Debunking the Anti-Choice Arguments

This post started as a thread on Lawyers for Choice Twitter, where in a moment (an hour and a half) of frustration I decided to debunk the No campaign booklet that was handed out to 200,000 houses and contained inaccuracies on every page. I had also been working on a post debunking No posters, but some of the same inaccuracies turned up all through the No arguments – so I’ll update this post as I go and appreciate any submissions you’d like investigated by a very tired academic human rights lawyer.

That’s my stall set out. Now for the substance.

This booklet, as seen here in its entirety, was handed out with only the tiniest acknowledgement that it was from a lobby group rather than a State entity. Take note of the colour, and the official language – “information on the Government’s proposals”. This is not a Referendum Commission booklet. It has never met a Referendum Commission booklet. It is funded by an anti-choice lobby group who, and this may not surprise you, are difficult to find information on. We’ll get back to that later.

Page by page, here’s the actual legal facts and sources of what’s alluded to in this booklet.

 

Continue reading “Debunking the Anti-Choice Arguments”

Advertisements

M v Minister for Justice – status of the unborn at the Supreme Court

conclusions

Above are the conclusions of the Supreme Court in the case of M v Minister for Justice, the appeal in the case (known as IRM in its High Court iteration). What does this mean for the Constitution, and in particular for the referendum on the Eighth Amendment? Let’s explore.

Continue reading “M v Minister for Justice – status of the unborn at the Supreme Court”