Talk:Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request information on women travelling to places other than the UK

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Typo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Clarification?

message: I removed a bit that was not supported by a reliable source:
*
**Pro Life Campaign "Sizeable majority supports  legal protection of unborn child"
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)
replies: text: Discussed above (non-chronological order), and I agree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Polling by Pro Life Campaign 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Illegal abortion in Ireland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History: summary vs quotes from laws 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ECHR decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spin out Savita Halappanavar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I too agree with Red that this is recentism. And so is the poll information. Hohenloh  +   23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue coverage of recent street protests 

message: :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)
replies: text: Abortion in the Republic of 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: >> Tweeting Ireland's abortion struggle(Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi , 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)
replies: text: Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2016 revision 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016 - Doing some updates & related pages (1980s/90s) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/Judgment_ABC.pdf?direct=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206052840/http://archives.tcm.ie:80/irishexaminer/2005/09/22/story788504833.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/09/22/story788504833.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20121220121119/http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/Judgment_ABC.pdf?direct=1 to http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/Judgment_ABC.pdf?direct=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganisation of sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect date 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miswording regarding death of Savita