Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE BAR COUNCIL of Ireland will not send a representative to Leinster House tomorrow for the second day of hearings on planned abortion laws.
A spokesperson for the organisation told TheJournal.ie tonight that it would not be able to send a delegate because of the “disparity of views” among its 2,300-strong membership.
“It is hard to get consensus,” said the spokesperson. “So we are not in a position to participate.”
The Council said that the invitation from the Health Committee had never been formally accepted and consultation with its members had been undertaken.
The decision was arrived at after speaking with it 25 committee members.
The Bar Council had been scheduled to appear in the Seanad chamber at 11.45am with the Irish Council of Civil Liberties. Dr Alan Brady, a member of the executive of the ICCL will now give his address and take statements during the slot, which chairman Jerry Buttimer said will be shortened from its original two-hour allocation.
The committee, chaired by Fine Gael TD Jerry Buttimer, has been asked to help the Government before it draws up legislation in line with its decision following the publication of the Expert Group report into the ABC versus Ireland judgement.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Interesting development!
I suspect that the problem is the diversity in values and opinion on the rights or wrongs of terminations in different circumstances than any divergence of legal opinion on the unclear and unsatisfactory state of the current law.
The decision underscores that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, the Eight Amendment should never have been put to a Referendum.
What an unmitigated legal, political and medical mess.
And the Roman Catholic Hierarchy strives to retain the current legal mess and to preserve its pernicious Article 40.3.3.
Ireland is essentially a theocracy. Our legislature answers to the Roman Catholic Church and to the Vatican.
@peter I think you got more respect on the other thread.pity as you do make a valid point
What nonsense you talk .
The Catholic Church was not responsible for Article 40.3.3. You’d swear the people had no minds of their own. The Bar Council decision could reflect the fact that this legislation is being pushed through; views are being sought, but Kenny and Gilmore are plainly stating that the decision has been made. What is the point of these submissions on abortion if it’s all done and dusted? Mere window dressing?
The barristers probably want to be paid to attend the hearings.
It just goes to show that if the Bar Council have difficulty coming to a decision ,what chance does a doctor who is in fear of being charged with a crime for saving a woman’s life, by performing a necessary medical procedure. Some country we live in alright !
That’s a very good point, Eileen. It’s good to see the hearings teasing these issues out, and I think you’ve just put your finger on one of the main issues, i.e. the unpredictably and lack of clarity in the law in the absence of legislation on X.
@ Eileen, spot on and a good rebuttal of those who actually contend as per John McGuirk on Vincent Browne last night that the existing law is sufficiently clear.
The problem is that legislation which is inhibited by the pernicious Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution cannot deliver an adequate solution. The X Case is very narrow and it does not address the continuum of risk to the life of a pregnant woman point.
As you well made yesterday, is a 5, 10, 20, 30 per cent risk to the life of a pregnant woman acceptable, how can the true risk be assessed and exactly when does the risk to the life of a pregnant woman become real and substantial?
The current legal situation is a complete legal mess and the only way that a real solution can start is by first having a Referendum to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, but that is a political nightmare because it would require political courage and leadership. No politician wants to grasp that nettle, with a few rare exceptions.
I wonder how our obstetricians have been doing so well up to now and not a mention about fear of prosecution until very recently!
If a person has suicidal tendencies whether pregnant or not the state has an obligation to ensure they pose no danger to themselves the public or to their unborn child. Mental illness and the states inability to secure these individuals is the real story here.
The bar where I drink we are always discussing it
Backward, unfortunately. :(
In circumstances where a consensus could not be reached, I think that the decision not to participate was the correct one.
What a country we live in. Far too much superstition driving policy.
More likely they won’t go because there’s no one to send a bill to.
have your say