No as it has it’s own legislation (that it needs as a separate very special issue) in the Abortion Act 1967 (amended 1990) that protects choice up to 12 weeks for any reason then up to 24 weeks with consultation advice.
NI just need to stop messing around with it and adopt what they said they would with Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020.
Less we just keep with the travel to anywhere else in the UK to gain one.
What we do need is the much talked about buffer zones too.
The core of this:
>It is not intended that the legislation will actually confer new rights – despite its portentous title.
>
>The intention is that the legislation will make it more difficult for people to practically rely on their rights.
>
>So, although one can doubt the efficacy of “enshrining” things in domestic law, Creasy’s proposed amendment perhaps serves a helpful purpose in exposing the “Bill of Rights” as not being about rights at all.
>
>And if such a right is included in the “Bill of Rights” then it may lead to the issue being more “settled” than the 2008 debates and the Northern Ireland experience indicates it to be.
>
>If we are to have a “Bill of Rights” then this is presumably the sort of right – highly relevant to actual people – that should be included.
–
Sadly it did not hit home with many on the other post
Yes. Freedom of religion demands it at this point.
Don’t know why the Tories are bothering tbh
The document could be one line: “Parliament is sovereign, cannot be bound, and it decides what rights you have. So fuck off”.
4 comments
No as it has it’s own legislation (that it needs as a separate very special issue) in the Abortion Act 1967 (amended 1990) that protects choice up to 12 weeks for any reason then up to 24 weeks with consultation advice.
NI just need to stop messing around with it and adopt what they said they would with Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020.
Less we just keep with the travel to anywhere else in the UK to gain one.
What we do need is the much talked about buffer zones too.
The core of this:
>It is not intended that the legislation will actually confer new rights – despite its portentous title.
>
>The intention is that the legislation will make it more difficult for people to practically rely on their rights.
>
>So, although one can doubt the efficacy of “enshrining” things in domestic law, Creasy’s proposed amendment perhaps serves a helpful purpose in exposing the “Bill of Rights” as not being about rights at all.
>
>And if such a right is included in the “Bill of Rights” then it may lead to the issue being more “settled” than the 2008 debates and the Northern Ireland experience indicates it to be.
>
>If we are to have a “Bill of Rights” then this is presumably the sort of right – highly relevant to actual people – that should be included.
–
Sadly it did not hit home with many on the other post
Yes. Freedom of religion demands it at this point.
Don’t know why the Tories are bothering tbh
The document could be one line: “Parliament is sovereign, cannot be bound, and it decides what rights you have. So fuck off”.