘Proposals to widen access to birth control’, The Irish Times, Saturday, March 24, 2018, p. 6]. Breath–taking cynicism is at work here. Amoral pharmacists and wannabe abortionists will be laughing all the way to the bank, if the Government proceed with this policy. 7) The 12–weeks proposal would mean ‘open season’ on the unborn during those weeks, and there would be ‘open season’ also on the unborn, post 22-weeks, re life–limiting conditions. Decriminalization trivializes abortion. The pro-liberalization speakers, in effect, want ‘open season’ declared on the unborn child in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and for those cases of life-limiting conditions that are not diagnosed earlier than 22 weeks gestation. That demonstrates how irrational allowing ‘a little abortion’ is. Decriminalization of abortion at any stage would just make it a trivial matter. Remember, we are dealing with human life, not a trivial matter. 8) Extreme pro–abortion bias at the Citizens’ Assembly and Oireachtas Joint Committee. What happened the principle ‘hear the other side’? Both the Citizens’ Assembly and the Oireachtas Joint Committee have been extremely open to listening to foreign pro‑abortion campaigners, and even to abortionists, most of whom are not even aware of how many abortions they have performed. At least one abortionist guest, Mr Peter Thompson, couldn’t answer a relatively straightforward question, from Senator Rónán Mullen, on the size of the unborn child at 24 weeks gestation [November 29, 2017], though Mr Thompson has lost count of the number of unborn children whom he has aborted –– hundreds, maybe, thousands even. The Oireachtas Joint Committee voted not to retain in full the Eighth Amendment, long before they had listened to all the witnesses. On the flimsiest of excuses, they refused to listen to pro–life medics, and pro–life advocates. Then these people are accused of not being able to defend their pro-life case. Very few can defend themselves when the judge, jury and executioner, are all the same. 9) Population implosion worldwide, except in Africa. Difficulties with provision of pensions. Further liberalizing the law on abortion in the Republic at present would be insane. Africa is the only continent in today’s world where the population is replacing itself. Europe is in a state of demographic implosion, because of the legalization of abortion, and extreme family limitation. The reason Germany has been very keen to let in a large number of immigrants is because it doesn’t have the native population to do the work the immigrants do. Provision of pensions has already become a very serious problem. If we don’t have enough active young people at work, we’ll not be able to pay pensions. We can’t go on ignoring this problem. 10) Treating some humans as less than human leads to genocide. Classifying certain human beings as being less than human has led in the past to the horrors of genocide, in Ireland even, and in countries such as America, Armenia, Germany, and Australia. 11) The pro–Repeal side is asking us, not just to trust women, but to trust doctors also, and furthermore to trust legislation on abortion entirely to the lawmakers. It isn’t clear from the reference in the Referendum proposal to ‘by law’, whether the legislation on the ‘termination of pregnancy’, that is, abortion, is to be by enactment of the Dáil and Seanad, or simply by Ministerial Order. Some politicians are trustworthy, but we have learned from bitter experience that too many are not. ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’ If men and women never did any wrong, there would be no need for laws. As Seán Fleming, FF TD, Laois, pointed out in Dáil Éireann, Tuesday, March 20, 2018, in a number of recent Referenda, voters voted NO because they saw the proposals as power grabs by politicians, e.g. the 2011 Referendum to allow the Oireachtas to conduct full enquiries; and the 2013 Referendum to abolish Seanad Éireann. 12) Our Referendum system is oligarchic; it isn’t truly democratic. In the Republic of Ireland, a Referendum proposal, if successful, is voted for only by a majority of those voting on the day, not a majority of registered voters. Our Referendum system is not democratic; it is oligarchic. Ordinarily no referendum should be held unless a Pre‑Referendum determines that a majority of registered voters want it held. The result of a follow-on Referendum should be determined again by a majority of registered voters. Besides, as was said above, it is not a fit subject for Referendum to propose to deny an innocent human being his/her right to life. Publications List: Yubei Huang, et al., ‘A meta–analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females’, Cancer Causes Control. Published online: 24 November 2013. http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentofth… Report–of– the–Joint–Committee–on–the–Eighth–Amendment–web–version.pdf See ‘Chapter 3 –– Ancillary Recommendations’, pp. 12–15. Joint Assessment by Fitzpatrick, McGrath and Mullen on the Committee of the 8th Amendment.pdf
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 15.1 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2 18.1
Reifreann chun an 8ú Leasú [an Leasú ar Son na mBeo] a Aisghairm? Vótálaigí ‘NÍL’ leis sin! 1) Dá ndéanfaí an Aisghairm chuirfí go mór leis an méid ginmhilltí. Ní hamháin go maródh ginmhilleadh Prasa, iníon Savita Bean Halappanavar, ach mharódh sé Bean Halappanavar chomh maith. Is é an tOchtú Leasú [an Leasú ar Son na mBeo] an chéad mhír d’Airteagal 40.3.3°. Má dhéantar é sin a aisghairm, ciallóidh sé gur mó i bhfad an méid ginmhilltí a dhéanfar ar na beo-gan-breith in Éirinn ná a dhéantar i láthair na huaire. Na dochtúirí agus na meáin chumarsáide atá a son an liobrálaithe, tá siad ar a ndícheall beag is fiú a dhéanamh de na tuairiscí ar dhroch–iarmhairtí an ghinmhillte do na máithreacha, agus ní ghéillfidh siad iontu. Chuir an Dr Peter Boylan comhairle ar Pháirtí an Luchta Oibre i dtaobh an pholasaí acusan ar an nginmhilleadh. Ar chruinniú Dheireadh Fómhair 11, 2017, de Chomh-Choiste an Oireachtais um an Ochtú Leasú, d’fhiafraigh an Teachta Mattie McGrath den Dr Boylan bás máthar a ainmniú, seachas bás Savita Bean Halappanavar, ab fhéidir a chur síos, dar leis, don Ochtú Leasú. Ní fhéadfadh an Dr Boylan cuimhneamh ar bhás ar bith eile mar sin. Ní miste breith an Dr Hema Divakar a thabhairt air sin, cnáimhseach agus lia ban mór le rá ón India, a deir go bhfaigheadh Bean Halappanavar bás dá ndéanaí ginmhilleadh ar a hiníonsa, Prasa, an Luan úd, bhí Savita chomh lag sin [The Hindu (Bangalore, Samhain 16, 2012). Bhí an turraing sheipteach ar na cúiseanna le bás Savita Bean Halappanavar, dar leis an Ollamh Grace Callagy, comhairleoir paiteolaíochta [Paul Cullen, ’Savita died of septic shock, pathologist tells hearing’, The Irish Times, Déardaoin, Aibreán 18, 2013]. Is í an tseipsis an trúig bháis is mó don mháthair sa Ríocht Aontaithe [National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Ollscoil Oxford, Márta 29, 2016: npeu.ox.ac.uk]; gach uile shórt obráide folmhaithe broinne, cuireann siad le contúirt na seipsise [ibid.] 2) Tá fianaise láidir leighis ann go bhfuil baint ag an nginmhilleadh leis an ailse chíche, agus le droch‑íde ar leanaí sa teaghlach céanna. Bhí conspóid le déanaí i dtaobh baint a bheith ag an nginmhilleadh le hailse chíche, agus i dtaobh droch–íde ar leanaí a bhfaigheann a máthair ginmhilleadh. Tugtar le tuiscint sna meáin chumarsáide nach bhfuil bun le ceachtar den dá áitiú sin. Bás othar a thagann as easaontais idir dhochtúirí. 4 bliana ó shin sa tSín rinneadh meat–anailís a dhearbhaíonn go láidir go bhfuil baint ag an nginmhilleadh le hailse chíche –– feicigí libh ar an ‘Liosta Foilseachán’. Feicigí libh chomh maith láithreán Gréasáin Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Maidir le droch–íde ar leanaí a bhfaigheadh a máthair ginmhilleadh, tá bun leis an tuairisc sin dar le heolaithe, cuir i gcás, an síciatraí agus an síceolaí leanaí ó Cheanada, an Dr Philip G. Ney, i leabhar leis-sean, Deeply Damaged –– An Explanation for the Profound Problems Arising from Infant Abortion and Child Abuse (Pioneer Publishing Co. Ltd: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 1997; an 3ú hEagrán 2015) –– feicigí libh Caibidlí 2, 4, 8, 9 agus 10. 3) Aithnítear i ndlí Phoblacht na hÉireann gur pearsa dhaonna ón ubhthoirchiú is ea an beo–gan–breith. Ní aithníonn dlí na hÍsiltíre ná dlí Shasana gur pearsa dhaonna is ea an beo–gan–breith. Is é teideal na rannóige den Bhunreacht ina bhfuil Airteagal 40.3.3° ‘Bunchearta –– Cearta Pearsanta’. Ní hamháin go meastar an ceart chun a mbeatha ag na beo–gan–breith a bheith ina cheart pearsanta, ach an admháil gur pearsa dhaonna is ea an féatas daonna, tá teannta léi sin ag an Acht um Cheartas Coiriúil (Fianaise Dlí–Eolaíochta agus Córas Bunachair Sonraí DNA), 2014, Interpretation/Míniú. 2. (1), faoin bhfocal ‘body’/’corp’. Dá réir sin, tá an bonn bainte ag an Acht sin ón léirmhíniú ar son an ghinmhillte a rinneadh sa bhreith a tugadh ar Chás ‘X’. An dlí reachtúil a admháil chomh maith gur pearsa dhaonna is ea an féatas daonna, tá argóint an–láidir ann sin i gcoinne é/í a dhíothú ar aon chúinse. Glacann Acht 2014 le Tástáil an DNA, agus dá bhrí sin admhaíonn an Stát anois gur leis an ubhthoirchiú a thosaíonn an duine indibhidiúil ar an mbeatha aigesean/aicise. Dé Céadaoin, Márta 7, 2018, thug an Chúirt Uachtarach a mbreithsean ar Rialú Iúil 29, 2016, ag an nGiúistís Humphreys. Is amhlaidh atá rialaithe ag an gCúirt Uachtarach nach bhfuil de cheart Bunreachtúil ag na beo–gan–breith ach an ceart chun a mbeathasan, de réir Airteagal 40.3.3°. Ar a shon sin is uile, ní dhearna an Chúirt Uachtarach tagairt ar bith don Acht um Cheartas Coiriúil (Fianaise Dlí–Eolaíochta agus Córas Bunachair Sonraí DNA), 2014, agus mar sin, níl cúis ar bith lena cheapadh go bhfuil maolú déanta acusan ar an soiléiriú ar an gceart sin a thugtar in Acht 2014. Ní thugtar aitheantas dá laghad san Ísiltír ná i Sasana do phearsantacht na mbeo–gan–breith sula saolaítear iad [feicigí libh sa Trascríobh ar imeachtaí na gcruinnithe ag Comh–Choiste an Oireachtais, tráchtaireacht ag an Ollamh Sjef Gevers ar chruinniú Shamhain 23, 2017; agus tráchtaireacht ag an Uasal Peter Thompson, ar chruinniú Shamhain 29, 2017.] Tá sé de rún ag an Rialtas reachtaíocht a thabhairt isteach faoi bhráid Ubhthoirchiú in Vitro; 96% de na suthanna daonna a choimprítear lena linn sin, is amhlaidh a vástáiltear d’aon toisc iad [Nicholas Tonti–Fillipini, ‘Reproductive Technology Outcomes in Australia: Analysing the Data’, Bioethics Research Notes (Márta 2003, 15: 1, 2)]. Máistir an Rotunda, an tOllamh Fergal Malone, dúirt sé ar chruinniú de Chomh–Choiste an Oireachtais um an Ochtú Leasú, go scartar le idir 30% agus 40% de na coimpearthaí daonna go léir (Deireadh Fómhair 11, 2017). Is é sin, gur lú go mór an méid a scartar go nádúrtha leo ná a vástáiltear le linn Ubhthoirchiú in Vitro. Tá de rún ag an Rialtas taighde díothaithe a cheadú ar shuthanna daonna ‘farasbairr’ go dtí an 14ú lá tar éis an ubhthoirchithe [General Scheme of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017, PART 7, lgh 143–152]. I láthair na huaire ní cheadaíonn an dlí díothú d’aon toisc ar na beo–gan–breith ach ar na cúinsí a leagtar amach in ailt 7, 8, 9 den Acht um Chosaint na Beatha le linn Toirchis, 2013, agus ní cheadaíonn an méid sin féin ach ‘tar éis ionchlannú/implantation’ –– ní cheadaíonn sé roimh an ionchlannú é [feicigí libh an focal unborn, Interpretation 2. (1), An tAcht um Chosaint na Beatha le linn Toirchis, 2013]. Sin cúis eile a dteastaíonn ón Rialtas Airteagal 40.3.3° a Aisghairm; teastaíonn uathu chomh maith an tAcht um Chosaint na Beatha le linn Toirchis, 2013, a Aisghairm, ach ní ar na cúiseanna céanna a dteastaíonn ón dream ar–son–na–mbeo é a Aisghairm. 4) Is ionann ginmhilleadh agus pionós an bháis ar dhuine neamhurchóideach. Barbarthacht an ghinmhillte ar an mbeo–gan–breith, ní chuirfí suas leis ar ainmhí. Tá deireadh, geall leis de, curtha le pionós an bháis i bhformhór na dtíortha daonlathacha in Iarthar Domhain. Má cheadaímidne ginmhilleadh, nó má chuirimid le cead chun ginmhilleadh, is é rud atáimid a dhéanamh ag daoradh na mbeo–gan–breith chun báis, agus iad neamhurchóideach ar fad; bás an–chruálach é sin i gcás an ghinmhillte le máinliacht. Dá bhfaighfí duine i bPoblacht na hÉireann ciontach i marú madra ar an tslí a ndéantar búistéireacht ar na beo–gan–breith ina liacht ginmhilleadh, ghearrfaí fíneáil throm air/uirthi, nó ropfaí isteach i bpríosún é/í. 5) Má dhéantar an ginmhilleadh a liobrálú a thuilleadh, cuirfidh sé go mór le bille damáistí leighis an chnáimhseachais. Ní féidir an galrú, ná an fhíorchontúirt, a thuar le linn iompar clainne. Níl ciall chruinn le ‘tubaisteach’ ná ‘marfach’ maidir le héalanga a chiorródh ar shaol linbh. Timpeall le €1 billiún buiséad bliantúil an Stáit ar an gcnáimhseachas; €1.6 billiún a chaitheann an Stát go bliantúil ar dhamáistí leighis, agus 60% den méid sin ar chásanna cnáimhseachais. Le linn na gcruinnithe ar an Ochtú Leasú ag Comh–Choiste an Oireachtais, d’admhaigh dochtúirí atá ar son an liobrálaithe, nach féidir a thuar i dtaobh galrú le linn iompar clainne go n‑iompóidh sé marfach [tráchtaireacht ag an Dr Rhona Mahony, Máistir Ospidéal Shráid Holles, Deireadh Fómhair 11, 2017]. D’admhaigh dochtúirí atá ar son an liobrálaithe chomh maith nach bhfuil míniú beacht eolaíochta ar ‘tubaisteach’ ná ‘marfach’ maidir le héalanga a chiorródh ar shaol linbh [Peter Thompson, loc. cit.]. Fairis sin, dúradh gur timpeall le €1 billiún buiséad an Stáit ar chnáimhseachas agus liacht bhan; gur €1.6 billiún a dhíolann an Stát amach go bliantúil ar chásanna damáistí leighis, agus gur ar chásanna cnáimsheachais agus liachta ban a chaitear 60% den bhille sin [tráchtaireacht ag an Dr Rhona Mahony, Máistir Ospidéal Shráid Holles, Deireadh Fómhair 11, 2017]. Is é an tátal atá le baint as sin nach bhfuil baint dá laghad ag an ngluaiseacht ar son liobrálú leis an leigheas, ach go bhfuil baint aici le dlí a bhagairt. Tá dochtúirí óga ag seachaint an chnáimhseachais agus na liachta ban, mar gur mian leis na dochtúirí óga cloí le prionsabal seanbhunaithe an leighis, primum non nocere, ‘thar aon rud, gan díobháil a dhéanamh’. Is léir gurb é prionsabal na ndochtúirí atá ar son liobrálú ‘fág na ceisteanna go dtí tar éis an ghinmhillte’. Cuimhnímis gur mó an tuarastal atá do chuid de na dochtúirí atá ar son liobrálú, ná atá don Taoiseach. 6) Teacht a bheith níos fairsinge ar fhrithghiniúnaigh agus ar ghinmhilltigh, agus iad sin a bheith saor in aisce, ní laghdaíonn sé ar líon na dtoircheas gan iarraidh ag girseacha. Oideachas éigeantach ar chollaíocht ar leanaí an–óg, is cineál droch–íde collaí ar leanaí é, sáraíonn sé cearta tuismitheoirí, cearta coinsiasa, agus saoirse chreidimh. Tá laghdú tagtha go fírinneach ar ghníomhaíocht chollaí ag daltaí ardscoile i Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá, 2005–2015, agus tá laghdú ar an iompar clainne ag girseacha ardscoile chomh maith. Moladh sa Tuarascáil ón gComhchoiste um an Ochtú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, go gcuirfí frithghiniúnaigh agus ginmhilltigh ar fáil níos fairsinge, agus saor in aisce, d’fhonn laghdú ar an iompar clainne ag girseacha [‘Chapter 3 –– Ancillary Recommendations, lgh 12–15]. Dúradh gur cheart do Phoblacht na hÉireann sampla na hÍsiltíre a leanúint, mar gur réiteach ‘iontach’ atá ar an bhfadhb aici sin. Cur i gcéill ó bhonn aníos atá ann sin [cruinniú Shamhain 23, 2017]. Ní áiríonn an Ísiltír na ginmhilltí i seachtainí tosaigh an iompair clainne. Lucht páirte an liobrálaithe, d’admhaigh siad, mar atá déanta ag na boic mhóra i ngluaiseacht an ghinmhillte leis na deicheanna de bhlianta, gurb amhlaidh a ‘theipeann’ ar fhrithghiniúnaigh agus ar ghinmhilltigh minic go leor, agus áitíonn siad seo go bhfuil gá leis an nginmhilleadh déanach leighis, agus leis an nginmhilleadh le máinliacht, chun déileáil leis an ‘teip’ sin. Ollamh le hEacnamaíocht is ea an tOllamh David Patton, ar Ollscoil Nottingham i Sasana, agus tá Patton á rá le blianta nach é an réiteach ar an bhfadhb, frithghiniúnaigh agus ginmhilltigh a bheith ar fáil níos fairsinge. Gheofar achoimre mhaith ar a chuid sin smaointe, agus ar smaointe daoine atá ag tacú leis, ach eagrán Mhárta 14, 2017, den alt seo a mhúscailt, http://www.washingtonpost.com.news/the–fix/wp/2016/05/14/abortion–rates–are. Tá sé molta sna hAncillary Recommendations go ndéanfaí oideachas ar chollaíocht níos éigeantaí ná atá i láthair na huaire. Dhéanfadh sé sin neamhshuim ar fad de chearta tuismitheoirí chun oideachas a chur ar a gcuid féin leanaí, agus de chearta tuismitheoirí ar shaoirse chreidimh, agus dá gcuid ceart coinsiasa. Oideachas mionchúiseach den saghas atá i gceist, is cineál droch–íde collaí ar leanaí atá ann. Tá laghdú tagtha go fírinneach ar an ngníomhaíocht chollaí i measc daltaí ardscoile i Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá, agus laghdú ar an iompar clainne ag girseacha ardscoile, [‘Sexual Intercourse Among High School Students –– 29 States and U.S. Overall, 2005–2015’, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Eanáir 5, 2018.] Ach tá an Rialtas seo againne ag déanamh neamhshuime den fhianaise go léir i gcoinne a bpolasaí féin, agus tá i gceist acu an chuid réamhráite de na hAncillary Recommendations a chur i bhfeidhm, má vótálann na vótálaithe leis an 8ú Leasú a Aisghairm –– feicigí libh, ‘Proposals to widen access to birth control’, The Irish Times, Dé Sathairn, Márta 24, 2018, lch 6. Feillghníomh aisteach a bheadh ina leithéid, a chuirfeadh airgead i bpócaí na bpoitigéirí dímhorálta agus ábhair na nginmillteoirí –– dá rachadh an Rialtas chun cinn leis. 7) An moladh ginmhilleadh a cheadú sa chéad 12 sheachtain, chiallódh sé ‘séasúr oscailte’ ar na beo–gan–breith sna seachtainí sin, agus bheadh ‘séasúr oscailte’ chomh maith ar na beo–gan–breith, ón 22ú seachtain ar aghaidh i dtaobh éalanga a chiorródh ar a saol. Dhéanfadh dí-choiriúlú beag is fiú den ghinmhilleadh. Is é rud a theastaíonn ó na cainteoirí ar son liobrálú, dáiríre, ‘séasúr oscailte’ a fhógairt ar na beo-gan–breith sa chéad 12 sheachtain acu seo, agus i gcás na n–éalang a chiorródh ar a saol, nach ndéantar diagnóisiú orthu go dtí an 22ú seachtain. Léiriú is ea é sin ar a mhíréasúnta atá sé, ‘an beagán beag ginmhillte’ féin a cheadú. Dá ndéanfaí dí‑choiriúlú ar an nginmhilleadh i ráithe ar bith, ní dhéanfadh sé sin ach rud neafaiseach den ghinmhilleadh. Cuimhnímis gur beatha duine atá i gceist, agus nach rud neafaiseach í sin. 8) Bhí claonadh an–láidir ar son an ghinmhillte ag an Tionól Saoránach, agus ag Comh-Choiste an Oireachtais. Cad chuige dóibh neamhshuim a dhéanamh den phrionsabal ‘éist leis an taobh eile.’ Bhí na trucailí fáilte ag an Tionól Saoránach agus ag Comh-Choiste an Oireachtas roimh lucht páirte an ghinmhillte ó thar lear, agus roimh ghinmhillteoirí féin, nach bhfuil a fhios ag a bhformhór cé mhéad ginmhilleadh atá déanta acu. Bhí ginmhillteoir amháin ann, Peter Thompson, nach raibh freagra cruinn aige nuair a fiafraíodh de cén toirt a bhíonn sa bheo-gan-breith tar éis 24 seachtaine den iompar clainne, ceist simplí go maith [Samhain 29, 2017]. Ní cuimhin leis an Uasal Thompson cé mhéad ginmhilleadh atá déanta aige féin –– na céadta, nó na mílte, b’fhéidir. Vótáil Comh-Choiste an Oireachtais le gan an tOchtú Leasú a choinneáil ina iomláine, i bhfad sula raibh na finnéithe go léir cloiste acu. An leithscéal is lú, shásaigh sé iad nuair nár theastaigh uathu éisteacht a thabhairt do dhochtúirí ar son na mbeo, ná do ghníomhaithe ar son na mbeo. Cuireadh i leith na ndaoine seo ansin nach raibh siad in ann an cás ar son na mbeo a chosaint. Is beag duine atá in ann a gcás a chosaint nuair is mar a chéile an breitheamh, an giúiré, agus an crochadóir. 9) Meath ar an líon daoine ar fud an Domhain, ach san Afraic amháin. Fadhbanna le pinsin a sholáthar. Rud buile ba ea an dlí a liobrálú a thuilleadh i bPoblacht na hÉireann i láthair na huaire. Is í an Afraic an t–aon mhór–roinn ar domhan a mbíonn a ndóthain sleachta ar na daoine ann. Ag teip go tubaisteach atá an Eoraip i dtaobh líon daoine, de dheasca an ginmhilleadh a bheith dleathach, agus teorannú rómhór a bheith á dhéanamh ar líon na clainne. Is é an chúis a bhfuil a oiread foinn ar an nGearmáin líon mór inimirceach a scaoileadh isteach mar nach bhfuil a ndóthain den phobal dúchais ann chun na jabanna a dhéanamh a dhéanann na hinimircigh. Is fadhb an-mhór cheana is ea pinsin a sholáthar. Mura mbíonn ár ndóthain daoine óga gníomhacha ann, rachaidh dínn na pinsin a dhíol. Ní healaín dúinne leanúint orainn ag déanamh neamhshuime den fhadhb sin. 10) Díothú cine a thagann as caitheamh le daoine i leith is nár dhaoine iad. Rinneadh amach san aimsir atá thart go bhfuil daoine daonna áirithe ann nach daoine daonna i gceart iad, agus is as sin a tháinig uafáis an díothaithe cine, in Éirinn féin, agus i Meiriceá, san Airméin, sa Ghearmáin, agus san Astráil, abair. 11) Tá lucht páirte na hAisghairme ag tathant orainne, ní hamháin go gcuirfimis muinín sna mná, ach sna dochtúirí chomh maith, agus go bhfágfaimis an reachtaíocht ar an nginmhilleadh faoi lucht déanta an dlí. An tagairt i dtogra an Reifrinn do ‘le dlí’, ní léir uirthi cé acu atá an reachtaíocht ar ‘fhoirceannadh toirchis’ le fágáil faoi achtú ag an Dáil agus ag an Seanad, nó faoi Ordú ag an Aire. Cuid de na polaiteoirí, tá siad iontaofa, ach tá ciall cheannaithe againne, agus tuigimid gurb iomaí polaiteoir nach bhfuil iontaofa. ‘Chonaic mé cheana thú,’ mar a dúirt an cat leis an mbainne scólta. Ní bheadh gá ar bith le dlíthe, dá mba rud é nach ndéanfadh fir ná mná coir go deo. Seán Fleming, TD ag FF i Laois, labhair sé i nDáil Éireann, Dé Máirt, Márta 20, 2018, gur thagair do Reifrinn a tionóladh le blianta beaga anuas, ar vótáil na vótálaithe ‘NÍL’, mar gur tuigeadh do na vótálaithe gur ag iarraidh cur lena gcuid cumhachta féin a bhí na polaiteoirí, cuir i gcás Reifreann 2011 faoi chead a thabhairt don Oireachtas fiosrúcháin uileghabhálacha a thionól; agus Reifreann 2013 faoi dheireadh a chur le Seanad Éireann. 12) Ní córas daonlathach ach córas olagarcach é córas an Reifrinn seo againne. Ní gá i bPoblacht na hÉireann tromlach na vótálaithe cláraithe a bheith le togra Reifrinn chun go n–éireodh leis; is leor tromlach na vótálaithe a vótálann lá an Reifrinn a bheith leis. Ní córas daonlathach Reifrinn atá againn, ach córas olagarcach. Ní ceart dul chun cinn le togra dea–bhunaithe féin a chur ar Reifreann, mura vótálann tromlach na vótálaithe cláraithe i Réamh-Reifreann le togra áirithe a chur ar Reifreann. Tromlach na vótálaithe cláraithe, mura mbíonn siad i bhfabhar an togra sa Reifreann Iarmhartach, glactar leis go bhfuil diúltaithe go daonlathach dó! Fairis sin, mar a dúradh romhainn, ní togra cuí le haghaidh Reifrinn is ea é iarracht a dhéanamh ar a gceart chun na beatha a bhaint de dhaoine neamhurchóideacha. Liosta Foilseachán: Yubei Huang, et al., ‘A meta–analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females’, Cancer Causes Control. Foilsiú ar líne, Samhain 24, 2013. http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentofth…. Feicigí libh ‘Chapter 3 –Ancillary Recommendations, pp. 12‑15. Joint Assessment by Fitzpatrick, McGrath and Mullen on the Committee of the 8th Amendment.pdf