In February Mairead Enright and I published Repealing the 8th: Reforming Irish Abortion Law with Policy Press. The book was finished on 15 November 2017 and, since then, there have been significant developments in the progress towards a referendum on the 8th Amendment including the publication of the JOC report, the Cabinet announcement that a referendum would be held, the publication of a Department of Health policy paper on the shape and form of future post-repeal legislation for access to abortion, a Supreme Court decision on the extent of foetal rights under the current constitutional arrangement, and the publication of the 36th Referendum on the Constitution Bill 2018. Happily, we have had an opportunity to update the book taking all of these developments into account with a new postscript as it went to its second printing run. The new, expanded version is now available to purchase online through Policy Press, in bookshops, and (free) on Open Access download here.
Next week my new book, coauthored with my colleague Máiréad Enright, will be published by Policy Press. The book, entitled Repealing the 8th: Reforming Irish Abortion Law, is intended to be an accessible volume for politicians, policy makers, campaigners, and voters in advance of the referendum on repeal of the 8th Amendment which we expect this summer. The book is designed to be affordable (it should be around €10/£10 in the shops and online directly from Policy Press; it will also be available for free online from 7 February 2018), and to connect what sometimes seem like technical, legal debates to real life questions of material well being and reproductive choice. We will be launching the book in The Long Room Hub in Trinity on 27 February 2018, but the launch is now fully sold out.
We have funds to support coming to towns and cities all over Ireland to discuss the book and the referendum with groups, big and small. Anyone who would like to try to organise a visit from us in the run up to the referendum should get in touch on f.delondras[at]bham.ac.uk or by direct message on twitter where I am @fdelond. All we need is for people to be able to host us: advocacy groups, book shops, book clubs, community halls and groups, schools, universities, student groups etc are all welcome to get in touch.
For many people, Brexit is about taking back ‘control’; about determining for ‘ourselves’ what the law is, how it applies, how we spend our money, and how we develop our policies. The fact that many people both before the referendum and now struggle to identify with accuracy an area of law or policy in which the EU has ‘taken’ control (and not had competence ceded or shared through a Treaty change ratified by the UK) is irrelevant; what matters is the perception of a lack of national autonomy, and an associated corrosion of domestic democratic control.
Deep within at least parts of the arguments that circulate around Brexit is a form of new sovereigntism that is deeply worrying to the rule of law. The UK is hardly alone in this phenomenon; as far back as 2000 Peter Spiro wrote about the emergence of new sovereigntism in the United States; about a group of scholars and intellectuals who were not opposed to international law per se, but who thought that the US should be able to engage with it as and when it wanted to. In other words, these scholars promoted an a la carte approach to international law, underpinned by a “brand of anti-internationalism [that] runs deep in the American political tradition”. Continue reading The new sovereigntism: what it means for human rights law in the UK
Last week, William Binchy – a long-time anti-choice campaigner in Ireland – affirmed his view that the eighth amendment had “done its job”, so to speak. And it has. It was introduced into the constitution in 1983 to make sure that abortion could never be legalised in Ireland. As a result, pregnant persons in Ireland cannot access a lawful abortion unless they are likely to die without one. This makes ours one of the most restrictive abortion law regimes in the world. Continue reading This is why repeal matters