Tánaiste Micheál Martin has said that he is “open-minded” about potentially changing the three-day wait period for abortion.
The 72-hour reflection period was promised repeatedly by the government during the 2018 abortion referendum, and was included in the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Its stated purpose is to ensure that the decision to receive an abortion is not made hastily, and that those who receive the procedure have time to weigh up their options.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner this week, the Tánaiste acknowledged that a clear commitment was made to the electorate at the time of the 8th Amendment referendum campaign.
“There were clear commitments given during the campaign on what the framework would be for the facilitation of this,” he said.
“And my own view is we went to the doors, we said ‘Here’s the framework in terms of the actual referendum itself in terms of the three days.’ So I think there is a need, when you have a referendum, to fulfil those commitments for a period of time at any rate.
“To me, the more fundamental issue is the provision of services at the hospital sites. That to me is my issue but I’m not convinced the three days is as big a barrier as suggested.”
The Tánaiste added that it was “unacceptable” that some hospitals which are required to provide abortions are not doing so, and that the government is considering the ongoing review of the abortion legislation, published this year, which recommended that the three-day wait be made optional. He said that he has “an open mind in respect of the three days.”
Gript previously questioned the Tánaiste on the subject regarding his commitment to clear campaign promises.
"Why should voters trust you?": Tánaiste Micheál Martin is asked if his government intends to go back on campaign promises made during the 8th Amendment referendum regarding restrictions around abortion, like the 3-day wait. #gript pic.twitter.com/BDy1n3FMqZ
— gript (@griptmedia) May 10, 2023
The Tánaiste also said he is “very conscious” of “commitments” made during the 8th Amendment referendum, but declined to say whether he believes reneging on the 3-day wait would be breaking a campaign promise.
Tánaiste Micheál Martin says he is "very conscious" of "commitments" made during the 8th Amendment referendum, but declines to say whether he belives reneging on the 3-day wait would be breaking a campaign promise.#gript pic.twitter.com/YCTL1SU0b1
— gript (@griptmedia) June 3, 2023
Loading ...
If you believe abortion is murder of an innocent and healthy baby, why would you want to co-operate with a perverse law?
The abortion referendum was fraudulent because the promise was that a woman would have a choice when in fact most politicians only wanted women to have a single legal option – having the baby killed. If there was to be a real choice, the young parents could have been encouraged to consider marriage or putting the child up for adoption or for the single mother to raise the child with help from family and friends. Our government has not urged these options but with the help of mainstream media discouraged them. Perhaps that is also why the adoption process is so complicated and bureaucratic?
It’s just as well that Mr Shaz’s parents were pro-life although having brought him up they may have re-considered their views at this stage.
There is more than one church and more than one religion.
Where does the name Shaz originate from ?.
It is said when you are dealing with a recalcritant child you need to descend to their level.
its Spanish vernacular for what a dog excretes.
Tis your self again jack. Red to the core.
If pro foeticide people ever spoke to a woman crushed by regret and devastation after warped ideology has persuaded her to end her infant’s life, they would have their eyes opened. Callous disregard for women is rife in the foeticide industry. Ironically, an industry almost entirely controlled by powerful wealthy men, whereas organisations that endeavour to pick up the pieces and provide support for women whose lives are scarred by the foeticide industry, are almost entirely run by women. Isn’t it ironic that “no uterus no opinion” is only a battle cry when a man speaks out against foeticide? As a card carrying uterus owner, I grow weary of hearing beta males blab about “choice” when in fact the only choice they support is the one that kills a child and harms his/her mother. Ignorance is rife in the place inhabited by pro foeticide men. They have no understanding of the harm caused to women by their warped ideology. Empty vessels, sad excuses for masculinity. Women have never been so much under attack than now. Twenty-first century beta males shirk all responsibilities of fatherhood and manliness in the guise of “male feminism”. How convenient for spineless men that liberal ideology has bestowed them with such a carefree rootless existence where they feign solidarity with women while destroying women and leaving them to deal with a lifetime of regret alone.
Unimaginative response kiddo. Nothing from history justifies the harm to women perpetrated today by the foeticide industry.
What I expressed is not a baseless view. It’s based entirely on observation and fact. Foeticide is the ending of an infant’s life in utero. The mothers who have been persuaded that this is the option they must avail of, are permanently scarred by the aftermath. It manifests in a variety of ways. For some, it leads to a lifetime of therapy. For others it has different impacts. No woman looks at her grown offspring and says “I wish I never had him, he ruined my life”. Many have deep painful trauma trying to come to terms with the life that never got a chance. But in your heart you know this. That’s why you are so angry and vitriolic.
There are plenty of hospitals that do not provide cancer care in this country. They have consolidated these treatments in so called centres of excellence. Could they not do the same with abortion or are pregnant women less able to travel than cancer sufferers?
The ‘reviewers’ doing the ‘review’ did not speak to any women who choose not to proceed with an abortion during the 3 day wait .. thereby saving 1000 babies lives per year .. the ‘review’ is fundamentally flawed in that respect and cannot be used as a reason to get rid of the 3 day waiting period as that part of the act was not fully ‘reviewed’
Abortion is thought of like contraception in this country by woman in their 20s, who belittle the person that disagrees with their use of it. I don’t like the country we have become. If you don’t want children use contraception and prevent it from happening.
If you don’t want children, don’t have sex yet.
You won’t die!
Thankfully both are now viable options in this country. That was not the case until relatively recently
Irish family planning association. Your welcome.
The abortion levels are stratospheric so it is actually the case by your own argument. Over 10,000 is the latest estimate for 2023 in the Republic. Approximately 200,000 per year within the UK. Countless millions the world over. At least do a tiny bit of research before you post. Otherwise you are just another useful idiot.
What figure would qualify as stratospheric in your view, 20,000, 50,000, a million? No dissembling just a straightforward answer.
Your comment would indicate that there would come a number which would be unacceptable to you. However, if you truly believe that abortion is fine whether that number was one or one billion should make no difference.
Dissembling as usual. I’m sure you were one of the people going around before the referendum saying that abortion would be rare. The 8th did suppress demand because the women had a much greater choice back then as to how they wished to proceed. Now the constant message they are getting is that their best (and really only) choice is abortion. It is peddled by zealots like yourself and it is relentlessly peddled by the useful idiots in the Irish Media and by the government.
When the 8th was in place there were approximately 3,500 abortions in the UK of Irish women. This was based on the data collected by the UK government. This in turn was based on the addresses given by the women themselves so it must be correct as we have been constantly told by abortion advocates like yourself that we need to trust women. Therefore there has been an approx. 300% increase in abortions in the country. You may delight in that fact but it is a damning indictment of your ideology.
I did not ask you for a moral view. I asked you for a number that you would not be comfortable with as per your previous post. If you do not care how many is too much then please say so and we can see you for what you are
The dreadful truth is that abortion levels are stratospheric.
Owen
They are hospitals, not abattoirs. Using hospitals to provide abortion is a perversion of their intended function. And who would want a doctor who happily killed an unborn baby one minute to come along and deliver theirs a few minutes later. The people pushing this really are morally lost.
It is ironic how the Irish government condemn any attack on hospitals by military forces abroad citing them as places where life should be healed and preserved rather than killed while doing the complete opposite at home.
Hey, remember how Martin was pro-life until the referendum, where he did a u-turn so fast even his own party got whiplash? The man has never had any principles, except to espouse what is popular in the polls at the time.
He wasn’t the only one who did a u-turn. So too did Varadkar and the Sinn Fein party.
This government has a skewed vision of justice. Concerning the war in Gaza it will urge restraint, proportionality, cease fires, invoke the UN charter of Human Rights, deplore attacks on civilians, condemn the deaths of children, exhort each side to deploy lethal force only as a last resort, Laud any diplomatic initiative which might forestall the resumption of hostilities and provide generous humanitarian aid to affected regions..
When it comes to the lives of Irish unborn children however it will propose an entirely different message. Unconditional termination of unborn life up to twelve weeks, endorse medical facilities to provide ever expanding abortion services, Curtail any attempt by pro life people to pray or offer alternatives to women who feel they have no option other than ending the life of their unborn child. Renege on it’s promise that a three day waiting period would allow women to reconsider their initial decision. Decline to offer extra financial aid to women such as increases in child benefit or single parent allowance, Fail to provide creche facilities to young women wishing to return to work or study.
Has the Irish state forgotten that charity begins at home? How can it declare open season on the next generation of this country while claiming to have compassion for those whose lives are threatened abroad?
Great comments James. The hypocrisy here in Ireland is stunning. The same people who will have sympathy for Palestinian children being killed, turn a blind eye to the mass slaughter of Irish babies, 10,000 for 2023. In fact, we can’t kill our own fast enough, we have to ensure all hospitals are providing this “service”.
A few months ago, I was very pessimistic about the prospects for the 3-day reflection period. A concerted campaign for its removal from the usual subjects was being mounted. With the cooperation of some in the media – so what else is new?
Now I am more hopeful. Mícheál Martin (as quoted above) and Leo Varadkar (some weeks back) are both coming across as quite lukewarm about making this change, which suggests to me that they are getting flak about it from within their own ranks. At the recent Oireachtas Committee hearings, Bernard Durkan put on record that he was extremely unhappy with any changes to the abortion legislation which would breach solemn commitments given to the electorate at the time of the referendum, and that he personally would be voting against such changes.
As for the review process itself, which some are now maintaining was exactly as promised at the time of the referendum, I would like to make two points. First, I think I am correct that the Minister for Health, in reply to a parliamentary question about consultations with interested parties prior to appointing the Chair of the review, said that he had contacted 11 people/organisations on the pro-choice side, and none on the pro-life side. It is not unreasonable to interpret that as the Minister doing what he could to determine the outcome of the process.
Second, much was made at the time of the referendum of the advantages for women in crisis pregnancies being able to discuss all their options – and many who voted for Repeal have said since that this was what swayed them to vote the way they did. That was what the three-day reflection period was for. These voters will feel as betrayed by this review as those of us who voted against Repeal in the first place.
Mr Shat, you are a small man in so many ways. If you had a modicum of understanding of how these things work you would know that I was referring to the review process and not to any analysis. The review process being biased totally undermines any recommendations that come out of it. Nothing to do with any analysis my little friend.
PS it is Kelliher not Kelleher, Mr Shat.
Really, you cannot see the difference between an analysis of some figures and a Statutory Review? I’m afraid the Catholic school that gave you your education needs to have a serious look at itself. Or maybe it was some remedial school.
Please consult a dictionary Mr Shaz. An analysis and a statutory review are two completely different things. You may submit an analysis to a Statutory Review but once the process itself is demonstrably biased and impartial any recommendations are worthless.
The government is not biased that it did a review. It is biased in how they set it up to give voice to one side only. This was and is the way of doing things with all of the tyrannical regimes. But of course as an reconstructed red you would agree with that sort of thing.
Jim’s analysis was not prepared on a statutory footing. He is a private citizen contributing to a debate. That is his right as it is your right to refute his conclusions. The real difference between you and me is that you would deny everyone else the right to have their voices heard whereas I believe in free speech.
Your last comment is interesting. Why are you so exercised if no one is listening to him?
I find Martin not acceptable
The History of a Nation is encapsulated in its demographics. There are many who have sought the destruction and ethnic cleansing of the People of Ireland down thru the centruries,
Our ability to survive has been our strong cohesive culture and generally large families formed.
The means of our eradication have been ,either by slaughter, plannned Famine.,in the pursuits of colonialist Power and its enablement of resource looting, and the steady outward flow of emigration of our finest talents seeking employment and a future.
The modern war on Ireland pursues a different and insidious path.
The method to reduce the Irish population has been by Pharmaceutical means, birth control, abortion and the nefarious Covid Injection. All borne out by the statistics and in collusion with a criminally corrupt Regime
To destroy the cohesive culture of Ireland ,a mass illegal migration plan is being carried out. THis mass migration doubles as a screen to hide the population decline from ‘sudden deaths’ by reactions to the Pharmaceutical Injection…
Demographics is destiny and Irelands People are destined to.be be eliminated in a slow burning Holocaust, with the collusion of its corrupt,controllled Regime of traitors and charlatans.
In 2018, during the course of the Repeal the 8th Referendum, a promise was made by the Government of the Irish Republic that a review of the delivery of Abortion should be undertaken in the event that the Referendum and accompanying legislation was passed. The Government kept that promise and a review of the current efficiency of the provision of a legal medical procedure has been undertaken and recommendations have been supplied. Prevention is not a factor in any of this thinking and the attempts to make any Irish politician squirm for keeping their promise from 5 years ago is naive and infantile
What is naive and infantile is the belief that this so called “review” was impartial and independent. The result of this “review” was pre-determined. The chairperson was completely compromised by her prior beliefs but she was chosen precisely for that reason. Anybody who believes otherwise is one of those useful idiots the government is trying to make of all of us.
It was a review of a legal medical procedure on the island of Ireland. To that extent, yes it was working under certain parameters. That was always going to be the case.
Can you tell me what other “legal medical procedure” has been given a review? Perhaps a colonoscopy as you so helpfully pointed out in a previous post. A review with a pre-determined outcome is not a review. Perhaps in some totalitarian regime but not in a supposed democracy.
Have you ever noticed that Simon Harris was lauded by the Irish media and political establishment when he gave the Irish people an opportunity to review the eight amendment because many had not been born at the time it was held.
However when David Cameron used the same criteria to give UK people a similar say on the country’s future with Europe he was denounced as having made a politically catastrophic decision.
I am unaware of a predetermined outcome with regards to the review. They were very unlikely though to recommend preventing or deterring people seeking a legal medical procedure since that would be true totalitarianism. I’m sure most if not all aspects of medical delivery are subject to fairly regular qualitative reviews. It would be odd if this were not the case given how high the stakes are.
If you cannot see that the outcome was pre-determined then I am afraid you have very little knowledge of how this government goes about it’s business. I cannot help you on that. The fact that no woman who decided to continue with her pregnancy after the three day wait was interviewed will tell you all you need to know if you have a mind to see.
The 3 day wait was for the benefit of the woman who was experiencing the crisis pregnancy not to restrict access to abortion itself. This was to give her time to think and to explore all her options. By getting rid of the 3 day wait we are actually reducing this woman’s options so we are actually being anti-choice for want of a better word. That is why there are plenty of other jurisdictions which also have a period of reflection.
Why are proponents of abortion so against this period of reflection? Are they actually afraid that, given time to think, the woman will choose life?
The 3 day wait has been demonstrably shown to reduce the amount of abortions. Is it your preference that we should have more abortions rather than less?
By the way I am not aware of any other legal medical procedure where a review was carried out of the legislation underpinning it within such a short timeframe. It is not so long ago that Sweden was forcibly sterilizing it’s unmarried mothers. That was also a legal medical procedure.
The review was not carried out by the government and its recommendations are not binding. Some people seem to have either unintentionally or wilfully misunderstood this review process:
I would suggest two things you undertake if you wish to build these arguments further:
Find tangible evidence that the review was rigged in some way.
Secondly, investigate whether reviews are undertaken in Ireland at a national, local, or hospital level into medical governance and delivery.
I’d ditch the Sweden reference since I’m not quite sure it’s relevance to the rest of the discussion above. Sounds like you’re trying to have a moral discussion because you’re getting no where with the legal one.
Anyway, all the best.
It was you who seemed to think that the fact that abortion was a legal medical procedure was of relevance to the issue at hand, not me and it is not for you to dictate my response to any issue. Therefore the Swedish example is of particular relevance to your own argument.
The fact that the government appointed a radical feminist with very strong views on abortion is prima facie evidence that the process was rigged. The fact that she then failed to gather all the relevant evidence which did not agree with her ideological position is prima facie evidence that the outcome was rigged. Elections are held in Russia and China too and I am sure they are carried out in a legally compliant manner.
Of course reviews are held on medical procedures but I cannot recall any which were established on a statutory basis. Also they are most definitely not established with a pre-determined outcome.
I would respectfully suggest that you undertake the following if you wish to build your argument further.
Establish in your own mind if it is preferable to have more abortions or less and then share that deliberation with the rest of us.
Obtain evidence that the three day wait period did not reduce the amount of abortions in the period in which abortion has been legal in Ireland. Jim Stack has helpfully provided the statistics which give the numbers on this so I would suggest that is a suitable starting point.
Establish why you think not giving women a period to reflect is a bad thing and obtain any available empiric evidence to back up that claim.
Those of us who are not children know that the recommendations are not binding. We also know that this review was merely a smokescreen for the Government to do what they meant to do all along and renege on clear and unequivocal promises that they made during the referendum.
Oh it’s not for me to dictate how many people can be permitted to engage in legal activities, whether that be abortion or divorce: the other legal action that certain people feel should have limits: Creepiness personified.
Did you not vote on these issues? Have you ever voted in an election or a referendum in this country? If you have then you most certainly dictated how many people can be permitted to engage in legal activities. If you do not vote or are not entitled to a vote then you can make that point but otherwise it is a nonsense comment.
I’ve never voted in a referendum that specified how many people can avail of something in the event that it is legalised so it is utterly irrelevant what number I might put on it. I’ve honestly no opinion on the subject and never will have.
I never voted in a referendum that specified how many people could avail of something in the event of it becoming legal. I have no opinion on that and never will.
I’m afraid your level of understanding of the two points at issue here is infantile and wrong.
There is a difference between an analysis and a statutory process. An analysis can make any case it wants from any starting position or ideology and can use whatever facts and figures it deems appropriate. It can then be subject to scrutiny. It can be subject to criticism and counterargument.
By all means produce your own analysis using any information you deem to be appropriate. I’m sure it will be up to your usual high standards.
This review was a statutory process and there is a constitutional requirement that it be carried out in a fair, impartial and unbiased manner. My criticism was of the process itself. Any recommendation that comes from such a process is fatally flawed.
Let me put it like this for the undereducated among us. If the Government had appointed a Catholic cleric to chair this review what outcome do you think they would wish for?
Thanks for acknowledging that I answered your question.
You most certainly did not answer my question. Is it your position that you are happy for the government to push for an increase to the amount of abortions or not?
Agree. Marie O’Shea is a radical feminist who was chosen specifically to get a desired outcome. Only in Ireland would you call that, democracy.
We know a set up when we see it. We know that we are being lied to.
And, of course, you do.
The review was carried out under a supposed democratic process so it is meant to be democratic. It is supposed to represent the will of the people. I’m afraid another example of your lack of knowledge of how democracy is supposed to work. Ireland is no longer a functioning democracy. The government of the country are now expressly acting against the will of the people.
Poor old Mr. Shaz bringing the church into it again. It is getting a small bit tiresome.
The review was conducted under parliamentary procedures. That makes it part of the democratic process. But of course an unreconstructed red like yourself has little enough time for democracy. I’m afraid you do not understand what democracy is. Perhaps you were too busy saying the rosary when the subject was being covered in school if you weren’t home-schooled. There is only one type of democracy of the people, for the people and by the people. There is no mention of politicians or reviews or whatever within the definition. That is merely administration. It is the people that set the laws, the procedures and all the paraphenalia that make up the government but it is the people themselves that are the masters and not the servile recipients that you wish to turn them into.
EVERY citizen has the right to make their views known to parliament. EVERYONE can have their say on legislation, the curriculum, reviews etc. But, of course, in your opinion they should keep their mouth shut unless it agrees with your infantile ideological position.
The government can only manage with the express approval of the parliament and the parliament with the express will of the people. The fact that elections are only carried out every five years or so is only an administrative position and not anything to do with the democratic process itself. In theory we could have elections every month if we so wish.
Wrong again. Democracy is one thing only. It is of the people, for the people and by the people. The examples you give above only relate to how democracy is administered.
So you disagree with me on the following:
You do not even understand the meaning of marketing. I really wish you would invest in a dictionary. One with big writing but small words. In every single one of the points you list above you are incorrect. Read my post again. I did not say that I could, as an individual, do any of those things. However, the people, in concert, can. Apart from that it is the usual mixture of abuse and childish taunts that your peepee is smaller than mine etc. Could you be any closer to a small boy in the schoolyard? Or are you a small boy with his mothers computer? If so put it away as you will only get too excited before your bedtime and your mom will have a hell of a time getting you to sleep.
I have no idea what you want apart the fact you believe the more abortions the better. You are quite clear on that. Like I said before it is just as well that there was no abortion in Ireland when you were conceived as an intellectual disability is currently just cause to qualify for one.
Equally you have no idea what I want. Therefore your comment is totally meaningless. But, at least on that, you are being consistent.