Talk:Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

opinion polls[edit]

I restored an edit that removed an opinion poll conducted by RedC. They are a reputable polling company. The poll was commissioned, as most polls are, by an outside organization, in this case a political lobbying group. I suggest that the on-line poll that is just above it be considered for removal. Online polls are notoriously unreliable and do not have the same standards when it comes to sample. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors insist on removing polls commissioned by the Pro Life Campaign. While they are indeed a lobby group the poll in question was conducted by RedC, a reputable polling company. To say that the Pro Life Campaign website is not reliable is to suggest that they are lying is tantamount to saying that they are deliberately misleading, even lying. Now, I would ask is Wikipedia, are they prepared to stand by a remark like that? Since when are secondary sources considered more reliable than primary ones? Other polls in the same section are accepted despite question marks surrounding them, e.g. an online poll commissioned by the Irish Examiner, online polls are hardly representative of the population at large and do not have the random element that other polls have. Another survey conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons is also included. While the college is known for it's teaching I don't think its quiet the same as RedC. I'm very suspicious of edits that censor legitimate polls conducted by reputable polling companies on behalf of well known lobby groups. Liamfoley (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that Red C conducted the poll. They don't say they conducted it and reliable sources don't say they conducted it. PLC is not a reliable source for claims about what other organizations have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Te PLC is a perfectly reliable source. It is a reputable lobby group. The reference on their page is evidence, the lack of a response from RedC can also constitute evidence. If the PLC were making a false claim RedC would have asked them to remove the poll and/or taken legal action. The web page has been up for a year and RecC haven't objected. As I said before simply not liking a result is not reason enough to remove an entry with a reference. Liamfoley (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to hearing the results of your lawyer's claim that you have the right to publish already-copyrighted material because the owners didn't complain quickly enough, or that it's perfectly legitimate to claim that Barack Obama co-wrote a book with you if only you publish it without asking first and he doesn't lodge a complaint. But seriously, no, it doesn't work that way. Red C has an archive of all the polls they've conducted; do you think that Red C decided not to archive this one because they didn't think I'd like the results? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm truly is the lowest form of wit. If you can't discuss this with some basic manners then you should consider stepping back. You have no proof that the poll never took place and the story on the Pro Life Campaign website is reliable. The RedC archive is not an archive of all their polls. Archives by their nature don't store everything. The Pro Life Campaign are a reputable body, just because you don't like their position does not mean they are unreliable or lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability? The 'What counts as a reliable source' section says that 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. Do you have any evidence that the PLC site meets any of these criteria? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that the PLC does not meet the criteria? If so please bring it here. Otherwise please desist from deleting bona fide edits that contain links. The poll happened, to call it into question is to call the well known lobby group liars. Are you prepared to do that? Liamfoley (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to prove that the PLC site is reliable, not on us to prove it's not. There is every reason to be suspicious of the PLC site. It is a self-serving, self-promonting, self-published site that has no reputation for fact-checking. The fact that their claims cannot be verified by checking Red C's list cast grave doubts about the veracity of PLC's claims. Even so, the poll is basically worthless as the question was manipulative. There's simply no place on WP for it. If you disagree, you will have to prove otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The onus of proof is on the editor wishing to add disputed material, not on editors wishing to remove such material. You need to prove that PLC Ireland is reliable, which will be difficult given the ridiculous pie chart image I linked to in another section on this talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted information on three opinion polls that were published in the Irish Times. These have now been removed twice in the space of a couple of hours. The Irish Times is a credible source of information, at least when it comes to checking basic facts such as whether an actual opinion poll has been conducted or fabricated. Looking at the page here, it is clear that there has already been controversy on the issue of opinion polls. I have provided links to show that the polls I have referenced have been published in the main political newspaper in Ireland. The reason given for the removal was that the Irish Times may have been mislead on the provenance of the polls. This really beggars belief. If neither RedC nor Millward Brown had conducted these polls, it is certain that they would have taken action against any group falsely claiming that they were behind this work, especially given the fact that the stories were published in Ireland's "paper of record". One of the stories was written by the Religious and Social Affairs correspondent Patsy McGarry. Are we to believe that this well known journalist was also mislead? It appears that this particular opinion poll about which McGarry wrote was presented at a news conference. Journalists would have had an opportunity to ask any questions they wanted about the origin of these polls. If these polls are unsuitable, then so too are the other polls referenced on the page. Cmarmion (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed polls have been challenged for several reasons: 1) they are not listed at the websites of the notional pollster companies so there is no evidence they happened, 2) the PLC-listed questions are misleading and 3) the numbers were sloppily changed by PLC. These combine to sink any chance of the polls being represented here. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish Times is a reliable source, but if you look at the content of any of the articles, they're not really saying "poll says XYZ." They're saying "poll says XYZ, according to anti-abortion group." Take a look at your second source, for instance (bolding mine):

Some 68 per cent of people who took part in a Red C poll backed constitutional protection of the unborn child, anti-abortion campaigners have said...

The newspaper is not endorsing this claim. The onus is not on Red C or MBL to disavow false claims made in their name; if the poll exists, users in favor of including it should be able to prove it. The polling organizations keep good archives on their website and the absence of these alleged polls is suspicious. I would be satisfied with independent confirmation (eg. an e-mail from the polling organizations) that the polls existed, but as Binksternet points out, they were to all appearances very badly conducted even if they did exist and are not necessarily suitable on those grounds. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request information on women travelling to places other than the UK[edit]

Is there any information available on whether Irish women travel to countries other than the UK for abortions? It always seems to be assumed that they go there. Also, the sharp growth in the immigrant population in the last few years must mean that many immigrant women are returning to their countries for abortions. Any info on this? --Dub8lad1 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any information. I don't think the assumption is made that all women go to the UK for an abortion. If you do feel like it suggests that women only go to the UK for their abortions then may I suggest that where the estimates for those travelling to the UK for abortions are given that you add something along the lines of, "No estimates have been found for women travelling to countries other than the UK for an abortion." I think this is about the only sentence you could validly add until you found some figures - anything else (even if it is a fair assumption) is just an assumption. Jgillett 12:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm reply 10 years after the original question. The Netherlands is the second most common destination for abortions. The Irish government agency that tries to figure out the abortion rate has figures. For example Tara Flynn had an abortion in the Netherlands. As far as I know it's about 5,000 per year to UK and about 500 to Netherlands. However in recent years, the abortion pill ordered online has become a common approach. Ebelular (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Removed this phrase: "other than, whatever about the practicalities, in theory most Irish voters believe that a 'fetus' has a right to life equal to that of the pregnant woman [citation needed], so excluding the option of choosing abortion, except in the limited grounds decided upon judicially in the 'X Case' judgment, which the Irish people in referenda have refused to narrow when offered that option." as unsubstantiated and nonsensical. Also, more information would be nice on the C and D cases - I'm too close to this to provide an unbiased opinion. Supersheep 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Typo[edit]

The article states that there was a motion that read “That this Assembly opposes the introduction of the proposed guidelines n the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland; believes that the guidelines are flawed; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safelty to abandon any attempt to make abortion more widely available in Northern Ireland.” I believe that 'n' should be 'in', however I am hesitant to make this "correction" because it is within a quote and so there may be a chance that the typographical error was actually in the statement. If someone knows where to read the contents of the motion and could figure this out, it would great. --Credema (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


YOu are right, its a typo. I corrected it. The motion can be seen in Hansard. Eodon

Clarification?[edit]

The article currently reads "except whenever the mother is in danger from continuing the pregnancy.". Does this mean life or health, an if health, what definition of health? ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ~~Abortion and National Health~~ Is abortion in the UK covered by National Health? If so, it probably means Irishwomen going from the Republic to England would have to pay for the abortion themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polling by Pro Life Campaign[edit]

I removed a bit that was not supported by a reliable source:

  • A February 2011 Pro Life Campaign/RedC poll found that 68% support constitutional protection for the unborn (the existing situation), 26% oppose it and 5% don’t know or have no opinion. It was a quota controlled sample of 1,025 people aged 18+ and was conducted between 8th – 10th February.

At the Red C page listing archived polls, the supposed Pro Life poll is not listed. I doubt that Red C carried out this poll. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed above (non-chronological order), and I agree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notional citation, Dr Berry Kiely of Pro Life Campaign relayed this poll information to the Irish press on 16 February 2011. At about the same time the previous year, Kiely told the press the same basic story, but she substituted Millward Brown Lansdowne as the polling agency. Here's a graphic representation of the early 2010 results. The PLC graphic is ridiculous in that its second pie chart contradicts the first, with falsely inflated numbers of 'yes' respondents manufactured from 'I don't know' respondents, but even then with wrong maths results. Who is in charge at PLC?

The reported poll question itself, the same question supposedly asked in 2010 and 2011, is highly skewed toward producing a positive response. It tricks the responder to agree with "the continuation of the existing practice" though the question is actually about whether the constitution should be changed. A far greater negative response would be obtained by asking whether the constitution should be changed in such-and-such a manner.

Just like Red C, Millard Brown Lansdowne do not list the PLC poll in their archives. I seriously question whether the poll was conducted at all. Veteran pollsters would immediately see the skewed and leading poll question as unsuitable. I believe Kiely is fabricating her results and fudging her maths. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The claim is from a self-serving, self-promoting, self-published advocacy site with no reputation for fact checking, and the fact that it can't be verified by referring to Red C's listings casts grave doubts on the veracity of the claim, especially in light of the situation with Millward Brown Lansdowne, which likewise could not be verified. Since the claim involves a third party, it cannot be included in any WP article. Even brief mention with in-line citation is a gross violation of policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal abortion in Ireland[edit]

Does anyone know of any good sources documenting the rate of illegal abortions occuring within Ireland? Research on sub-Saharan African countries has shown that abortion rates are not significantly lower in countries where abortion is illegal... but in Ireland there is the 'abortion tourism' factor owing to links with the UK. Pretty much the only reliable source I've found is this one: http://www.imn.ie/clinical/clinical-focus/womans-health/2898-risk-assessment-for-cvd-an-update- We should include some material on illegal abortion in Ireland if there are reliable sources showing the subject's notability. Do people think the source I just linked to is sufficient in itself? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Customs occasionally publish figures on how many abortion pills they intercept every year. It's about 1,000 pills per year. You can probably figure out how many abortions happen in Ireland that way. Ebelular (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exception in lead[edit]

Realized I accidentally violated the 1RR on the article so I'll revert myself if the current version isn't acceptable - but is it? The Economist source states that abortion is illegal except where the pregnant woman's life is in danger because she may commit suicide. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the 1RR rule. Status quo is fine for now. It is in the source cited (I missed this before) although I'm sure how reliable. Will respond more fully when I have time. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the X case the Supreme Court did decide that "Abortion in the Republic of Ireland is" legal if "a woman's life is endangered by the continuation of her pregnancy due to possibility of suicide," but abortion is also legal in other circumstances. Such as when a woman's life is endangered by some reason other than a threat of suicide. As summed up by the ECtHR in the ABC case:
"It is first noted that the ground upon which a woman can seek a lawful abortion in Ireland is expressed in broad terms: Article 40.3.3, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case, provides that an abortion is available in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, including a risk of self harm, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy." (page 71 of the judgement)
Suicide is just one of the possible risks to the life of the mother. However even this overstates that practical position. No statute has ever been passed setting out how the legality of a proposed abortion might be judged. To continue the quote from the ABC case:
"While a constitutional provision of this scope is not unusual, no criteria or procedures have been subsequently laid down in Irish law, whether in legislation, case law or otherwise, by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty as to its precise application. Indeed, while this constitutional provision (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case) qualified sections 58 and 59 of the earlier 1861 Act (see paragraph 145 above), those sections have never been amended so that, on their face, they remain in force with their absolute prohibition on abortion and associated serious criminal offences thereby contributing to the lack of certainty for a woman seeking a lawful abortion in Ireland."
As a result even a woman who was suicidal as a result of a pregnancy would find it difficult to obtain an abortion. The lead misstates the case. The reality is much more complicated. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point about legality vs. availability; the article and lead should discuss both. You know more about the situation in the country than I do, would you be willing to work on that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History: summary vs quotes from laws[edit]

This change dismissed a not-too-bad summary of Irish abortion politics and replaced it with long quotes from statutes. I hold that the summary format is superior than quoted laws. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both? Let us source the currently-unsourced history section that deals with application, and also talk about the laws. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. "Both" is a workable solution. I remain firmly in opposition to deleting any sort of easily readable summary. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no mention of the 8th amendment to the constitution in the OLD LAWS section of the page? Surely this is more relevant (or at least as relevant) as the Victorian law cited? 2A00:F90:FFC:B00:6C87:B96F:3506:1F7F (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th Amendment is current law, and is mentioned in the current law section. "Victorian law", yes it was from the Victorian period, but it was the law of the land until 2013 Ebelular (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ECHR decision[edit]

One of the women was a foreign-national, and it was she who the ECHR considered successful. Perhaps an expanded section explaining the ECHR decision in its entirety is warranted given the confusion in the media currently ie. the idea that legislation demanded by ECHR of the Irish government would have prevented the death of foreign-national Savita Halappanavar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.104.210 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and a cite for "31 year old dentist of Indian heritage from Galway" Indian national is she not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.104.210 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin out Savita Halappanavar[edit]

Considering how huge this whole incident is becoming and the amount of coverage that it is getting, not to mention that it appears to also be directly affecting changes in Ireland's laws, I feel that it should be split off into its own Death of Savita Halappanavar article. SilverserenC 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be a separate article about Savita Halappanavar and not merging with present article.Rayabhari (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The artile on Savita Halappanavar was merged with this article quoting WP:BLP1E. But, WP:BLP1E applies only to living persons and Savita Halappanavar is no more a living person.Rayabhari (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that it should be about the event, her death, not just on her. That's why the proper title is Death of Savita Halappanavar and not just her name. SilverserenC 17:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue coverage of recent street protests[edit]

An entire section dedicated to coverage protests from the most recent 2 years 6 months is WP:UNDUE coverage biasing the article to recent events. The coverage needs to be significantly cut down or expanded significantly to cover a fuller range of time.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The abortion issue has been a major news story in Ireland in the winter of 2012-2013 and describing the major protests about the issue during this timeframe is not biased. If you want to add more protests from before 2012-2013, feel free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis100 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it has been a major story many times. you will need to find reliable sources that support your claim that this is any different and deserves microscopic coverage compared to previous events which are not covered at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and yes, I could expand with additional sources, but until someone does, or there is consensus that the past 6 months are in fact unique and deserve a highlighted detail section, you cannot remove the UNDUE tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Red. There's been marches concerning abortion for decades. Not only are we giving these marches undue emphasis, it difficult to see how giving a timeline of demonstrations is going to enlighten readers regarding the articles subject matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with Red that this is recentism. And so is the poll information. Hohenloh + 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: ARBCOM says no move, speedily at that. A separate article could potentially be written at Abortion in Ireland that covers the situation across the entire island. Red Slash 10:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Abortion in the Republic of Ireland → Abortion in Ireland – Applying WP:IMOS policy ('Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed') and WP:COMMONNAME policy. "Ireland" is the official name of the state, defined in Article 4 of the Irish Constitution: "[t]he name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". — O'Dea (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — O'Dea (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – "Ireland" (outside of the topic of geography) is in most cases implicitly the "Republic of Ireland". We only need disambiguation for Northern Ireland, not Ireland. --Article editor (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article titles should match the titles used for the state and island articles; this page is about abortion in the state and therefore should match Republic of Ireland. The arguments about the state and island article titles have been discussed to death and shouldn't be refought on every individual article name. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This topic is about state laws and practices in the Republic of Ireland, ones which are not identical to laws and practices in the island of Ireland. Keep these separate. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per TimRollPickering. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.The IMOS is pretty clear about this. We should use the name of the state for political issues where there is no confusion. Abortion is a political issue not a geographical one. That there was a problem with the name of the state conflicting with the geographical name is another matter entirely. The article should though have a dab link at the top pointing to the section about abortion in Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I see it discussion of this page move here breaches a ARBCOM ruling which requires that the "the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration." IMOS is about writing in articles not naming articles. An article entitled "Abortion in Ireland" would be ambiguous as Northern Ireland has its own abortion law which is covered by its own article, a point accepted by Dmcq who suggests that there should be a dab link. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mercifully, the decision has been taken out of our hands by the editors who determined the name of the article for the Republic of Ireland. The latter is political reality. It is clear. The generic "Ireland" is unclear unless discussing geography or future political ambition. Student7 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

As far as I can see the decision was that changes to titles like this should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration rather than here,, so the discussion here was closed down. I certainly thought the notification at that project should have been enough but if that is so then the proposer should reraise the RfC at that project instead if they still think they have a case. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Tweeting Ireland's abortion struggle(Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

I added a

tag to a paragraph that falsely leads readers to conclude the HIQA investigation determined that failure to provide an abortion was negligent and resulted in Savita's death. However the HIQA report actually states that failure to provide antibiotics as a prophylaxis once septis was considered likely, was the negligent practice.

If the original editor of this paragraph can supply a reference that explicitly states that denying Savita an abortion was negligent etc and would have saved her life, then by all means add that, but at present, the article synthesizes the two sentences to create the illusion that the HIQA spokesman believes failure to give an abortion was negligent, when they actually say no such thing. 178.167.254.90 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing synthetic there. Synthesis is when users synthesize multiple sources or sourced statements to come to a conclusion that is not present in the sources. We only state what the sources state, which is that the HIQA report found a failure to provide basic care. Nothing here states or implies that basic care included abortion. We can be responsible for what we write, but not for every conclusion a bias-minded reader wants to draw. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the manner in which the paragraph previously existed, before the tag was inserted, it does indeed synthesize sources to suggest that the conclusion of the HIQA inquiry was that failure to provide an abortion specifically was how her death could have been prevented, given the context of the paragraph, the title of this page and the resulting change of legislation. The whole thing is classic synthesis. Secondly, you failed to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH by suggesting that only bias-minded reader[s] would draw that conclusion. Would you like a WP:3O on the matter? I strike that the HIQA spokeman sentence be removed entirely as it has nothing to do with abortion, which is, after all the subject of this article. Do you object, and if so why?
Regards
178.167.254.90 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to double-check the HIQA report to make sure that it doesn't contain any useful information about abortion (regardless of whether or not it concluded that Mrs. Halappanavar should have been given one), but if there's nothing there, I don't really see a problem with removing it. Would you like to look over the report? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then double check the HIQA report, don't just remove the synthesis tag before becoming acquainted with the conclusions of the report! I have looked over the report and found that Savita could have been saved if she was put on antibiotics earlier, it doesn't, repeat, does not, entertain the dubious idea that had she been given an abortion, when she asked for one, she would have lived.
The sentence should be removed, as at least now you recognize it is synthesis. I'm reinserting the syn tag until/if you respond.
Lastly, the edit history of the article records that you removed the syn tag because I "failed to prove synthesis", however this is a false allegation, I have shown that it is synthesis and I cannot prove a negative - that is, prove that it does NOT suggest, had she been given an abortion she would have lived, unless you read the entire report, particularly the conclusion.
If you find something in the report that I've missed, and you believe it does suggest that abortion when she asked would have cured her, then by all means add it here and then we can also improve the article by referencing it! Agreed?
178.167.254.183 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Y case - compulsory caesarean?[edit]

I thought I read somewhere [The Guardian?] a suggestion that Miss Y's caesarean was compulsory lest, were she to commit suicide late in pregnancy, the foetus would die too. If true and can be cited, it should definitely be included. The grauniad also said that she can't speak English and in any case would need a visa to exercise the 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' and go to England for an abortion. Again this ought to be included. There was also a suggestion that the pregnancy was the result of a rape. --Red King (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot of things to the Ms Y article, which covers this. As far as I remember, the HSE got a court order to force feed her, and then she 'consented' to a caesarean. The article has more (incl. sources) ____

March 2016 revision[edit]

@William Quill: it looks like you removed a lot - can you summarize your edit? It's a little hard to tell from the changes page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Roscelese:, yes I did notice that it was hard to tell from the compare edits tool. I removed repetition, such as the text of the Eighth Amendment appearing more than once. I removed some lines which were historic contemporaneous material, such as "On 30 April 2013, the government published 33 pages of draft legislation for the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013[30] (previously entitled Protection of Maternal Life Bill 2013) with the intention of enacting the legislation before the 2013 Dáil summer recess." Now that the bill has long become law, we don't need details on its drafting on this page, even if that would be fair enough on the page for the legislation itself. The paragraph on PP v. HSE also had quite a lot of issues, such as references to which section of the New York Times the story appeared in, or a link to the Dublin High Court so I simplified that. I also changed the format of the headings, so that ended up cutting down overall. William Quill (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 - Doing some updates & related pages (1980s/90s)[edit]

I'm starting to improve some articles related to abortion in Ireland. I have access to newspaper archives, so I'll be trying to add details & sources to things from the 1980s & 1990s to reduce the 'recent bias' that can happen. Ebelular (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation of sections[edit]

This page will probably get a lot of attention in 2018. News about the referendum may even end up on the front page of Wikipedia itself. So I think it needs some reorganisation, and probably better to flag them here first. At the moment, I think the sections divided by various legal cases is unsatisfactory, it means the outside reader looking at the contents doesn't have a clear view of the sections. I'd propose instead dividing these to some degree by the subject matter. For example, Fatal Foetal Abnormality (to include D, Miss D, Mellett, and Whelan), Risk to life (to include X, Savita Halappanavar, Sheila Hodgers, C Case), travel cases (X, C, D). Although there is a case for X and Savita Halappanavar to nevertheless have their own sections.

In that context, and it may have been premature on my part, I don't think PP should be covered extensively on this page. Perhaps in a See Also section, and it certainly warrants coverage on the Eighth Amendment page. While it may be covered in the overall context of abortion, or the effects of the Eighth Amendment, in the judgment, abortion is mentioned only three times, twice in distinguishing this circumstance from abortion: "However, this was entirely different to an abortion because it is the withdrawal of ongoing support rather than the direct termination of life" and "Counsel for the unborn submitted that Article 40.3.3 was engaged even though this was not a case concerned with abortion".

We probably also need to address the opening paragraph, to have more of an overview, as the notice suggests, and also include some brief details of reform proposals. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effect date[edit]

When does the new amendment come into effect? Obviously we're still leading off with "abortion is illegal" as I write this, but how long will that continue to be the case? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment came into effect in September, but abortion is still illegal until the corresponding legislation is passed, which is supposed to happen until December...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite correct - abortion is still governed by the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, and is legal under the circumstances outlined under that act. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miswording regarding death of Savita[edit]

Death of Savita...."who had been denied an abortion while suffering a septic miscarriage.".

She did not die because physicians denied her an abortion AT THE SAME TIME she was SUFFERING a septic miscarriage.

She requested an abortion of a YET TO COME but INEVITABLE miscarriage that showed NO SIGNS to complicate even further.

The optimal solution would be to legalize abortion ON REQUEST UNDER INEVITABLE miscarriage circumstances, but even if that was not allowed...

Savita died due to the incompetence of physicians who failed to diagnose her sepsis earlier. It has nothing to do with denying abortion to someone.

The wording appears to express that Savita was already having sepsis symptoms and that EVIL doctors denied her an abortion UNDER LAW, something impossible because Ireland law at the moment allowed abortion if the mother's life was at risk, including due to suicide.

Better wording would be:

Death of Savita...."who had been denied an abortion of an inevitable miscarriage which then turned to be septic.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.52.56 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've covered that topic a lot. There are numerous sources that say she died as a result of Ireland's abortion law at the time. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1212561235"