Pro-lifers outside the four courts

by B Mon May 07, 2007 14:23

How dare they?! The poor girl has been traumatised enough. This is not a pro-life issue. The baby has no brain! It would never have a life. These people are sick.

by ProChoDa - Choice Ireland Mon May 07, 2007 15:10

The latest word is that the thirty pro-lifers have gone home after fifty pro-choicers mobilised within half an hour outside the four courts.

Looks like a minor victory on the streets against reactionary elements.

by J Mon May 07, 2007 15:17

Is it true they were praying?

by C Murray Mon May 07, 2007 15:25

'D' has not suceeded in the right to travel issue.

The Judge was acting within the legislation which means -'coequality'.
[equal right to life of mother and child].

There will be all types outside of the systems that have ensured that the debate excludes women.
The pro-lifers are as dis-enfranchised as the pro-choicers and the individual.

The legislation which was enacted as a result of the 'x' ruling, a codicil on co-equality
was inserted by FF. Therefore it is an issue that requires bringing all parties to the
table.

it is fifteen years since 'x' and the legislation has not been looked at, it has not been discussed
with women NGO's/Rights Groups nor individuals -

The State bears responsibility for putting the issue of women's reporductive rights
beyond the pale and excluding women from the political and ethical processes that
ultimately decide what happens to our bodies.

There will be press releases later.

by B Mon May 07, 2007 15:31

is that a high court ruling or the district court?

by To B Mon May 07, 2007 15:39

It was the original District Court. To be honest the judge could not give the woman permission to travel for an abortion, as was requested. The High Court should have directed the disapplication of the original order, which would permit travel without consenting to it. The HSE could then have been invited to apply for a new order. The social worker who started this should be in front of the judge and press.

by pat c Mon May 07, 2007 15:40

It isa the District Court which refused Miss D permission to travel. This happened on Saturday. Choice are aware of this. My information on it is that the District Court indicated that it was a matter for the High Court.

The High Court case is still continuing.

by Marie Mon May 07, 2007 15:51

That poor girtl, She's been through eoough , How much more can she take?She's only 17 and like most of us will have to face more mishaps in the future. II hope she'll have the strength 2 cope in this tough world.

by C Murray Mon May 07, 2007 16:15

Thanks Pat C.

The ruling was within legislation in the district court on saturday.
The legislation still needs changing, however.

With right to travel given, the issues still remain the same. The precedent should not
have to be set in such a manner and by people having to take to the streets because they
are locked out of the decision making processes by the legislature.

apologies.c

by pat c Mon May 07, 2007 16:28

"The ruling was within legislation in the district court on saturday."

Saturdays ruling afaiaa was a case of the District Court not taking responsibility for the case.

In the interests of clarity perhaps the discussion could be continued on the Choice list. That wa you could discuss matters with people who were at the protest and in Court today and would have more up to date information.

by andy Mon May 07, 2007 16:39

where is the choice list?

by Dorothy Gale Mon May 07, 2007 16:58

Apparently the District Justice ruled on the Constitution rather than legislation. There is no legisalation regarding Abortion rights. The district court judge said that allowing the right to travel would be a failure to uphold the rights of the unborn, He also said having regard to the judgment in the C case, where a 13-year-old girl who had been raped sought permission to go to the UK for an abortion, he believed the granting of such an order would be improper and unlawful. So he thinks he can overrule the High Court. Its likely this guy is a "lifer". The District Court doesnt exactly get the best & brightest legal minds.

There was a special sitting of the High Court yesterday where the HSE were given permission to challenge the district court's order.No decision as of yet, if it continues
tomorrow Choice will be outside the Court from about 10:30 again. We gave miss d our petition today and she reallyappreciated it and thanked us for the support and everything, so we really
are making a difference out there, at least for her

by law student Mon May 07, 2007 17:15

If the District Justice ruled on a Constitutional question he is wrong. Only the High and Supreme Courts can do that. The correct procedure if a constitutional issues arises in a District court case is for the Judge to "state a case" for the High Court, ie ask the appropriate constitutional question of the High Court and then give judgement in accordance with the answer received.

by Dorothy Gale Mon May 07, 2007 17:21

Exactly. Some of these guys take on airs and make the most ridiclious rulings. Sometimes those mad rulings can be ok, I was before the District Court on an assault charge once, The guy who I had "assualted" (it was justified) was committed to custody for a wek for psychiatric observation! I got the probation act.

In this case its not funny though. This "judge" is obviously a "lifer". He would imprison 13 year old rape victims.