• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith

  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Locations of visitors to this page

  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Constitution of Ireland, if Article 41.2 removed, will still show duty of parents in Articles 42 and 42A

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate have on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

Voting Day for the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

One Referendum, for Amendment no 40, will remove Article 41.2, if a majority of the people vote Yes. Part of this Amendment will thus remove reference to a mother’s … duties in the home.

Some voters are concerned that this duty will then be entirely absent from the Constitution.

This is probably not true: the duty exists in some other Articles of the Constitution.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Articles 42 and 42A. These will remain the same after one Referendum or both is/ are passed by the people.

We show here how Article 42 (Education) and Article 42A (Children) say that the State respects the duty of parents to provide for the education of their children (42), and respects the duty of parents, generally (42A).
We here emphasise in blue the words that show these duties.

The duty of parents in Article 42 is that they provide for the education of their children. They may do this by sending their children to a school, but the parents still do other education generally at home, that does not happen in schools.

The duty of parents in Article 42A is not specified; but in section 2 of Article 42A their failure to do that duty may involve the State supplying the place of the parents. This permits the law that a Court (a Judge) can take a child, whom the parents have so failed, away from those parents.
Thus the duty of parents in section 2 of Article 42A is to give all the care and support that is normal for parents to give. This is wider than a mother’s … duties in the home. It includes the same duty of fathers, and the duty of both parents when the child(ren) are neither at home or at school.

 

ARTICLE 42                          Education

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3        1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

 

ARTICLE 42A                       Children                (inserted by a Referendum in 2012)

1       The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws respect and vindicate those rights.

2       1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3       Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4     1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—

i      brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii      concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,

the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

We hope that people’s knowledge of these Articles will help people when deciding how to vote.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, education, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Text of Constitution of Ireland 2024, Article 41, now and when or if amended

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

The day to Vote on the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

 

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Article 41 as it is now.

After that, we show the text of Article 41 as it will be –

if Amendment no 39 is passed by the people;
if Amendment no 40 is passed by the people;
if both Amendments nos 39 and 40 are passed by the people.

 

Article 41, as it is now

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 39 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 40 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment nos 39 and 40 are passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended as above,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

 

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists to hold Open Meeting on the Referenda on Article 41

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

 

The Voting Day for the Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

The Mid-West Humanists will hold a meeting, about the 2 Referenda about Article 41 of the Constitution.

Any person can attend. A person can speak their views, hear others’ views, and discuss this matter.

We hope that by the end of the meeting people will know better how they will vote.

The meeting will be –

Date                      :             Tuesday 20 February 2024

Time                     :             20:00

Venue                   :             Strand Hotel, Ennis Road, Limerick 

The meeting is in a room on the 6th floor. There is a lift from Reception; there is a lift from the car park to Reception.

The meeting is open, and all people are welcome.

Make sure that you are registered to vote in the Referenda which will be on Friday 08 March 2024.

Purpose of the Meeting

This meeting is an opportunity for all persons interested in the Constitution of Ireland, and in improving or modernising the Constitution – an opportunity to consider carefully which way to vote in the coming 2 Referenda about Article 41.

We can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us. It looks likely that many of the people who want to change Article 41 want to change it more extensively or profoundly than that.
The meeting is to help you decide whether to vote Yes or No when the proposals are not how you would write them.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended in 2021 that the Constitution –

  1. continue to recognise the Family, and protect private and family life, including forms of family life beyond the Family based on marriage; and that
  2. the text of Article 41.2 (woman, mothers’ duty, in the home) be replaced by language that is not gender specific and recognises the principle of valuing and sharing care and commits the State to ensuring that its policies reflect this principle.

In January 2024 the Dáil and Senate passed 2 Bills to amend Article 41 of the Constitution. The Oireachtas (Dáil and Senate) now send them to the people in 2 Referenda, for the people’s vote, Yes or No.
Amendment no 39 is about the Family – item 1 by the Citizens’ Assembly

Amendment no 40 is about woman in the home – item 2 by the Citizens’ Assembly

The Bills propose changes that are less than what the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended. We the people cannot enlarge the changes to what the Citizens’ Assembly sought; we can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us.

Conduct of the Meeting

This meeting will try to allow every person, who so desires, to give their opinion. While one person is giving their view, we ask all others to listen, and not to talk.

Any person can have a view on what another person has said. We want to hear these opinions also – if you have such a view, please wait until the other person has finished speaking and until the chairperson has indicated that it is your turn to speak.

We hope that both speaking your own opinion out loud and hearing other opinions will make things clearer in your mind as to the best way for you to vote.

You may also ask questions of any person and of us who are running the meeting. Please answer as best you can if someone asks a question of you – though you are not obliged to answer.

At the end of the meeting, the good result will be that as many people as possible will know how they will vote, for their own reasons.

 

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

Filed under: constitution, cultural issues, Dáil Éireann, humanism, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

All Island Humanist Summer School – Beyond Orange & Green has been cancelled

Posted on August 24th, 2023 by peterohara

The Mid-West Humanists regret that the All Island Humanist Summer School – Beyond Orange & Green has been cancelled. Here’s some essential information you may need to know about this change.

The School was supported by Mid-West Humanists, Irish Freethinkers and Humanists, and Daonnachas Éire

Changes to this event

We learned unexpectedly on Monday 21 August 2023 that Professor Colin Harvey was no longer able to attend.
The set of speakers and the topics for the day were closely integrated. In the absence of the key-note speaker the organising committee spared no effort to consider and examine solutions to the unexpected problem. However, the absence of the headline speaker, the implications of removing a key element of an integrated programme, and that to continue would require some participants to travel distance for that incomplete programme led us to conclude that cancellation was the best option. That we had chosen a one-day event as the first event after COVID meant such speaker cancellation was especially problematic, but we hope that next year will involve a two-day event.

 

Getting a refund

We are in the process of making refunds. Beidh sin uathoibríoch. Níl ort rud a dhéanamh faoi sin.

We hope that this year’s problem will not discourage you from attending next year.

 

Filed under: announcements, cultural issues, education, humanism, Meetings, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Summer School 2023 in Tullamore

Posted on August 14th, 2023 by peterohara

Filed under: cultural issues, education, humanism, Meetings, political issues, Secularism | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Tom Curran to speak in Limerick on End of Life Choice(s)

Posted on May 12th, 2019 by peterohara

On Thursday 23 May 2019 at 20:00, Tom Curran will speak at a public meeting in the Pery Hotel, Glentworth Street, Limerick.

Tom Curran’s partner Marie Fleming had Multiple Sclerosis (MS). It had become so bad that –
(1) she was in very great pain and her quality of life was very low; and
(2) the power remaining in her limbs was so small that she could not on her own take steps to end her own life.
Tom at the start of 2013 asked a judge in the High Court that the judge would declare that he would not be prosecuted if he helped her to end her life, while such end was her wish.

The judgement was that the present law without doubt prohibits such assistance. Marie died at the end of 2013.

Since then Tom has campaigned for changes in the law so that people in similar situations can receive help so that they can end their life, but only where it is that person who wishes to end her or his life.

The Mid-West Humanists thank Tom for coming to Limerick to speak about this and related matters. We hope that all persons whom this subject interests will attend.

Here is our poster about this meeting.

Poster Mid West Humanists Tom Curran 2019 05 23

Filed under: ethics, Health Services, humanism, law, Meetings, political issues, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Why the Mid-West Humanists favour Repealing the 8th Amendment

Posted on February 26th, 2018 by peterohara

The Mid-West Humanists are campaigning to Repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. This includes printing a leaflet, for the public, that contains rational arguments for removing Article 40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) from the constitution. We welcome any comments on the leaflet and its arguments, particularly if there are any less rational elements in it.

The Mid-West Humanists’ meetings have discussed abortion and abortion law several times between 2013 and 2018. At the start there was not so much consensus on these, and it has been a difficult subject, but consensus has increased.

Secular Society

Like most humanists, the Mid-West Humanists believe that societies should be secular – that is, societies should not be tied to or biased towards religions, or to any other kind of group within society (where such a group seeks to have society close to what that group prefer). Mostly we pay attention to the models or plans for society that religious groups prefer.

These models, both in Ireland and in other countries and other parts of the world, reduce the freedom of people to do things that cause no harm. In the biased models of society, the proponents see advantages for the religion or religions that believe in the particular model. Often leaders of those religious groups (often unelected) say that a society like their model society will give greater benefit and freedom to people, meaning largely people who belong to that religion.

The religious models of society often do this by having State institutions or laws limit or prohibit acts (which cause no harm to other persons) that that religion prohibits.

As well as from people of no religion or of other religions, such a set of institutions and laws takes freedom from people who belong to the religion that chose this model. You can belong to a religion and still not agree with all of its ideas, especially the things that it likes to prohibit. The official leaders of the religion are usually not elected by the members.

Democracy includes that people have freedom of thought, and of action that does no harm. This includes freedom to join or not to join a religion. A society that includes people of many religions and of no religion must have no bias towards any religion. Except in prohibiting actions that really do harm other people, the society must also not have a bias against religion.

Secular Society, Humanism, and Abortion law

The Mid-West Humanists’ interest and actions, that societies should be secular, means looking at any restriction in society that is a bias towards religion, or towards any group or any idea of any kind, that reduces people’s freedom to do things that cause no harm.
Laws, that limit getting a pregnancy terminated, come from a bias from religious doctrines; and they also come from a bias towards people in society quite rigidly obeying rules in the society. This second bias is from a model of society in which social rules are counted as just as firmly fixed as the laws of physics and chemistry (sometimes this is called the tribal type of society).

The Mid-West Humanists have no reason to support either of these 2 biases, and a secular society should make its rules and laws by reason.
Humanism means that there is no value from gods or their revelations for choosing features of society or for choosing moral rules.
Humanists have compassion for human embryos and fetuses, not yet born, but when comparing that with their compassion for girls and women who have been independently alive for one or more decades, humanists use reason to reach a decision.

Many meetings of the Mid-West Humanists between 2013 and 2018 have discussed abortion and the law on abortion. We have not all agreed on all aspects of this – as humanists say humans can make moral rules, so a group of humanists do not all reach the same moral rule. Yet between 2013 and 2018 we have come much closer to a consensus.
The most salient balance that any of us have achieved when there is a conflict on compassion for humans and respect for their rights, between a human carrying a fetus and that human fetus, is that most of us have set the right of the person who is alive for decade(s) higher than that of the fetus. In this view, we don’t see it as right that society or the state would force a woman, once she is pregnant, to stay pregnant if she does not want to continue.

All of the Mid-West Humanists do not want any law that forces anyone to terminate her pregnancy. A law that lets a woman choose to end pregnancy must leave the decision with her.

How it makes sense to campaign for a Yes vote to repeal the 8th amendment to the Constitution

The context described above is a consensus among the regular attenders at the Mid-West Humanists that the nearly complete prohibition on abortion in the constitution is due to a bias from religion, and also due to a bias from the rigid tribal model of social rules; and a large majority of the Mid-West Humanists consider it should be removed, under the principles of humanism and secularism.

When the government is in this year 2018 going to let the people vote to remove the prohibition, I and the others in the large majority believe it is right to campaign to make people aware of the arguments to remove Article 40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) from the constitution. All the arguments in the leaflet for the public are rational; and if any of those arguments are not so rational, we welcome comments on this post, or on the related post that announced the campaign, or in the Facebook group.

Filed under: constitution, cultural issues, debate, ethics, humanism, ireland, law, Meetings, morality, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists campaign to Repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution

Posted on February 25th, 2018 by peterohara

We should remove Article 40.3.3 from the Constitution of Ireland

We should bring Abortion Services home to Ireland

At their meeting in January 2018 the Mid-West Humanists decided that democracy means that the Dáil and Senate should let the people vote on removing Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. (At this date, the Government has said there will be a Referendum on this in May 2018.)
We write about how the 8th Amendment (Article 40.3.3) was added to the Constitution in 1983, the social and political climate connected with this, and its later modification in 1992. We also show Article 40.3.3 (page 172 of the PDF version of the online Constitution).

The Mid-West Humanists composed a leaflet of information for voters, including reasons to vote Yes (to remove Article 40.3.3), at the meeting in February 2018. You can read Repeal the 8th Amendment on our Aims and Media page.

We have another post on why the Mid-West Humanists are campaigning publicly. We welcome comments there, or on this post, or in our Facebook group.

On the Streets

Some Mid-West Humanists have been on the streets, starting in Limerick city centre on Saturday 24 February2018, to give our leaflets to the public. We expect to be on the streets in Limerick again on Saturday 03 March 2018, when several other groups will also be campaigning for the repeal of the 8th amendment.
We hope to campaign on further dates in the same and in further places.

 

Constitution of Ireland 1937
Article 40.3.3

8th Amendment, 1983

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Added 1992 (13th Amendment)

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

Added 1992 (14th Amendment)

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

History of Article 40.3.3

This subsection of Article 40 was added by Referendum in late 1983, after a small set of people pressed both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to do so, in the campaigns for the general elections in 1981, spring 1982, and autumn 1982. This set of people told the politicians that they feared the Supreme Court would declare termination of pregnancy a constitutional right, as the United States of America Supreme Court had declared in 1973; and that they feared that the Dáil and Senate would pass a law to permit abortion, as the United Kingdom Parliament had passed in 1967. Continue reading →

Filed under: announcements, constitution, Dáil Éireann, Health Services, ireland, law, Meetings, political issues, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

September 2016 Meeting

Posted on September 25th, 2016 by peterohara

The Mid-West Humanists meeting on Wednesday 21 September 2016 had a further discussion on abortion law in Ireland (that is, the Constitution, Article 40.3.3, added by the 8th amendment in 1983).

All those who attended gave views. There were several different views, all with supporting reasons.

As this is a very important matter, the whole of a future meeting will be devoted to abortion and the 8th Amendment to Ireland’s Constitution (1983).

The September meeting also resolved that several Mid-West Humanists will be on the street in Limerick on World Blasphemy Day 30 September 2016 – details here.

Filed under: announcements, blasphemy, constitution, ethical issues, god, ireland, law, Meetings, political issues, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

February meeting cancelled because of ROSA Limerick Election Candidates’ Debate

Posted on February 14th, 2016 by peterohara

Special Notice on Cancellation of meeting 17 February 2016

We became aware only on 11 February of another meeting at exactly the same time, that would be of great interest to many Mid-West Humanists, connected with the General Election on 26 February. By Saturday 13 February we decided to cancel our meeting, so that Mid-West Humanists can attend-

General Election Candidates’ Debate (Limerick candidates for election to the Dáil) – organised by Rosa Limerick, who campaign for the reproductive health and other services for women.

Date                    :          Wednesday 17 February 2016

Time                   :          20:00

Place                   :          Pery Hotel, Glentworth Street, Limerick

One of Rosa Limerick’s 3 main subjects for the Dáil Candidates is about Public Services, “Do you think that in the areas of health and education the State should provide support to people of all faiths and none equally? How is that possible in the current system?”

This is an opportunity to put the case for secular education and health services to candidates for election to the Dáil. It is unfortunate for the Mid-West Humanists that this will not include candidates in Clare and Tipperary, but the message for secular services will receive some publicity.

Rosa Limerick have welcomed people such as the Mid-West Humanists to attend, people who would tell the candidates the value of secular education and health services, and people’s entitlement to these.

Filed under: announcements, Dáil Éireann, debate, education, election, Health Services, Meetings, political issues, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »