Repeal the 8th
Yesterday evening in Dublin about 200 people showed up to protest outside that “clinic” that tells women lies about abortion.
In a report for The Times (Ireland edition), reporters Ellen Coyne and Catherine Sanz secretly recorded a consultation in the clinic between a staff member and a woman seeking advice on a crisis pregnancy.
It is alleged a staff member at the Women’s Centre, on Berkeley Street in Dublin 7, advised the woman that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer and that women who have had abortions are “known to neglect their children”.
It’s alleged and it’s on video that we can all look at.
Protesters – some carrying placards, others wearing high-vis clothing – began to gather outside the centre at around 6.30pm. The centre is located next door to Reproductive Choices, an advice clinic aligned to the Marie Stopes organisation.
AAA-PBP TD Bríd Smith and a number of other speakers addressed the demonstration. Many protesters wore ‘Repeal the 8th’ t-shirts and sweatshirts.
Rónán Duffy (who wrote this article) tweeted photos:
Crowd of about 150-200 protesters outside Dublin centre filmed providing false information on abortion pic.twitter.com/LXSG46mPLu
— Rónán Duffy (@ronanduffy_) September 7, 2016
He says this priest walked past twice.
Ireland still priest-ridden.
Meddlesome priest-ridden even?
No, but one can sometimes wish for a moment that retroactive abortion was possible.
Sometimes the word alleged bothers me. It’s true that the clinic staff have not been convicted of anything, and so any legal charges laid against them are only allegations at this stage… but this article was not talking about the legalities of that video. Rather, it is talking about depicted events, things that we can observe to be true or false with our eyes and without the need for a court ruling.
The woman in the video definitely said e.g. that abortion is linked to cancer, a claim that is known to be untrue. The woman in the video is definitely a staffer at that clinic, so even if she has not been positively identified it remains that the clinic has put forth a known untruth in their role as a source of pregnancy/abortion information. This much we can state without needing ‘alleged’ as a precaution.
The only real unknown here is whether the person knew those claims to be untrue at the time they were stated, and hence legal culpability for herself and for the clinic. If she knew, then she lied; if not, then she is not competent to give health advice. But when the discussion is kept to observable fact, there is no need for it and it can come off as being overcautious.
“Ireland still priest-ridden.” I read that as pest-ridden at first. Wasn’t wrong.