• Archives

  • Categories

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

    nancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

National Maternity Hospital, why Government’s deal with St Vincent’s Holdings is no good

On Thursday 5 May 2022 our Taoiseach Micheál Martin told our TDs a lot more about the deal our Government and Department of Health propose to make with St Vincent’s Holdings CLG, about building our new National Maternity Hospital that is set to be next to St Vincent’s Hospital in Dublin 4.

We now have enough information, from the Government, to show to our TDs and Senators how the plan is ridiculously elaborate, is likely to go wrong, and is quite unlike the normal and natural plan for a democratic secular state to build a very important hospital for all the people. The documents which we can read do not guarantee that the new National Maternity Hospital will exclude prohibition of treatments of which the Roman Catholic church does not approve.

  1. The St Vincent’s Holdings CLG promises to do healthcare through St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, and the Healthcare Group clearly must follow the mission and core values of Mary Aikenhead its founder
  2. The Lease which the St Vincent’s Holdings has proposed to the State will cost us €10 per year, but if the State ever tries to buy the freehold, St Vincent’s Holdings will make us pay €850,000 rent per year
  3. There is enough information available now that a reasonable TD or Senator will vote against this deal, and will favour building our new National Maternity Hospital on freehold land entirely in our control through our Department of Health and our Health Service.

Visit, email, message, or call all the TDs and Senators in your constituency and tell them to stop this ridiculously twisted plan that is almost sure to let the Roman Catholic church limit the service that we and the next generations of people can obtain – and to instead build the new National Maternity Hospital on land which we and our Government own in freehold

CLG means Company Limited by Guarantee.

The Religious Sisters of Charity, and the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (which the Sisters own, and which has owned St Vincent’s public hospital Dublin 4, St Vincent’s private hospital Dublin 4, and St Michael’s hospital Dún Laoghaire) in recent weeks have transferred the 3 hospitals and the adjoining land in Elm Park Dublin 4 to this new company St Vincent’s Holdings CLG. That land includes the land on which the National Maternity Hospital was to be built.

Here are 2 important facts, and it is the rent in the Lease which our Government told to our TDs that creates the greatest tie on how the new hospital will operate.

A Lease for 299 years, with annual rent €10, or, if the State does not follow 6 conditions, €850,000

You can read the 6 conditions in the Journal and in the Irish Times, and the Lease itself. Some newspapers have called these conditions 1 to 6, but in the lease they are (a) to (f).
Condition (f) creates the greatest limit, that the Health Service Executive (HSE) does not try to acquire the St Vincent’s Holdings’ interest, that is, does not try to acquire the freehold. Conditions (a) to (e) are about the State keeping a hospital there and not using the land for anything else.
Here is Condition (f) –
(f) the Tenant does not exercise a right pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant
Acts to (i) extend the term of the Lease (ii) acquire a reversionary lease or (iii)
seek to acquire the Landlords interest
.

Condition 6 reveals a great drive to tie our Government and State, particularly to stop the State owning the freehold, or to penalise us if we try to do that. If our Government succeeds in the future in buying the freehold, there will no rent, but if it tries and fails, the St Vincent’s Holdings’ will penalise us €850,000 per year thereafter for trying.

Clinically Appropriate, in the Constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings

At page 2, section 3 “Main Object”, of the Constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings CLG, the Main Object is to advance healthcare in Ireland, and provide patient care. Its patient care will comply with the laws of Ireland and with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics.
At the foot of Page 2, section 4 “Subsidiary Aims” begins, while all the particular subsidiary aims are on Page 3.
At page 3, section 4.6, St Vincent’s Holdings CLG will be true to its core values – this means the core values of St Vincent’s Holdings.
(a) Human Dignity: respect the dignity and uniqueness of each person
(b) Compassion: accept people as they are, bring empathy and care to all
(c) Justice: act with integrity which respects the rights of all
(d) Quality: strive for excellence in all aspects of care
(e) Advocacy: speak for the voiceless, act with and for them to achieve the appropriate quality of care

You could consider if the appropriate quality of care is what the individual doctor would give, the care which the person who attends the hospital desires, if that is a termination of pregnancy; or will the St Vincent’s Holdings’ view of appropriate quality of care prevail, and a termination would then not be appropriate though that is what the person desires.
A person might also consider if the “national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics” are the guidelines of the World Health Organisation (WHO), or, are the guidelines of the Roman Catholic church (which is also international). We don’t know.
The Constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings CLG does not mention the Roman Catholic church or the Religious Sisters of Charity, or any principles which they have followed. We know that both the Church and the Sisters have had ethical rules that prohibit abortions, sterilisations, and in-vitro fertilisations (IVF).
At page 3, section 4.4, St Vincent’s Holdings CLG states that it will advance medical education, promote medical research and patient care in all areas of medicine through the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group …

The Constitution of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group starts with this –
Preamble: St Vincent’s Hospital, the first hospital of the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, founded by Mary
Aikenhead as part of her mission to provide Service to the Poor. It was funded by a fellow Sister’s
dowry, was established in a house on St Stephen’s Green in 1834.
In the continuation of the fulfilment of this mission St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group will strive to:

– followed by Core Values that are similar to those in St Vincents’ Holdings’ constitution.
I think that Mary Aikenhead’s mission and core values were to give healthcare according to the principles (and limits) of the Roman Catholic church.

Thus it is clear that we have no guarantee that the new National Maternity Hospital will have secular ethics and a secular version of what is clinically appropriate, though the draft NMH Constitution‘s Principal Object explicitly excludes any religious ethos. The HSE wrote this draft. However, the NMH Constitution can hardly stand legally higher than the Lease which allows our Health Service to possess the land.

A List of Procedures that will be Permitted in the new Hospital could not include reproductive procedures that have not yet been developed

To ensure the continuation of all present procedures, in the present National Maternity Hospital, which the Roman Catholic church prohibits, some people have proposed a list, and the Lease or Contract would specify these as to continue to be performed.
This will not deal with reproductive procedures that have not been invented yet. It is possible that testes and ovaries grown in laboratory containers, from stem cells from one person of a gay couple, could be done. This would let the couple both be biological parents of their child. You might imagine some other procedure that can’t be done now, but will become possible in the future.

Thus the solution of a list of particular procedures to definitely be allowed will not be a solution to the interference of Roman Catholic ethos in the hospital.

So – visit, email, message, or call all the TDs and Senators in your constituency and tell them to stop this ridiculously twisted plan that is almost sure to let the Roman Catholic church limit the service that we and the next generations of people can obtain – and to instead build the new National Maternity Hospital on land which we and our Government own in freehold

Advertisement

Tell all you TDs to keep National Maternity Hospital in State ownership

Whether the new National Maternity Hospital will be in the full control of the State and its Health Service, or that a separate company tied to Roman Catholic medical ethics will control it (on land that the State does not own), is surely the biggest decision to make about this our State running in a secular way in the lifetimes of the present people of Ireland.

The existing hospital is in Holles Street, Dublin 2.

Our Government’s plan has been to build the new maternity hospital next to a general hospital in Dublin city, so that maternity and gynaecology services would be better if patients could move quickly to and from the general hospital. In emergency cases this saves lives. The Government decided to put the new maternity hospital on land next to St Vincent’s general hospital in Dublin 4.

In May 2017 the Mid-West Humanists wrote to the then Minister for Health Simon Harris that the new National Maternity Hospital must be in the full control of the State while it provides health services to the people of Ireland.

Since then, all that has changed is that the Sisters of Charity have said that their organisation will cease to operate St Vincent’s hospital, and that St Vincent’s hospital and a new hospital on the land next to it will now be controlled by a new company, called St Vincent’s Holdings. However there is nothing to show that it will not have the same ethics as any other Roman Catholic healthcare institution.

Since 1970 our State has paid the whole cost of many new, enlarged, and modernised hospitals. Some of these have been controlled by secular bodies somewhat independent of our health services, some by Health Boards and now the Health Service Executive, and some new structures and equipment have been entirely in the control of organisations tied to religions. Some of the

We the people of Ireland, and certainly we the humanist people of the Mid-West region, know that Roman Catholic religious ethics about healthcare would not allow contraception, sterilisation, in-vitro fertilisation, and termination of pregnancy.

We want a hospital that will provide all treatments that are within the law: a hospital with secular ethics as it provides services for all people with no reference to whether any person has one religion or another, or has no religion.

Every TD and Senator has a vote, so visit all your TDs and Senators

There has been plenty of public suggestion that our Government apply to compulsorily purchase the land, on which the new hospital is to be built. The Government have not decided to do this.

On 20 January 2022 the Dáil debated and passed a motion that the State make a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the land on which the National Maternity Hospital is to be built. Our Government did not oppose this motion. We await the Government’s action.

To make it more likely that the State will compulsorily purchase the land for the maternity hospital, every person who supports this CPO should visit all the TDs in their constituency and say that the TD should vote for such an Order.

This is not to suggest that you visit one TD, perhaps the TD that you consider represents you.

Each of the 3 or 4 or 5 TDs in your constituency has a vote in the Dáil, so you can influence all of them by visiting and by stating your firm view. Every Senator also has a vote, so please also visit each Senator in your area.

Visiting is work, but it is worth a lot when the TD or Senator hears what you seek from you in person. Some people send emails or letters, but a visit achieves a lot more.

Census 2022: if you are not religious, mark “No Religion”

The Census of all the people in the Republic of Ireland is to be on Sunday 03 April 2022.

Question 12 is about the religion of each person.

The Mid-West Humanists, with the Humanist Association of Ireland, and with Atheist Ireland, ask all people who do not practise any religion to choose the option “No Religion” when replying to Question 12.

Here is a copy of Question 12, in the Census of 2022.

The Central Statistics Office have improved the question from the version of several past Censuses, to some degree. It is now more probable that a person who has no religion will choose the appropriate answer, because “No Religion” is now the first option.

For your information, we show the 2016 version of Question 12 at the end of this article, with our view why the 2022 version has improved Q12 somewhat, and how it should be improved further.

Why it is important to answer Question 12, Religion

Our Government uses information about the people, from the Census and from other sources, to help to plan how government services are distributed and administered – health, education, justice, social services, and others.

If the number of people said to have “No Religion” in the Census is close to the actual number in Ireland, the Census will have done the maximum to have Government services changed so as to be good and fair to people with no religion, as well as to people of all the various religions.

Some important errors to avoid at Question 12

The partly improved 2022 version of Question 12 most probably will lead to a larger proportion of people being marked as having no religion, even if the actual proportion has not increased. (The actual proportion surely has increased: Ireland has in fact become more secular than it was in 2016). Yet people could still make some mistakes.

In Question 12 in the Census of 2016, the open box where a person can write the name of their religion (“Other”), was before “No Religion”. Some people wrote “Atheist”, “Humanist”, “Jedi”, and some other words that are fairly surely not religions. At least those who wrote “Atheist” and “Humanist” had no religion, but they were not included in the number of people with no religion that the Central Statistics Office announced (the results of the Census).

We do not know if some of those who wrote “Jedi” and similar words had no religion, or if they were making a joke.

To maximize the number of people that the Census will say have no religion, that is, to report the number truly – if you are not religious, do not write in the box for “Other” religions. Mark the box “No Religion” when replying to Question 12.

If another person in the household is completing the Census form

An official person delivers the Census form and collects it after the Census day. This person is called the Census enumerator. The enumerator arranges one person per household to fill in the form. This person is then called Person No 1.

If you are not Person No 1, that person might enter some or all of the information about you without asking you, or incorrectly. We believe that some persons who were Person No 1 in past Censuses wrote the religion that he or she thought was the religion of other persons in the household, when that was not the other person’s true religion (or irreligion).

If you are not sure that Person No 1 will respond to Question 12 as you desire, you can ask the enumerator for a Census form for you alone. This is your right in any case, if you want to keep matters private, and you do not have to prove to the enumerator that the Person No 1 will record your details incorrectly.

Why it is important to mark “No Religion”

Many of our Government’s services have been and still are administered with a bias towards religion, with a bias towards all the people who live in Ireland having some religion, and in many instances with a bias as if nearly all the people belong to the Roman Catholic Christian religion.

The Mid-West Humanists have since 2013 campaigned to various branches of our Government to abandon these biases in particular aspects of the Constitution, laws, and methods of administering services. It has been quite difficult to convince TDs and Senators, and to convince the Constitutional Convention (2013), whom we met, that there is any need to make the Constitution, laws, and services secular.

Ministers and TDs are a lot more open to adapting how the Government serves the people, to fit with people of new religions (that is, religions that are only starting to have many adherents in Ireland), than they are to fit with people with no religion. In the Census of 2016, there were 468,400 persons (just under 10 percent of the population) recorded as having no religion, and this was greater than the number recorded with all the religions, other than Roman Catholic, together. Yet adaptations to the religions that are newer to Ireland seem to interest our Government more.

The Mid-West Humanists, with the Humanist Association of Ireland, and with Atheist Ireland, ask all people who do not practise any religion to choose the option “No Religion” when replying to Question 12.

Question 12 in the past, how it was faulty, and how to improve it fully

Here is a copy of Question 12, in the Census of 2016.

Census IRL 2016 Q12 Religion

The question is “What is your religion?” This biases a person away from considering if he or she has no religion. The new question in 2022 allows that a person may not have any religion, but it still has a bias that to have a religion is the normal or usual (default) state of a person.

The option “No Religion” was the last option in 2016. People who are asked to pick one of several printed options give some attention to the first option, and they consider whether it is correct, and then a smaller amount of attention to the next option, attention reducing further as the person scans down the list. Often a person becomes tired of reading the options. This leads to a bias towards options nearer the start of the list.

We are fairly sure that, in all the years up to and including 2016, this led to people who were not really religious choosing one of the religions at the top of the list. The name of the religion may have reminded people of the religion of their childhood, and the person now had an option which they could mark, before the person saw that “No Religion” was available at the end of the list.

Accordingly, the Mid-West Humanists, as Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland, are fairly sure indeed that the number of people who chose “No Religion” in the Census of 2016, as well as in several previous Censuses, was substantially less than the true number of people with no religion.

While the version of the Religion question in the Census of 2022 is better than that in 2016, the sensible version would split it into 2 questions –
Q12a – Do you practise a religion? No [ ] Yes [ ]
If you answered Yes to Q12a-
Q12b – What is your religion? – Write the name of the religion here [ ]

Referendum 24 May 2019: remove 4 years apart limit for Divorce from Article 41 of the Constitution

Vote YES so you don’t have to live 4 of the last 5 years apart to qualify for a divorce
and to let the Dáil and Senate legislate on foreign divorces

The Mid-West Humanists have favoured a Secular society and laws that uphold Human Rights from soon after we first met in 2008.

We have campaigned, and attended the Constitutional Convention in 2013, on other parts of the Constitution that have explicit biases towards religion and biases against people with no religion and people whose religions have fewer adherents. We and other non-religious organisations have secured the 2018 referendum to remove Blasphemy as an offence from Article 40 of Ireland’s constitution. We were the only set of people campaigning in public in the Mid-West region for people to vote Yes in October 2018.

The Mid-West Humanists now draw people’s attention to removing the minimum time apart to qualify for a divorce and to removing the restriction on the Oireachtas’ choice in recognising foreign divorces.

 

The Referendum is on Friday 24 May 2019!

The 38th Amendment to the Constitution (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill 2019 proposes to remove Article 41.3.2.i.
This subordinate clause of 34 words sets a minimum of 4 years living apart (in the last 5 years) before you can be divorced.
If a majority vote YES, the Constitution will no longer set a minimum time. The Minister for Justice has said he will set a minimum of 2 years apart in a new Bill in the Dáil and Senate.

Although you may think the 2 years apart is still an unreasonable requirement, it will only be in legislation. A vote in the Dáil and Senate could reduce or abolish it at any future time. But it will not need a referendum.

The 38th Amendment to the Constitution (Dissolution of Marriage) Bill 2019 also proposes to replace Article 41.3.3.
This sentence of 65 words sets a high bar to the recognition of a foreign divorce here in Ireland – perhaps its precise limitation is not clear.
If a majority vote YES, the Constitution will no longer set any rules on recognition. Such recognition would be by a Bill in the Dáil and Senate.

The Mid-West Humanists support every person who favours a secular society and state, and who favours freedom of association (to be able to more easily end your tie to a person to whom you have been married), to vote YES in the Referendum on Friday 24 May 2019.
It is on the same day as the election for City and County Councils and for the European Parliament.

We ask any person who thinks it almost sure to receive a majority YES to make sure that you yourself vote. If a large number who favour removing the 4 years that you must be apart do not cast their vote, the majority could be a NO. Please go to the polling station on 24 May 2019 and vote YES.

If you want the referendum to pass, it needs your vote as well as all the other YES votes.

 

Go to vote on Friday 24 May and vote YES!

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

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

Referendum 26 October 2018: remove “blasphemous” from Article 40 of the Constitution

Vote YES to remove the offence of blasphemy

Our leaflet contains the main reasons to vote YES. These reasons apply whether you have a religion or have no religion.
You can download or print the leaflet if you wish.

The Mid-West Humanists have campaigned against blasphemy laws from soon after we first met in 2008.

We wrote to the President and talked to the Limerick Post in 2009 as the Defamation Act 2009 was about to become law, whose Section 36 explains what amounts to the offence of blasphemy.

We wrote to and attended the Constitutional Convention in 2013 to say that the State’s obligation to have Blasphemy be an offence should be removed from Article 40 of Ireland’s constitution. Some of us went to most TDs in our region to ask that the Dáil and Senate vote for a bill to remove it, if the Convention so recommended.

After the murders in January 2015 of 10 of the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, by people who were Muslim, because Charlie Hebdo had published many cartoons that satirised Mohammed, we went on the street in Limerick to seek people’s support for a Bill to remove the blasphemy offence from the Constitution.

The Referendum is on Friday 26 October 2018!

The 37th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2018 proposes to change one word in Article 40.6.1.i.
It would remove “blasphemous,” from the sentence
“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
If a majority vote YES, the sentence will then be
“The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

The Mid-West Humanists support every person who favours a secular society and state, and who favours freedom of expression, to vote YES in the Referendum on Friday 26 October 2018.
It is on the same day as the election for President of Ireland.

We ask any person who thinks it almost sure to receive a majority YES to make sure that you yourself vote. If a large number who favour removing the Blasphemy offence do not cast their vote, the majority could be a NO. Please go to the polling station on 26 October 2018 and vote YES.

If you want the referendum to pass, it needs your vote as well as all the other YES votes.

The Campaign for a YES vote

At present, we have the use of a simple portable table, on whose front can hang the IHEU map of the world’s blasphemy laws, and enough volunteers to have the table on the street and give leaflets to the public on 2 days per week until the day of the vote. The present volunteers are in Limerick city and have been out on 29 September and 06 October.

You can read the leaflet on our Aims and Media page, or at Vote to remove Blasphemy from the Constitution.
Print the leaflet if you wish to distribute it.

If any person wants to help the campaign to remove the Blasphemy offence from the Constitution, please email us at info@midwesthumanists.com.
A helper need not have recently attended the Mid-West Humanists.
Emails to suggest any other ideas to campaign are also welcome.

Go to vote on Friday 26 October and vote YES!

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

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.

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

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

Mid-West Humanists tell the Minister for Health to keep National Maternity Hospital in State ownership

Today Monday 22 05 2017 the Mid-West Humanists have emailed and also written by registered post to the Minister for Health about why the new National Maternity Hospital in Dublin should be in an organisation that the State owns and can fully control.

 

We show here the text of our email and letter.

————————————————————–

Mid West Humanists

An Atheist Community in Limerick, Clare, and Tipperary

 

To Simon Harris TD, Minister for Health

Contents

  1. The Mid-West Humanists (MWH) make this submission about the National Maternity Hospital
  2. Who the Mid-West Humanists are
  3. Mid-West Humanists’ reasons to meet includes the problems with state-funded hospitals not being under democratic control and thus not fair to the people
  4. To keep the new maternity hospital in State ownership is to make it possible for the people through the Oireachtas and Department of Health to fully control how the hospital will run. This will benefit all the people in the State, and will make governing the State easier both in running a hospital and during re-organisation of health services
  5. The historical ceding or divesting of hospitals and health services to religious organisations is no longer reasonable. While in the past people agreed with the religious leaders’ ideas how to run such services, a large part of the people now strongly disagree.
  6. Disquiet at past abuse of children has been a spur to people to speak to oppose giving the hospital to the Sisters of Charity, but the reason to have the State own it fully is about democratic control of health services
  7. Delay caused by seeking a plan to keep the new maternity hospital on land that the State will own may be regrettable, but people can wait a little more, and to keep the present plan will cause more trouble in the long run
  8. Conclusion
    It is the people’s health service, and it will be the best service if it is in control of State organisations

 

Dear Minister for Health Continue reading

Mid West Humanists’ Submission to Minister for Education and Skills on admission rules to National Schools

On 16 January 2017 the Department of Education sought submissions from interested persons and groups on the role of denominational religion in the school admissions process and possible approaches for making changes.

The Mid-West Humanists today 11 March 2017 have sent the following submission to the Department.

———————————————————————————————————————

Mid West Humanists                                                           March 2017

 

To Richard Bruton TD, Minister for Education and Skills

Contents

  1. The Mid-West Humanists make this submission
  2. Who the Mid-West Humanists are
  3. Mid-West Humanists’ reasons to meet includes the problems with education for those with no religion
  4. The plan we submit will benefit also people in religions with less numerous adherents, and will make governing the State and keeping peace easier
  5. Subjects that the Consultation Paper and the Minister mention, which this Submission uses
    5.1. Lower admission priority and the pressure to baptise are not fair to families and parents
    5.2. Ethos is a part of Approach 4(2) – so this Submission addresses ethos
    5.3. Understanding the different religions in the community and including all children with respect
    5.4. The Constitution of Ireland, parts relevant to education and State schools
  6. Principles of the Mid-West Humanists on which their view how to run National Schools is built
    6.1. A society fair to all people, and no rights for institutions
    6.2. Children’s rights,
    1) to develop intellectually, that adults and the State not blur their differentiation of ideas based on evidence and reason from ideas that people believe without evidence
    2) to know all the variety of people among whom they live/ will live, to feel at home in society
  7. The Mid-West Humanists’ view on the Paper’s 4 or 6 suggested approaches to admissions to schools
    7.1. General – all 4 or 6 approaches are unreasonable
    7.2. Approaches 1, 2, 3, 4(3)
    7.3. Approach 4(2) – pressure to agree to ethos is the same as pressure to baptise, unfair
    7.4. Approach 4(1) – children’s rights will be infringed after admission unless ethos is secular
  8. The Mid-West Humanists’ own view on the best admission rules, and the correct ethos
    8.1. Repeal the Equal Status Act 2000 Section 7.3(c) entirely
    8.2. Teachers must teach all the religions together to all children together, fairly and neutrally
    8.3. To not blur distinctions of basing on evidence, teachers not to state religious ideas as true
    8.4. The Constitution gives the teaching of religious doctrines to parents and not to the State
    8.5. The State makes children attend school, so it must be fair and make schools secular
  9. Replies to the 4 questions that the Consultation Paper asks about all approaches
    9.1. It is unfair that any religious group have State-funded schools
    9.2. The Constitution mandates the State removing religious influence in schools which it funds
    9.3. The legal support for National Schools and the Minister’s power to change how they run
    9.4. Unintended impacts of our approach are not a problem
  10. Additional ideas
    10.1. The value to society of all schools being secular, with no discrimination on admission
    10.2. Constitution and international conventions support secular ethos and no discrimination
    10.3. Misconceptions about National Schools’ legal status, and the real status
  11. Conclusion
    11.1. Changes needed and the power to make changes: the changes are constitutional
    11.2. Reasons for changes: children’s rights to development and to be at home in society

Continue reading