Ariane Katharina Vaughan
The Referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Gendered Discourses in Pro- Life and Pro-Choice Campaigns
Master’s Thesis
to be awarded the degree of Master of Arts in Joint Degree Gender Studies at the University of Graz, Austria
Supervised by Prof. Dr. Libora Oates-Indruchová Department of Sociology
Graz, September 2018
Abstract
The Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution acknowledges the equal right to life of the ‘unborn’ and effectively makes abortion illegal except when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. The Referendum that was held on the possible repeal of the Amendment in May 2018 marked a climax of long and ongoing complex debates on abortion in Ireland. The majority of Irish people voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment and therefore, abortion will become legalised by the end of the year. In discourses on abortion, pro-choice and pro-life groups have always been major players shaping people’s views on the issue and reproducing existing notions of gender. This project’s aim is to research how the two main campaigns Together for Yes and LoveBoth have drawn on previous gendered discourses on abortion. Using Judith Butler’s theory of performativity of gender, the thesis presents an in-depth analysis of the Tweets posted by both campaigns, employing the Discourse-Historical Approach. The findings suggest that the campaigns draw on all previous typical discourses on abortion. Both campaigns strongly rely on discourses which connect abortion and the construction of national identity through a perceived collective responsibility of women. In addition, they draw on discourses of emotionality which emphasise individual narratives and ask for compassionate treatment of women, although both groups constitute the meaning of what is ‘compassionate care’ differently. The thesis argues that both campaigns, in varying degree, reproduce gender norms, especially by drawing on discourses of motherhood and by emphasising the ‘natural’ binary system.
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research Question ...... 2 1.2 Current State of Research ...... 3 1.3 Theoretical Framework ...... 3 1.4 Methodology ...... 4 1.5 Chapter Outline ...... 5 2. Literature Review: Debates over Abortion in Ireland ...... 7 3. The Road to the Referendum ...... 14 3.1 The Eighth Amendment ...... 15 3.2 The Citizens’ Assembly ...... 16 3.3 Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution ...... 17 3.4 Final Steps Leading to the Referendum ...... 18 4. Supporting Life, Supporting Choice: A contested dichotomy ...... 19 4.1 Pro-Life History ...... 20 4.2 Pro-Choice History ...... 21 4.3 Pro-Life Argumentation ...... 22 4.4 Critique on Pro-Life ...... 23 4.5 Pro-Choice Argumentation ...... 23 4.6 Critique on Pro-Choice...... 24 4.7 General Critique on the Binary Oppositions ...... 24 4.8 Introducing LoveBoth and Together for Yes ...... 25 4.8.1 The Campaign LoveBoth ...... 25 4.8.2 The Campaign Together for Yes ...... 26 5. Previous Discourses of Abortion ...... 27 5.1 The Foetus ...... 28 5.2 Opposition: The Foetus vs. the Woman ...... 28 5.3 Women’s Right to Choose/Autonomy ...... 29 5.4 Motherhood ...... 30 5.5 Being Worthy of Having an Abortion...... 31 5.6 Social Justice ...... 32 5.7 Religion ...... 32 5.8 Feminism ...... 33 5.9 ‘Irishness’ ...... 33
5.10 Morality of the State ...... 34 5.11 Ireland’s Colonial History ...... 34 5.12 ‘Abortion Tourism’ ...... 35 5.13 Individual Cases ...... 35 5.14 Emotionality ...... 35 5.15 ‘Pseudo-Science’ ...... 36 5.16 Abortion as a ‘Necessary Evil’ ...... 36 6. Assumptions ...... 36 7. Theoretical Framework ...... 37 8. Methodology: Discourse-Historical Approach ...... 46 9. To Repeal, or Not to Repeal? A Discussion on Gendered Discourses ...... 51 9.1 Fear: Abortion and the Eighth Amendment ...... 52 9.1.1 Previous discourses ...... 52 9.1.2 LoveBoth ...... 54 9.1.3 Together for Yes ...... 58 9.1.4 Fear: Conclusion ...... 60 9.2 Justice: Equality for All?...... 62 9.2.1 Previous Discourses ...... 62 9.2.2 LoveBoth ...... 64 9.2.3 Together for Yes ...... 67 9.2.4 Justice: Conclusion ...... 70 9.3 Responsibility: ‘Traditionally’ Irish? ...... 71 9.3.1 Previous Discourses ...... 71 9.3.2 LoveBoth ...... 72 9.3.3 Together for Yes ...... 77 9.3.4 Responsibility: Conclusion ...... 80 9.4 Reality: What Is It, That ‘Is’? ...... 81 9.4.1 Previous Discourses ...... 81 9.4.2 LoveBoth ...... 82 9.4.3 Together for Yes ...... 84 9.4.4 Reality: Conclusion ...... 86 9.5 History: Oppression and Help ...... 87 9.5.1 Previous Discourses ...... 87 9.5.2 LoveBoth ...... 88 9.5.3 Together for Yes ...... 89 9.5.4 History: Conclusion ...... 91 9.6 Humanitarianism: What is Compassion and Support? ...... 92 9.6.1 Previous Discourses ...... 92 9.6.2 LoveBoth ...... 92 9.6.3 Together for Yes ...... 94 9.6.4 Humanitarianism: Conclusion ...... 95 9.7 Conclusion ...... 96 10. Concluding Remarks ...... 97
10.1 Major findings ...... 98 10.2 Previous Assumptions ...... 100 10.3 Limitations ...... 102 10.4 Current Situation in Ireland ...... 102 10.5 Suggestions for further research ...... 103 References: Bibliography ...... 105 References: Tweets ...... 112
1. Introduction
On 25th of May, 2018, 66.4% of the Irish people voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment, an Amendment that has since 1983, when it had originally been implemented into the Constitution, effectively prohibited legal abortions except in cases when the life of the pregnant woman was threatened (McDonald, Graham-Harrison & O’Carroll, 2018a). The Eighth Amendment, which is currently not yet repealed, declares:
“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.” (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 220).
Abortion is a controversial issue all over the world, as it divides society into mainly those supporting it and those opposed to it which has led to the rise of ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ groups whose origin can mainly be found in the USA. As much of the criticism on abortion stems from a religious perspective, and in consideration of the fact that Ireland is a ‘traditionally’ Catholic country, the issue is even more disputed there. Ireland has been the first state to integrate the foetus’ ‘right to life’ into law (Porter, 1996, 286), and currently still has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. The exception to permit abortion in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, has only been introduced with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 after the death of Savita Halappanavar a year before. She died of septic shock as a consequence of being denied a termination of pregnancy even though she had already began to miscarry. Her case caused much uproar within Irish society and reforms were demanded. However, an abortion can also in these cases where the woman’s life is at risk only be procured when the foetus is not yet viable, otherwise an early delivery has to be induced (Enright et al, 2015, 1; 7). Women who nevertheless seek an abortion for other reasons, can legally travel abroad in order to have their pregnancies terminated. In 2016, 3,265 women therefore made the journey to Britain to access abortion. 67.9% of the abortions carried out to non-residents there were accessed by Irish women. Hence, if a woman is not able to make the journey because of financial reasons, for example, her only option to still have an abortion is to illegally take an abortion pill. Figures that have been published by a provider of abortion pills showed that 1438 women contacted them in 2015. There is still no number that shows how many women actually ordered and took abortion pills as not all women contact the provider for support, nor do all women ordering abortion pills actually take them (Ó. Ryan, 2018).
As much as the act of abortion itself is deemed controversial, it is more than that. It is entwined in different societal and political circumstances, entangled with Ireland’s religious background
1 and culture of responsibility, self-perceptions of ‘Irishness’, and regulatory norms of gender within a patriarchal society that have been established through repeated acts over time (Butler, 1999, 178). It is therefore argued that the regulation of abortion is strongly connected to ‘gender concomitants’ as it implies several constructions of gender (Rodríguez-Ruiz, 2016, 711). In addition, the turbulent changes, added Amendments and overall discussions within Ireland’s ban on abortion which will become clear in more detail within this research project, show how gendered discourses have been prevailing over time in Ireland and are therefore repeated practices that create rigid gender norms.
Leading up to the Referendum, two main campaigns have been established in Ireland, the pro- life group LoveBoth and the pro-choice campaign Together for Yes. The former supported to retain, the latter to repeal the Eighth Amendment and replace it with legislation on abortion regulated by the Government. Both campaigns are coalitions of several smaller groups, some of LoveBoth’s members are The Pro Life Campaign and Women Hurt by Abortion (Website LoveBoth, 2018). Together for Yes is compounded by groups such as the Women’s Council and the Abortion Rights Campaign (Website Together for Yes, 2018). As it got clear within the analysis, LoveBoth’s main arguments to retain the Eighth Amendment is that it would save ‘babies’ from being aborted and that it protected women from abortion and the abortion industry. In contrast, Together for Yes brings forward the argumentation that instead the Eighth Amendment is harmful to women as it would on one hand, force them to leave the country to seek abortions and on the other hand, it would discriminate against those women who are not able to travel and are thus ‘forced’ into taking abortion pills if they still want to seek a termination of pregnancy.
1.1 Research Question
The main research question I aim to answer in this project is: How are Together for Yes and LoveBoth drawing on previous gendered discourses of abortion in their Tweets concerning the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment? I further want to research how the campaigns cite certain norms within a regulatory frame of gender (Butler, 1993, 13). In order to be able to do that I evaluated posts on Twitter from the two campaigns between their respective launches of the campaigns and until the day of the Referendum. I have thus analysed 869 Tweets from LoveBoth from April 18 to May 25, 2018 and 1,012 Tweets from Together for Yes from March 22 to May 25, 2018.
2
1.2 Current State of Research
Much research has been done on abortion in general and on the matter of abortion in Ireland which will become clear in the literature review. However, some of the most important concepts concerning my project should also be mentioned at this point. Lisa Smyth (1998) has extensively researched how discourses of abortion and discourses of national identity were constructed in connection to the ‘X-case’, which describes a situation where a 14-year-old girl had been raped and where the state strongly tried to prevent her from accessing an abortion (61). In addition, Elisabeth Porter (1996) provides an in-depth analysis of Irish abortion discourses within the “language of collective responsibilities” (279). Furthermore, Ruth Fletcher (2001) developed an extensive discussion of Irish post-colonial urges to generate the impression of a ‘pro-life-country’ (568). Most recent work concerning abortion and abortion policies includes a book by Fiona de Londras and Mairead Enright (2018) – Repealing the 8th. Reforming Irish abortion law – which is an interdisciplinary feminist analysis from a legal point of view. Even though much academic work has been published on abortion, I argue that because of its topicality, no scholar has yet researched in-depth Together for Yes’ and LoveBoth’s campaigns and that I therefore can provide insights to how they continue to draw on previous gendered discourses that have not been yet published. There has been some recent publications on Northern Ireland where abortion remains illegal. Claire Pierson (2018) takes a similar approach to research how national identity is constructed through Catholicism and the concept of the self-sacrificing mother.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
Judith Butler’s theory of performativity of gender builds the base for my theoretical framework within my research project. As Butler (1993) is very critical of terms like ‘women’ or ‘men’, it is necessary to outline how and why these denominations are part of this thesis. Butler indeed argues that they can be used but that it is important to grasp that they are exclusionary and part of a power regime (29). In relation to issues concerning the reproductive sphere, Rahul Sambaraju, Myles Sammon, Frank Harnett, and Emma Douglas (2017) further critically bring forward the argument that “the use of categories (…) allows for inferences on possibilities of pregnancy or other activities normatively expected of them” (267). If one correctly wanted to stay in line with Butler’s argumentation of how gender is the result of repeated acts, then people who can theoretically have abortions could maybe be called ‘people who can become pregnant’ or ‘people with a working womb’. Although I agree that not all people who have the potential to become pregnant, are women, I use the terms ‘people’ and ‘women’ interchangeably as
3 within general and previous discourses of abortion, the term ‘woman’ has already been socially constructed and connected to ‘women’. This issue will become visible in the whole research project, as within the research material there are none, and only two Tweets, respectively, which address non-binary or Trans*-people. Concerning the usage of the term ‘men’ I argue that only through this the hegemonic power structures within the arena of abortion and general societal circumstances can be grasped. In addition, both campaigns include the term ‘men’ within their Tweets. However, I am aware that the use of these terms could be seen as a further repetition of norms even when the background of these usages is a very critical one similar to how it is in this research project.
Another aspect that is in need to be mentioned is that even though this research focuses on processes that can be called political – as the campaigns both try to influence the Irish people’s opinions in what they will vote in a political Referendum – this does not mean that politics are the only or ‘most important’ sphere where norms of gender are created. They surely influence and reproduce them, but it is essential to note that the reproduction of norms by the campaigns is happening within a context where norms have already been established before through repetitions over time. However, this does not make this research not useful or ‘unnecessary’, but, rather, puts emphasis on how important it is to analyse how and which norms are being reified and reinforced through the campaigns’ utterances (Butler, 1999, 189).
1.4 Methodology
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is an approach within the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which was developed by Ruth Wodak at the end of the 1980’s for a research project on anti-Semitic stereotypes (Reisigl, 2017, 44). DHA is applied often when it is tried to research the influence of discourse on topics such as politics, identity, and discrimination. Like its name suggests, it further emphasises the importance of historic context (Reisigl, 2017, 48).
Among the importance of intertextual and interdiscursive relationships, another crucial aspect of DHA is that it questions the researcher’s neutrality. This is in need of application at this point. An essential problem within all research, but in this case especially research concerning itself with gender issues, is that the researcher’s perspective can easily submerge itself into it. Regine Gildemeister (2004) argues that an “artificial foreignness” (“künstliche Fremdheit”) (33) has to be applied in order to avoid – as much as possible – bias within the research. In this project I aimed to do so and am sure that if one is aware of the danger of being biased that this is already an essential step to being less influenced by personal or academic circumstances.
4
As outlined before, Butler’s (1999) theory of performativity focusses, among other aspects, also on the concept of genealogy, a “historical investigation” (10) which stresses the importance of how current conditions have emerged out of what is commonly called ‘history’. The notion, therefore, is that subjects are not seen as cause for discourse and certain practices but rather the other way round: discourse defines accepted practises of gender and therefore creates the subject (10). This argumentation is an interesting concept of ‘history’ and therefore poses an important reason of why DHA is this research project’s methodology as its focus on the relevance of historic background within the analysis fits together with Butler’s concept of history.
1.5 Chapter Outline
The thesis consists of ten parts. In the literature review the most important key terms, events and research of abortion in Ireland are presented (Grant & Osanloo, 2014, 19). I give an overview of how the Eighth Amendment has come to place, and which debates have then and up until the Referendum this year have been held and outline as well as how different pro-life and pro-choice groups have been engaged in these discourses on abortion. Particularly, research on abortion in Ireland by Lisa Smyth (1998), Elisabeth Porter (1996), Ruth Fletcher (2001; 2014), and Ronit Lentin (2013) have been essential for this part of my project.
Some more detailed information on the current legal situation concerning abortion and how the Referendum was initiated is given in ‘The Road to the Referendum’. The development of the Citizens’ Assembly and the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution is outlined in order to illustrate how their recommendations have been important to and influencing on the path to the Referendum. Here, I have especially drawn on material published by the Citizens’ Assembly (2017; 2018) and the Joint Committee (2017) themselves as well as articles from The Guardian’s Ireland-correspondent Henry McDonald and colleagues (2018).
In the part ‘Supporting Life, Supporting Choice: A Contested Dichotomy’ the history and main characteristics of as well as critique on pro-choice and pro-life groups and activism are outlined. The most important aspects of this chapter are that both movements have a long history of promoting certain opinions and values. Although they argue very differently, they also have several commonalities which mainly concern the support of women and responsible child- rearing (Porter, 1996, 291). It is further criticised that the dichotomy of the movements does not support reaching these common goals, but rather divides society into two ‘camps’ wanting to be ‘right’. For this chapter the literature by Faye Ginsburg (1987) and Andrea Smith (2005) on pro-choice and pro-life movements has been essential. 5
Within the chapter of previous discourses, I argue that there are sixteen prevailing discourses to be found in past debates on abortion:
1. ‘the discourse of the foetus’ 2. ‘the discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ 3. ‘the discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’ 4. ‘the discourse of motherhood’ 5. ‘the discourse of being worthy of having an abortion’ 6. ‘the discourse of social justice’ 7. ‘the discourse of religion’ 8. ‘the discourse of feminism’ 9. ‘the discourse of ‘Irishness’’ 10. ‘the discourse of the morality of the state’ 11. ‘the discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ 12. ‘the discourse of ‘abortion tourism’’ 13. ‘the discourse of individual cases’ 14. ‘the discourse of emotionality’ 15. ‘the discourse of ‘pseudo-science’ 16. ‘the discourse of abortion as a necessary evil’’.
The most important literature for defining previous discourses of abortions was provided by Jane Wambui Njagi (2013), Lisa Smyth (1998), Myra Marx Ferree, William Anthony Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards and Dieter Rucht (2017) as well as Pam Lowe and Sarah-Jane Page (2018).
It is common within DHA to formulate assumptions which are based on the literature review and a first skimming of the data. Some of the most important assumptions made in this part of the research project are that it is assumed that LoveBoth and Together for Yes will rely on gendered discourses that have been occurring in previous discussions and debates of abortion. In addition, it has been expected that there will be relations to how the Irish national identity is influenced by those discourses, and that gendered norms will be reproduced through the campaigns’ respective discursive utterances.
Within the chapter showing the theoretical framework, the base is outlined on which this research project’s analysis and discussion have been carried out and it will become clear how Butler’s theory of performativity has influenced the research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014, 13). In order to be able to create a theoretical framework I have closely studied literature by Judith Butler (1993; 1999) and Sarah Salih (2002; 2007). 6
The methodology chapter shows in detail how DHA has been adapted to and implemented in my research project. It is further stressed how important the intertextual and interdiscursive relationships are within this thesis and how with this methodology and a constant back-and- forth movement between theory and actual data is required (Wodak, 2001b, 69-70). Authors I have drawn on for formulating the methodology for my research projects are Ruth Wodak (2001a; 2001b; 2008) and Martin Reisigl (2017).
In the chapter ‘To Repeal, or Not to Repeal? A Discussion on Gendered Discourses’ I finally discuss how Together for Yes and LoveBoth both draw on all previous gendered discourses of abortion. I have shown that their approaches to and interpretations of these discourses are rather different from each other, but argue that by drawing on these discourses, they further reproduce gender norms within a highly regulatory frame. A discourse especially prevalent within both campaigns is ‘the discourse of ‘Irishness’ as both Together for Yes and LoveBoth try to define ‘what it means to be Irish’ through their respective positions on abortion. Furthermore, both groups also draw on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ as a tactic to reach the Irish people within – what is assumed their core value – the reach of responsibility. Together for Yes and LoveBoth also emphasise the importance of social justice, although the former applies it to equality between women and the latter stresses that pregnant women and foetuses are equal. LoveBoth also draws heavily on the ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ in order to construct ‘being Irish’ as the opposite of ‘being British’. Together for Yes also makes use of this discourse, but rather stresses how ‘abortion tourism’ is harmful to women and that the ‘former coloniser’ is now providing ‘compassionate’ care.
The final chapter of this research project contains concluding remarks and focusses on the research’s major findings, limitations, and some suggestions of possible further research. In addition, an overview is given on how Ireland has dealt with the results so far after the Referendum in May.
2. Literature Review: Debates over Abortion in Ireland
Until the Eighth Amendment was introduced in 1983, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 prohibited abortion in Ireland (Horgan, 1982, 6): Every pregnant woman that tried to procure an abortion through any measure (for example, poison, with the help of an instrument, and so on) and any other person who helped her do so can be convicted to life imprisonment (Legislation.gov.uk, n.d.). Distribution of (written) information on abortion was illegal, as well (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, 31). When abortion became legal in Britain in 1967 (Houses
7 of the Oireachtas, 2017, 31), Irish women started travelling there to have their pregnancies terminated. This had the effect that less ‘backstreet abortions’ took place in Ireland (Bacik, 1992, 10).
In February 1980, the Women’s Right to Choose Group (WRTC) was set up which was the first pro-choice group in Ireland. It was small, but quite successful in keeping the Irish Pregnancy Counselling centre running and in providing education material on abortion. In June 1980, the British Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) established a branch in Ireland (ISPUC). The Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC), a group that (successfully) advocated to establish an amendment prohibiting abortion in the Irish Constitution, was set up in April 1981 (Horgan, 1982, 6). PLAC consisted of many members that were politically powerful (Oaks, 2002, 326) and was formed after the Pope had visited Ireland in 1979. In the time of PLAC’s establishment, abortion was discussed intensively in the US (Smyth, 1998, 65). The fear that abortion could be seen as a right of a person included in their right to privacy, as it had happened in the United States 1973, was one of the main arguments why pro-life groups started to advocate for an ‘anti-abortion amendment’ (Fletcher, 2001, 575). Additionally, PLAC assumed that there was a popular consensus in Ireland to maintain the illegality of abortion (Smyth, 1998, 65). PLAC campaigned for an ‘absolute right to life’ to every foetus, but this was dropped again as then even in cases of ectopic pregnancies or where the woman had cancer of the uterus – two occasions when the Catholic Church does allow terminations of pregnancies – abortions would be prohibited (Horgan, 1982, 6). However, PLAC based its claim that a foetus has reached personhood with conception on Catholic assertions (Porter, 1996, 283) and the Catholic Church definitely had a hegemonic role within the discussions concerning and on the establishment of the Eighth Amendment as for a long time in Ireland it had decided what is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ for women. This can, for example, be seen in the traditions of the Magdalene Laundries (Porter, 1996, 286). The Magdalene Laundries were asylums in Ireland run by four religious orders where at least 10,000 girls and women were held from 1922 to 1996. Among pregnant unmarried mothers and daughters of these women, disabled and mentally ill women, women who were sexually abused, women who were categorised as ‘promiscuous’, women who were seen as a burden to their families, and women who had been protégés of the state were forced to stay in the Magdalene Laundries. There they had to do hard, unpaid work and were treated very badly – psychologically and physically. The women and girls were sent to the Magdalene Laundries by the judicial system, social workers, police, psychiatric hospitals, County Councils, but also from families and church groups. Often the fear of scandals concerning the girls and women, for example, because of pregnancies out of 8 wedlock was the main reason to send them into the Laundries (Justice for Magdalenes Research, n.d.). Although PLAC tried to use language that was not connected to religion, the dominance of the Catholic Church was clearly visible (Fletcher, 2001, 574). PLAC argued that through an amendment effectively prohibiting abortion, the ‘purity of the nation and for its children’ could be saved while there was change of women’s roles in society taking place. Its strategies and arguments were also quite nationalistic, as it constructed every influence coming from outside the country as a disturbance or a contamination that could cause the national identity of Ireland to collapse (Smyth, 1998, 65-66).
Lisa Smyth (1998) argues that four events in the Irish history had an essential long-lasting impact on the Irish society and especially on how the image of ‘the Irish woman’ has been defined and, therefore, was also important in the campaigns on the establishment of the Eighth Amendment: During the famines (1845-1850), a new sexual puritanism emerged and the sexual division of labour was changing. This “led to significant patriarchal social reformation” (64). After the famines, the Catholic hierarchy and the British administration made women the objects of “strict clerical surveillance.” (Smyth, 1998, 64). In 1922, the division of the island after a war of independence and the following civil war had a “definitive effect on Irish culture and politics throughout the period since independence, because of the incomplete nature of the nationalist republican project.” (Smyth, 1998, 64). Lastly, Smyth (1998) sees the 1937 Constitution as an important part: In there women’s role in the state was clearly defined, as women were made responsible for the reproduction “and the transmission of national identity through the practice of mothering.” (64). Pateman (1988, cited in Symth, 1998) called this a “sexual contract” (64). Elisabeth Porter (1996) also is in the opinion that especially the references where ‘women’ and ‘domesticity’ are used interchangeably have an influence on why pro-life/anti-abortion campaigns have been quite strong in Ireland (283-284).
In 1981, there were mainly two campaigns fighting against the establishment of an amendment prohibiting abortion: the already mentioned WRTC and the Anti-Amendment-Campaign (AAC). Members of the latter were not necessarily pro-choice, their focus was rather working against an amendment, but they welcomed WRTC’s support (Horgan, 1982, 6; 15). Horgan (1982) also states that a few people who were generally against abortion, were not in favour of introducing an anti-abortion amendment into the Constitution. The Protestant church, and the Jewish community as well as even one Catholic priest were at the time publicly questioning whether there was really a need to establish an amendment, referring also to its sectarian character (6).
9
The Eighth Amendment/Article 40.3.3 passed in a Referendum in 1983 (Bacik, 1992, 10) with a 67% majority (O’Carroll, 2013). As outlined in the introduction, it states:
“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.” (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 220). After it had passed, PLAC campaigners had claimed that pro-life groups would not use the Eighth Amendment to put individuals on trials, but already in 1985, SPUC did so and indicted two organisations for referring pregnant women to Britain for abortions. These organisations had to stop their work in 1986 because of a Supreme Court injunction that followed from SPUC’s initiation. SPUC also acted against Students’ Unions for providing information on addresses of abortion clinics abroad. At the same time Students for Life was set up as well as several groups which advocated for the right to information on abortion. In 1989, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, SPUC demanded that information on abortion could not be handed out by anyone which was confirmed through the Supreme Court. Apart from counselling services, it also had consequences for other institutions and the media. Many magazines had to withdraw ads; TV-programmes were not allowed to have live interviews with student groups anymore, and certain books were removed from libraries (Bacik, 1992, 10-11).
Three years after the Eighth Amendment came into effect, 1986, the Irish abortion rate was equal to the rate of the Netherlands, a country with one of the most liberal abortion laws. This number was calculated through measuring how many women were travelling from Ireland to Britain to have abortions (Henshaw, 1986, 251). According to Porter (1996), annually 5,642 women with an Irish address had abortions in Ireland, but many women would state a British address as disguise, so this has to be considered (289).
In 1992 the so-called ‘X-case’ raised the attention of the Irish public and media on the issue of abortion again. A 14-year-old girl had been raped by a ‘family-friend’ and wanted to travel to Britain to have an abortion. Her parent supported her. The girl’s father asked the local Garda Síochána1 whether foetal tissue could be used as evidence against the rapist. The Garda Síochána then informed the Attorney General, and a High Court decided that the right to life of the foetus had to be prioritised. In the end the Supreme Court, however, decided that X was highly suicidal, and overturned the High Court’s judgement (Dooley, 1992, 2). X though miscarried shortly after the decision had been made (Oaks, 2002, 317). Smyth (1998) sees X as a “powerfully emblematic victim of state power” (67) who has been a “key in the struggle
1 The Garda Síochána is the Irish police force. 10 and negotiation over the meanings of women’s sexuality, motherhood, the nuclear family, and the role of the state.” (67). In Smyth’s (1998) opinion, the X-case showed how the Irish state has control over girls’ and women’s bodies (61). Generally, at the time of the X-case many people criticised that there was no legislation on abortion rules, just the amendment (Fletcher, 2001, 581). The X-case directly caused some changes in abortion legislation (Dooley, 1992, 2). In 1992 (via a Referendum), the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendment came into effect. They granted pregnant women the right to travel abroad to have an abortion and permitted provision of information on abortion in Ireland (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 221). The latter was criticised by some as “giving people the right to do wrong, that is, to act contrary to God’s natural law.” (Porter, 1996, 286). The Twelfth Amendment, proposing to remove the risk of suicidality as a legitimate reason to have an abortion in Ireland, was rejected (House of the Oireachtas, 2017, 32).
In 1992, there were also some issues concerning the connection between the European Union and Ireland’s legislation on abortion. After Ireland had joined the European Economic Community in 1973, the Maastricht Treaty on the European Union was signed in 1992. As Ireland was concerned that the EU could intervene with Ireland’s abortion laws, a treaty protocol was designed that would protect the Irish laws on abortion (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 214), and ensured that people cannot receive recourse for ‘infringement of personal rights’ because of Ireland’s abortion laws (Porter, 1996, 268). The legal status of the protocol is not exactly clear, but most interpret it as not binding (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 214).
The Abortion Information Act of 1995 specified the Amendments of 1992:
“The Act declared that it was lawful to publish or procure information relating to abortion services and providers lawfully available outside Ireland, so long as the information was objective, did not advocate or promote abortion, and set forth all the options for handling an unwanted pregnancy.” (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 221-222) Women had to arrange the appointment themselves which Smyth sees as an effective restriction on activities relating to abortion (Smyth, 1998, 70).
The C-case caused (media-) uproar in 1997, as again a teenage girl had been raped and became pregnant as a result of it. The 13-year-old was placed with foster parents and it was planned that she should travel to Britain to have an abortion, but her parents were against this and were supported by Youth Defence, a ‘radical’ pro-life organisation. This caused some suspicion as at first C’s father had said that he found his daughter too young to have a baby, but then was against a termination of the pregnancy. However, Youth Defence and other organisations
11 denied that they gave the family money in order to change their opinion. In the end, C did travel to England (Oaks, 2002, 318-320). After the abortion had been procured, some pro-life organisations told Oaks (2002) that C was in psychiatric care and tried to attempt suicide. This behaviour was portrayed as ‘normal’ and a logic consequence from these groups. However, according to the Irish Independent, C was in psychiatric care for posttraumatic stress caused by the rape and had said that if the abortion would not have been carried out, she would have committed suicide (320). Since the X-case had just happened a few years before the C-case, one would assume that it would not be as newsworthy as it had been. But since C was member of the Irish Travellers, an “ethnically distinct Irish nomadic minority group” (Oaks, 2002, 318) and came from a poor family with eleven siblings, her case was treated with special attention. In contrast to X, C’s identity was revealed, and it was generally criticised how the media treated the incidents resolving around her. The National Traveller’s Women’s Forum also criticised both pro-choice and pro-life groups of using C for achieving their own agendas (Oaks, 2002, 318-319. After the C-case, polls showed that Irish people were more in favour of allowing abortion in certain situations: When the woman’s life is at risk (35%), in case the woman’s health is at risk (14%), and when a woman needs an abortion for whatever reason (28%) (Kennedy & Kennedy 1997, cited in Oaks, 2002, 321).
One year later, in 1998, the Department of Health and Children started an initiative to bring clarification to the abortion law. Therefore the public was asked to give their suggestions or concerns. It was noted that from the 10,000 submissions most people handing them in, did not had abortions themselves. The Pro-Life-Campaign, a succession of PLAC, submitted a 72 page booklet called ‘The Way Forward’ (Oaks, 2002, 323; 326).
In November 2000, an All-Party Oireachtas2 Committee published a report on statistics of the rising number of women from Ireland going to Britain to have an abortion. In 2001, the then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern stated that there has to be a reduction in crisis pregnancies. The same year a Crisis Pregnancy Agency was set up, with having the main goal to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies through education; but also the tasks of provision of support during the pregnancy and help them after having abortions abroad (Oaks, 2002, 328-329).
2 The Oirechtas is the Republic of Ireland’s parliament and consists of the president (Taoiseach), the first chamber (Dáil Éireann) and the second chamber (Seanad Éireann) (Collins Dictionary, n.d.).
12
In March 2002, there was again an attempt to remove the grounds of suicidality as a reason for an abortion in Ireland which was defeated, but only from a narrow margin (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, 34).
In 2006, a person who had been pregnant with twins of whom one died in the womb, and the other had a foetal anomaly, travelled to Britain to have an abortion. She later brought a case against Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as she was in the opinion that the ban on abortion would violate several of her rights. Ireland argued that she would have been eligible to have the abortion done in Ireland if she had gone through Irish courts and the ECHR agreed with this (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 34). Three people filed another case in 2010 at the ECHR: A, B & C vs. Ireland. These three women all had crisis pregnancies and travelled abroad to have an abortion. The ECHR ruled that Ireland did indeed violate A and B’s rights concerning Article 2 (Right to Life), Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture), Article 8 (Right to Respect for Family and Private Life), Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) and C, who had had cancer and feared that through the pregnancy it could return, concerning Article 8 (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, 34).
On 28-10-2012, when Savita Halappanavar died at University Hospital Galway as a consequence from cardiac arrest caused by sepsis, this was another “episode in Ireland’s (bio-) politics of birth.” (Lentin, 2013, 131). She had been miscarrying and because her amniotic fluids had already broken, bacteria could get into the womb. During the miscarriage, she and her husband repeatedly asked for a termination of pregnancy, but because the foetus still had a heartbeat, this was denied. Her death had, among other aspects, the consequence that a clearer legislation concerning abortion was demanded (Lentin, 2013, 130). The decision in A, B & C had already been somewhat a first step to a turning point, but only after the death of Savita Halappanavar, (inter-)national attention/pressure made a precision in legislation relevant enough (Felzmann, 2014, 194) so that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was introduced in 2013 and came into effect in January 2014. It was made to clarify what are legal grounds for being able to have an abortion in Ireland and to determine the procedures that have to be enacted in these cases (Erdman, 2014, 22). Pro-choice organisations saw the Act still as too limiting, but supported the fact that it was finally making the situation somewhat clearer. However, some pro-life organisations were seeing the Act as a possibility for ‘abortion-on- demand’, but in reality only a few hospitals were allowed to perform abortions and there were heavy penalties for unlawful abortions.
13
The latest individual incident connected to abortion in Ireland that caused a lot of media attention was the case of Miss Y in 2014. She was a refugee, pregnant as a result of rape and had limited knowledge of the English language. She wanted to travel abroad to have an abortion, but was not able to do so because of her immigration status. Following all these complications, she tried to commit suicide which is why originally a termination of pregnancy was allowed. But when Miss Y was in the hospital, waiting for an abortion, and still not receiving it, which then led to her refusing food and water, she got a Caesarean section where a very small baby was born instead of a termination of pregnancy (Erdman, 2014, 27). Fletcher (2014) calls the Caesarean section a “denial of her request to control her reproductive life” (10) and an incident where the life of the foetus was prioritised and the wishes of the pregnant woman were actively ignored (13). She concludes that the decision of the Supreme Court to perform a C-section made clear that the Court valued the life of the foetus as more important than that of the pregnant woman (Fletcher, 2014, 14-15).
In the same year, a guidance for health professionals concerning abortion was published (Erdman, 2014, 27) and in November 2015 the then Taoiseach Enda Kenny announced that there will be a Citizens’ Assembly established that will discuss issues and questions concerning abortion. This Assembly was established in July 2016 (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, 36) and further in-depth information on it, as well as the following steps leading up to the Referendum in May 2018 will be given in the following chapter.
3. The Road to the Referendum
On 25-05-2018, a Referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was held in Ireland where the Irish citizens were asked to vote whether the Eighth Amendment should be repealed and the government would then be able to propose abortion legislation or not. 66.4 % or 1,429,981 of Irish citizens voted ‘Yes’ and 33.6 % or 723,632 voted ‘No’ (McDonald et al 2018a). Ireland-correspondents from The Guardian, Henry McDonald, Emma Graham- Harrison, and Lisa O’Carroll called the amount of yes-voters an “unexpectedly large [number]” and a “triumph for abortion reformers” (2018b). Donegal was the only county where there was a majority for “no” (51.9%); in all other counties a majority voted “yes”. The Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney stressed that the results do not show the – expected by some – division between cities and rural areas, but rather an overall majority. The result for “yes” in the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment was stronger than the result had been in the Referendum on ‘same sex marriage’ in 2015 (60.5% for “yes”). The Referenda have both often been compared in the time leading up to this year’s Referendum. The new legislation on abortion in 14
Ireland will presumably be enacted by the end of the year 2018 (McDonald et al, 2018b) and the discussions on the draft legislation on abortion in the parliament have started on 29-05- 2018. McDonald et al report that “[the] change is not expected to face significant hurdles in parliament, with members who opposed repeal acknowledging the overwhelming nature of the result.” (2018a).
To understand what the Referendum was about and how it was enacted legally, I am giving an overview of the currently still valid legal situation on abortion and the organisational events leading up to the Referendum.
3.1 The Eighth Amendment
As it has been outlined before, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution is the Article 40.3.3 and gives equality to the life of the unborn and the pregnant woman. In practice this is interpreted as a ban on abortion except when the life of the mother is at serious risk (Cook, 2018). Between 2014 and 2016, 77 lawful abortion were performed in Ireland (F. Ryan, 2018). The performance of illegal abortions can be punished with up to 14 years in prison. To avoid the risk of this, ten to twelve women travel to the UK every day to have an abortion (Cook, 2018) or many others who do not have the possibility to do so, order illegal abortion pills online which they then have to take on their own, without medical supervision (F. Ryan, 2018).
As outlined before, in 2013, after several incidents that caused uproar in Ireland and abroad, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 was introduced by the government which finally determined the precise rules for legal abortions in Ireland (F. Ryan 2018). The most important aspects of the Act are the following: If two practitioners confirm that there is a risk of losing the woman’s life because of a physical risk, if no abortion will be performed, then she is allowed to have a legal termination in Ireland. If there is an emergency situation, one medical practitioner can make the decision to permit an abortion, too. If a woman is feeling suicidal because of her pregnancy and therefore needs an abortion, three practitioners (one obstetrician, two psychiatrists (one of them being experienced in mental health issues with pregnant/post- partum women) have to decide whether a termination is lawful or not. In the case that the practitioners deny the abortion or do not state an opinion, there is the possibility that a review panel consisting of ten practitioners (who have to be nominated from the institutes of psychiatrists/obstetricians/ gynaecologists/surgeons/physicians) can be established. Three days after the application for the review panel, a committee has to be formed and they have to make a decision seven days later. The practitioner who cared for the woman has to be heard and
15 provide documents to the committee; the woman can speak to the committee if she wants to (Oireachtas, 2013, 9-13).
In 2014, a branch of the Irish Labour Party, called Labour Women, founded a Commission for Repeal of the Eighth Amendment. The Commission consisted of three subgroups: a political, a medical and a legal expert group (Enright et al, 2015, 1). The framework legislation it developed and published on 25-11-2015 intended to make abortion legal in four circumstances: Risk to life, risk to health, fatal foetal abnormality, and rape. They stressed that their intention behind repealing the Eighth Amendment is to protect women and medical instances providing abortion services, and that the legislation would be, by European standards, still regarded relatively conservative (Irish Labour Party, 2015).
3.2 The Citizens’ Assembly
The Citizens’ Assembly (CA) was established in July 2016, to discuss five different topics, one of them being the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Its purpose was described as “to allow a cross-section of the public to hear presentations from experts and civil society groups and to engage in rational and reasoned discussion, and to then make recommendations to the State on the options available.” (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, D2). Finally, the Citizens’ Assembly had to give its recommendations to the Houses of the Oireachtas who then further debated the issue (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2018).
From 14-10-2016 to 16-12-2016 the Irish public had the possibility to submit recommendations on the topic of abortion to the Citizens’ Assembly. In total 13,075 submissions were received (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, 76-77). The members of the Citizens’ Assembly were the Chairperson and 99 citizens (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, 39) who had been randomly selected with consideration of diverse representation, concerning the range of gender, age, regional spread and social class (The Citizens’ Assembly 2017, 43; The Citizens’ Assembly, 2018). It met five times between November 2016 and April 2017 and heard presentations on the current law, the Eighth Amendment, medical issues, rape and sexual abuse, abortion in other countries, legal issues concerning women and foetuses. In addition, 17 advocacy groups such as Doctors for Life Ireland, Doctors for Choice, The Pro Life Campaign, and the National Women’s Council of Ireland (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, 61-75) were heard.
Within the last meeting, the following recommendations to the Oireachtas were made:
“That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%) 16
That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)” (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, 12) A majority of the Citizens’ Assembly recommended twelve reasons for which abortion should be legal, amongst them being risk to the life of the woman (physical and mental health reasons), risk to the health of the woman, pregnancy as result of rape, fatal foetal abnormality, and socio- economic reasons (The Citizens’ Assembly, 2017, 13). The members also asked for a change of other policy issues such as the improvement of sex education at school, same access to reproductive health care for all women, support for pregnant women, and the consideration of the topic of how funding for abortions in Ireland will be regulated (The Citizens’ Assembly 2017, 38).
3.3 Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
After the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly had been published, an all-party Joint Committee was set up in April 2017 for further debate of the issue. The Joint Committee had to make conclusions and present them to the Houses of the Oireachtas (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, April 4). The Committee consisted of 21 members, Catherine Noone being the chairperson (McQuinn, 2017). The Joint Committee met 15 times between 20-09-2017 and 14-12-2017. All sessions were public. In these meetings, they, for example, met and engaged with the Chairperson of the Citizens’ Assembly, Mary Laffoy, and discussed constitutional issues that would arise from the recommendations the Citizens’ Assembly had made. They also heard keynotes from experts from several hospitals, pregnancy and rape centres and statements by Committee members on the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2017, September 20 to December 14). Finally, the Joint Committee came to several conclusions which were published on 20-12-2017. It has to be noticed that these recommendations were not binding to the government, but TD3 Kate O’Connell indicated that the recommendations have been “very clear” (Bardon, 2017). Summarised, the Joint Committee recommended that Article 40.3.3 will be ‘repealed simpliciter’, which means that it would be removed from the Constitution without any replacing amendment text. It sees the current regime for abortion as unfit and suggests that a constitutional reform in this matter is needed (Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, 2017, 5-6).
Some of the most important recommendations are the following:
3 TD is an abbreviation for Teachta Dála, which means Member of Parliament. 17
Termination of pregnancy as lawful when life of the woman is at risk (no distinction between mental and physical health), Provision of gestational limits should be guided by medical evidence, There should not be a special legislation for rape as this would force the victims to officially report and prove the rape. Instead the Committee recommends to allow all terminations up to twelve weeks without a gestational limit, In cases where foetal abnormality is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth: termination without gestational limit, Ancillary recommendations include improvement of sexual health and relationship education; improved access to reproductive health and the same standard of it for all women; improvements in counselling and support for women during pregnancy and after abortions; introduction of free distribution of contraception (Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, 2017, 8-9; 12-14). 3.4 Final Steps Leading to the Referendum
On 10-01-2018 and 11-01-2018, the Cabinet started to discuss the Joint Committee’s report on the Eighth Amendment (RTÉ, 2018a). The Minister for Health Simon Harris laid out that he and his officials will make a draft for a legislation on abortion where termination of pregnancy would be allowed until 12 weeks gestation. This legislation could only be enacted through a Referendum (Leahy & Bardon & Kelly, 2018). In compliance with the Attorney General it was decided to do this, rather than a ‘repeal simpliciter’ of the Eighth Amendment as otherwise there would still be options to restrict the Oireachtas to legislate on the issue of abortion (Department of Health, 2018, 1). On 29-01-2018, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced the formal decision of the Parliament to hold a Referendum on the Eighth Amendment at the end of May. He also formally announced that if the majority voted to do so, Article 40.3.3 would be replaced with a provision that would enable the Oireachtas to make a legislation for abortion (de Londras & Enright, 2018, 1). The Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Simon Coveney stressed that the government had a mainly united stance on the issue that there must be a change in the legislation on abortion, although there were some differing views within the government party, Fine Gael, and the main oppositional party, Fianna Fáil (McDonald, 2018a). The latter’s leader stated to be supporting the repeal side, but stressed that all parties’ members will be voting on the freedom of conscience (McDonald, 2018b). The cabinet agreed on the wording of the abortion Referendum bill on 08-03-2018: Voters would have to answer whether they want to repeal the article 40.3.3 and introduce legislation that will allow unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks gestation. A day before that decision, a Supreme Court had finalised that a Referendum could take place, since it overturned a judgement made earlier by the High
18
Court which stated that the “unborn had constitutional rights beyond the right to life enshrined in the eighth amendment.” (McDonald & Sherwood, 2018).
The proposal on abortion legislation in case of repeal of the Eighth Amendment, the ‘Policy Paper Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy’, was also published on 08-03-21018.4 It suggested that abortion will be unrestricted up to 12 weeks and possible for three specific reasons up to potential viability of the foetus outside the womb: risk to life/health of the pregnant woman or a fatal foetal abnormality where the foetus will not survive until the birth or shortly after. In these cases two doctors will have to consider whether a termination of pregnancy will be procured or not. After the foetus has reached viability abortion will not be allowed at all. After the abortion would be assessed by a medical practitioner a certain time period would have to pass until the termination of pregnancy will be carried out (Irish Government, 2018).
On 28-03-2018 the Seanad Éireann voted to allow the Referendum and so the Referendum date was appointed to 25-05-2018 (McDonald 2018c).
4. Supporting Life, Supporting Choice: A contested dichotomy
Within abortion debates there are many points of view, but over the years two movements have come to give distinction to it; naming themselves ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’. In this chapter, the history of both movements, their most relevant attitudes and features will be introduced in order to create the possibility to understand the analysis of the campaigns within its fuller context. The abortion debate could be seen as being about more than ‘just’ abortion. How is reproduction governed by different persons? What does reproduction mean? Who gets to decide how reproduction takes place (Ginsburg, 1987, 623)? Generally said, the pro-life and pro- choice movements can be seen as strategies or views on abortion (Andre, 1986, 223). Suzanne Staggenborg and Marie B. Skoczylas (2017) see both as forming a countermovement dynamic that is shaping the abortion debate (5). Each movement has a very “particular understanding of reproduction” (Ginsburg, 1987, 624) and is fighting for a transformation of the cultural and social meaning of abortion (Ginsburg, 1987, 626). Pro-choice and pro-life are “creating new collective narrative forms for interpreting female life-cycle transitions.” (Ginsburg, 1987, 623) and show that reproduction is always interpreted and given meaning (Ginsburg, 1987, 633). It
4 Online here: https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March- 2018.pdf. 19 is also important to notice that how abortion is viewed and discussed is heavily dependent on the surrounding circumstances (Ginsburg & Rapp, 1991, 316).
In order to understand how pro-life and pro-choice emerged, a very brief history of abortion in the US – where both movements have their roots – is needed.
Generally said, the views on women who have had abortions at the end of the nineteenth century in the US and in Europe were quite different from each other. In Europe, abortion was often interpreted as a ‘desperate last step’, but in the US an abortion was seen as a sign for marking a frivolous, and promiscuous woman (Peterson, 2012). This is a reason why the pro-life and pro-choice movements have their strong roots in the US and then later only spread partly to Europe. By 1900, every state in the US had banned abortion except in cases when the woman’s life was at risk. Even though it was officially illegal, abortion was still available, especially for wealthy women, as family doctors then would have the power to decide whether an abortion could be done or not and would often sympathise; additionally illegal operators were tolerated to a certain extent. This changed in 1939 when ‘therapeutic abortion committees’ were established who from then on decided who was allowed to have an abortion and who was not. At this point the number of unsafe terminations of pregnancy rose and more women died. This was one of the main reasons why in the late 1950s/early 1960s some doctors and lawyers started to call for change in abortion legislation: to save women’s lives, and decrease the risks of abortion. Two incidents related to the drug thalidomide (sold, for example, under the name ‘Contergan’) and to an epidemic of rubella measles which both can cause foetal deformities, further had an important impact on the reform on the abortion legislation. When demands for a reform in abortion legislation started, it was mainly physicians, attorneys and politicians who advocated for a change. However, that shifted after the Roe vs. Wade case that ultimately lead to legalisation of abortion in 1973. The case had its origin in 1969 when two lawyers found a woman who signed as an anonymous plaintiff to file a federal class-action lawsuit against the district attorney of Dallas. It claimed that the ban of abortion was unconstitutional because of the right to privacy. The court agreed and legalised unrestricted abortion in the first three months of pregnancy; and limited abortion in the case of the risk of health of the woman in the other months. Roe vs. Wade and its consequential decisions can be seen as the beginning of grassroots social movements on both pro-life and pro-choice sides (Munson, 2002, 83).
4.1 Pro-Life History
The term ‘pro-life’ was originally introduced by A.S. Neill in 1960 in the book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing. There it meant being against issues as the death penalty, and 20 punishments of homosexuality. The anti-abortion movements transferred the term to their use and started using it in the late 1960s. The usage of ‘pro-life’ meaning ‘anti-abortion’ could be seen as a “marketing masterstroke” (Merelli, 2017) as since then the word ‘life’ has been connected to these organisations and activists who oppose abortion. Merelli (2017) argues that the term has been as successful as it is because ‘pro-life’ seems to mean standing up for life and not working against something such as the woman’s choice (although in reality it is criticised that it has, among others, this effect). In the development of the pro-life organisations and their ideas, the Catholic Church played an important role in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, the Family Life Division of the National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), that had originally worked against the legalised provision of contraception, started to focus on working against efforts to liberalise abortion through lobbying, public education campaigns and supporting appearing grassroots organisations. One of these organisations was the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), one of the first pro-life organisations. It was founded in 1968 and was “key to the grassroots mobilization that occurred after the Supreme Court decisions in 1973.” (Munson, 2002, 82-83). Most early activism after 1973 was carried out by Catholic people, and some scholars even see the Catholic Church as the creator of the pro-life movement. But when the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was founded, which was similar to the NCCB, it consciously distanced itself from the Catholic Church as it did not think that a Catholic movement could get much support from people outside of the religion (Munson, 2002, 85-86). In the 1970s, a small movement of ‘pro-life-feminists’ emerged; the group Feminists for Life (FFL) that was founded in 1973 in Ohio (Ziegler, 2013, 237). Many pro-life movements also tried to fight against the 1973 legalisation through bringing the abortion issue to Congress and demanding a constitutional or at least a federal ban on abortion. In 1976, the pro-life movement expanded when it achieved that a ban of federal funding of abortions was announced (Staggenborg & Skoczylas, 2017, 4-5). As there is a certain tradition of the USA having influence on other countries’ politics and policies, it was the same with the Roe vs. Wade case and its consequences. As it has been discussed before, also the efforts to implement the Eighth Amendment were inspired by Roe vs. Wade (Elster, 2016). Therefore, the development of the pro-life movements in Ireland can be seen as noticeably connected to the historic events leading to the establishment of these groups in the US.
4.2 Pro-Choice History
In the 1960s, most feminists had similar views on birth control, women’s sexual freedom, and abortion. Their focus lay on empowering women to make autonomous decisions on their body
21 and their reproduction. The movement was supported by some national organisations such as National Organization for Women or the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), but these were not very strong associations which therefore needed the support of grassroots groups. Some religious groups, as, for example, the Clergy Consultation Service which consisted of nuns, priests, ministers, and rabbis, were also part of the pro-choice movement (Staggenborg & Skoczylas, 2017, 3-4). Before 1973, the movement referred to itself as ‘abortion movement’ (Straggeborg & Skoczylas, 2017, 3) or being ‘pro-abortion’. This changed; one reason for that being that it became clear that there were some countries in which women were forced to have abortions in order to not deliver female babies (Gupta, 2014, 87). The term ‘pro-choice’ was also developed to counter the ‘pro-life’ phrase and was introduced mainly by Jimmye Kimmey who was then the director of the Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA) (Merelli, 2017). After the Roe vs. Wade case, the movement grew stronger, and even though the judgement had been a huge win for the pro-choice side, it wanted to assure that the right to abortion stayed. Also in that time, a professionalization happened; lobbying, and support on the national level are examples of this. Networks like the Reproductive Rights National Network (R2N2) were formed to connect abortion rights groups with each other (Staggenborg & Skoczylas, 2017, 4-5). After the pro-life movement had managed to achieve the Hyde Amendment which banned the federal funding of abortions, the pro-choice movement expanded and many local pro-choice groups were formed, but were not professionalised/well organised enough to exist for a longer period of time. NARAL did manage to formalise itself and was therefore able to develop a professional leadership and organise grassroots actions. The election of Bill Clinton, who had a pro-choice-stance, in 1992, also helped the pro-choice movement staying established (Staggenborg, 1995).
4.3 Pro-Life Argumentation
In the course of this research project, during the analysis of prevailing discourses of abortion and naturally during the analysis of the Irish campaigns’ Tweets, arguments of pro-life and pro- choice movements will become clear, but for better context, the most common argumentation of both sides are very briefly outlined:
The foetus is a baby/child and therefore abortion is seen as murder; To prohibit abortion is to protect women (from the abortion industry and abortions’ consequences); Abortion negates the father’s rights; Abortion is against Christianity; Abortion is devaluing to ‘motherhood’;
22
Minorities are targeted by abortion (Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards & Rucht, 2002, 109-110). As mentioned before, there is also a branch of activists who call themselves ‘pro-life-feminists’. They want to fight for equality for women without legal access to abortion and are of the opinion that abortion harms women instead of protecting them (Ziegler, 2013, 233). One of their main line of reasoning is that abortion is a way for men to sexually exploit women without having to bear any consequences such as child support (Ziegler, 2013, 238). They play a minor, but important part in the pro-life movement (Ziegler, 2013, 268).
4.4 Critique on Pro-Life
Obviously pro-life organisations and the movement are often criticised by pro-choice groups and activists. However, there are also some arguments coming from scholars that could be seen as relatively objective. Harry C. Meserve (1983) argues that the pro-life movement should rather be called ‘anti-birth-control’ or go back to their original name ‘anti-abortion’ as he is of the opinion that it does not take responsibility for the consequences of its policies. Additionally, he sees the ‘pro-life’ movement as inconsistent as it only confronts issues of abortion and not issues of malnourishment, worldwide diseases, or conversation of natural resources. He criticises that the movement should make clearer what it really is fighting for and why it is using “sexual repression and childbirth as a kind of punishment for carelessness or ignorance” (3-5).
Sara L. Crawley, Rebecca K. Willman, Leisa Clark and Clare Walsh (2009) criticise that pro- life activists often use arguments that seem to be scientifically neutral, but are in fact not (229). According to them, pro-life activists often engage in
“fear tactics and threats of guilt, God’s judgement to convince “mothers” (and, less often, the male parent) of their selfish, murderous acts – often coupled with displays of bloody baby parts juxtaposed with pictures of the Holocaust, slavery, and war (…).” (Crawley et al, 2009, 229- 230). 4.5 Pro-Choice Argumentation
Within the pro-choice movement the following arguments are prevailing:
The foetus has no moral status and therefore it is not murder to abort it. Rather it is seen as ‘potential life’, while the woman is viewed as ‘life’ which in this point of view she should be prioritised (Jones & Chaloner, 45-47); Rape, incest and sexual abuse justify abortion; If the woman is not able to raise a child, she should not be forced to do so; Women have the right to self-determination; Abortion is a private matter/decision; Not all people follow the views of religions; Illegal abortion is dangerous; 23
Abortion is healthcare (Ferree et al, 2002, 109-110). 4.6 Critique on Pro-Choice
Crawley et al (2009) criticise the pro-choice movement for their usage of the concept of ‘choice’ as they argue that it might be useful for legal argumentation but is not representative of the reality that leads women to having unwanted pregnancies. They state: “Abortion is not merely a “choice”, but a personal decision opted for in response to particular social conditions.” (231). Citing Fox and Murphy, Porter (1996) also adds that speaking of ‘reproductive choice’, ‘autonomy’, and ‘equality’ is not reflective of the daily lives of women who are facing a situation in which they have to decide whether they are going to have an abortion or not (293). Smith (2005) is also of the opinion that the pro-choice movement promotes a very individualist idea of ‘choice’ and that not all conditions (social, political, etc.) are considered which have an influence on a woman whether she is able to even make a ‘choice’. She refers to a 1960 study from Planned Parenthood which showed that poor/working-class families are less able to do family planning and that the concept of ‘choice’ therefore requires the possession of resources and creates a hierarchy within society of who is privileged enough to make a choice. In this hierarchy, women of colour, disabled and poor women are especially marginalised (127-128). Additionally, Smith refers to Betsy Hartmann who has argued that contraceptives are an issue of choice for white women, but portray an issue of population control for black women. Another point she makes is that pro-choice groups would often decide too quickly who they see as their ‘enemy’ and who as their ‘friend’ which would lead to collaborations with people who may agree with them concerning abortion, but have problematic stances on other issues (131-133)
4.7 General Critique on the Binary Oppositions
Generally there has been some critique on the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice dynamic. Porter (1996) argues that instead of being opposed to each other, common territory should be searched as both movements advocate for similar goals, such as good parenting, responsible sex and communities that take care of each other (291). She sees abortion as an issue with such a significance for relationships between the state, society and the family that she believes that arguments of rights from both sides will not be sufficient enough in situations where women have to make such decisions (280-281). Crawley et al (2009) support this view and conclude that economic and social conditions that are actually leading to unwanted pregnancies should rather be discussed than the issue whether one is ‘for’ or ‘against’ abortions (229). Ginsburg and Rapp (1991) make a connection between abortion and aspects of global forms of power. In their opinion, the ‘politics of reproduction’ are shaped by institutions and other powerful factors 24
(313-314) and can therefore not be reduced to two positions of pro-life and pro-choice. Rather it is a more complex topic where “the social movements organized around abortion provide arenas for innovation where cultural and social definitions of gender are in the process of material and semiotic reorganization.” (Ginsburg, 1987, 624). Smith (2005) also stresses the importance of overcoming the pro-life-choice dichotomy and “understanding the politics around reproductive justice.” (120). She brings forward the argument that in both campaigns certain women are being marginalised through making similar assumptions about them and that they both “reify and mask the structures of white supremacy and capitalism that undergird the reproductive choices that women make.” (Smith, 2005, 119) and support positions through which gender and racial hierarchies are established and reinforced. Furthermore, she criticises that the simplistic oppositions of pro-choice being progressive and pro-life being conservative do not do justice to the complexity of positions on abortion (Smith, 2005, 133-134). Boss (1993) is of the opinion that the pro-choice and pro-life dichotomy can be seen as ‘an exercise in doublethink’. Doublethink means having and accepting two contradictory beliefs at the same time. How can one be pro-child and pro-choice at the same time? In Boss’ point of view this would be a possibility to dissent with those who are in power and introduce a new perspective for looking at the abortion issue (85).
4.8 Introducing LoveBoth and Together for Yes
In this short section, both campaigns will be briefly introduced to have an understanding of their respective backgrounds, goals and attitudes, and beliefs on abortion, when reading the in- depth analysis of the campaigns.
4.8.1 The Campaign LoveBoth LoveBoth describes itself as “nationwide campaign for a NO vote” (Twitter LoveBoth, 2018) that “promotes the protection of mother and baby in pregnancy” (Website LoveBoth, 2018). It sees itself as a grassroots campaign. The campaign ‘#LoveBothVoteNO’ launched officially on 18-04-2018 (Wylie, 2018); while its Twitter page has been existing since 08-10-2016. On Twitter its name was @loveboth8 during the time of the Referendum and later, but it changed it to @lovebothireland in August. On the day of the Referendum (25-05-2018), LoveBoth had 4036 followers (Twitter LoveBoth, 25-05-2018). LoveBoth is an association of the following groups: The Pro Life Campaign, Students for Life, Women Hurt by Abortion, and One Day More (Website LoveBoth, 2018).
LoveBoth wanted the Irish people to vote “No” in the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment because it sees it as something many people in Ireland owe their life to, as it is in its opinion, 25 protecting pregnant women and babies. Ireland is described as being one of the safest countries for pregnant women and unborn life with a “world class” (Website LoveBoth, 2018) healthcare system. The proposal the government developed is seen as dangerous and damaging and in their opinion the information given on the consequences of the potential removal of the Eighth Amendment is not accurate. LoveBoth is also in the opinion that the mainstream media is strongly biased. On its webpage, LoveBoth promises to make four different commitments: 1. To check sources precisely before releasing any information to the public; 2. To call out media propaganda; 3. To only accept donations from Irish citizens and people living in Ireland; and 4. To be “fearless in working towards a more welcoming society for mothers and babies” (Website LoveBoth, 2018). LoveBoth stresses the commitment made regarding funding, as they understand that the decision made in Ireland will have impact on the “abortion industry” abroad (Website LoveBoth, 2018).
It also provided a list of “8 Reasons to Vote No”. These will become clearer in the in-depth analysis of their campaigning, but will be mentioned here for a good short overview on the campaign itself.
1. “A baby’s heartbeat starts at 22 days” 2. “Without the 8th Amendment we face abortion on demand” 3. “The 8th Amendment saves lives” 4. “90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome in Britain are aborted” 5. “Abortion causes psychological harm” 6. “A Better vision for Ireland” 7. “Don’t hand politicians a blank cheque” 8. “Ireland is a world leader in care for pregnant women” (Website LoveBoth, 2018) LoveBoth has been criticised for an app which the company Political Social Media LLC has developed for them. Users of the app had to agree that their data might be shared by Political Social Media LLC to groups the company thinks has similar beliefs as the users. This seems to apparently not have been limited to Irish pro-choice groups though, but LoveBoth has one day before the Referendum been accused that the Irish users’ data was shared with several international right-wing groups such as the US National Rifle Association (NRA) or different Brexit groups (Lillington, 2018).
4.8.2 The Campaign Together for Yes Together for Yes is, according to itself, “the national civil society campaign to remove the Eighth Amendment“ (Website Together for Yes, 2018). It is an umbrella group and consists of more than 70 organisations, groups and communities. The co-leading groups are the following: Women’s Council, the Coalition To Repeal The 8th Amendment, and Abortion Rights
26
Campaign. The Irish Family Planning Association is also part of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee consists of three Co-directors and five further members, who are lawyers, teachers, political scientists, and people with history in NGO work and from marketing, literature scientists, and so on. On its website, Together for Yes provides a list with all the organisations and groups involved in the Together for yes campaign (Website Together for Yes, 2018). The official launch of the campaign was 22-03-2018. Its Twitter account is called @Together4yes and had 24,5k followers on 25-05-2018, the day of the Referendum (Twitter Together for Yes, 2018).
Together for Yes considers itself to be a grassroots movement and as representative for a diverse Irish society with people who see Ireland as a “compassionate country which needs laws that reflect the reality of people’s lives” (Website Together for Yes, 2018). Its goal is that the people of Ireland vote ‘Yes’ and that therefore the Referendum can be repealed, as Together for Yes wants to respect, support and protect all women in difficult situations. It stresses that it understands that there are very diverse opinions on the topic of abortion, but at the same time makes clear that in its opinion, the Referendum is an important opportunity to create the mentioned ‘compassionate country’ for those who are in need of an abortion (Website Together for Yes, 2018). On its website, Together for Yes has a statement of a transparent donation system and a section where frequently asked questions regarding funding and donation are answered. It also provides a section where several medical professionals tell in short videos of why they will be voting to repeal the Eighth Amendment (Website Together for Yes, 2018).
The campaign naturally has received some criticism, coming especially from pro-life organisations. Dr Ruth Cullen, spokesperson of the Pro Life Campaign criticised Together for Yes for its decision to launch its campaign at the Rotunda Hospital, a hospital with a big maternity ward. She said: “In my view, it is a crass and insensitive move to launch a campaign in support of ending human life, next to a maternity hospital where mothers and babies are being cared for” (Gleeson, 2018). The hospital distanced itself from the campaign, stressing that it does not support a certain political stance (Gleeson, 2018). The campaign has also been the victim of a cyber-attack in May when its crowdfunding website was shut down for 30 minutes (Breaking News, 2018).
5. Previous Discourses of Abortion
In this part of the research project, an analysis of common discourses on abortion and how they are gendered I want to present. Through reading secondary literature focussing on abortion in
27 general and also on discourses of abortion, such as Smyth (1998), Jane Wambui Njagi (2013), Anne-Mari Mustonen, Tommi Paakkonen, Esko Ryökäs and Petteri Nieminen (2017), Rahul Sambaraju, Myles Sammon, Frank Harnett and Emma Douglas (2018), and Sarah-Jane Page and Pam Lowe (2018), just to name a few, the most common discourses were derived. In total I have extinguished sixteen prevailing discourses which I will present and analyse in an order that shows, among other aspects, the interdiscursive relationships and connections of these discourses.
5.1 The Foetus
This discourse contains utterances and arguments that focus on the foetus. It might be important to notice at this point that scientifically it is distinguished between the ‘zygote’, a diploid cell for the first two weeks of pregnancy; the ‘embryo’ from the third to the eighth week of pregnancy; and the ‘foetus’ from the ninth week of pregnancy up to birth (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.), but that the term ‘foetus’ in discourses on abortion seems to be used interchangeably. Pro-choice arguments within this discourse focus on claiming that the foetus is not fully human with stressing that science uses the term ‘foetus’. From this point of view, the woman should rather be supported in being able to help protect the foetus than to protect the foetus on its own as an individual. In contrast to that, pro-life supporters often use the terms ‘unborn’, ‘baby’ or ‘child’ to refer to the foetus and see abortion as murder (Ferree et al, 2002, 110). From a pro- life perspective, the foetus is often seen as a sacred human/foetal life to whom foetal personhood is ascribed which is also a reason for why pro-life posters often contain pictures of human foetuses (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 181). Due to the apparent status of personhood, it is argued that foetal life is a public interest (Fletcher, 2001, 578) and that pro-life activists are acting on behalf of the foetus (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 183). In Ireland, foetal life has been constructed to such an extent that it is so fundamental that it seems that it is necessary that the foetus is protected by the constitution (Fletcher, 2001, 578).
5.2 Opposition: The Foetus vs. the Woman
Often within abortion debates, the woman and the foetus are portrayed as an opposition where the rights of the foetus and the rights of the woman collide in a dilemma-situation (Mustonen et al, 2017, 6; Oaks, 2002, 316). Pro-choice activists usually argue that the woman takes priority before a certain time in pregnancy, and the pro-life position sees the foetus as needing to be prioritised (Ferree et al, 2017, 110). Arguments that support an anti-abortion stance stress the image that the woman is a threat to the foetus and that the foetus is a vulnerable, helpless life which needs to be protected from the woman (Smyth, 1998, 70). Berer (2017) describes the 28 foetus as being ‘glorified to have more value than the woman’ (15). It is stressed by Wambui Njagi (2013) that the separation of woman and foetuses, particularly, the photos of small foetuses without the pregnant woman on posters, support the impression that women are unconcerned about the foetus in their womb (181). Lowe and Page (2018) argue that “[in] this framing, pregnant women are reduced to being a foetal environment, an incubator whose life needs no significant consideration.” (12). Rodríguez-Ruiz (2016) sees the isolation of woman and foetus and accordingly, the presentation of them as potential enemies, as a ‘confrontational discourse’ which is counterfactual and male-biased (711). Relating to the concept of the ‘homo sacer’ (describing someone who is not worthy of life) by philosopher Giorgio Agamben, Lentin (2013) developed the concept of the ‘femina sacra’. In her point of view, Savita Halappanavar, the Indian migrant who died in 2012 from sepsis in Galway University Hospital because her pregnancy was not terminated, was made a ‘femina sacra’; “she was ‘made die’ in order to ‘make live’ her unborn foetus (…)” (Lentin, 2013, 134-135) which even though that did not work, shows whose value was apparently seen as more worth in that moment.
5.3 Women’s Right to Choose/Autonomy
Often, the debate on abortion is also centred on the discourse whether abortion is a ‘choice’ that a woman is allowed/has to make or not. From a pro-choice perspective, the choice to have or not to have an abortion would implicate autonomy and agency, and that women are allowed and supposed to shape their own lives (Sambaraju et al, 2013, 263-264). Following this line of thought, abortion would be considered a part of women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy and the legislation on it could be seen as a “vehicle for an attempt to maintain and reinforce the hegemony of a conservative patriarchy (…)” (Smyth, 1998, 65). Less restriction on abortion legislation would reflect respect for women to be able to control their own body, reinforce their self-determination and limit oppression of women (Ferree et al, 2017 107; 110).
Pro-life activists argue with the regulation of abortion, and therefore taking autonomy from the woman, women need to be protected from the abortion industry, and from being coerced into having an abortion (Ferree et al, 2013, 110). This part of the discourse, campaigning on abortion being harmful to women has been relatively new, coming up especially at the beginning of the 21st century. Some scholars have argued that this happened because the tactics focussing on the foetus were not successful enough (Lowe & Page, 2018, 4). Pro-life groups often also claim that the ‘right to choose’ would devalue the aspect of motherhood and would be discriminating against the father’s rights (Ferree et al, 2013, 110). Furthermore, pro-life organisations have stated that they are offering women, what they consider to be a ‘real choice’ – the choice
29 between giving the baby up for adoption and keeping the baby (Lowe & Page, 2018, 9). From an anti-abortion perspective, the woman is supposed to sacrifice herself (and her apparent rights) for the foetus; a notion “used to police women’s bodies and behaviour” (Lowe & Page, 2018, 2) which also stands in close connection to the discourse of ‘motherhood’.
5.4 Motherhood
The discourse of motherhood plays another important role within the debates on abortion; judging from secondary literature, it could probably be even argued that it is one of the most important/prevailing ones. The decision to have an abortion is often interpreted from the pro- life side to be a rejection of motherhood and its ‘naturally’ corresponding values (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 188). However, both sides work on constructing women as a certain type of person: They are either portrayed as being ‘naturally’ connected to pregnancy/motherhood or as independent agents, but it seems to be quite impossible to be a connected mother and an independent woman at the same time (Sambaraju et al, 2018, 273). Rodríguez-Ruiz (2016) calls these discourses “non-negotiable” (701), since they “(…) rely on the worth of unborn life and women’s natural destiny to care for it, which articulates the state’s duty to protect the former and enforce the latter even against women’s (‘unnatural’, ‘irresponsible’ and ‘misguided’) resistance” (701). Abortion is being seen as a threat to ‘traditional (family) values’, and as Wambui Njagi (2013) formulates: “(…) a variety of battles over abortion are aspects of a larger struggle to reclaim what are seen as traditional values.” (191).
Ireland, additionally, has a long history of marking ‘good’ (married) and ‘bad’ (unmarried) mothers, which can be grasped through the former existence of the Magdalene Laundries (which have been described in more detail in the literature review), where ‘fallen women’, among them pregnant women out of wedlock, were sent between 1922 and 1996 (Lentin, 2013, 131-133). The discourse of motherhood can also be connected to religion, as the woman is idealised and seen as a sacrificing mother like the Virgin Mary who became pregnant unplanned and decided to carry the foetus to term (Lowe & Page, 2018, 9). However, as religious people are aware of the fact that they also have to reach non-religious women in order to be successful in spreading an anti-abortion stance, they focus on the aspect of ‘natural’ motherhood. An abortion would show that a woman has failed ‘her role’ of being a mother; of being a woman (Lowe & Page, 2018, 2-3). Furthermore, pro-life groups argue that a woman would not actually choose to have an abortion, but is rather often coerced to do so (by partners, family, or an ‘abortion culture’). This argument is used to implicate that the woman would not decline the ‘natural’ role of being a mother voluntarily (Lowe & Page, 2018, 5; 8). It can be summarised
30 that within this discourse there is a clear connectedness between being a woman and a mother. In these discursive argumentation, the notion that womanhood can only be ‘realised’ through accepting motherhood, is very dominating. However, it must be noted that some religious circles do not condone this equalising woman = mother (Lowe & Page, 2018, 12-13).
Furthermore, to only ‘allow’ a desperate woman who is not expected to be a good mother to have an abortion, is a combination of the discourse of motherhood and the following discourse of being worthy enough to have an abortion (Lowe & Page, 2018, 4). Additionally, another argument from pro-life organisations concerning the rape/sexual assault of a woman, is that the woman’s natural role to be a mother is not her ‘choice’, but predestined from nature and that she should therefore not be allowed to have an abortion in these circumstances either (Lowe & Page, 2018, 7).
5.5 Being Worthy of Having an Abortion
Abortion debates are often also affected by discourses on who is worthy of having an abortion (Smyth, 1998, 66). Often victims of rape or sexual assault are seen as the only ‘legitimate’ victims and therefore of being ‘allowed’ to have an abortion. This applies especially to young and poor girls/women. In this discourse it is often portrayed as if these girls/women are needy, powerless, and vulnerable and, therefore, deserve sympathy. Abortion is constructed as something that is not wanted by these persons, but as a solution to support a girl/woman in a situation that has not been caused by her, but by external factors (Wambui Njagi, 2014, 214). In Ireland this was especially the case with ‘Miss X’ and ‘Miss C’ (1997). Miss X was positioned as the daughter of a family who became a victim of a trusted family friend. Smyth (1998) argues that in her case, Miss X was not seen as an autonomous individual, but instead the family as a unit was constructed as the victim of the rape: “To recognize her as a gendered subject (…) would be to acknowledge her as a sexualized subject, which introduces too much ambiguity into the desexualized discourse of family.” (68). In contrast, Miss C who, as it has been mentioned before, is part of the Irish Traveller’s Community, was positioned as the victim of her poor, violent, and patriarchal family. Pro-life organisations used her case to advocate the conservative stance that the Traveller’s Community often has towards abortion, and pro-choice groups tried to promote the right to abortion as well through using her family’s condition and status (Oaks, 2002, 319).
31
5.6 Social Justice
Another prevailing discourse of abortion that is very connected to the discourse of whether someone is worthy of having an abortion or not, is the discourse of social justice. Is the legislation on abortion affecting all women the same? Does it discriminate against certain women (Ferree et al, 2017, 106)? Some pro-life groups bring forward the argument that abortion would portray an “inappropriate targeting of minorities” (Ferree et al, 2017, 108). Smith (2005) also argues that certain women (for example, women of colour, disabled, and poor women) are being marginalised, but not only from the pro-choice groups, but from both sides and within the discourses on abortion in general (119). According to Gilmartin and White (2011), focussing on discourses on abortion in Ireland, pregnant non-Irish/non-EU women have more difficulties to be able to travel to Britain to have an abortion there because of their migrant status or visa issues. They, therefore, conclude that it is an important issue “how mobility rights for pregnant women in Ireland are contingent on nationality, class, and race.” (278). Another essential part in the discourses of social justice are the cases of Indian migrant Savita Halappanavar (2012), and the refugee Ms Y. They both show that the women, both non-Irish and non-EU citizens, seemed to have been treated extraordinarily against their own wishes and Lentin (2013) argues that their statuses as foreign women in Ireland “requires theorising the Republic of Ireland as a gendered racial state.” (130).
5.7 Religion
The discourse of religion plays another important role in the debate on abortion. Wambugi Njagi (2013) argues that in Kenya the religious discourse on abortion is, among the discourse of foetal life, the most common one (170-171). In the case of Savita Halappanavar, that she was told “Ireland is a Catholic country” (Lentin, 2013, 130), as she was asking for a termination of her pregnancy, shows that religious/Catholic belief is a prevailing part of the discourses on abortion. Additionally, Oaks (2002) argues that the ideals of sexual and social morality in Ireland are Catholic-based and Lentin (2013) calls Ireland a “post-Catholic patriarchy” (130) which shows how relevant religious discourses on abortion are. As it has been mentioned in the discourse of motherhood, even though anti-abortion activists are often religious, they are aware that it is necessary to also convince a non-religious audience which means that they often transport their (religious) views and message in a secular way (Lowe & Page, 2018, 2). Religious discourses stress several beliefs, especially that abortion is deemed murder of unborn children and that abortion is immoral. Additionally, it is seen as dangerous to women, and in
32 the context of Ireland would be considered un-Irish, an aspect analysed more in-depth later in this chapter (Wambugi Njagi, 2013, 162).
5.8 Feminism
The discourse of feminism reflects the importance of it within discussions on abortion. The Women’s Right to Choose Campaign (WRTC) – before the Referendum on enacting the Eighth Amendment had actually found place – felt that the term ‘feminism’ would stop people from supporting their campaign as they did not want to be associated with it (Horgan, 1982, 6). Also Smyth (1998) argues that pro-life organisations used ‘feminism’ to discredit pro-choice groups and portrayed it as an “alien army, colonizing Ireland.” (70). It was constructed as ‘the enemy’ and “often reflected the language used in relation to terrorism and sectarianism in Northern Ireland.” (Smyth, 1998, 70). Abortion has been an issue that seemed to unite feminists (28), but especially in the 1990s there had been some change, as the question came up whether women are really able to even control their own bodies in a patriarchal society (Duvnjak, 2012, 28-29). Additionally, there are some people who describe themselves as ‘pro-life-feminists’ or ‘anti-abortion-feminists’. In line with the rise of pro-choice and pro-life organisations, these pro-life-feminists are of the opinion that there can be equality for women without the legal access to abortion, as abortion would harm women and they, therefore, see the protection of women from abortion as one of their main goals. They argue that abortion would be an excuse for men to sexually exploit women without having to bear any consequences, such as paying child support (Ziegler, 2013, 233-238). These pro-life feminists play a small, but important part in the pro-life movement (Ziegler, 2013, 268) and are therefore worth mentioning in connection with the feminist discourse on abortion.
5.9 ‘Irishness’
Lentin (2013) argues “that abortion is central to the construction of contemporary Irish identities.” (130). Smyth (1998), naming her research ‘Narratives of Irishness and the Problem of Abortion’, also is of the opinion that many arguments within the abortion debate are centred on national identity (61). According to her, the discourse on ‘Irishness’ contributes to deciding who ‘the people’ are – an “‘imagined community’ of the nation (…) which had expressed its opinion on the abortion issue in 1983 by popular ratification of the ‘pro-life’ constitutional amendment.” (71). Therefore, ‘Irishness’ is being constructed as having a pro-life position (Fletcher, 2001, 568). Smyth (1998) also argues that the abortion debate constructs women’s roles in Ireland as physical reproducers of national identity and the nation (78). In her research on abortion discourses in Kenya, Wambui Njagi (2013) also concludes that abortion is seen as 33
‘unAfrican’, therefore as not belonging to the state (170). This point of view could also be transferred to some other countries, Ireland being one of them. This pattern of abortion not being Irish, of coming from somewhere else can also be found in the following two prevailing discourses on abortion.
5.10 Morality of the State
As just mentioned, Wambui Njagi (2013) observes that abortion is being experienced as a threat to the morality of a country where abortion is not legal (190). Ferree et al (2017) conclude: “How we treat unborn children is a fundamental statement on whether we govern ourselves by a broader moral vision.” (107-108). Within this discourse, abortion is often seen as a moral, and not a political issue which is why some groups and activists would argue that a legalisation cannot be decided by politicians or the government (Smyth, 1998, 65). Some pro-choice groups add another dimension to it in declaring abortion as health care that is morally neutral and which should therefore not be stigmatised. Another common argument in this discourse, coming from a pro-choice perspective is that even religious people do not agree with each other whether the issue is immoral or not which is why there should not be one morality guiding the state. This also applies to non-religious people. Pro-life activists, however, argue that the legal acceptance of abortion indicates an immoral society and that Christian morality on the issue would be unambiguous (Ferree et al, 2017, 110). Porter (1996) also stresses that morality seems to be a crucial concept specifically to the Irish people as Ireland is a country with a culture where responsibility for others and morality are important concepts within the historical traditions (279).
5.11 Ireland’s Colonial History
The emphasis on ‘Irishness’ and the morality of the state could be looked at as being heavily influenced by Ireland’s colonial history with and oppression from the British. For example, a pro-choice poster from 1981 (in the context of the introduction of the Eighth Amendment in 1983) said “The Abortion Mills of England Grind Irish Babies into Blood that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance”. This shows a visible connection to the British oppression. Particularly England is being portrayed as barbarous, and brutal in connection with industrial capitalism, and Ireland and its people are presented as God-fearing victims of the English (Smyth, 1998, 65). As it has been argued before, the ambition to paint the Irish as a whole to be pro-life is another way to distinguish the country from its former oppressor (Fletcher, 2001, 568). This leads to a ‘we versus them’ attitude where Ireland is being constructed “as a great Christian missionary culture, the ‘land of saints and scholars’ (…)” (Smyth, 1998, 68-69). Furthermore, 34
Wambui Njagi (2013) concludes that abortion is being seen as a foreign issue, coming from another place even though in Kenya abortion had existed before the colonisation (194) and this has been the case in Ireland as well (Bacik, 1992, 10). Although this should clearly be seen in another context than in African countries, the female body could also be seen in Ireland as working as function for the colonial government to inscribe and operate their colonial power (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 77).
Another part of this discourse could also be the European Union which seems to have portrayed an external threat to Irish abortion laws, since many pro-life positioned people, groups and politicians feared that the EU would interfere in Irish legislation on abortion (Oaks, 2002, 317).
5.12 ‘Abortion Tourism’
Gilmartin and White (2011) introduce the term ‘abortion tourism’ with which they describe the fact that women travel to Britain especially to have abortions done legally abroad (278). In the Irish discussions and debates on abortion, this portrays another important discourse which can also be connected to Ireland’s and Britain’s colonial history: “(…) the pregnant female body moving over international borders is interpreted as problematic and deeply threatening to the Irish state (…)” (Gilmartin & White, 2011, 278). Women from Ireland have been travelling to Britain since 1967 which caused Ireland to have less ‘backstreet abortions’ (Bacik, 1992, 10). Porter (1996) concludes that since then, Ireland has been giving the responsibility for pregnant women in Ireland to Britain (294).
5.13 Individual Cases
Fletcher (2014) stresses that within the abortion debate in Ireland there has been much discourse on individual cases like the Miss Y, C or X case. She argues that instead of stressing on individual persons and their stories, it would be important to rather focus on the overall circumstances concerning sexual and reproductive issues (10). Smith (2005) also stresses that the individualisation of the issue focusses solely on outcomes (people being unwantedly pregnant and wanting to terminate the pregnancy) rather than grasping the larger social, economic and political conditions leading to it (123). The case of Savita Halappanavar is another example for how individualised the debate on abortions is, as her death was the final ‘push’ that lead to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 (Felzmann, 2014, 194).
5.14 Emotionality
Mustonen et al (2017) researched how emotionality was used within debates of abortion. They found ‘experiential thinking patterns’ and ‘emotionally laden arguments’ such as narratives, 35 appeals to emotion, and testimonials to be the main argumentation strategy on both sides (1-3). Furthermore, loaded language (appeals to fear, anger, emotions, and personalisation of the issue) was used often, too (8). In other discourses this emotionality has been occurring as well, which is why it is important to also see it in its own discourse and in connection to others at the same time.
5.15 ‘Pseudo-Science’
Wambui Njagi (2013) introduces the term ‘pseudo-scientific discourse’ as part of the discussions on abortion (8). These apparently ‘medical facts’ are, for example, that the foetus’ heartbeat begins at six weeks, that a foetus can experience pain, that a foetus and the woman have different blood cells and that the foetus is able to suck its thumb (178). These misconceptions or this misinformation about abortion is also strengthened through the confirmation bias (Mustonen et al, 2017, 8) (interpreting (scientific) information in a way that it suits one’s own opinions and beliefs (Heshmat, 2015). Another example of ‘pseudo-science’ is the personification of the embryo in connection with apparent scientific ‘facts’, and claims as “Swimming with a natural swimmer’s stroke in the amniotic fluid, she now looks like a miniature human infant.” (Booklet Helpers of God’s Precious Infants cited in Lowe & Page, 2018, 11). It is a strategy to speak to non-religious people as they are viewed as people who ‘believe’ in science (Lowe & Page, 2018, 11).
5.16 Abortion as a ‘Necessary Evil’
Abortion as a ‘necessary evil’ is a discourse that is constructed by mainly pro-choice, but also pro-life groups. On one hand it serves to justify abortion as an apparently good thing coming from ‘good women’ as they are having the goal in mind that the foetus would not have a good child life (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 215), and on the other hand it is seen as a ‘necessary evil’ or as a ‘necessity’ in cases of rape, economic reasons or maternal health. In the research of Komut (2009), on discourses of abortion in Turkey, this was one of the strongest discourses (33).
In the upcoming analysis, these sixteen discourses will serve as a base to be able to analyse on which gendered discourses the campaigns are drawing.
6. Assumptions
As common in DHA, some assumptions were made based on the previous literature review and a first skimming of the data (Reisigl, 2017, 54).
36
I assume that there will be gendered discourses on abortion that are more stressed than others, and that many will be similar to gendered discourses on abortions in the past. However, as societal aspects and opinions are partly changing, I also think that there will be some ‘new’ gendered discourses and some that will be not as relevant anymore. Here I make the assumption that religion/Catholicism will play a less important role than it has done in the past because of the ongoing secularism in many parts of the Western world (Horgan, 1982, 6; Porter, 1996, 286) and that Ireland’s colonial history will be part of the gendered discourses on abortion, even if not as visible on the first sight (Smyth, 1998, 65). It is assumed that LoveBoth is acting in their campaign as a “guardian of collective morality” (Smyth, 1998, 62), in order to save the Irish people from abortion as a foreign threat (Oaks, 2002, 317; Wambui Njagi, 2013, 194).
Additionally, I also assume that in both campaigns the foetus and the woman will be looked at as separated from each other (Porter, 1996, 70). Furthermore, it can be assumed that there will still be a focus on individual cases like Ms C, Ms X, and Ms Y, as well as the death of Savita Halappanavar at University Hospital Galway (Fletcher, 2014, 10; Lentin 2013, 130) and that both campaigns will be painting an image of how a woman has to follow certain cultural configurations of how to enact her gender (Porter, 1996, 286).
7. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter the theoretical framework of my research project will be introduced. I am primarily basing my work on Judith Butler’s theory on performativity of gender, as my research project is about (gendered) discourses and language that constitute certain gendered norms and images of people. The content of the introduction to Butler’s theory in this chapter has mainly been derived from her books Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity ([1990]; 1999) and Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of “sex” (1993), as well as from a book called Judith Butler and a chapter named On Judith Butler and Performativity in a monograph on Butler’s theory by Sara Salih (2002; 2007).
The term ‘performativity’ comes originally from linguistics and was developed in order to explain the effect or consequence of an expression (Lundqvist, 2016). I am using Judith Butler’s theory of performativity of gender as the theoretical framework for my research project about gendered discourses within the Irish abortion debate in order to show what an important influence language has on gender identities, or how language actually is the reason why gender identities exist at all, as without language there cannot be gender. Language constructs gender identities and along with discourses it ‘does’ gender (Salih, 2007, 56). For my project this means
37 that through analysing the discourses that the campaigns are drawing on with the help of Butler’s theory will lead me to learning how gendered discourses are used in the campaigns’ strategies and which effects this has.
With the help of Butler’s theory on the performativity of gender I want to analyse how different aspects are part of the campaigns. Through making a concept map (adapted from Grant & Osanloo, 2014, 23), I developed a guiding principle of how I want to integrate the theoretical framework into my research. The concept map shows how the theory and the most important aspects of the campaigns on the Irish Referendum can be connected. How is an ‘intelligible gender’ produced (Butler, 1993, 8)? In what way do concepts of hierarchy (Butler, 1999, 153), unity (Butler, 1999, 19), ‘the abject’ (Butler, 1999, 169), and ‘nature’ (Butler, 1999, 159-160) play a part in this? How is the establishment of regulatory norms (Butler, 1993, 10), cultural configurations of gender (Butler, 1999, 189-190), and the use of language (Butler, 1999, 146- 147) connected to the production of an ‘intelligible gender’? What are possible ways of subversion and change to start moving away from a performative gender system where only certain genders are rated ‘intelligible’ (Salih, 2007, 59)? These questions will be guiding the analysis and discussion of gendered discourses on abortion in line with the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Irish constitution. How can they be connected with previous discourses on abortion?
38
Concept Map: Judith Butler (1999): Performativity of Gender
‘INTELLIGIBLE GENDER’
HIERARCHY LANGUAGE SUBVERSION AND CHANGE THE ABJECT ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATORY ‘NATURE‘ NORMS CULTURAL CONFIGURATIONS OF GENDER
PREVIOUS DISCOURSES ON ABORTION
TOPOI LoveBoth/Together for Yes:
ABORTION WOMEN FOETUS MEN RIGHTS CHOICE COMPASSION/ MOTHERHOOD CARE/SUPPORT
RELIGION (DIS-)ABILITY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS POLITICIANS/GOV. EIGHTH AMENDMENT THE PEOPLE
(Idea of concept map adapted from Grant & Osanloo, 2014, 23)
39
To get an overview over the theoretical concepts which are most important for my research project, these will now be introduced. In Gender Trouble (first published in 1990) Judith Butler (1999) describes the essence of her theory of gender performativity as the following: “Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being.” (42-43). The repeated acts of gender create the stable idea that there is a gender (Butler, 1999, 178) and that these acts are, therefore, regulatory practices which govern and form gender and constitute identity (Butler, 1999, 23). There is a silent agreement within society to “perform, produce and sustain discrete and polar genders” (Butler, 1999, 178). Only ‘intelligible genders’ can exist in the cultural matrix: gender identities who have got a linearity of sex, gender, sexual practice and desire (Butler, 1999, 24). Who is seen as an ‘intelligible gender’ is determined through normative constraints which are produced through relations of power (Butler, 1993, x). ‘Intelligible genders’, therefore, follow certain codes that are culturally coherent and accept that there are specific taboos in society that have to be avoided in order to be an ‘intelligible gender’ (Butler, 1999, 166). Accordingly, because these codes are being followed, certain acts, gestures, and behaviours are repetitively done, it seems like there exists a gender core, a way how a certain gender has to be or a ‘true’ gender. However, this only shows how discourse is producing the illusion (something Butler calls ‘truth effects’) of a gender core/true gender (Butler, 1999, 173-174), and how the ‘result’ (to apparently have a gender identity) is in fact an expression: Identity is only constituted through expressions of gender; there is no gender identity behind these performative expressions (Butler, 1999, 33). This is what Butler calls that there is “no doer behind the deed” (Salih, 2002, 63).
In connection to my research project I will use these arguments to understand what are repeated acts of gender in the campaign and who are accepted as ‘intelligible genders’ from the campaigns’ respective perspectives. Furthermore, it will be important to analyse which language gets repeated and what consequences – perceived as facts – this has.
Only through having gender norms, ideas of a ‘real woman’ or ‘natural sex’ are produced (Butler, 1999, 178). The norms of what it takes to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ differ in societies and cultures, but are existent in all of them (Lundqvist, 2016). To put it more simply; if a person behaves like it is expected from someone associated to masculinity, then this shows that the repetitive acts this person does, cause that person to be associated with a certain gender. However, also not behaving in a certain way, for example, because the person is scared of the consequential sanctions, is a performative act of gender as well. This does not mean that people
40 can actually decide if they want to take part in the repetitive structures or not though. An example Butler (1993) gives in Bodies that matter to clarify her argument is the following: Gender is not like clothes which you can decide to put on in the morning and then take back to the closet at night (x). All individuals in the system can only make the decision how they want to repeat gender norms; maybe in a different way, but also these options are limited to take from a ‘script’ of norms that is already there (Salih, 2007, 56). To use the example of a wardrobe again: You might have to wear the same clothes over and over again, but could rip holes in a pair of jeans (Salih, 2007, 58). So it seems like there is a small amount of agency within the decision, but in reality it can merely be acted within the regime of power that is providing the gender norms (Butler, 1993, 15), and therefore people can always only cite norms. Butler uses the expression ‘to cite’ to describe how previous performativity of gender are being done again (Salih, 2007, 62). However, these citations can be split into subversive and forced repetitions (Salih, 2007, 65), and only through citations, the norms can gain power at all (Butler, 1993, 13). Repetitions of norms of gender can be seen as a strategy to survive within the system, as those who do not perform their gender ‘correctly’, are punished by the society (Salih, 2007, 58). The existence of these ‘non-intelligible genders’ opens up the possibility to show the limits of the concept of ‘intelligibility’ (Butler, 1999, 24).
Generally it can be said that Judith Butler’s theory of performativity of gender is useful in my research project as the different Tweets published on Twitter by the two campaigns Together for Yes and LoveBoth can be seen as repeated acts. These Tweets often have similar content and repeat opinions and utterances that create an image of how an ‘intelligible gender’ is supposed to behave and be. The Tweets are part of the repetitive structure within a gendered system. How do the campaigns repeat gender norms? Although the two campaigns are likely to create different images of what is seen as ‘normal’ or ‘correct’ repetition of acts, none of them are able to not construct an idea of how gender identity needs be enacted ‘properly’. These normative constraints will be analysed thoroughly and looked at critically and enable us to understand how gendered discourses put further strain on members of society to consistently repeat certain behaviour. Even though people are able to make the decision which campaign and which vote they want to support and therefore also which image of an ‘intelligible gender’ they ‘prefer’, it is impossible for them to escape from gendered discourses about abortion. Many might not even be aware of the fact that gender norms are being (re-)produced through the campaigns as there could be the impression that the sole outcome of this Referendum is whether abortion will become legalised or not. This is one reason why my research project will be able
41 to shed some light on the – one could say underlying, but all-encompassing seems to be a more suitable term here – gendered issues and discourses connected to abortion.
After the essence of the theory of performativity has been outlined, I will continue to expound some further theoretical concepts of Butler’s theoretical concept which focus more in-depth on language, the body, ‘the abject’, and ‘unity of women’. It is Butler’s goal to reach a subversive resignification of cultural gender norms and to destroy currently existing ones. For example, the term ‘queer’ and its meaning seems to be a step into this direction as it used to be an insulting word which has now gotten a positive connotation (Woltersdorf, 2003, 919). Deriving from Monique Wittig, language is seen as a set of acts which get repeated and therefore produce effects. These effects are (mis-)understood as ‘facts’. Utterances which are made by speaking subjects therefore create what is seen as socially real (Butler, 1999, 146-147) in the context of their genealogy (Salih, 2002, 102). Gender identity and the body can, thus, not exist before or outside of language, as language and discourse are what constitute gender identity (Salih, 2007, 57; 61). Only what is performed, is real (Felluga, 2011). Butler further refers to Wittig who ascribes language also a dual opportunity: Either it can be used “to assert a true and inclusive universality of persons, or it can institute a hierarchy in which only some persons are eligible to speak” (Butler, 1999, 153). However, it is stressed that language itself is not discriminating or misogynist, but its application is (Butler, 1999, 35). Wittig, therefore, sees it as a political challenge to understand that language is an instrument that constructs bodies and genders and that it can be used to “deconstruct and reconstruct bodies outside the oppressive categories of sex.” (Butler, 1999, 160). Luce Irigaray, however, only views a new language as the solution to escape from discrimination and the mark of gender (Butler, 1999, 35). It is important to notice that discourse is also oppressive, when the oppressed are forced to take part in their own oppression as the only way to become a speaking subject within that discourse (Butler, 1999, 147).
For my research project this means that I will be focussing especially on how persons, objects, and phenomena are referred to linguistically by the campaigns to see how it is being applied. Are there terms that reoccur? How do they ‘normalise’ certain opinions and behaviour? How are gender identities being constituted within the campaigns?
On account the notions of gender having been naturalised and reified, masculine hegemony and heterosexist power are seen as ‘normal’ (Butler, 1999, 44). Additionally, it has lead society to see bodies as part of a binary relation that is seen as ‘normal’ or ‘natural’. With having to perform gender in a certain way, this binary system is being established and supported (Butler,
42
1900, 178-179). The distinction between sex and gender that is often made, also is part of a binary system. Butler (1999) has criticised this differentiation (185). According to Butler, there is no distinction between sex and gender (Butler 1999, 11). Although this differentiation influenced by Simone de Beauvoir has been important to feminism in the past, it is criticised for its somewhat still existing essentialism: that sex came ‘before’ gender, and is therefore ‘natural’ in contrast to gender (Butler, 1993, 4-5). Sex is viewed as ‘material’, and gender as culturally inscribed (Butler, 1999, 185). Butler argues that there is no ‘natural’ body that exists before it is culturally inscribed (Salih, 2007, 55), but the distinction between sex and gender constructs the body as a passive medium which is prior to discourse (Butler, 1999, 164) and is seen as a ‘fact’ that is ‘real’ (Butler, 1999, 185). Additionally, Butler criticises the widespread thought that biology means destiny (Villa, 2010a, 146). Butler argues that gender is “a sequence of repeated acts that harden into the appearance of something that’s been there all along.” (Salih, 2007, 55-58) and therefore becomes material and ‘real’ (Felluga, 2011). Sex is seen as a gendered category (Butler, 1999, 11) and as a norm (Felluga, 2011) which has the consequences that one has to live and behave as the social regulations dictate to this gendered category (Butler, 1999, 122).
The body cannot be separated from language as language is what names and constitutes the body. Additionally, it is not possible to just describe the body; this description also constitutes the body; for example, the performative statement ‘It’s a boy!” already constitutes the new- born baby’s body and the consequences and expectations towards the baby (Salih, 2007, 61). Referring to Mary Douglas, it is argued by Butler that in any discourse in which the boundaries of the body are established, certain taboos concerning it are instated, as all margins of society are viewed as dangerous and therefore have to be constrained (Butler, 1999, 166-168). With this she criticises Julia Kristeva who argues that there is a “maternal teleology5” which the female body has before it emerges into culture (Butler, 1999, 115). These assumptions about the body might lead to asking whether a material body actually exists. According to Butler, it does, but the materiality of it can only be understood through discourse (Salih, 2002, 74). Therefore, also the body’s anatomy can be understood as discourse, and not as destiny. This leads to the possibility that the body can be used to re-signify itself in subversive ways against the heterosexual law (Salih, 2002, 87). As I have indicated before, the order that one has to be a given gender involves that certain expectations and normative skills and interests are attributed to the gender, for example “to be a good mother, to be a heterosexually desirable
5 ‘Teleology’ is the assumption that everything pursues a certain goal. 43 object, to be a fit worker, in sum, to signify a multiplicity of guarantees in response to a variety of different demands all at once.” (Butler, 1999, 185). Often the aspect of motherhood is looked at as something that had been existing since before paternal and cultural structures were established. This misconception leads to the female body being permanently inscribed with the ‘natural function’ to have children. If the person does not fulfil this ‘function’, then it is sanctioned (Butler, 1999, 118). Instead of being ‘natural’, bodies have rather been ‘naturalised’ (Salih, 2002, 80). Wittig sees the argument/concept of ‘nature’ as a concept that is being used to socially control people within the frame of heterosexuality. She aims to deconstruct the idea of a ‘natural body’ (Butler, 1999, 159-160). As others have before, Butler also stresses that femininity is an attribute that should not belong to women only (Butler, 1999, 156) and that femininity is not a choice but rather a citation of a norm (Salih, 2007, 61). Sometimes it might seem as if the female body has become free from the paternal law, only to discover that it is caught in another part of the law. Therefore, to avoid that the oppressor emancipate themselves in the name of those who are being oppressed, it is necessary to become aware that the ‘true’ body or a ‘true’ gender is an illusion (Butler, 1999, 119). Additionally, it is important to notice that while representation of women (in politics, etc.) is needed to legitimise women as political subjects and make them visible as such, representation is also a powerful normative function which shapes the impression of how women are ‘supposed to be’ (Butler, 1999, 3-4).
As a consequence of the naturalisation and reification of masculine hegemony and heterosexist power, it will be part of my research project to also look at how the campaigns’ content provide reflections of masculine hegemony and/or heterosexist power. Furthermore, the importance of the aspect of motherhood has to be stressed. Since motherhood is often portrayed as natural destiny for women, and the abortion debate is ‘naturally’ connected to norms and ideas of motherhood, it will be crucial to analyse what part the concept of biology and nature plays. It will be important to analyse how the campaigns are contributing to repeat acts that “harden into the appearance of something that’s been there all along” (Salih, 2007, 55-58). How are the campaigns adding to the social regulations concerning motherhood? Is there a way being presented how femininity is supposed to be repeated?
Butler (1999) also theorises about the ‘unity’ of women which is often seen as one of the most important factors in feminism and of female representation in politics. She argues that the category of ‘women’ is an exclusionary and normative one (19) and that the ‘we’ used in feminism is a ‘phantasmic construction’ (181). Furthermore, it is an effect of repeated acts which cause female gender identity to be seen as ‘the same’ for all within a heterosexual system
44
(Butler, 1999, 42). With this she speaks against Irigaray and Wittig, in saying that there is not one ground where feminism should speak from, not even as a political strategy (Salih, 2002, 47). Instead Butler (1999) advocates for an ‘open coalition’ where common goals can tried to be achieved without having to obey a normative ideal (22). It is stressed that
“the category of women does not become useless through deconstruction, but becomes one whose uses are no longer reified as “referents“, and which stand a chance of being opened up, indeed, of coming to signify in ways that none of us can predict in advance.“ (Butler, 1993, 29). It is concluded that the term ‘woman’/’women’ can still be used, but that it is important to look at it critically to see how it is, to an extent, exclusionary and part of and restricted by a power regime (Butler, 1993, 29; Salih, 2002, 48); and how it suggests that all women have similar point of views and interests, and which influence the category has on politics and social reality (Butler, 1999, 164)
Therefore, it will be interesting to look at in my research whether/how the campaigns argue with an imagined unit of women and/or speak of women in a way that suggests that all women belong together, have the duty to support each other and stand for similar beliefs, values, and characteristics. Is there any way that LoveBoth and/or Together for Yes are using the ‘open coalition’ suggested by Butler? How is the term ‘woman’ used by them?
Deploying feminist, psychoanalytic and Foucauldian theories, Butler speaks of ‘the abject’ (Salih, 2002, 70). The abject is that what is seen as ‘the other’. The dissociation from it is needed in order to be able to construct oneself as a subject and ones boundaries (Butler, 1999, 169). The abject is a metaphorical zone of social life that is deemed ‘unliveable’ or ‘uninhabitable’, but is still inhabited nevertheless, as those who are not ‘intelligible genders’ still have to reside somewhere (Butler, 1993, 3). The remarks concerning the abject can also be related to Friedrich Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’. According to Hegel, recognition and self-consciousness can only be achieved through eliminating ‘the other’ (Salih, 2002, 41). Abjected bodies are not accepted as ‘real’ bodies (15), but rather as something that is deemed unviable (Butler, 1993, 15-16). Heterosexual identities need homosexual identities to exist (Salih, 2007, 64) and in order to be able to identify like a man or a woman, the other is required (Butler, 1990, 30). Women therefore have to be what men are not, and vice versa (Butler, 1999, 58). However, this does not mean that identities are as straightforward and stable as they might seem, but can, within the system, subversively be changed (Salih, 2002, 70-71). The feminine is constructed as something that cannot be represented and have meaning without being signified through the masculine (Butler, 1999, 37). In my research it will be important to look at who is portrayed as
45
‘the abject’ from the respective campaigns and who exactly needs ‘the abject’ in these cases to exist and construct themselves as a subject.
While Judith Butler is very well known for her theory, Salih (2007) comes to the conclusion that Butler, although she addresses it, does not sufficiently nor convincingly cover the importance of race in her theory, although Butler has stated that race as well is a regulatory regime that operates in production of the body.
8. Methodology: Discourse-Historical Approach
First, I want to give a short overview of the term ‘discourse’, which has various meanings in different research projects, to make clear what it means in the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) and in my thesis. Secondly, the general characteristics and research interests of DHA will be outlined and it will be explained how DHA is being used in my research project. Finally, I am considering the limitations of the approach. For this chapter I have mainly read publications of Ruth Wodak (2001; 2008; 2013) and of her colleague Martin Reisigl (2017).
As already mentioned in the introduction, the main question of interest in this research is how the pro-choice campaign, Together for Yes, and the pro-life campaign, LoveBoth, are drawing on previous gendered discourses in their Tweets on Twitter from the official launch of their campaigns (Together for Yes: 22-03-2018/LoveBoth: 18-04-2018) until the date of the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment (25-05-2018). How are gendered discourses happening within a certain set of rules? How are the campaigns citing norms in a system that has strict regulations concerning gender (Butler, 1999, 13)? These central research questions led me to the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) which has mainly been developed by Ruth Wodak. It is an approach within the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), an interdisciplinary movement of research developed by different researchers engaging with institutional, media, gender, and political discourses (Wodak, 2001a, 2).
DHA is interested in following areas of discourse studies: Discourse and discrimination, discourse and politics, discourse and identity, and so on, and focusses especially on the importance of historic context. Through reconstructing the pre-history of certain utterances or discourse fragments, the present and the past can be related to each other (Reisigl, 2017, 48; 53). This aspect of it also fits very well with the theoretical framework I am using in my thesis, as Judith Butler stresses the importance of genealogy, the “enquiry into the conditions of emergence of what is called history” (Salih, 2002, 10). How are the subject, institutions, practices and discourse genealogically determined (Salih, 2002, 10)? 46
Considering its several meanings it is important to define the meaning of ‘discourse’ clearly within the research context and the theoretical approach (Wodak, 2008, 6). The term ‘discourse’ derives from the Greek verb ‘analuein’ which means ‘to deconstruct’ and from the Latin verb ‘discurerre’ which is translated as ‘to run back and forth’ (Wodak, 2008, 4). Wodak (2008) generally describes discourse as potentially meaning “anything from a historical monument, a lieu de mémoire, a policy, a political strategy, narratives in a restricted or broad sense of the term, text, talk, a speech, topic-related conversations, to language per se.” (1). She states that there is a lot of confusion concerning the term ‘discourse’ (1) and refers to a definition from Jay Lemke (1995) on the meaning of it: According to him, discourse is a “social activity of making meanings with language and other symbolic systems in some particular kind of situation or setting.” (Wodak, 2008, 6). Also, “[discourses], as social actions [are] more or less governed by social habits, [and] produce texts that will in some ways be alike in their meanings.” (Wodak, 2008, 6). Both written and spoken language are seen as forms of social practices. They are influenced by institutional and social settings, but at the same time, discourses also shape these settings themselves (Wodak, 2001b, 65-66).
The roots of CDA lie in functional systemic linguistics, classical rhetoric, text linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and pragmatics. The approach emerged in the 1970s, and was then mostly referred to as ‘critical linguistics’. This changed when in 1991 an international meeting on CDA was held in the Netherlands where several scholars, including Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk and Norman Fairclough met and further developed the approach (Wodak, 2001a, 4-5). Some of the basic assumptions are that language is a social phenomenon and that individuals, groups, and institutions express their meanings and values in language. Texts are seen as “relevant units of language in communication” (Wodak, 2001a, 6). Readers and hearers are also seen as active participants and not only passive recipients (Wodak, 2001a, 6). According to Fairclough and Lilie Chouliariki (cited in Wodak, 2001a), CDA is useful to understand “the discursive nature of much contemporary social and cultural change” (Wodak, 2001a, 6). Reisigl (2017) recalls DHA’s history in four phases, naming the first the ‘Viennese Critical Discourse Analysis’ (1987-1993) when the approach was developed for a study concerning itself with anti-Semitic stereotypes emerging in discourses within the 1986 presidential campaign of Kurt Waldheim in Austria (44). In the second phase (1993-1997), DHA became institutionalised in Vienna and became more and more acknowledged as an approach within CDA. The third phase (1997-2003) followed after Ruth Wodak set up the Research Centre ‘Discourse, Politics, Identity’ in Vienna which was funded with the money Wodak had received for the Wittgenstein Prize which she had been awarded with in 1996. This 47 money allowed to fund many research projects with a DHA approach. The fourth phase started in 2003 and is still ongoing until today. Some of the areas DHA-researchers are currently focussing on are discourses of right-populists and fascists in Europe as well as issues of climate change and on the environment (Reisigl, 2017, 44-47).
DHA has, among other theories, been influenced from speech act theory and the German variation of ‘Gesprächsanalyse’. Erving Goffman, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Pierre Bourdieu and Jürgen Habermas are scholars whose work has also had an impact on DHA (Reisigl, 2017, 48- 49). Reisigl calls DHA a “multidimensional project incorporating theory, methods, methodology and empirically based research practices that yield concrete social applications” (Reisigl, 2017, 48). As briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter, DHA is accordingly especially interested in research in the following areas: discourse and discrimination, language barriers, discourse and politics, discourse and identity, discourse and history, discourse in the media, organisational communication, and discourse and ecology. It, therefore, concerns itself with political engagement, criticism of discursively produced power abuse/injustice/social discrimination, and some of its most important aspects are the dependence of discourse on context, questioning the neutrality of research, importance of intertextual and interdiscursive relationships. Some (other) specific characteristics of DHA are that historical background and context is stressed, that it is often worked in teams (which although is not applicable in my research project) and that it is usually applied in practice (which also goes beyond possibility in this research) (Reisigl, 2017, 48-49). Wodak (2001) names some further important characteristics of DHA: Fieldwork and ethnography have to be involved in the study. DHA is an abductive approach, which means that there is a constant back-and-forth movement between theory and the data (69-70).
Although of course every research in DHA differs from each other, Reisigl (2017) in collaboration with Wodak provides a rough guideline for working with it (54-55). I will elaborate the steps and how I carried them into execution in order to provide an understanding of how my research project has come to its findings and conclusions. The first step is to gather theoretical knowledge on the topic which I have done through extensively reading previous research on abortion discourses in general, abortion discourses in Ireland, as well as on different theories of the production of gender, especially Judith Butler’s work. As a second step, data and context information has to be collected. I looked at the campaigns’ respective Twitter pages and archived with the help of ‘Snipping Tool’ all Tweets between 22-03-2018 (Together For Yes)/18-04-2018 (LoveBoth) and 25-05-2018. To understand the context of the Referendum, I
48 have read information on referenda in Ireland, on the Eighth Amendment and its history, enacting, and consequences, and of laws on abortion in general and in Ireland. I also informed myself on the history of pro-choice and pro-life groups, and on the two campaigns, Together for Yes and LoveBoth. The third step is to select and prepare the data for the specific analyses which I have done through numbering the Tweets. I saved all screenshots of the Tweets in a Microsoft Word document and transformed it into a PDF-file in order to work with them properly that is to ensure that the layout does not change through movement and to be able to add comments to each Tweet. After having done that, the fourth step contains narrowing/specifying the research questions and formulating assumptions based on the literature review (Reisigl, 2017, 54). In step five, a qualitative pilot analysis is suggested. As agreed with my supervisor, I altered this step a little and I present common discourses of abortion which I have derived from reading different research/material on abortion (some general, some specialised on discourses). This analysis allowed me to fulfil the goals which, according to Reisigl (2017), the qualitative pilot analysis should provide, which is in this case to be able to see if there actually are typical gendered discourses in abortion debates (54). Step six is to perform the detailed case study, and step seven is to formulate a critique that is based on the interpretation of the findings (see above for more information on how critique is used in DHA) (Reisigl, 2017, 55). I have done these steps one after the other, but will present the detailed case study and its critique together in one chapter, as I think it makes understanding easier to see the connection between the discourses. For the analysis of the case study, I put a focus on five questions that Wodak/Reisigl suggest to ask:
1. “How are persons, objects, phenomena, events, processes and actions named and referred to linguistically in the discourse in question?” (Reisigl, 2017, 52). This question helps to analyse the discursive strategy of ‘nomination’ and serves the purpose to understand how persons, objects, etc. are discursively constructed (Reisigl, 2017, 52).
2. “What characteristics or qualities are attributed to social actors, objects, phenomena, events, processes and actions mentioned in the discourse?” (Reisigl, 2017, 52). Through this question the discursive strategy of ‘predication’ should be analysed and its purpose is to be able to understand how social actors, objects, phenomena, etc. are (positively or negatively) discursively characterised (Reisigl, 2017, 52).
3. “What arguments are employed in discourse?” (Reisigl, 2017, 52). As it implies, with the help of this question it should be found out, how the discursive strategy of ‘argumentation’ is involved and how social actors should be convinced of something through claims of normative
49 rightness and truth (Reisigl, 2017, 52). In this step it is important to derive a list of topoi (Meyer, 2017, 27). Topoi are that what connects an argument with a conclusion, or: they justify coming to a conclusion from an argument (Wodak, 2001b, 74-75). These topoi, thus, form one of the most important parts of the analysis and discussion as they allow to make the connection between previous discourses, current discourses and theoretical aspects.
4. “From what perspectives are these nominations, attributions, arguments expressed?” (Reisigl, 2017, 52). How is the discursive strategy of ‘perspecitivisation’ used? Its purpose is to understand how the speaker’s/speakers’ positions are in relation to the topic they are talking/writing about (Reisigl, 2017, 52).
5. “Are the respective utterances articulated overtly, are they intensified or mitigated?” (Reisigl, 2017, 52). With the help of this question it should be learned how the discursive strategies of ‘mitigation and intensification’ are implemented. What are the intentions behind utterances? How are they modified to serve the purpose of the speaker/writer? How do they want to change what is seen as ‘normal’ (Reisigl, 2017, 52)?
While working with these questions, it is important to also concern the principles of the triangulatory approach. This approach argues that different dimensions of analysis should be applied in order to decrease the risk of a bias which is why there are four layers of context: 1. The immediate language/text; 2. Intertextual and interdiscursive relationships; 3. Sociological variables/institutional frames; 4. Broader historical/socio-political contexts (Wodak, 2008, 12- 13). The Tweets have thus been analyses with keeping those layers in mind.
As mentioned before, as an approach within CDA, DHA involves critique. It also means that the researcher is very self-reflective on their projects concerning own biases, etc., and that the analysis is potentially useful for being applied to the social, meaning that often CDA leads into further application of theoretical research in something practical (Wodak, 2001a, 9). Step eight is the last step that is suggested. If possible, the analytical findings should be applied in practice. I cannot do this as there is only limited time and space for my master thesis project, but in the concluding remarks some suggestions can be found how my research project could be applied in practice in the future.
After having made clear what DHA is and how it works, I now again want to stress why I have decided to use it as methodology for my research. First of all, DHA and the theoretical framework for this research project both have a strong focus on language and power and the effects of it. Additionally, both are concerning themselves with a critique towards society and
50 its discriminatory aspects. The fact that CDA in general specifically “considers institutional, political, gender and media discourses” (Wodak, 2001a, 2) is one important reason why I have chosen the approach. The campaigns in the Referendum can be seen as producers of all of these discourses: Their goal is clearly political, convincing the people in Ireland to vote either “Yes” or “No” in a Referendum that has the potential to change the constitution; regarding the power they have and the institutions they get support from, they could be viewed as quasi-institutional. The Tweets that will be analysed are part of (social) media, and abortion is a topic that has a clear connection with gender. Especially the fact that DHA focusses on the importance of (historic) context (Reisigl, 2017, 53-54) is an essential factor that made me decide to use DHA as an approach for my thesis. As I want to research on which previous gendered discourses the campaigns are drawing, therefore stressing the importance of past/historic discourses, this is another strong reason why DHA is suitable for my research. Another point that has been mentioned before is that DHA also considers researching power as an important part in the approach. How is language being used to challenge and subvert power? How are social hierarchical structures enforced (Wodak, 2001a, 11)? As it is assumed that the campaigns both use language as a tool to convince people of what is seen as ‘normal’ and ‘right’, this is a further reason of why DHA makes sense as methodology in this research project.
9. To Repeal, or Not to Repeal? A Discussion on Gendered Discourses
Now that the historical and contextual background, previous discourses on abortions, methodology and the theoretical framework of my research project’s topic have been made clear, the analysis and discussion can finally be outlined.
As it has been mentioned within the methodology, one of the analysis’ main parts is to derive different topoi from the discourse on abortion in the context of the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment. The concept of topoi stems from argumentation theory and has been included into DHA. The topoi serve as a connection between the campaigns’ content and the theory-guided argumentation on how the campaigns are drawing on previous discourses on abortion. To examine how they are included within the campaigns is, therefore, the essential part of the analysis and discussion, as through them it becomes possible to discuss how previous discourses have made use of them, and to see how the current campaigns’ utterances and general content can be connected to them. Thus one can grasp how LoveBoth and Together for Yes are drawing on gendered discourses that have been prevailing in previous debates and discussions on abortion.
51
Ruth Wodak (2001b) introduces several topoi that were developed within the case-study of the FPÖ petition ‘Austria first’ from 1992 to 1993 and which can be used as a guideline within DHA. I have adapted six of them for my research project:
Topos of Fear/Danger; Topos of Justice; Topos of Responsibility; Topos of Reality; Topos of History; Topos of Humanitarianism (73-76).
The analysis and discussion of my research project are structured in the following way: At first, the respective topos is briefly introduced. Then, I discuss how/if previous discourses of abortion apply to the particular topos, whether the current campaigns also make use of this topos, and how this was analysed within my theoretical framework. This allows us to being able to make the conclusion how/if LoveBoth and Together for Yes are drawing on previous gendered discourses of abortion.
9.1 Fear: Abortion and the Eighth Amendment
The topos of fear is based on the condition that if an action or a decision is assumed to have dangerous or threatening consequences, then it should not be performed. If there are dangers/threats that are perceived to be existing already, then something should be done against them (Wodak, 2001b, 75).
Relating to Butler, it is generally suggested that fear is an effective way of reaching people as it relies on the fact that societies are used to their regulatory norms and values and are, therefore, scared to lose them. Furthermore, it would mean that a change of who holds power and is on top of the hierarchy could occur. The topic of sexuality and bodily autonomy is thus part of a powerful discourse that decides who is in charge of sexuality and bodies of women (Butler, 1999, 40).
9.1.1 Previous discourses Within the previous discourses on abortion, several of them apply to the topos of fear, such as, the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’. In previous debates the foetus has often been portrayed as being threatened by the woman and the woman is presented as being threatened by the foetus (Mustonen et al, 2017, 6; Oaks, 2002, 316). Only through the elimination of one or the other it is possible to advocate for either the foetus or the woman 52
(Salih, 2002, 41). In addition, within the ‘discourse of motherhood’, the fear is created that abortion poses a threat to ‘family values’ and motherhood. These ‘family values’ are in fact ‘traditional values’, or repeated acts. Abortion embodies the ‘danger’ (to the hierarchical system) of possible subversion of these values. Furthermore, the ‘discourse of religion’ applies, as from a religious point of view the harmful impact of abortion, or, dangers, to women have been stressed (Wambugi Njagi, 2013, 162).
Similar to the discourses above, the ‘discourse of feminism’ can be connected to the topos of fear as well. Feminism is viewed as a threat to people and it has within the debates surrounding the 1983 Referendum been referred to as an “alien army, colonizing Ireland.” (Smyth, 1998, 70). One could claim that it is not feminism that is perceived as a threat but, rather, the consequences that feminism’s influence could have on women. The fear of women actively having full reproductive rights over their bodies and the fear of not being able to oppress women on the basis of pregnancy anymore comes up. Additionally, if feminism was successful to initiate a movement where the belief would spread that there is no ‘nature’ which ascribes motherhood as the fulfilment of a woman’s life, there would be the ‘danger’ (to the established system) that gender norms could be loosened, or lost. This would result in the loss of cultural configurations concerning ‘men’ and ‘women’, and perhaps even in the loss of these categories completely – and would of course pose a threat to those carrying the power (Butler, 1999, 187). On account of abortion having been illegal for a long time in Ireland, it has been feared that its illegality could initiate (feminist) resistance and subversion against the system (Butler, 1993, 109).
References to colonisation can also be connected to the ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’, that is, the colonisation of Ireland by the British, which seems to have been one of the prevailing discourses in former discussions on abortion in Ireland. In contrast, it is not only a fear created of the colonial forces coming to Ireland from outside, but also the other way around when, “the pregnant female body moving over international borders is interpreted as problematic and deeply threatening to the Irish state” (Gilmartin & White, 2011, 278). The ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ is expanded to the EU as a possible threat to Ireland as it was feared that it could interfere with the ban on abortions in Ireland. Knowing that abortion is legal in many countries of the EU, it seems to have been very tempting to portray the EU as a threat from outside, which attempts to disturb the ‘peace’ in an apparently ‘pro-life country’. This perceived Irish ‘pro-life’-attitude is also reflected within the ‘discourse of the morality of the state’ where abortion has been presented as a threat to the said morality of the state and its
53 people. This threat poses a danger to the gender norms prevailing in that state and is, therefore, also perceived as a threat to the existing system (Butler, 1999, 187).
9.1.2 LoveBoth LoveBoth assumes that if abortion is legalised there would be a change in culture and that “abortion would become normalised” as “[laws] shape our attitudes and behaviours” (LoveBoth, 2018). On one hand, this could happen to a certain extent, as abortion would eventually become more visible to the Irish people. On the other hand, it is not the act of the legalisation of abortion itself that has the potential to normalise it, but rather how it is communicated about it. This means that if abortion would be referred to as something ‘ordinary’ which is, in the eyes of the majority of society, (morally) acceptable and would not contradict any gender norms, then it could be ‘normalised’. Thus, if certain speech acts concerning abortion are repeated over time, then it is possible to see the consequential reality-effects as ‘facts’ and accordingly, abortion as ‘normal’ (Butler, 1999, 147). However, it is true that “laws shape our attitudes and behaviours” (LoveBoth, 2018) as “[language] gains the power to create “the socially real”” (Butler, 1999, 146). Tweets like these support Porter’s (1996) argument that “Irish debates on abortion are part of the pressure for change, the resistance to change, and a clarification of cultural identity” (290) which can be seen through the utterance that “culture would change” (LoveBoth, 2018) which implies that this is not wanted and is, therefore, a resistance to change.
Generally, abortion itself is marked negatively by the campaign as it is referred to linguistically accordingly. It is always called ‘abortion’, and only referred to in some cases as ‘termination of pregnancy’ when medical professionals speak of it (LoveBoth, 2018). This could be seen as not wanting to use euphemisms. In addition, Tweets of “the horror of abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018) are posted or abortion is described as a rather radical procedure which has the consequences “that a child’s heartbeat is stopped and its life is ended” (LoveBoth, 2018). Furthermore, the terms “abortion on demand”, “abortion on demand for any reason”, or “without restriction” (LoveBoth, 2018) are used frequently which has several effects: On one hand, the terms suggests that abortions will be as easily available as any other provision of service – organised promptly, and a quick fix. On the other hand, it also transports a certain image of the people using this ‘service’ – speaking of abortion “rapidly” becoming the “first option” (LoveBoth, 2018) for women in crisis pregnancies. This suggests that alternatives to a termination of pregnancy would not be considered at all, when abortion is legalised and easier to access than it is currently. The term ‘abortion on demand’ reflects exactly what stands behind
54 being opposed to abortion: that a woman is able to make her own demands. To not have abortions and accept the role of being a mother even if not ‘planned’, is the contrast to this demand – to accept ‘nature’ one could say. Instead, in society, it is expected that a woman responds to the injunctions of others to fulfil their demands of her (Butler, 1999, 185). Thus, the term ‘abortion on demand’ is also used to create fear within the people supporting the Eighth Amendment. Furthermore, it is argued that abortion is not possible to restrict: “there’s no such thing as strict and limited abortion. It just doesn’t exist.” (LoveBoth, 2018).
LoveBoth additionally makes use of the fear that many “unborn children” will be “losing their lives” (LoveBoth, 2018). It suggests that only foetuses are harmed once legal abortion is introduced and does not acknowledge that the Eighth Amendment puts some women currently in problematic situations. This implements a hierarchy between pregnant women and foetuses as the foetuses are prioritised (Butler, 1999, 153). The fact that the rather ‘radical’ wording comes from a medical professional, further strengthens LoveBoth’s power, as those are among the top of the hierarchy who have got the possibility to speak on the issue – and be heard (Butler, 1999, 153). Furthermore, there is special emphasis on the fear that many foetuses who are diagnosed with a disability or Down syndrome will be aborted and thus, discrimination against disabled foetuses will take place if the Eighth Amendment was repealed. Foetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are referred to as “Down Syndrome children” (LoveBoth, 2018), “babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome” (LoveBoth, 2018), “unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome” (LoveBoth, 2018), and “Down Syndrome babies in the womb” (LoveBoth, 2018). The rate of people with Down syndrome in Ireland’s population (0.15%) is put in contrast with other countries, for example, Germany where according to LoveBoth, 0.07% of the people have Down syndrome (LoveBoth, 2018; Scally, 2018). The higher rate of people having Down syndrome in Ireland is equalised with the assumption that Ireland is a country where all people – including those having disabilities or Down syndrome – are equally cared for and supported regardless of their abilities. The possible repeal of the Eighth Amendment is seen as endangering this. However, it is interesting to observe that on one hand, the Irish people are ‘praised’ for their unconditional support for all people and that this is ascribed a cultural tradition, but on the other hand a possible repeal is seen as having so much power that their ‘original’ culture of responsibility and care for each other could be endangered. This is a ‘predication’ that produces fear, but one that I would criticise. It might be likely that more terminations of pregnancies will be procured as more women will be having access to it, but the culture and ‘tradition’ of responsibility of the Irish people has become a tradition over time through repeated acts that make it the norm to be responsible and show care 55 for other people of the community. This means that even if changes could appear because of the legal accessibility of abortion, they would not be powerful enough to change the whole culture of responsibility as it is not possible to so quickly, wholly subvert the established frames that regulate the norms of how one has to be within the Irish community (Salih, 2002, 50)
Women who are now mothers of babies or children with Down syndrome were given the platform to speak in the following Tweets: “”It seemed like we were given a death sentence. Now I can’t believe how much happiness and peace our son brought into our home so far!” Monica Hadearan” (LoveBoth, 2018), and
“Repeal is pro-fear. “I feel fear is the biggest thing in relation to abortion: the fear of telling family, the fear of what people will think, the fear of “what will I do”, the fear of money, the fear that it will ruin everything...”Caoimhe.” (LoveBoth, 2018). Both women somewhat relate to the concept of fear; Caoimhe, naming it explicitly, and Monica Hadearan speaking metaphorically of a “death sentence”. With Tweets like these, LoveBoth is actively trying to take exactly this fear away from women whose foetus might have been diagnosed with a foetal abnormality, disability or Down syndrome, and convince them that a diagnosis like that is in fact not a ‘death sentence’ and does have other alternatives to it than abortion. However, this also further strengthens the feeling that without the Eighth Amendment these fears would increase.
LoveBoth also accuses the yes-side of creating fears for women: “The repeal campaign are creating unfounded fears among voters” (LoveBoth, 2018); “Repeal is pro-fear” (LoveBoth, 2018); a wordplay, relating to ‘pro-choice’. In addition, LoveBoth builds fear among the audience that the healthcare system will not be able to cope with abortions as it is already “currently overstretched” (LoveBoth, 2018) and that legalised abortion would bring abortion to “your local GP surgeries [and] hospitals” (LoveBoth, 2018). As a result, the “foreign abortion industry” (LoveBoth, 2018) which is already accused of being the source of “the biggest betrayal of trust” (LoveBoth, 2018) will take over.
Words like ‘murder’ – a term that would certainly raise fear – are not used, although terms related to ‘kill’ are part of two Tweets. One of them is referring to a screening of a film about the American doctor Kermit Gosnell who was charged with murder in several cases where he intentionally killed infants when they were born alive after an attempted abortion (Guardian Film, 2018): “Dr. Gosnell is the most prolific serial killer in American History, but almost no one knows who he is. Free tickets up for grabs to see Gosnell the Movie” (LoveBoth, 2018).
56
Even when watching the film’s trailer6 it does not get very clear what he was exactly charged for, which therefore, could lead to confusion among the audience. Another Tweet claims that the Eighth Amendment does not pose any concern to doctors how they can treat women but rather “bans [them] from intentionally killing one of [their] patients” (LoveBoth, 2018). It makes sense to not use words like these more often or frequently, as LoveBoth successfully transports the message that it is not ‘radical’ or unreasonable. However, even if not in great quantity, every utterance has an impact. Many pro-life supporters, in contrast, do use these words to describe the act of aborting a foetus as murder frequently, for example, the ‘radical’ (Fletcher, 2001, 585) Irish pro-life organisation Youth Defence when drawing on the history of Irish women’s abortion in Britain: “(…) the health boards have set about establishing their right to bring young girls in their care to have their babies murdered in England. (…) Abortion kills babies and harms mothers” (Youth Defence, 2004).
Although references to the abortion process and the consequences are relatively negative, the women having abortions are not put in such negative light. Instead they are portrayed as the ‘victims’ of abortion or of a society that is not compassionate enough forcing them to find their ‘solution’ in abortion. Utterances like “you can’t repeal regret” (LoveBoth, 2018) are provocative towards the yes-side and suggest that women who had abortions will always be regretting them. This is further stressed through statements like “Abortion was supposed to be a quick fix for an unwanted pregnancy, but it was the biggest mistake of my life.” (LoveBoth, 2018), or “I came to terms with the rape. It was the post-abortion-trauma that nearly destroyed me.” (LoveBoth, 2018). Furthermore, photos show women standing in the city centre, holding signs saying “I regret my abortion” and “I stand with her” (LoveBoth, 2018). Through marking abortion as harmful instead of openly criticising women who have had abortions, LoveBoth implies that it seems compassionate to women in crisis pregnancies and understanding to why they felt they had to have an abortion. It is a tactic to make women who had abortions themselves not feel personally attacked. As having an abortion is a difficult decision for many, and the society does not make it easier for them, stigma and shame might be issues for some women, and some may indeed regret their abortion. Through LoveBoth’s shown acceptance, support, and responsibility for these women – for example, the ‘I stand with her’-campaign, they feel like they are not being judged and can still do something against the regret they might be experiencing: to ‘save’ further women from making this decision. Instead, it is stressed that if there was enough support for women in crisis pregnancies, then all situations could be
6 The trailer can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttwkr8MM9Rk. 57 handled well and women would not ‘need’ abortions: “I didn’t need an abortion. What I really needed was help.” (LoveBoth, 2018). It is suggested to support funding for counselling rather than the introduction of abortion. To say that “[abortion] is a symptom that we have failed women” (LoveBoth, 2018), puts the ‘fault’ of why women are having abortions on the society as a whole rather than on the women who had them.
Politicians and the government are also used within the topos of fear. Its tactic concerning politicians and the government might even be called ‘populist’, as it seems like they are playing ‘the people’ off against the government (Misik, 2016). LoveBoth especially stresses the statement “Don’t give politicians a blank cheque” (LoveBoth, 2018) as this would hand all power concerning abortion laws to the politicians. Here it can be noted that this is already the situation, as it might be general Irish citizens canvassing, campaigning for and voting in the Referendum, but this was only possible because the institution of politics took the necessary steps to hold a Referendum. It might be suggested that citizens certainly do hold some power to possibly start a subversion within the system, but ultimately much of it lies within the political sphere to have influence on how bodily signification is achieved and maintained (Butler, 1999, 43). Politicians and the government are also criticised by LoveBoth because it is of the opinion that they have not looked into any alternatives to the legalisation of abortion such as more support for pregnant women, in the process leading up to the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment (LoveBoth, 2018). The government is referred to as it cannot be trusted because it “is planning for free abortions paid for with your taxes.” (LoveBoth, 2018) and has not fulfilled the people’s expectations in other issues, like the reform of the healthcare services (LoveBoth, 2018).
9.1.3 Together for Yes To refer to abortion, ‘abortion’ is used most of the time, only several Tweets contain euphemisms as “end a pregnancy” (Together for Yes, 2018) or “termination of pregnancy” (Together for Yes, 2018). Utterances on abortion and the issues surrounding it are expressed from different perspectives: Women who had abortions themselves, medical professionals from Ireland and other countries, politicians, advocacy groups with different backgrounds, popular people, religious people, disabled women, and family members and partners of women who had abortions. It is striking that except for one advocacy group, Migrants and Ethnic-minorities for Reproductive Justice (MERJ) no women with a migration background speak on the issue. Something mainly absent in the campaign is the issue of Trans* or non-binary people’s access
58 to abortion, although abortion might concern Trans*/non-binary people as well. Two Tweets do mention them, but it is not deepened any further:
“We know that the 8th has a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, migrant women, trans and non binary (sic) people” (Together for Yes, 2018) “Many women can’t travel - they can’t afford it, they are migrant women who don’t have papers. We know trans and non binary (sic) people face additional barriers” (Together for Yes, 2018) It is a step towards change to mention Trans* and non-binary people at all because usually, they are not involved within any debates or discourses on abortion. Nonetheless, it could have been made more important in Together for Yes’ campaign. I assume that this has not happened because the Irish society is on one hand, not deemed ‘ready’ to interconnect these more complex issues and on the other hand, because trans* and non-binary people are not the audience Together for Yes specifically wants or needs to reach in order to secure a ‘yes’ vote.
Women are usually called ‘women’, and ‘mother’ is only used when the person has already got children. Women are also referred to with the pronoun ‘she’, for example in the campaign “She lives on your street” where people should be made aware of that, according to Together for Yes, there are so many women in Ireland who had abortions that – literally – one could live on their street. A video extensively makes usage of ‘she’:
“She waves to you in the morning. She wears a navy jacket. She’s in your book club. She does the school run. She potters in her garden. She sings at mass. She’s local. She is your neighbour. She’s your friend… and she lives on your street” (Together for Yes, 2018) Pregnant persons are commonly referred to as ‘pregnant women’ and the expression ‘pregnant people’ is used as well: “We cannot provide access to healthcare for people who have become pregnant (…)” (Together for Yes, 2018) or “The best decisions take place when pregnant people are supported to make the decisions that suit them best” (Together for Yes, 2018).
The Eighth Amendment in contrast, is portrayed as harmful and dangerous for women: “The Eighth Amendment causes great harm to women” (Together for Yes, 2018); “Honoured to be joined here tonight by Annie Roche, speaking about how the Eighth Amendment harmed her when she found out her daughter had a fatal foetal abnormality” (Together for Yes). It is seen as cause for “cruel and degrading treatment” (Together for Yes, 2018), and as “a law which has driven women in Ireland into flight, shame and secrecy” (Together for Yes, 2018). Together for Yes also claims the Eighth Amendment is “a barrier to equality” (Together for Yes, 2018) which, among other impediments, should therefore, be removed as it divides society into those who are privileged enough to have access to travel and knowledge (Together for Yes, 2018)
59 and those who are not. The Eighth Amendment can be seen as the reflection and gatekeeper of an institutionalised gender norm that has been engrained into society. This is seen as such a crucial norm so that it is positioned in the Constitution, the most important juridical basis for a democratic country. The protection of a potential life, or the restriction of women’s behaviour are thus regarded as subjects of such an importance that they needed to be constitutionalised.
Together for Yes uses the fear that illegal abortion (particularly with the help of abortion pills) is dangerous for women in Ireland and that doctors are not able to provide full care for pregnant women with Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of National Maternity Hospital Holles St. saying that “the Eighth requires that a woman is dying before she can access abortion care” (Together for Yes, 2018). In addition, the fact that abortion is criminalised in Ireland is stressed which constitutes fear among women that if they take abortion pills they will be “facing a prison sentence of 14 years” (Together for Yes, 2018) as according to Together for Yes, there are 3,000 women who have been criminalised because of an incident related to abortion (Together for Yes, 2018). Nonetheless, it does not get entirely clear where the number of 3,000 women being apparently criminalised comes from, but it can be assumed that it is a referral to the approximately 3,000 women who travel to Britain to access abortion every year (Ryan, 2018). However, they are not actually criminalised as their right to travel for abortion is fixed in the constitution under the Thirteenth Amendment (Pentz Bottini, 2007, 221). Within this context women are portrayed as being able to make their own autonomous decisions, but that this can currently be dangerous because of the consequences of taking wrong doses of abortion pills can have and because of possible criminalisation. The Irish state is portrayed as wanting to restrict women’s autonomy through the Eighth Amendment and the consequential criminalisation of procuring an abortion in Ireland.
Together for Yes also creates fear among the audience that if victims of rape become pregnant they are forced to continue the pregnancy: “women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies, be it a scared 15 year old, who’s been sexually abused or a terrified woman who’s been raped, are forced to carry the pregnancy to term” (Together for Yes, 2018). Using strong words like “scared” and “terrified” can on one hand, build fear among women to experience similar situations one day and on the other hand targets the audience to be empathic with these women and girls.
9.1.4 Fear: Conclusion It becomes clear that LoveBoth makes more use of utterances related to the topos of fear than Together for Yes does and that their approaches concerning fear and danger are relatively
60 different. LoveBoth’s focus lies more on creating fears that concern the foetus and are caused through abortion, and Together for Yes stresses the fears that are related to the woman and are provoked by the existence of the Eighth Amendment.
In relation to previous discourses of abortion, several distinctive features can be observed. As both campaigns engage in techniques of using fear, both LoveBoth and Together for Yes draw on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ through using said appeals to fear, anger and emotions.
Clearly, LoveBoth is drawing on the ‘discourse of the foetus’ as it works with the fear that especially those foetuses with disabilities or conditions like Down syndrome will be aborted and therefore ‘discriminated’ against. In addition, LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of motherhood’ when it is emphasised that women who did not want to become pregnant or were scared because their foetus showed to have a disability, are now very happy that they did not have the pregnancy terminated. LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’ when it refers to the percentage of people within the Irish population who have Down syndrome, as it is used to define ‘the Irish’ as a nation who accepts all people irrespective of their ability. Superficially, there is no connection to the ‘discourse of religion’ to be found, but the utterance that the Eighth Amendment prevents doctors from “killing one of [their] patients” (LoveBoth, 2018) reflects the opinion of many religious instances that abortion does indeed depict killing someone (Wambugi Njagi, 2013, 162).
It becomes visible that Together for Yes also especially uses ‘emotionally-laden’ argumentation (Mustonen et al, 2017, 1-3) within the ‘discourse of emotionality’, like appalling to the people’s empathy towards victim of sexual abuse and/or rape. This emphasis on emotionality also reflects the ‘discourse of being worthy of having an abortion’ as it is stressed that, apparently, particularly women who have suffered violence and rape are the ones ‘deserving’ an abortion. Furthermore, it refers to the ‘discourse of abortion tourism’ when it speaks of the 3000 women that are in their point of view being ‘criminalised’ because of the Eighth Amendment. Although there is also no direct occurrence of a ‘discourse of feminism’, Together for Yes’ argumentation strategy does mirror stances which are also present within many feminist arenas, for example, when it is argued that women’s autonomy should not be restricted by the state or in fact anyone at all. This is a point that can also be found in previous discourses within the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’.
61
9.2 Justice: Equality for All?
The topos of justice is based on principles that claim that all members of society should have equal rights and should, therefore, be treated the same in situations where persons are perceived to be equal (Wodak, 2001b, 75).
9.2.1 Previous Discourses The ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ is valid within the topos of justice, although it is often claimed that both have the same rights. The ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ shows that one of them is apparently being prioritised and that the other is, therefore, treated unjustly. Here, a hierarchy between the woman and the foetus is constituted: “Language (…) can institute a hierarchy in which only some persons are eligible to speak” (Butler, 1999, 153) – of course the foetus is not able to speak, but that is why some people (in this case pro-life groups) are speaking for the foetus. Consequentially, a hierarchy is created between women and the people speaking for the foetus. In addition, the ‘discourse of the foetus’ also applies, as a prevailing argument within abortion debates has been that the foetus on its own has the right to life, without actually putting much emphasis on the life that makes it possible for the foetus to exist – the woman.
Furthermore, the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’ can be looked at within the context of the topos of abortion, as the right to autonomy could be seen as an essential part of all people in a society having the same rights. Nonetheless, autonomy falls out of what a woman is supposed to be to act within their ‘given gender’. A ‘correct woman’ acts “in response to a variety of different demands all at once” (Butler, 1999, 185) and bodily autonomy is within discourses from a pro-life perspective only asked for when the ‘abortion industry’ hurts women. Also part of the same discourse is the claim that abortion would be unjust to the men who were part of the foetus’ procreation. This claim comes from a background that a woman, when opting for a legal abortion, has control of her body herself, can also be threatening to the patriarchal system. If a man who was part of the cause of the woman becoming pregnant, does not have the right to decide about something going on in a woman’s body, this is a clear subversion, as the woman would be in charge and the patriarchal system would not have such an extent of a say in it anymore as it has to date. This can be seen as part of subversive resignification (Woltersdorf, 2003, 919).
Equally important is the ‘discourse of being worthy of having an abortion’ within this topos. The fact that women who have been raped or sexually abused can legally access abortion, and are, therefore, seen as ‘being worthy of having an abortion’ is, although the circumstances of 62 the pregnancy have been dreadful, not fair to women who seek abortions for other reasons (Wambui Njagi, 2014, 214). Women who agree voluntarily to have sexual intercourse are thus punished for not being ‘careful’ enough, and women who are regarded as victims of someone are being helped in the case of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. This leads to the conclusion that here a regulatory norm would be that only women who are willing to have a child, should engage in sexual activities. To only allow abortion to ‘victims’ is, therefore, a regulatory practice that intends to govern female bodies (Butler, 1999, 23). Furthermore, a ‘sexual hierarchy’ is established. This is connected to the patriarchal position of men who also engage in sexual activities without the intention to have a child, but are mostly not punished for this, as, apart from sexually transmitted diseases, which can often be kept secret, they will not have to endure any consequences (like pregnancy) of it (Butler, 1999, xxi).
From a religious point of view, within the ‘discourse of religion’, abortion is murder of ‘unborn children’ which would logically mean that murder is unjust to the foetus (Wambugi Njagi, 2013, 162). This also leads us to the ‘discourse of the morality of the state’: How can there be one morality of the state when many people have got different opinions on it, as, for example, the view that abortion is murder? This is unjust to all those not agreeing with the morality which has been chosen to be the dominant one (Ferree et al, 2017, 110). The concept of morality can also be considered to be a result of repeated acts, as ‘moralities’ are norms, too, since through the concept of morality it is decided what is wrong and what is right. Therefore, the dominant morality is the result of what language has over time acquired to be ‘right’, the norm.
As the topos’ name suggests, it fits together with several aspects of the ‘discourse of social justice’ and the ‘discourse of individual cases’. Within these discourses it is claimed that the focus on individual cases is unjust to the individuals themselves (Fletcher, 2014, 10) and to all other people who could potentially need an abortion as the wider circumstances how women get pregnant involuntarily are not considered (Porter, 1996, 287). It is argued that marginalised voices are not heard within the discourses on abortion which is unjust to them. In addition, another claim concentrating on marginalised communities is that abortion would target them specifically, which would be an utterly unfair treatment. It could be related to the concept of the abject as “social systems are vulnerable at their margins, and (…) are accordingly considered dangerous” (Butler, 1999, 168). This could pose a reason why the marginalised people’s voices are not heard. The marginalised groups would be those who live in the unliveable spheres and are needed to create the possibility of becoming a subject (Butler, 1993, 3). Furthermore, certain women have more difficulties to access abortion or is impossible for
63 them to do so, for example, because of financial or immigration reasons (Gilmartin & White, 2011, 278). Lentin (2013) calls the issue on abortion within Ireland, therefore, as one that happens within a “gendered racial state” (130). In connection to Butler it could be argued that to be able to speak on the topic of abortion, all women, and especially marginalised groups of women are being forced to take part in the discourse on abortion which Smith (2005) argues to be oppressive itself (119) (Butler, 1999, 147). As it has been criticised by Salih (2007) before, Butler does not convincingly cover the importance of race in her theory. This is noticed at this point again, as race is indeed mentioned in Bodies that matter as a regulatory regime in society, but not elaborated on sufficiently (63-65). It can be concluded that race, background, education, and so on all are important factors of why a woman is able to either raise her voice on the issue of abortion or not. Smith (2005) additionally argues that particularly women of colour, poor and/or disabled women are being marginalised within discourse from pro-choice and pro-life movements and this further supports structures of white supremacy (119). She also criticises that the choice-paradigm creates a hierarchy between women of who is worthy of or in the state of being able to afford (to organise) an abortion abroad which discriminates against and is therefore unjust to those who cannot do so (Smith, 2005, 128).
9.2.2 LoveBoth The campaign’s name ‘LoveBoth’ implies that ‘both’ – woman and foetus – are deemed important in their campaign and should have equal rights. It can correspondingly thus be concluded that one of LoveBoth’s bases of argumentation would be to try to present the equality of woman and foetus. This is also reflected in the campaign’s Tweets:
“Every life has meaning, even when you get 17 minutes of motherhood” (LoveBoth, 2018);
“The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland recognized the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child.” (LoveBoth, 2018);
““Sinead Slattery tells #LoveBothVoteNo that the 8th Amendment values the lives of mothers and babies.” (LoveBoth, 2018). The question is, how is it possible to decide how to behave in a critical situation where one of the ‘lives’ is at risk? How can two beings have exactly the same rights? Ireland has been the first country where the “right to life” of the foetus has been integrated into the law. This implementation causes a dilemma, since the life of the woman and the foetus are equal and a conflict could develop rather easily. This is a reason why usually in juridical practice, laws are not developed in a way to stand in conflict to each other (Porter, 1996, 286). It is also interesting to see that abortion is considered “ethical” (LoveBoth, 2018) when procured because the woman’s life is at risk, but not in any other cases. One could critically ask why at this moment 64 it suddenly becomes more important to keep the woman alive instead of the foetus. If followed consequently, would the equal right to life not mean that no one is allowed to prioritise one life over the other at any given moment? A likely pro-life answer to this might be that if the pregnant woman dies, the foetus will also have no chance to live outside the womb, so it is more ‘ethical’ to save the woman in case her life is at risk. Concerning the Tweet that refers to “17 minutes of motherhood” (LoveBoth, 2018), motherhood is presented as the absolute goal of a woman’s life; as fulfilment of her ‘natural role’. To some extent this could also be connected to the concept that a woman is supposed to sacrifice her pregnancy to allow the baby live, for example, for 17 minutes, as to many it might be very difficult to carry a foetus to term when they know it is very likely to die shortly after birth, but to others it might be very healing to actually bear a shortly living baby after pregnancy. However, essentially this Tweet is stereotyping women with assuming that all women want to reach motherhood as it is a necessity in their lives – even if it only takes 17 minutes (Butler, 1999, 118). This interpretation of what the essence of womanhood is, can be related to a concept by Foucault that Butler uses in her theory. When it is stressed by LoveBoth that motherhood is ‘naturally’ predestined and thus also a pre- discursive phenomenon, this serves those power relations that govern the female body, thus the patriarchal system, the institutions of religion, medical institutions (such as in-vitro- fertilisation-clinics), and the power of assigned gender roles in a binary ‘reality’ (Butler, 1999, 117).
As it has already become clear within the topos of fear, LoveBoth argues that foetuses with a disability or Down syndrome will be treated unequally as “abortion discriminates” “those who aren’t deemed perfect (LoveBoth, 2018). It additionally stresses the injustice towards certain groups of people who are not being heard within the debates on abortion, like the parents of children with disabilities or Down syndrome: “Parents of children with disabilities or #DownSyndrome have asked us to share their stories, because doctors tried to push them into abortion. We are supporting them and giving them a voice.” (LoveBoth, 2018). This can be related to Butler’s theory of performativity in the way that marginalised groups are considered dangerous by dominant discourse (Butler, 1999, 168) and that this would be an explanation that they are not being heard. However, LoveBoth is only “giving (…) a voice” (LoveBoth, 2018) to certain marginalised people – the main group of them being families of children/babies with Down syndrome. This shows that within the discourse on abortion in connection with the Referendum, only certain people are eligible to speak, and, therefore, a hierarchy has been established (Butler, 1999, 153).
65
It is also stressed that it is men’s right to speak on the issue of abortion and that it would be unjust if they were not heard. This opinion is especially reasoned through the argument that men are affected by abortion, too as “[for] every abortion there’s a man”. On one hand, when a foetus is the consequence of consensual sexual intercourse, there is a man who could become a father of the potential life the woman is carrying, but on the other hand, does this justify that one person, in these cases a man, can make decisions concerning another person’s body and life? Apparently LoveBoth does support this, which is another sign of the gendered context in which the abortion debate is taking place. If the woman was able to make the decision on her own without being stigmatised for doing so, this would mean that women would have got more bodily autonomy and decision-making-power whether they want to reproduce or not. This would become dangerous to the system of gendered norms where it is required that heterosexual relationships reproduce offspring and, therefore, portray the ‘intelligibility of the family’, as a woman could decide to not reproduce because of different reasons – it does not matter what these reasons are as they all differ from what ‘nature’ has predestined for her and are therefore not accepted within the regulatory frame of gendered society. The argument is, furthermore, not accurate in terms of rape as there might be a man involved, but should he be granted any further right above the woman? As LoveBoth clearly condones the crime of rape, it would agree with this point as well, but the Tweet still deliver a contradicting message. In addition, often enough the man ‘involved’ is not involved at all and all responsibility for any potential child would be put on the pregnant woman. Some Tweets are also suggestive that men are being discriminated against in the Referendum: “I have seen a few posts bating men for voting ‘No’. That we don’t have a clue. I’m voting ‘No’ for personal reasons and I have seen the impact of abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018, 551). This and also the Tweets concerning men’s right to speak are reflections of how notions of gender have been accepted and how masculine hegemony is reified as it is seen as the norm that men are involved in all discourses of society (Butler, 1999, 44). Some men are portrayed as being empathic and showing feelings: “I saw my child’s scan. That’s why I’m voting NO” (LoveBoth, 2018). This stands in contrast to a gender norm that has lead men to appear stereotypically as non-emotional and can therefore be an act of subversion towards the ‘natural opposites’ of men and women following different norms and codes which then consequentially end up becoming ‘true’ gender cores (Butler, 1999, 173).
Trans* or non-binary people are not mentioned at all which would support that LoveBoth overall supports a system where current gendered norms are being kept in place through repetition.
66
Through referring to ‘choice’ in a rather different way than pro-choice groups have done, LoveBoth tries to deconstruct the concept of choice. Images of different people are headed with “I was almost aborted. I’m someone, not someone’s choice” (LoveBoth, 2018) or “I am not someone’s choice, I am a human being” (LoveBoth). The personification of the issue suggests that LoveBoth criticises the choice-paradigm as an ‘easy’ justification to abort a foetus because the potential life is not valued. Furthermore, it is stressed that “abortion is not really a choice at all” (LoveBoth, 2018). This could lead to the conclusion that LoveBoth is of the opinion that abortion has been suggested as the ‘correct’ solution to women in crisis pregnancies as part of modern society and that women are being pushed to make this ‘choice’ (that is, in this point of view, a repeated norm (Salih, 2002, 63)) in order to fulfil others’ expectations of a ‘modern woman’. “Being “planned”, being “chosen”, being “wanted (sic) and being “perfect”? I’ll take being “alive”!” (LoveBoth, 2018) is a statement which attributes to women who have abortions that they are somewhat ‘picky’ and do not value life. Being alive or being born is stressed as the most important outcome of an ‘unwanted’ or ‘unplanned’ pregnancy and suggests that ‘nature’ is more important than what the pregnant woman’s own outlook on her life is. It does not matter in which circumstances a woman is during a pregnancy, once a ‘life’ has been started in the womb, this ‘naturally’ has to be continued.
The Tweet “I will be voting “No”. Not because I don’t agree with choice and rights, but because the Referendum on the 25th would allow any individual to have an abortion up to 12 weeks, and a mental health review thereafter up until 23 weeks of gestation.” reminds of the rather famous statement ‘I am not a racist, but…’. Theoretically, rights and choice should be granted to women, but in the way it is intended to be done, the person does not agree with – which essentially means they do not agree with women’s choice and rights.
LoveBoth accused the Taoiseach for a statement which it interpreted to be in conflict with people’s freedom of choice as he had uttered that someone in Ireland will eventually die from taking an abortion pill if the Eighth Amendment is not repealed (LoveBoth, 2018). Here, the importance of the freedom of choice of the people to vote ‘no’ is strengthened and it becomes clear that LoveBoth sees the concept of choice as invalid when concerning ‘human life’.
9.2.3 Together for Yes Together for Yes claims Ireland is currently not ‘fair’ as it states that it is “campaigning for a fairer, kinder Ireland” (Together for Yes, 2018) because the access to abortion (through travelling) is not equal as not all women in Ireland are able to afford or organise the journey: “Abortion access is very unequal and women who are highly controlled as well as women who
67 are living in poverty and women asylum seekers, for example, experience additional trauma as a result” (Together for Yes, 2018). It is, furthermore, called “profoundly socially unjust that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to travel if she can afford it yet is criminalised if she can’t” (Together for Yes, 2018). Here, Smith’s (2005) argumentation that a hierarchy is developed, applies. If women are able to afford the journey to Britain, then they are granted reproductive choices, but if they cannot, the concept of choice does not apply to them (128). This argumentation is also extended to disabled women of whom it is stressed that they should “be able to make decisions about their personal and private lives” (Together for Yes, 2018). When mentioning disability, Together for Yes uses more person-first language (“people with disabilities” (Together for Yes, 2018) than expressions where ‘disabled’ stands first. In contrast to LoveBoth, which more often refers to disabled foetuses or babies, Together for Yes usually speaks about disabled women’s rights: “Abortion [is] a ‘right’ for those with intellectual disability” (Together for Yes, 2018). Together for Yes is presenting itself as an ally, for example, through producing buttons with sign language (Together for Yes, 2018) and representatives of disability groups supporting the campaign (such as Inclusion Ireland, Deaf Community Together for Yes and Disabled People Together for Yes (Together for Yes, 2018). Utterances concerning disability come from medical professionals, politicians, the named advocacy groups, and women who have got a disability themselves. It is stressed that women with disabilities are individuals who are capable of making autonomous decisions, but that it is nevertheless more difficult for them to access abortion, for example, because of limited possibilities of mobility to travel. Additionally, pregnancy can be a greater risk to some disabled women than to able-bodied ones (LoveBoth, 2018). The state is accused of ignoring the rights of people with disabilities – a similar accusation to LoveBoth’s utterances in this area. Inclusion Ireland further criticises how the state is treating disabled women who have given birth: “It is the default that women with intellectual disabilities who become pregnant and have the child, have their child taken into care” (Together for Yes, 2018). Here, again it becomes visible how disabled women are even more oppressed than able-bodied women concerning their reproductive life: As just mentioned, it is more difficult for them to access abortion abroad or illegally through abortion pills and they are therefore coerced into continuing with their pregnancies. And even though they therefore have ‘obliged’ the codes that force a woman to be defined through the construct of motherhood, they are then not deemed ‘fit’ to fulfil this role and have the child taken into care. Here it gets clear that an (unwanted) pregnancy is another way the system controls disabled women’s lives who are already marginalised through their disability. However, Together for Yes is only stressing certain marginalised people’s rights, the
68 main group of them being women with intellectual disabilities. It is striking that people or families of people with Down syndrome are nearly not mentioned – which Together for Yes justifies because it believes that children with Down syndrome should not be exploited for a campaign (Together for Yes, 2018). However, one might assume that people with Down syndrome could become dangerous for Together for Yes’ goal to repeal the Eighth Amendment (Butler, 1999, 168) as LoveBoth’s claim that more foetuses with a disability or Down syndrome will be aborted, might be a relatively valid argument.
Within Together for Yes’ campaign men are overall portrayed as supporting women’s rights. Tweets like the following are showing support from men to women concerning their (bodily) autonomy, empowerment and emancipation:
““But if as a man, you respect the right of women and girls to have control over their bodies, their health and their lives, it’s not enough to believe or even say it; you have to actively work to make it a reality.”” (Together for Yes, 2018) This could be Together for Yes actively trying to establish a society where women oversee their own bodies and decisions. This is a technique or tactic to create a unity between genders and make women feel supported by men. In addition, utterances about men showing emotions – “Two weeks ago there was a man crying in this room. He was crying because he loves his wife and because he loved the baby that they hoped they would have.” (Together for Yes) – could be a subversion against gender norms and against what is seen as an ‘intelligible’ man as crying is something that is often deemed ‘un-manly’ and as a sign of weakness by society (Whitney, 2012). The fact that we are told of this without judgement, but encouragement instead, is a step towards subversive change of the ‘definition’ of an ‘intelligible gender’ and a step away from regulatory gender norms.
The hashtag “#menforyes” (Together for Yes, 2018) is introduced which is interesting as there is no specific hashtag for other genders, like “#womenforyes”. In addition, the campaign reacts extraordinarily positive when tweeting about men being engaged in, for example, canvassing or any other support: “What is particularly striking about the #CorkSaysYes #Together4Yes campaign is the number of men who have stepped forward” (Together for Yes, 2018); “Fantastic to have support from men around the country [who] will stand with us and vote YES” (Together for Yes, 2018). Utterances like these give the impression that it is expected that all women are interested in the issue of abortion as it is something that concerns many of them, or seen from another point of view, men could see the issue as not important for them as they are not as much concerned by it like women. Within the campaign two videos are tweeted where a man is presented as forgetful and his mother/partner/female friend must remind them to vote or 69 bring their passports (Together for Yes, 2018). This further supports the argumentation that women are supposed to take responsibility for making sure everyone votes because it is ‘their’ issue. In addition, it is a (re-)production of a gender norm which forces women to take the role of a ‘caring’ person and the one who is responsible for everything being well organised within their family.
9.2.4 Justice: Conclusion Given these points, it can be concluded that within the topos of justice LoveBoth clearly draws on the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ as it on one hand, constructs their lives as equal, but on the other hand inevitably ends up in the dilemma situation Porter (1996) outlines and therefore nearly automatically results in the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’. Another discourse LoveBoth is clearly connecting its argumentation with is the ‘discourse of being worthy of having an abortion’ and ‘discourse of abortion as a ‘necessary evil’’ as abortion is then viewed as ‘ethical’ when the woman’s life is at risk and it is therefore needed to prevent the woman from dying. As expected, LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of social justice’ by stressing firstly that women and foetus have equal rights, secondly that men should be granted rights to be part of the issue, and thirdly that it supports marginalised voices and therefore their rights as well. Furthermore, the Tweets analysed within the topos of justice are part of ‘discourses of emotionality’ as personal narratives like the referral to the “17 minutes of motherhood” (LoveBoth, 2018). This utterance and calling women ‘mothers’ is further drawing on the ‘discourse of motherhood’. Somehow LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’ as it is convinced that it is part of women’s rights to be protected from abortion and says that it supports women’s right. However, this could be criticised, as the ‘original’ ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’ is different from how LoveBoth interprets it.
Together for Yes draws on the ‘discourse of ‘abortion tourism’ as it argues that when women’s bodies are moved over the British border to be able to access abortion, this is unjust to those who cannot do so and are, therefore, running the risk of being criminalised when using abortion pills illegally. In addition, there can be connections made to the ‘discourse of emotionality’ as Together for Yes uses arguments that aim for a “fairer, kinder Ireland” which clearly is an appeal to emotion. Furthermore, it draws on the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’ as well as on the ‘discourse of social justice’ as it asks for autonomy to especially disabled women and those who are not able to access abortion abroad because of financial or other issues. Again, this could also be seen as a feminist issue and is thus a partial
70 drawing on the ‘discourse of feminism’. Together for Yes also strongly stresses men’s role within the abortion Referendum, but not so much on abortion itself. In contrast to LoveBoth, which also emphasises that a man is part of the formation of a foetus/baby, the aspect of how a man is directly involved is not as much stressed except when it is used to show that also men are also grieving about experiences when the foetus will not live.
9.3 Responsibility: ‘Traditionally’ Irish?
The topos of responsibility can be summarised that if someone, may it be the state or specific groups of people, can be seen as responsible for certain problems, then they should be the ones acting to find a solution to the situation (Wodak, 2001b, 75).
Porter (1996) argues that in Ireland responsibilities-based arguments would be the most persuasive as it was unavoidable that arguments based on rights concerning abortion would at some point reach an “oppositional impasse” (279) between the woman and the foetus or between pro-choice and pro-life supporters. Having analysed the different Tweets of the campaigns, I also support this reasoning. Porter (1996) further argues that “the language of individualistic democracies” (293) is not effective in countries where kin, community, and social bonds are integral aspects of society (293) which she claims that Ireland is one of, as “language of responsibilities and moral communities is integral to its historical traditions” (279).
9.3.1 Previous Discourses Within the ‘discourse of the foetus’ it can be found that there is the claim made that the foetus has personhood and foetal life is therefore constructed to be of public interest and responsibility (Fletcher, 2001, 578). These appeals to responsibility are often presented in an emotional way and are therefore also part of the ‘discourse of emotionality’ (Mustonen et al, 2017, 1-3).
In previous discourses, abortion is, furthermore, often portrayed as a rejection of motherhood which is equated with the rejection of responsibility. To make motherhood compulsory, is to strengthen the heterosexual system and also to keep sexuality as sole part of reproduction. This heteronormative construction also leads to the effect that it is expected that women fulfil a maternal role, and have got characteristics – like responsibility – that suit this role (Butler, 1999, 172). The ‘discourse of motherhood’ is also part of the topos of responsibility in other ways as it is constructed that a woman would not want an abortion except when she is coerced into it because she has so much responsibility for her ‘natural’ role as a mother (Lowe & Page, 2018, 9). In addition, the Virgin Mary is seen as her ‘ideal role model’ as she has become the symbol
71 for a sacrificing mother taking responsibility for her ‘unplanned’ child. Furthermore, this goes well with the ‘femina sacra’, a concept integrated in the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’. Lentin (2013) adapted it from Agamben and sees the woman as being made responsible for the foetus to such a level that in some cases she is ‘made die’ (134-135). This sacrifice is another characteristic that suits the female role of the mother. It is expected that she sacrifices her personal interests and needs for her child/children and prioritises them over anything. That subordination to the ‘natural’ role of a woman is part of the dualism nature/culture. To be a mother, is to accept predestined ‘nature’ and abandon a ‘culture’ that might suggest other options than motherhood to a woman. As it has been argued in gender research for some time now, this creates a gender hierarchy, as ‘culture’ is something ascribed to the man, and ‘nature’ is left to the woman (Butler, 1999, 48).
Finally, also the ‘discourse of abortion as a necessary evil’, can be integrated within the topos of responsibility, as abortion is there often presented as an act of responsibility from ‘good women’ as they are aware that they cannot be good mothers (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 215). Abortion – or rather the autonomous meaning it carries – poses a threat to the binarism between men and women and suggests that a woman is not that ‘natural’, responsible, and sacrificing being she is ‘destined’ to be. When argued that a woman could only be coerced into having an abortion – as no ‘real’ woman would ever want to have one – this still supports the notion that it is ‘normally’ ‘natural’ for a woman to have children, and that only the outer circumstances prevent this from happening. Through presenting motherhood as ‘natural’, as if its existence before cultural inscription was possible, movements have been successful to put a characteristic to women that will always stay, as it is portrayed as something that is a primary ‘instinct’. As such, the female body is “characterized primarily in terms of its reproductive function” (Butler, 1999, 118) and the necessity of this reproductive function has become a necessity that is ‘natural’ (Butler, 1999, 118).
9.3.2 LoveBoth LoveBoth constructs responsibility and care for each other as a ‘typically Irish’ character trait, which can be seen within several Tweets:
“I’ve always felt that people in Ireland are very good at supporting each other.” (LoveBoth, 2018)
“(…) the generosity of Irish people has no limits” (LoveBoth, 2018)
“We are society. We are a community.” (LoveBoth, 2018)
72
The message these Tweets convey can all be connected to Porter’s (1996) argument that for the Irish people the ‘tradition’ of being responsible for each other as a community is essential for their definition of what it means to be Irish. Another interesting aspect adds up to this when it comes to the state Ireland itself. It is often gendered female, for example, through referring to the country with female pronouns (Fletcher, 2001, 572). This could be connected to the developed stereotype that women are caring, nurturing, responsible people. That the people of Ireland are referred to as “very good at supporting each other” (LoveBoth, 2018) or as a “truly compassionate society (LoveBoth, 2018) is thus no coincidence, but interconnected to the state being gendered female and consequently being ascribed so-called ‘female qualities’. Again, this shows that language creates what is socially real, as the female gendering has direct consequences on how ‘the people’ are being perceived and perceive each other (Butler, 199, 146).
Relatively often it is also talked about ‘the people’: “People are shocked”; “people in Ireland” “the people”; “The Irish people”; “Irish citizens”; “we”; “us”; “the public”; “A truly compassionate society”; “County [X] needs to have its voice heard” (LoveBoth, 2018). This is a tactic of presenting all people of Ireland as having one opinion on the issue of abortion. This has already been prevalent in the 1983 Referendum when Ireland was seen as “as a homogeneous collectivity with a collective will” (Smyth, 1998, 72). Tweets overall suggest that the people do not want to have abortion in Ireland: “People are shocked this country is facing such a proposal” (LoveBoth, 2018). This is an attempt to make the audience believe that the current situation does not need to be changed and enables that gender norms connected to abortion are kept upright.
Emphasis is put on Ireland being unique because of the existence of the Eighth Amendment and because it is “one of the safest countries in the world to have a baby” (LoveBoth, 2018) as well as a “world leader in care for pregnant women” (LoveBoth, 2018). The Eighth Amendment enables the state to act as “guardian of collective morality” (Smyth, 1998, 62) and to “maintain and reinforce the hegemony of a conservative patriarchy” (Smyth, 1998, 65). However, it is predicted that Ireland would lose this uniqueness once legal abortion was introduced: “Why would Ireland be any different? In all other countries where it was introduced abortion rates increased dramatically” (LoveBoth, 2018). It is interesting to see that LoveBoth suggests that such a core value as being “good at supporting each other” (LoveBoth, 2018) would be lost only because of a jurisdictional change, but as Smyth (1998) argues, because the national identity is constructed through how women’s sexuality and bodily autonomy is regulated, it is
73 likely that legalised abortion would initiate subversion within the whole Irish society and what is seen as national identity (Smyth, 1998, 65-66).
The responsibility to protect “the most vulnerable” and to stop discrimination (LoveBoth, 2018) is further put on the society as a whole: “We are society. We are a community. There is a responsibility for all of us to protect the most vulnerable” (LoveBoth, 2018). It does anyhow not get exactly clear who the most vulnerable are, as on the hand it is suggested it is “unborn babies” as “there’s probably no more vulnerable than unborn babies” (LoveBoth, 2018), but then again there is an image of a baby with Down syndrome shown under a similar post (“Once the right to life itself is removed, the most vulnerable human lives are the first to be discriminated against.” (LoveBoth, 2018). If foetuses in general are seen as the “most vulnerable” (LoveBoth, 2018) this creates an opposition between the pregnant women and the foetus, as the pro-choice side would rather argue that women could be seen as the “most vulnerable” (LoveBoth, 2018) within this debate, as it can be seen in the following Tweet: “We have been sending our most vulnerable girls and women to our colleagues in the UK for too long.” (Together for Yes, 2018). However, it does not matter whether abortion is legalised or not, there will always be discrimination towards people within the reproductive domain. When it is illegal, women in general are discriminated because they do not have access to abortion in their own country. Some women are able to travel to have a safe procedure (without medical follow-up care), but others do not have the necessary resources to make this trip (Felzmann, 2014, 196). When abortion is legalised, it might be the case that minorities are targeted as they are not seen as people who can make legitimate choices (Smith, 2005, 128).
However, if the state of Ireland is often gendered female and its citizens are ascribed character traits which are seen as stereotypically female as well – how come that there is still a hierarchy between people and a patriarchal structure within society? Tweets like the following can provide an explanation: “As men we have the duty to step up and protect both our partners and our children” (LoveBoth, 2018); ““It is also extremely important for men to respect and defend the rights of women” (…) Men count.”” (LoveBoth, 2018). Men are thus constructed as the protectors and defenders of women which can be related to the binary gender opposition. Utterances like these are performances “effected with the strategic aim of maintaining gender within its binary frame” (Butler, 1999, 179).
Only a heterosexual man who has a female partner and feels the “duty” to protect her and their children, is seen as an ‘intelligible gender’ as he is enacting the codes which are perceived as belonging to a man’s ‘gender core’. (Butler, 1993, 173-174). The thought that he is a ‘real man’
74
(Butler, 1999, 178) is further stressed through the fact that he has apparently used his reproductive possibilities and became a father of a child and fulfils the image of a ‘supporting partner and father’. Dualisms like these serve the gender hierarchy of women being in an inferior role to men, which can in this case clearly be seen through the message that the women is in need of protection and defence of her own rights (Butler, 1999, 48). Why is she – apparently – not able to do this herself? One could argue that just because women are being supported by men, this does not mean that they would not have the possibilities to support themselves. Looked at superficially, this might sound like a valid point. The language in which this message is conveyed is, however, what is key in these Tweets. If men were just called to support women in their fight for what LoveBoth sees as their rights, then words like ‘defence’ or ‘protection’ would not be used – or at least in a way that keeps men ‘in the back’. Of course, abortion is an issue that does not solely concern women, but it is about their bodies and how the issue of abortion is used to govern them (Butler, 1999, 23) which takes me to the point that these Tweets are a reflection of the patriarchal system where masculine hegemony is accepted as the norm (Butler, 1999, 44). The Tweet “As men we have the duty” can be interpreted as all men are being pushed to follow a behaviour that falls into the gender norm of men having to be the protecting or defending ‘part’ of a woman. Here the behaviour pattern how men are ‘supposed to act’ is clearly being pushed into a binary relation as his behaviour is directly contrasted to “our partners and our children” (LoveBoth, 2018).
Similarly, the heterosexual matrix is also further (re)constructed. The Tweets referring to the duty to defend their partners’ and children’s rights reinforces the concept of ‘nature’ to socially control people within the frame of heterosexuality (Butler, 1999, 159-160). It also reflects the heterosexist and heteronormative society in which this is happening: when spoken of a man’s partner, it is automatically assumed that the partner has to be a woman. This use of language is an example of heterosexist power (Butler, 1999, 44). Furthermore, the ‘natural’ gender roles of men being the defenders/protectors and women being mothers, is further kept in place. When men, women, and children are mentioned together in a way like this Tweet does, it gives the impressions that Tweets like this one refer to the ‘traditional family’. ‘Family values’ are ‘traditional values’ – thus repeated acts – and abortion is seen as a threat to them, meaning that there is the danger of change/subversion (Butler, 1993, 109). “Defend”, “step up” and “protect” (LoveBoth, 2018) are strong words which are being assigned to be men’s duty in connection to women. The man is seen as active, the woman is portrayed as passive and not able to “defend”, “step up”, and so on. Ironically, most active people in the campaign including the campaign- directors are women. Therefore, an ambivalent message is transferred to the audience, but as 75 the Tweet is more visible than what is happening behind the stages, the conclusion will most likely have more impact. Through using these words, LoveBoth is reproducing stereotypes of male gender norms and also produces them, as “[language] gains the power to create the “socially real” (Butler, 1999, 146).
Tweets like these also are part of and represent the notions of gender which have been ‘naturalised’ and reified, so that the masculine hegemony and heterosexist power are supported (Butler, 1999, 44). It would, furthermore, also be interesting to be able to know against whom men have to defend their partners and children. Abortion itself? The abortion industry? Politicians? The pro-choice activists? It seems like the main danger their partners and children have to be protected from is in fact autonomy over their own bodies. Similar to previous discourses, the bodily autonomy and reproductive power are a threat to patriarchal society, and could be used as beginnings of subversion and change (Woltersdorf, 2003, 919).
Within the topos of responsibility, medical professionals portray another group of people who are required to act responsible. LoveBoth sees the Eighth Amendment as no barrier to medical professionals at all as “The Irish Medical Council guidelines say that doctors must intervene to save a woman – the risk does not have to be imminent.”” (LoveBoth, 2018). LoveBoth always refers to medical professionals with their medical title (for example Dr or Prof) (LoveBoth, 2018) and/or their job title (such as Consultant Obstetrician, GP). While often ‘professional’ language is used in Tweets including medical staff’s utterances or opinions (“Recent weeks have seen significant and untrue public statements about the practice of maternal healthcare in this country (…)” (LoveBoth, 2018), more simple or even colloquial expressions can be found as well (“Shame on Mark Murphy for creating fears.” (LoveBoth, 2018). LoveBoth also repeatedly refers to the group @medicsfortthe8th, an alliance that supports the Eighth Amendment to stress that the demands made are also supported by the medical community.
Medical professionals are further portrayed as being very familiar with the issue of abortion - “Theresa Moylan, a former NHS nurse, speaks about her experience of the abortion industry in England” (LoveBoth, 2018) – and as professional experts on the issue. Additionally, the impression is given that Irish medical professionals are united on this: “Five of Ireland’s most senior doctors, including four former Chairmen of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have confirmed that 8th Amendment saves women’s lives” (LoveBoth, 2018). Medical professionals who support Together for Yes are accused to be “scaremongering” (LoveBoth, 2018).
76
9.3.3 Together for Yes The campaign’s name ‘Together for Yes’ already implies that ‘the people’ come together and are united to vote yes. The usage of ‘we’ for the people of Ireland further supports this message – for example: “Will we continue to deny support or are we compassionate and will we care for women, partners and families in our own country?” (Together for Yes, 2018). Together for Yes describes itself as “national grassroots movement” (Together for Yes, 2018) which is “vibrant, broad and diverse” (Together for Yes, 2018), and “the broadest platform ever assembled” (Together for Yes, 2018). Compassion, care, and change are described as the core message of its campaign and the following ‘GIF’ describes what/whom it further campaigns for: “Together for Dignity, Together for Care, Together for Respect, Together for Health, Together for Equality, Together for Women, Together for Repeal, Together for Yes” (Together for Yes, 2018). It is, furthermore, stressed that its supporters come from all parts and areas of Ireland: “We are women, we are men, we are workers, we are students, we are your family, friends and neighbours, we are together for the women in Ireland who can’t be heard. We are #Together4Yes” (Together for Yes, 2018).
Looking at how Together for Yes is structured and compounded, it is an organisational structure that Butler would generally support as it could be seen as an “open coalition” (Butler, 1999, 22) of different persons advocating for a goal that can initiate change in gendered norms valid for women although she would criticise several utterances it makes. Together for Yes puts quite some emphasis on how it is a reflection of Irish society:
“The Together for Yes Campaign Platform brings together a wide range of civil society organisations who represent various sectors of Irish society. We share a unified aim which is to secure a yes vote in the Referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution” (Together for Yes, 2018). Together for Yes makes several statements that generalise the characteristics and opinions of ‘the people’ – “People in Ireland don't want to be judgemental” (Together for Yes, 2018); “How my wife was treated, it doesn’t sit with the people of Ireland” (Together for Yes, 2018), and also of ‘women’: “The women of Ireland are amazing” (Together for Yes, 2018) when it retweets a post of a woman who on the day of the Referendum went to the polling station mid- labour. This generalisation can be criticised as it further serves to create an image of that all women are (obliged to be) the same (Butler, 1999, 19). Together for Yes bases its strategy of ‘compassion’ thus on the perceived notion of all Irish people being responsible, caring and kind (Together for Yes, 2018). This is supported by, for example, the content published under the hashtag “#hometovote” (Together for Yes, 2018) where people are shown coming back to
77
Ireland from all around the world to be able to vote in the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment (Together for Yes, 2018).
Ireland in its current state is described as “a cold place for women in the most terrible circumstances” (Together for Yes, 2018) where proper care “at home” (Together for Yes, 2018) is not possible because of the Eighth Amendment. According to Together for Yes, the repeal of the Eighth Amendment would lead to a “fairer Ireland” (Together for Yes, 2018), a “safer country for women” (Together for Yes, 2018) and more equality. In addition, it appeals to the Irish people: “Ireland, it’s time to bring compassion home. It is time that our young families grow up in an Ireland that wraps its arms around them when they most need support.” (Together for Yes, 2018).
Abortion is portrayed as compassionate (healthcare) and the “kindest thing” both to the foetus – “A yes vote would mean Grace could rest in peace” (Together for Yes, 2018) – and the woman: “Voting YES will enable evidence based (sic) and compassionate care for women who have a crisis pregnancy” (Together for Yes, 2018). It is presented as “needed” (Together for Yes, 2018) in certain situations, and as a measure of support. In addition, abortion is seen as a possibility to ease trauma after rape and care for the victims: “We have heard from the experts @RCNIreland and @Womens_Aid who say that “a 12 week period is the only compassionate way to legislate for abortion in pregnancies as a result of rape” (Together for Yes, 2018). Also here the experts’ knowledge is stressed. When women tell their stories of having abortions when the foetus had a fatal foetal abnormality, the pregnancies are often described as “wanted” (Together for Yes, 2018). This is used to stress that these women actually wanted to remain pregnant and have a child. It also shows that not all women who seek abortions actually intend to subvert gender norms, but that the circumstances coerce them into rejecting motherhood. In addition, presenting the pregnancy as ‘wanted’ still has the effect that these women are granted more privilege as it is more ‘norm-conforming’ than women who have ‘unwanted’ pregnancies (Woltersdorf, 2003, 919). However, it could still be seen as a subversion against the regulatory frame as they still do something against ‘nature’ and end the pregnancy through abortion and not through ‘natural ways’.
Women who have travelled to Britain to access an abortion are reporting of a shameful, stigmatising, secret journey which they felt they were forced to do. Nonetheless, their experiences with medical professionals in British hospitals are very positive: “It was the first time we felt we were cared for and not judged.” (Together for Yes, 2018); “The dignity and respect shown to us and our son in the hospital was in complete contrast to the abandonment
78 we felt from our own doctors and our own country” (Together for Yes, 2018). Together for Yes criticises that if the Eighth Amendment does not get repealed, a further “[exportation of] the problem or [importation of] the solution will find place (Together for Yes, 2018). It is also reported of how Liverpool Women’s Hospital has named the department where abortions are procured “the shamrock suite” (Together for Yes, 2018) as Irish abortion in Liverpool seems to be such a phenomenon that it even has its own name. The ‘nickname’ is very interesting when looked at the history of the shamrock’s symbolic meaning. It was used by Saint Patrick to represent the Holy Trinity when he introduced Christianity to Ireland. In the 19th century it became a symbol for rebellion and it was dangerous to wear it as it could result in death by hanging (Gervais, n.d.). Even though the name might not have been chosen with this intention or knowledge at all, it is still striking that the meanings of it represent the debate that has been going on in society during the Referendum: the Holy Trinity as a symbol for being rather prohibiting of abortion and the symbolic of the rebellion trying to achieve change concerning the abortion laws. Together for Yes asks its audience to “move away from (…) departure gates” (Together for Yes, 2018) and therefore, stresses that Ireland should no longer give its responsibility for pregnant Irish women away to Britain (Porter, 1996, 294).
In addition, Together for Yes emphasises that women are acting responsibly when obtaining an abortion: “Irish women are responsible. The majority of Irish women having abortions are mothers. They understand what motherhood entails. They know the reason they are making their decision and I respect them” (Together for Yes, 2018). Utterances like these can be looked at critically. It seems like responsibility is connected to motherhood – if one is a mother, then she is automatically a responsible person. Yet the different sentences could also be interpreted separately from each other; that Irish women are responsible in general and that many of those seeking abortions are mothers already. But even if this was the intention, the whole Tweet’s effect rather appears to be one statement and therefore has the consequence that responsibility and motherhood are interconnected to each other. This leads to further stereotyping of all mothers being ‘naturally’ responsible beings fully involved in their motherhood. In addition, Together for Yes also sees it as a father’s responsibility to care for his daughter which naturalises the issue:
“A father’s instinct is to protect his daughter.” (Together for Yes, 2018); “Why did I get involved? In simple terms, the 8th Amendment harms women and I have so many women in my life I want to protect, by voting yes @RichieSadlier #men4yes” (Together for Yes, 2018).
79
Tweets like the former make the connection and relationship between father and daughter seem like it is ‘natural’, with ‘instincts’ stemming from a ‘natural’ source. It can be argued that rather the relationship of father and daughter within the culturally constructed concept of the family has been shaped by the incest taboo. The theory of the incest taboo comes from Sigmund Freud and assumes that a son desires his mother and a daughter desires her father. As this is not ‘possible’, children have to overcome their desire and accept the father as the one who bears all cultural power. Among reproducing heterosexuality, the incest taboo also produces heteronormative identities within a binary gender frame (Zelezny, 2014, 3-7) as the binary relationship between father and daughter is strengthened. The daughter who is in need of protection is put on the lower rank on a hierarchy between them (Butler, 1999, 48). Language that puts women into these inferior and passive positions, strongly reproduces the stereotype of men being active and women being passive (Butler, 1999, 139) and stresses that men and women need each other to become signified ‘beings’ (Butler, 1999, 58). The latter Tweet also reinforces the notion that being ‘strong’ enough to ‘protect women’ is an essential part of manhood which is needed in order to be an ‘intelligible gender’ (Butler, 1993, 173-174). This actively harms all genders as when they do not fulfil these attributes they are deemed ‘non- intelligible genders’.
It is suggested that also the government and politicians in general are of the opinion that it is Ireland’s responsibility to care for women at home. This happens through only citing or reporting about politicians who are in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment. In contrast to LoveBoth, Together for Yes stresses that law-making is the Oireachtas’ task anyway which is why it should be trusted when it comes to the legislation on abortion.
9.3.4 Responsibility: Conclusion Both campaigns clearly and heavily draw on the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’ as they both construct responsibility, support, compassion, and care to be the defining character traits of the Irish people. Together for Yes does this even stronger than LoveBoth does as it seems that it is Together for Yes’ main strategy to convince the Irish people to vote yes, as LoveBoth rather puts a focus on how the Eighth Amendment protects the ‘unborn.’ The campaigns both draw on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ as the whole construct of responsibility is a rather emotional one.
LoveBoth’s unclear definition of who is the ‘most vulnerable’ stresses the ‘discourse of opposition: woman vs. foetus’ as it is not suggested convincingly that both can be ‘the most vulnerable’ at the same time. It is also drawing on the ‘discourse of the foetus’ as similarly to
80 previous discourses, the foetal life is constructed as public interest. Since abortion is seen as a threat to ‘traditional family values’ there is, furthermore, a clear connection to the ‘discourse of motherhood’ where also in previous discourses abortion has been seen as a rejection of responsibility and where abortion has been called “a critical battleground in the defence of traditional family values” (Wambui Njagi, 2013, 191). What are ‘traditional family values’ has in Ireland also been shaped by the Catholic Church as their hegemonic role in Ireland allowed them to define what is ‘natural’ for women and therefore also families (Porter, 1996, 287) which is why LoveBoth is also indirectly referring to the ‘discourse of religion’.
Together for Yes is not drawing on the ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ the way it has been the case in previous discourses but rather on how the ‘former coloniser’ is taking responsibility for Irish women and cares for them instead of Ireland. The relationship between father and daughter is not properly described by the ‘discourse of motherhood’ but does apply to what I have defined within it: the ‘traditional family values’ as the connection between the two of them is a reflection of these ‘traditional’ values. However, the reference to Irish women being responsible as many who seek abortion are already mothers, is clearly connected to the ‘discourse of motherhood’ and draws on the notion that being a mother automatically means being responsible.
9.4 Reality: What Is It, That ‘Is’?
The topos of reality is a rather ‘unglossed’ one: “because reality is as it is, a specific action or decision should be performed/made.” (Wodak, 2001b, 76). Butler argues that language is where reality is constituted because sense can only be produced through language (Villa, 2010b, 272), and that language consists of repetitive performative speech acts. The performative speech acts can only be performative when they are embedded in social rituals of power and authority relations (Villa, 2010a, 149)
9.4.1 Previous Discourses As it has been mentioned within the topos of numbers, ‘discourses of ‘pseudo-science’ create the notion that the discussions on abortion seem to be fact-based and ‘real’.
The ‘discourse of feminism’ also comes into place. Many feminists are united on the issue of abortion, but some have also questioned whether women are realistically able to have bodily autonomy in a patriarchal society. This question is to some extent trying to ‘say it as it is’ and questions if it actually makes sense for feminists to continue the fight for issues such as equal rights (Duvnjak, 2012, 28-29). Butler might argue against a discourse of feminism and rather
81 call it discourse of feminist ideas, as there cannot be one ‘united’ stance on something (Butler, 1999, 19). This is also supported by the existence of the pro-life-feminists/anti-abortion- feminists (Ziegler, 2013, 233). But this discourse I have outlined focuses on feminists supporting legal abortion. Butler’s concept of how subversion is possible, can be connected to the question if women are ever able to have autonomy over their bodies in a patriarchal society. Change is achievable up to a certain amount, but is still always retained within the existing discourse (Salih, 2007, 58-59). But even if it seems like change has been implicated, it has to be noted that the possibility of the female body getting caught in another part of the paternal law is existent (Butler, 1999, 119).
9.4.2 LoveBoth LoveBoth mainly does not see that there is any need of change or reaction to the current reality of abortion. There is only one Tweet concerning a message, that “the Eighth needs to be looked at” which is then again instantly put into perspective as “but not to such an extent” follows (LoveBoth, 2018). It names different reasons why the status quo concerning the Eighth Amendment should be continued: Because there is a specific amount of abortions happening in Britain and other countries, abortion should not be legalised in Ireland. In addition, since high numbers of foetuses with Down syndrome are aborted in other countries, legal abortion should not be introduced to Ireland. Similarly, increased abortion rates after legalisation in other countries are seen as a reason to not repeal the Eighth Amendment. As main reason, however, it is stated that because the foetus can do ‘X’ at ‘X’ weeks, abortions should not become legally available (LoveBoth, 2018). Although rape is accepted as “”, LoveBoth sees it only “compounded by the horror of abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018). After the X-case in 1992, there were protests in which it was claimed that Ireland defended “Men’s Right to Procreate by Rape” (Smyth, 1998, 62). This might be expressed quite radically, but technically, LoveBoth’s demand to not allow women pregnant as a result of rape, would have the same effect. However, it seems that LoveBoth has other intentions than protecting the rapist, as they are stressing the point that it is not the foetus’ ‘fault’ of how it has come into existence and do not condone what the rapist has done.
With wanting to prevent any change at all, LoveBoth supports that current regulatory gendered norms are kept in place, as through them the division of power stays like it has been for a long time. The laws that make abortion illegal provide the grounds for the state being able to govern women’s bodies through the possibility of the occurrence of pregnancy. Furthermore, the illegality of abortion ensures that women are being kept in a place where autonomous decisions
82 concerning the body are not possible which also has an influence on other aspects of their lives, as for example, how they are able to engage in the employment market. As the ‘nature of motherhood’ is stressed through the discourse on abortion in Ireland, women are being restricted to escape from this ‘natural predestination’, and are therefore oppressed by society.
The Eighth Amendment is portrayed as the reason and way to ‘save’ ‘babies’ from being aborted. The word ‘save’ is used very often: “the Eighth Amendment saves lives” (LoveBoth, 2018); “The Eighth Amendment helps Irish parents to save their children” (LoveBoth, 2018). It is also seen as the most important protection for foetuses with Down syndrome and disabilities. The Eighth Amendment is often put in direct contrast with abortion where it is portrayed as ‘good’ and abortion as ‘bad’. Furthermore, it is seen as a regulation that provides enough opportunities to ‘really help’ women in life-threatening situations, meaning that doctors are able to procure terminations of pregnancy when the woman’s life is at risk.
LoveBoth sees a possible repeal as unnecessary as the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 would already regulate everything needed: “Do your friends know this? Out abortion laws changed in 2013. It is already lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland in order to protect a mother’s life!” (LoveBoth, 2018). The hashtag “#TooFarForMe” (LoveBoth, 2018) is introduced to mark Tweets which convey the content that the proposed abortion laws are unacceptable. Here it is interesting to note that “#TooFarForMe” (LoveBoth, 2018) implies that some extent of abortion would be acceptable for LoveBoth, as for example, one person explicitly expresses their support for abortion in certain circumstances, but also makes the restriction that abortion on demand would be too extreme to them (LoveBoth, 2018). But then, most other Tweets convey the message that abortion is only seen as a possible solution for women whose life is at serious risk.
Through citing studies – “See here 3 peer-reviewed studies that confirm the testimony of post- abortive women: abortion itself heightens the risk of future mental health problems” (LoveBoth, 2018) – LoveBoth tries to convince its audience of their perceived reality that abortion is harmful to women and has a harsh impact on their mental health. Additionally, it is claimed that “there is no medical evidence that abortion safeguards or improves women’s mental health” (LoveBoth, 2018) and that instead ‘abortion regret’ should be “recognised as a significant phenomenon” (LoveBoth, 2018). Personal experiences of women, “I was 19 when I had an abortion. I was never told it would lead to deep depression and suicidal thoughts” (LoveBoth, 2018), are used to strengthen the argumentation of abortion being harmful and spread word of the existence of a ‘post-abortion-trauma’.
83
The hashtag “#BelieveInScience” (LoveBoth, 2018) is introduced and it is stressed that arguments are “based on facts” (LoveBoth, 2018). ‘Facts’ like “The brain and the nervous system are laid down at seven weeks so the baby can feel pain” (LoveBoth, 2018) or videos of foetuses “jumping and [kicking]” (LoveBoth, 2018) in the womb are tweeted to make LoveBoth seem as an authentic movement which is arguing from a scientific point of view and to generate the audience’s empathy towards the foetuses which is described as very ‘human’. This focus on the foetus and its ‘abilities’ separates the foetus from the pregnant woman and makes it easier to look at the foetus without thinking of the woman carrying it.
9.4.3 Together for Yes Together for Yes is of the opinion that the reality under the Eighth Amendment is harmful to women which is why it should be repealed. Furthermore, it emphasises that also abortion is a reality in Ireland as they are in fact happening, but get exported to Britain or illegally in Ireland. These claims are supported by naming several statistics perceived as ‘facts’: According to Together for Yes, 3,000 women travel every year to obtain an abortion and two women every day take abortion pills at home. In addition, at least 1,500 women order abortion pills annually. In the first quarter of 2018, there has been a 90% increase of women having ordered abortion pills in comparison to the same period in 2017. In the last 10 years 6,000 abortion pills have been seized. The number of women who had legal abortions because their lives were at risk is named as being 25 in 2017 (Together for Yes, 2018).
Furthermore, it is also emphasised that abortion would be a ‘realistic’ solution to a real, existing problem: ““Life is complicated. Couples get a diagnosis of a fatal foetal anomaly. Women get raped. The law turns its back on this women. Let's accept the reality”” (Together for Yes, 2018). Here it might be criticised that especially the issue of rape appears to be portrayed rather ‘blasé’. From other Tweets it becomes clear that Together for Yes wants to support rape victims and offer them help, but in Tweets like these it might be essential to also suggest options how to approach the problematic structures in society that enable crimes like rape.
Together for Yes stresses that the Eighth Amendment is part of a reality where women are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, irrespective of any other circumstances (Together for Yes, 2018). This can be viewed as forcing her to motherhood, as there is no legal possibility to prevent becoming a mother in Ireland. This further supports the norm that women are ‘naturally’ supposed to be mothers and should, therefore, not prevent it. Furthermore, Butler (1999) argues that it is not a choice whether one can take part in the repetitive structures or not which further supports the argument that the Eighth Amendment keeps gender norms in place
84 that oblige a woman in a crisis pregnancy to become a mother, nevertheless (189). Together for Yes’ claim that the “Eighth Amendment has caused grave harm to many women in Ireland, including death” (Together for Yes, 2018) shows how radically the prevalent gender norms are being tried to be kept in place movements supporting to retain the Eighth Amendment, as even the possibility of women’s death because of lack of clarity concerning ‘the risk to life’ are accepted. A case is mentioned where a woman became pregnant by an abusive partner. To her abortion was the solution that enabled her to empower herself and escape from the abusive relationship:
“I realised that if I had his baby, he would feel that he owned me and that I would never be free of him. I felt ending the pregnancy was the only way to avoid his anger and escape the relationship.” (Together for Yes, 2018). In this case the woman decided to subvert the especially unjust gendered hierarchy that had been existing in her relationship. Abortion is here portrayed as the measure that allowed her to become free of her own direct oppressor and to contest the norm which prescribes her to accept her fate of ‘nature’ and remain pregnant. However, her personal situation tweeted about here is used to reflect that abortion is a symbol for how women can start subversive acts within Irish society to allow women to begin working against the oppression through the reproductive function of their bodies and to work towards a system where women can make independent decisions and have autonomy over their own bodies instead. Even though abortion is a possibility that “[contests] the rigid codes of hierarchical binarisms” (Butler, 1999, 185) it must be noted that this can only happen within existing circumstances and norms of gender which means that slow subversion with the help of abortion can be possible, but is limited (Butler, 1999, 185).
In order to seem convincing to the audience, many citations of medical professionals are involved in the Together for Yes campaign. Together for Yes is using the medical professionals’ utterances to convince people from the movement being an evidence-based, rational advocator for legal abortion access in Ireland which can also be observed through the introduction of the hashtag “#evidenceforyes” (Together for Yes, 2018). – There is a big amount of Tweets referring to utterances or opinions of medical professionals which shows already how their opinion is valued and seen as very influential. They are portrayed as knowledgeable and having a high position in society. It is portrayed as if all doctors in Ireland were supportive of repealing the Eighth Amendment: “Obstetricians and gynaecologists have agreed to establish principles of safe practice that will “underpin safe care for women” (Together for Yes, 2018) in the event of a Yes vote on May 25” (Together for Yes, 2018). 85
As LoveBoth does, Together for Yes as well always names medical professionals with their title and often with their work-position (“GP”; “Chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists”; “Master of the National Maternity Hospital”; “Medical Director of the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit”, and so on (Together for Yes, 2018). They are on one hand, talking on the issue from their professional medical perspective – for example, that the Eighth Amendment stops them from doing their job correctly (Together for Yes, 2018) – but are on the other hand also reporting from their own experiences with women who wanted/needed abortions
““I've seen everything from the 14 year old travelling with her parents to the 40 year old travelling without her children. In every case, all I can do is close my folder and say, I'm sorry I can't help you” - Dr Mary Favier” (Together for Yes, 2018), and the feeling of them “failing women (…) by not trusting them and not trusting doctors” (Together for Yes, 2018). It is stressed that the Eighth Amendment prevents them from providing full medical care and metaphors like the following emphasise this expression of concern: “A constitutional provision should never get in the way of good medical care. A doctor should never feel it necessary to have a stethoscope in one hand, and a copy of the Constitution in the other” (Together for Yes, 2018).
Through quoting these experts, their power is reproduced. Their utterances make sure that medical professionals are perceived as powerful people and medicine as a powerful institution. Through the power of the institution and individual medical professionals, it should be ensured that the opinion of these people/institutions are reproduced. Therefore, these opinions or advice will be seen as the norm which prescribes that doctors, nurses, and professors are the professionals society should trust and listen to (Big Think, 2011).
9.4.4 Reality: Conclusion LoveBoth draws on the ‘discourse of the foetus’ as ‘facts’ about the foetus are given and as reality is perceived as not needing any change because the Eighth Amendment protects the foetus. Some of these ‘facts’ could be considered ‘pseudo-science’, for example, that a foetus can feel pain at seven weeks. A study cited by The New York Times which has since its conduction not been contradicted, rather suggests that a foetus can feel pain from the 27th week on (Healy, 2016). It is thus suggested that LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of pseudo- science’ as some of the other utterances concerning the foetus’ developmental stages do not seem to be completely accurate.
Together for Yes’ argumentation focuses on the woman and prioritises her over the foetus. Therefore, ‘the discourse of opposition: foetus vs. woman’ applies. In cases of fatal foetal 86 abnormalities, the abnormality is mentioned, and some personal stories involve the foetus, but most Tweets’ focus is on how the situation is difficult for the woman. These women are also especially constructed as ‘being worthy of an abortion’. Furthermore, the ‘discourse of necessary evil’ applies as well as there is are examples given of foetuses being diagnosed with fatal foetal abnormalities, or rape. To stress that these things happen, constructs abortion as ‘necessary consequence’, thus a ‘necessary evil’ to fatal circumstances or incidents.
9.5 History: Oppression and Help
The topos of history could be described as a ‘consequential’ one. If one can learn from history that certain actions have certain consequences, then in situations which can be compared to those having happened in the past, certain actions have to be avoided/performed (Wodak, 2001b, 76).
9.5.1 Previous Discourses The ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ and the ‘discourse of ‘abortion tourism’’ play a big part in the topos of history as it has been a prevailing argument that Ireland does not want to be influenced by Britain, the former brutal, capitalist, non-religious coloniser (Smyth, 1998, 65). Furthermore, Ireland wanted to distinguish itself from Britain through a ‘we vs. them’ manner where Ireland is presented as “land of saints and scholars” (Smyth, 1998, 68-69). ‘Abortion tourism’ is another reminder of colonial history where the former coloniser still does the ‘brutal’ work of abortion, but at the same time Ireland relies on Britain to actually do so. Similarly, the EU is perceived as resurrected colonial ruler who imposes its laws on the Irish state (Oaks, 2002, 317). Here, the concept of the abject applies, as Britain is portrayed as ‘the other’, and the ‘not-us’. Only through the existence of Britain it becomes possible to construct Ireland as the “land of saints and scholars” (Smyth, 1998, 68-69) at all (Butler, 1999, 169). Abortion in Britain is actually deemed ‘unlivable’ and not inhabitable, but abortion is happening there anyway, also from Irish women. To push women having to travel to access abortion in Britain and not in Ireland makes sure that the Irish people’s and state’s status of being the subject is kept (Butler, 1993, 3) and that they constitute coherence of their being (Salih, 2007, 64). Britain portrays what Ireland cannot and does not want to be: provider of legal abortion (Villa, 2010a, 152).
Because it is seen as having been ‘traditional’ throughout history for women to be mothers, this is used as a justification for women that this ‘tradition’ has to be continued. Therefore, the ‘discourse of motherhood’ applies. Abortion cannot be combined with this. Butler criticises this notion that something as a maternal teleology exists at all (Butler, 1999, 115). Another aspect 87 of the topos of history can be found within the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’, where it is argued that because the Eighth Amendment was voted in by the Irish people in 1983, the conclusion is that nowadays the Irish people must still support this ‘pro-life-Amendment’ (Smyth, 1998, 71).
9.5.2 LoveBoth Within the topos of history LoveBoth focuses especially on the (former) connection between Britain and Ireland. Britain’s introduction of legalised abortion in 1967 and its consequences are taken as reasoning for not legalising abortion in Ireland: “Today is a sad day for Britain where over 8 million babies have lost their lives to abortion since the Abortion Act came into force in Britain, in 1967” (LoveBoth, 2018). Because “once abortion is introduced the rates skyrocket” (LoveBoth, 2018), it should not be legalised in Ireland. With this in mind, LoveBoth tries to build distance and separation between Britain and Ireland as it emphasises that “[the Irish] don’t want to be like Britain” (LoveBoth, 2018) and that the people should reject “British- style abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018). Both states are thus directly compared, and it is suggested that the proposed legislation is “more extreme than the law in Britain which results in almost 200,000 abortions every year” (LoveBoth, 2018). Hence, the Irish people are asked to “stop Ireland’s abortion becoming like Britain” (LoveBoth, 2018). On one hand, abortion in Britain is portrayed as being very extreme and having severe consequences and that Ireland should not be like that – on the other hand it is said that the Irish proposal is more extreme. At first sight it only concerns its abortion laws but how can a deeper connection between this issue and the colonial history of both countries be made? As it has been mentioned before, this has already been an upcoming issue in the 1983 Referendum where Britain was seen as the former colonial power and that at that time the conflict in Northern Ireland was still ongoing added another dimension to the issue. This leads to the conclusion that when LoveBoth puts in so much effort to not be like Britain, this can be a reflection on how it is still trying to divide Ireland from the former colonial ruler on the back of women’s reproductive rights and bodily autonomy (Smyth, 1998, 65-66). The fact that LoveBoth sees it as necessary to distance Ireland from Britain to that extent, also leads to the conclusion that this dissociation from Britain is needed to construct ‘Irishness’.
Referring to history, LoveBoth relates abortion to slavery: “I have my ideas, but I don’t want to restrict the freedom of anyone else”. Apply the same principle to a comparable case: “Slavery is wrong, but it’s a personal choice… who am I to judge slave-owners?” (LoveBoth, 2018). Comparing abortion and slavery has a history on both pro-life and pro-choice sides, especially in the USA. Slavery and abortion are being related because it is perceived to be an issue that
88 equally divides society into those supporting and into those rejecting it. Furthermore, it is argued that the slave has been a powerless being controlled by the powerful slave owner and that the same concept applies to the foetus who is within legalised abortion the powerless victim of the powerful woman (Threedy, 1994, 3; 11-12). In contrast to other utterances, this Tweet also goes against LoveBoth’s strategy to not judge women who have had abortions, but rather those responsible for providing the circumstances of legal abortion.
9.5.3 Together for Yes Together for Yes’ following reference to Magdalene Laundries to how it was dealt with pregnant women (mainly those out of wedlock), shows how gender norms have been repeated in a certain way throughout history: “”We’ve moved on from dropping our pregnant women at the gates of a [Magdalene] laundry. I think we’ve moved on from dropping them at departure gates too.”” (Together for Yes, 2018). The women are not sent to institutions anymore, but are instead forced to travel abroad to have a legal abortion. On one hand, this can be seen as the sole repetition of gender norms, which Together for Yes puts its focus on, but on the other hand it could also be seen as a ‘little subversion’, as indeed women are still oppressed under the current abortion laws, but have found/implemented a possibility to have abortions. This is of course not Together for Yes’ goal, as in its point of view this is still harmful to women, but it could be seen as a way to revolt against the norms with measures that are available within the realm of the system, as “[subversion] must take place from within existing discourse, since that is all there is” (Salih, 2007, 59).
The Magdalene Laundries were religious institutions, which takes us to the topic of religion itself. If it is directly mentioned – which only happened in six Tweets – this happens rather neutrally in a descriptive way: “Church of Ireland bishop says he will vote to repeal ‘flawed’ Eighth Amendment” (Together for Yes, 2018). It is stressed that religious belief also has room for allowing people to have abortions, which gets clear when, for example, a woman speaks of her experience of abortion in Britain: “And even (…) the priest, a man in his seventies, just the kindest, most compassionate man, (…) he spoke so kindly to us (…) no sense of anyone judging you” (Together for Yes, 2018) or when a Catholic person explains why they are voting to repeal the Eighth Amendment:
“People ask as how being Catholic influences our vote. The Vatican’s own statement says Catholics have a duty to follow their conscience. When I examine my own, I think of kindness, compassion & understanding. How could I do anything but vote yes?” (Together for Yes, 2018 741).
89
These Tweets as well as the sole existence of the group Catholics for Choice works against the stereotype or prejudice that all religious people are opposed to abortion. Furthermore, they contest the power of churches as institutions to regulate people’s lives and practices. As religion has gained power throughout history, its privileges and prerogatives have been established and engrained certain norms into society. Therefore, the church has even more power in Ireland, a traditionally Catholic country which was oppressed in its faith during the British rule – another reason why a big part of the Catholic Church defends the ‘right to life of the unborn’ in such a strong manner. In addition, the woman for a long time has (and still is) been the object of “clerical surveillance” (Smyth, 1998, 64). This given factor of surveillance has become endangered through the rising number of non-religious people in Ireland (Sherwood, 2016), political incidents as the Referendum on gay marriage in 2015, and now also through the Referendum on the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. To state opinions of religious people that do support the legalisation of abortion is thus a strategy to convince other religious people to vote for a repeal and a way to act subversive against the regulatory gender norms of the religions.
Together for Yes refers to individual cases from the past; to women whose stories have not been heard before, but also from women like Savita Halappanavar or Ms X: “Over 35 years the 8th amendment has caused immense harm to women, cast a chilling effect upon medical practice and been implicated in a series of tragic cases, such as the X case in 1992 and the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012.” (Together for Yes, 2018). The 1983 implementation of the Eighth Amendment is criticised as “one of the most reckless and ill advised (sic) constitutional measure in our history” (Together for Yes, 2018) and “a bizarre legal experiment (…) that has failed to work” (Together for Yes, 2018) as it did not prevent Irish women having abortions. Ireland has thus been to ‘un-caring’ in the past as Together for Yes asks “for a more caring place than the Ireland of [the] past” (Together for Yes, 2018). This is conflicting to the self- perception of the collective of the Irish people as a responsible community and, therefore, reaches many of them at their core.
A doctor who says of herself that she had already opposed the introduction of the Eighth Amendment in 1983, claims that “Anything to do with women’s reproductive health in this country always brings controversy and a lot of hypocrisy” (Together for Yes, 2018). Her utterance concerning the history of debates on women’s reproductive health can be retraced to the 1937 Constitution where women’s role in the state was defined, embedded in, what Smyth (1998) calls a “patriarchal nationalist discourse” (64). Women were made responsible for the
90 reproduction of the Irish nation and to convey through motherhood what is seen as Irish national identity. Pateman (1988, as cited in Smyth, 1998) named this a “sexual contract” (64). This ‘sexual contract’ provided a basis for women having to be family- and homebound by putting motherhood as the only option to teach young Irish citizens what it means to be Irish. Here, a connection of patriarchy and patriotism finds place, as the institution of motherhood and the connection to the Irish state are being inseparably connected.
Today, there is still a reference made to the woman’s role within the home. It is part of Article 41 of the Irish Constitution which was designed to protect the rights of the family. The family is recognised by Article 41.1 as the “natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society” (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 2018, 3) and Article 41.2 states
“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.” (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 2018, 4). These articles have already been considered as strengthening and reinforcing gender stereotypes by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Scannell (1988, as cited in Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 2018) regarded the references as “the grossest form of sexual stereotyping” (5), as it prevents women’s freedom of choice (Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, 2018, 5-6). The fact that references to the woman’s role in the home have been made repeatedly throughout history, shows once again, how language within a codified norm – the Constitution – has power to define how women are constructed within the binary category of gender (Butler, 1999, 160). Furthermore, the female identity is (politically) shaped through this reference in the Constitution and the female body is shaped through forces that want to keep it within a certain sphere (Butler, 1999, 164). If a woman stays within this sphere – or at least still does beside to a paid job – then she acts culturally coherent and within the discourse which had established the boundaries in the first place (Butler, 1999, 166).
9.5.4 History: Conclusion The ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’ is strongly present within LoveBoth’s campaign. Even if it is less ‘radical’ than it has been in the previous discourses, the essence of its use is still the same, as Britain is characterised as the previous colonial ruler that still has a negative impact on the Irish people – in this case especially on Irish women and ‘unborn babies’. The Eighth Amendment is presented as the law that protects the Irish from being overrun by
91
“British-style abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018). Although the ‘discourse of religion’ is not explicitly mentioned, it could be suggested that the fight against British ‘characteristics’ is also a fight against non-Catholicism as abortion and certain sexual behaviour is something that is seen to be incompatible with Catholic belief. In addition, LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of the morality of the state’ as it rejects the apparently British morality that abortion is acceptable. This also leads to the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’ through which it is constructed what it means to be Irish.
Together for Yes draws on the ‘discourse of individual cases’ through references to Savita Halappanavar. Those also appeal to emotion and are, therefore, connected to the ‘discourse of emotionality’. In addition, the ‘discourse of religion’ also indirectly occurs although it is drawn on to support the legalisation of abortion rather than how this discourse is usually present – arguing against abortion as it is considered murder. References to how abortion is connected to reproductive rights belong to the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’.
9.6 Humanitarianism: What is Compassion and Support?
The topos of humanitarianism refers to human rights and/or humanitarian values/beliefs. If an action or situation does not comply with those rights/values/beliefs, then it should not be performed or the situation should be changed. The topos of humanitarianism is connected to the topos of justice, and it can be employed where unequal treatment or discrimination applies (Wodak, 2001b, 75). However, it has to be looked at critically how it is ‘decided’ what is humane and what is inhumane as also these ‘values’ are in facts norms that have been repeated over time and are, therefore, seen as ‘true’ and ‘valid’.
9.6.1 Previous Discourses Within the topos of humanitarianism the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ can be found. For example, the analysis Lowe and Page (2018) provide of women as “[incubators] whose life needs no significant consideration” (12) could be seen as inhumane treatment. In this case the woman and the female body are seen as surfaces that are only given signification through carrying a foetus (Butler, 1999, 43). The concept of ‘femina sacra’ again applies here, as it could clearly be considered to ‘make a woman die’ because of a foetus (Lentin, 2013, 134-135).
9.6.2 LoveBoth Within its campaign, LoveBoth presents abortion as not complying with humanitarian values as it is argued that it “is not compassionate for women” (LoveBoth, 2018). In addition, society
92 is painted as only being compassionate if it “welcomes both mother and baby” (LoveBoth, 2018). A judgement of the European Court of Human Rights is stressed which stated that there is no ‘right to abortion’. It is thus interpreted as that “Ireland is under no obligation to change its abortion laws” (LoveBoth, 2018). In this case, LoveBoth uses a Human Rights court ruling as its base for arguing why abortion should not be legalised in Ireland. Relating to the history of the introduction of the Eighth Amendment and the treaty that had been concluded with the EU when Ireland became part of it, it is interesting to observe that the court ruling is now used to LoveBoth’s advantage. In the past, the EU was instead seen as a threat to the Irish abortion laws.
LoveBoth also puts emphasis on the foetus’ human rights:
“United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 3 Everyone has the RIGHT to LIFE, liberty & security of person.” (LoveBoth, 2018);
““It is the only example of a Referendum in the modern, liberal, democratic world that removes human rights from a written constitution”” (LoveBoth, 2018). As it can be observed throughout the whole campaign, the foetus is seen as a human being that has the right to life. Relating to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human, in LoveBoth’s point of view, ‘everyone’ therefore also includes the foetus in the womb of a woman. It is thus also underlined that the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment is a human’s right issue, and not specifically a women’s rights issue. Through declaring the abortion debate and the Referendum an issue concerning human rights, the specific position women have in it is negated. Utterances like “Women AND men” (LoveBoth, 2018) could be interpreted that it is mentioned because men should feel ‘included’ on the issue, as well. This could on one hand, be seen as another sign of the masculine hegemony in society, as it seems to be impossible that there existed an issue which especially focusses on women. On the other hand it could be a way to work against abortion being a gendered topic – although this is impossible, as gender cannot not be involved in any discourse. This also applies to statements like “This is beyond gender, religion and politics. It is a human rights issue.” (LoveBoth, 2018). How can abortion be beyond gender and politics when “gender ontologies always operate within established political contexts as normative inunctions, determining what qualifies as intelligible sex” (Butler, 1999, 189)? It is, therefore, not possible to separate the issue of abortion from gender, as abortion is surely, among others, a political matter. How can abortion be beyond politics when LoveBoth often stresses that “politicians should not be handed a blank cheque” (LoveBoth, 2018)? How can abortion be beyond religion when the Eighth Amendment, the cause of its restriction has emerged “as the effect of a prior power” (Salih, 2002, 120) – the Catholic belief (Porter, 1996, 93
283) and LoveBoth is also as an association of groups of which some clearly have a religious background and/or motivation (such as The Pro Life Campaign which was founded by key members of PLAC, the Pro-Life-Amendment-Campaign that campaigned for the introduction of the Eighth Amendment (The Pro Life Campaign, n.d.))? The fact that there are no openly religious Tweets actually shows why it is so important to look at the whole issue with an intertextual and interconnected approach. If one did not know the history of Ireland as a Catholic country and also the role religion has played in pro-life movement in Ireland and outside of it, the analysis would lack an important part. To explicitly not mention religion is a tactic. The absence of it in this context shows that it does play a role and that it is only mentioned to stress how it is not important, like the following Tweet, shows that this is a certain technique of argumentation: “The tears of the Catholic, the Protestant, the atheist are all the same. It is a universal experience.”” (LoveBoth 2018). Abortion is portrayed as ‘universally’ sad, leading to tears with all people.
The idea of women’s rights is further dismissed through showing a woman who has ‘survived’ an abortion. Her image is presented along with the words: ““If abortion is merely about women’s rights then where were mine?” Gianna Jesson, born alive after a botched abortion” (LoveBoth, 2018). The discourse on rights is turned around and she is portrayed as the victim of the ‘women’s rights-argumentation’.
9.6.3 Together for Yes Smith (2005) argues that pro-choice organisations have shifted from using the term “choice” to “rights” as rights are deemed to be valid for any person and are independent from an individual’s personal possession of resources (128). This would be slightly supported in the Together for Yes campaign, as ‘choice’/’choices’/’choose’ is used 23 times , ‘right’/’rights’ 36 times; and a combination, ‘right to choose’, three times within the time frame of the analysed Tweets (Together for Yes, 2018). Thus Together for Yes argues, for example, that the “[Referendum] on the Eighth Amendment is about handing back a basic human right to women” (Together for Yes, 2018). It does, however, not get fully clear what exactly is viewed as a “basic human right” – abortion? Bodily autonomy? Healthcare? Similarly, the Convention of human rights of disabled is mentioned, and agreeing to it is equalised with agreeing to repeal the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment is also accused of violating women’s rights: “We are talking about women in crisis. There is no doubt that the 8th Amendment is the cause of grave human rights violations, pain and suffering.” (Together for Yes, 2018). One woman calls herself and other pregnant women who are carrying a foetus with a fatal foetal abnormality “a walking
94 tomb” (Together for Yes, 2018), a referral that can be connected to Lowe and Page (2018) who see women being used as “[incubators] whose life needs no significant consideration” (12). If put like that, it would could be considered a violation of human rights. A question concerning Tweets like these though is whether only “women in crisis” are ‘worthy’ enough of having an abortion? On one hand, Together for Yes asks to “stop talking about Hard Cases” (Together for Yes, 2018) but on the other hand at the same time stresses “[we] are talking about women in crisis” (Together for Yes, 2018). Overall the line of argumentation seems to be that women who are in crisis pregnancies are supposed to be able to access abortion. This argumentation supports the message that women are only ‘allowed’ bodily autonomy when in difficult situations, even though this is most likely used as a specific strategy to convince people who are critical towards the issue of abortion in general. Equally interesting is that every now and then the word ‘mother’ is applied to pregnant women although it seems like that most in Tweets it is tried to be avoided: “Mothers have been denied the right to life and the right to health because of the 8th amendment.” (Together for Yes, 2018). This, what might even be called a ‘Freudian slip’, supports that one cannot easily escape from a system where repetitive acts constitute what is deemed reality (Salih, 2007, 58). Utterances like these, even when they are out of line with what Together for Yes is trying to present, show that the meaning of ‘women’ and ‘mothers’ is equalised and, therefore, limits women’s potential.
9.6.4 Humanitarianism: Conclusion LoveBoth emphasises that human rights are valid for everyone and names the foetus especially. It thus draws on the ‘discourse of the foetus’. Through highlighting the validity of human rights for anyone, it is also drawn on the ‘discourse of social justice’. Similarly, Tweets that criticise the state for possibly abandoning ‘human rights’ can be connected to the ‘discourse of the morality of the state’ as it wants to keep Ireland a state where “unborn babies are valued” (LoveBoth, 2018).
Together for Yes applies the ‘discourse of abortion as a necessary evil’ when it is stressed that women are in crisis and need a way to get out of these situations. Asking to end the discourse of ‘hard cases’ is further a drawing on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ as the mentioning of crisis situations can be considered to be appeals to emotions. In addition, it is suggested that only if women are in a crisis, they are ‘worthy of having an abortion’. As the importance of human rights are stressed, it is also drawn on the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’. Furthermore, Together for Yes draws on the ‘discourse of social justice’ within the topos of
95 humanitarianism as it claims that women with disabilities are especially discriminated against by the Eighth Amendment.
9.7 Conclusion
This chapter has analysed whether LoveBoth and Together for Yes are drawing on previous gendered discourses of abortion and have with the theoretical background of Butler’s theory of performativity on gender discussed how they are partially doing so. It is interesting to see – and supports several argumentations outlined in the chapter concerned with the pro-life and pro-choice dichotomy – that both campaigns draw on similar discourses, even if they have different approaches towards them.
The two campaigns both draw on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ as appeals to emotion are made within their campaigns and personal narratives of either women who had abortions, were denied abortions, or decided not to have abortions are told. These personal stories can be seen as on one hand, appeals to emotion, but on the other hand can also be viewed as part of the ‘discourse of individual cases’. Both campaigns also rely on the ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial’ history although Together for Yes sees Britain as a positive support and LoveBoth wants to avoid to “become like Britain” (LoveBoth, 2018) at all costs. ‘Discourses of motherhood’ are in both campaigns closely connected to the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’ and also show relations to the ‘discourse of religion’ as it is inseparably entwined with Ireland’s historic circumstances and background. Furthermore, LoveBoth and Together for Yes both connect their content to the ‘discourse of social justice’ as each campaign claims that it wants to establish equality – LoveBoth between the woman, the foetus, and especially also the disabled foetus; Together for Yes between all women irrespective of their resources.
Additionally, Together for Yes and LoveBoth draw on the ‘discourse of the foetus vs. the woman’ and represent respectively the opposite side. Both campaigns also stress the importance of women’s rights (and draw thus on the ‘discourse of women’s right to choose/autonomy’) but reason differently: LoveBoth sees women’s rights and autonomy in danger because of abortion and the ‘abortion industry’ behind it; Together for Yes is of the opinion that the Eighth Amendment is endangering women’s rights and autonomy. By the same token both campaigns take stances on the ‘discourse of the morality of the state’. LoveBoth suggests that the Eighth Amendment secures the morality of the state and Together for Yes claims that the Eighth Amendment is the cause for why the morality of the state is endangered, as it prevents the possibility to compassionately care for women, if needed also through the help of a termination of pregnancy. The campaigns further both draw on the ‘discourse of being worthy of having an 96 abortion, again, in different dimensions, but with a surprisingly similar essence. LoveBoth sees women as ‘worthy’ or allowed of having an abortion when their lives are at risk and Together for Yes theoretically has the intention to support all women to have abortions when they feel they are in need of one. Nonetheless it can be argued that Together for Yes puts special emphasis on women who are in particularly difficult situations. It, therefore, to some extent creates the suggestion of a hierarchy between, by other groups called ‘hard cases’ and women who are in slightly less ‘urgent’ situations.
There are some discourses that are only drawn on by one campaign, as the ‘discourse of abortion as a ‘necessary evil’’. This discourse is directly connected to ‘being worthy of having an abortion’. Together for Yes constructs ‘abortion as a necessary evil’ especially for pregnancies with fatal foetal abnormalities as it is stressed that these pregnancies are “much wanted”. In addition, Together for Yes puts emphasis on the ‘discourse of ‘abortion tourism’’ since the journeys woman have to make in order to access abortion are heavily criticised. Indirectly, it also involves ‘discourses of feminism’ even though feminism itself is not directly mentioned. However, some of the content spread could be seen as feminist argumentation if it assumed that feminism supports legalised abortions. In contrast, LoveBoth makes frequent use of the ‘discourse of the foetus’ as it mostly constructs its campaign around the perceived foetus’ rights and needs. The latter are also stressed through the ‘discourse of pseudo-science’ as some of the Tweets containing information on foetal development are considered not to be entirely accurate.
This means that all discourses of abortion found in previous debates on abortion can also be identified within the discussions on the Referendum on the Eighth Amendment even though some are more present than others. That all discourses have reoccurred can be seen as support for Butler’s theory of performativity as the discourses have not significantly changed, and if they slightly did, they have adapted their included norms to the discourses currently present (Butler, 1999, 189-190). In addition, it is interesting to see how the campaigns are using the same and similar discourses, but interpret and reproduce the norms within the patriarchal system to the cultural configurations of gender more present in their respective arenas.
10. Concluding Remarks
In this final conclusion I want to reflect on what have been this thesis’ major findings and how they are significant and respond to the assumptions made after having studied secondary literature on discourses of abortion. In addition, I will give a short overview of the developments
97 at three months after the Referendum has found place. I further want to point out this research’s limitations and will end with a few thoughts on future research possibilities.
10.1 Major findings
In my research project I have shown that both campaigns are strongly drawing on the ‘discourse of emotionality’ which is connected to Ireland’s traditional cultural obligation to support and care for each other. This became especially clear within the topos of responsibility, as the campaigns emphasise how important it is that the Irish people support women – although they both promote different options to do so in the case of crisis pregnancies. Together for Yes and LoveBoth thus both rely their work on the concept of unity where ‘the Irish people’ are seen as a collective whole and where responsibility is constructed as a ‘traditional’ Irish character trait.
Both campaigns see women’s integrity endangered – Together for Yes because of the Eighth Amendment and LoveBoth because of the possible repeal of the Eighth Amendment and its consequences on abortion legislation. LoveBoth tries to convince people to keep the Eighth Amendment in place through claims that are supposed to show how the foetus needs the people’s and the Eighth Amendment’s support as it is so vulnerable. LoveBoth also draws on the ‘discourse of pseudo-science’ as some of its utterances concerning the foetus’ development in the womb are not accurate, but presented in a way that the audience believes those are ‘facts’ so that people feel like they have to ‘protect’ the ‘baby’ from abortion.
The obliged concept of responsibility for each other is also reflected within the ‘discourse of motherhood’ where especially LoveBoth stresses how it is essential for women to be responsible mothers who carry a pregnancy to term, no matter the outer circumstances. Hence, although Together for Yes is careful to not engage into ‘naturalised’ assumptions of motherhood, this does happen occasionally. However, the general focus within the pro-choice campaign lies more on trying to portray women as independent actors with bodily autonomy. This further (re-)produces the establishment of regulatory norms that create the notion that in order to be an ‘intelligible gender’, a woman has to be a mother as ‘natural’ fulfilment of her life. Here, also the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ becomes visible, as Together for Yes’ emphasises women’s positions and their feelings towards the foetus while the foetus is contrariwise to LoveBoth not granted personhood. Even though abortion is promoted as a possible option for all pregnancies, it can be observed that Together for Yes’ focus still is put on women in particularly difficult circumstances. Although it denies oppositional groups’ comments that it is focussing on ‘hard cases’ only, it could indeed be seen that in some circumstances abortion was presented as a ‘necessary evil’ and solution to the 98 difficult circumstances women were in. This can be interpreted as an attempt to construct the notion that women who have an abortion only do so because they really have to, and, therefore, portray women as not ‘wanting’ to break out of the norms that construct an ‘intelligible’ woman. LoveBoth drawing on the ‘discourse of motherhood’ and the ‘discourse of emotionality’ gets connected to the ‘discourse of ‘Irishness’’ as it becomes a necessity for the mother to further transfer the assumed pro-life values and characteristics of the Irish people to its children. In contrast to this, Together for Yes sees the essence of ‘Irishness’ rather in granting women the right to choose and human rights that allow them bodily autonomy and tries to integrate this into society’s perception of what is ‘Irishness’.
Arguments coming from LoveBoth put emphasis on the ‘discourse of the foetus’ as its campaign is mainly centred on the right to life of it as it has been fixed in the Constitution through the Eighth Amendment. Here, the ‘discourse’ of social justice is also applied to the ‘discourse of the foetus’, as LoveBoth especially works with the fear that foetuses with a disability or Down syndrome will be discriminated against. LoveBoth consequently also draws on the ‘discourse of opposition: the foetus vs. the woman’ as its existence seems to be prioritised over the woman’s. Although it tries to suggest that both are equal, the impression is given that the foetus is in need of more protection – by ‘the people’ and the Eighth Amendment –because it otherwise would receive none in a world where in many countries abortion has been legalised. Concerning abortion in other places, LoveBoth’s focus lies on Britain, as it on one hand, is Ireland’s neighbour where many women seek abortion, and on the other hand also a former colonial ruler. The ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’, therefore, becomes influenced through this connection of circumstances and is quite intense, even though it is less ‘radical’ than it has been in the past. However, Britain is needed to be an example of how the legal situation concerning abortion should not become, and as a way to construct positive ‘Irishness’ in contrast to negative ‘Britishness’. Here, Britain is made ‘the abject’. In contrast, Together for Yes constructs Britain and its provision of abortion services to Irish women rather as a kind empathic support from outside and portrays Britain as giving the woman the compassionate help that they cannot receive at ‘home’. The construction of ‘the other’ is turned around and Ireland is presented as pushing women away into the arms of a foreign country and relying on the concept of ‘abortion tourism’.
Although feminism is not mentioned explicitly, Together for Yes is drawing on concepts that many feminists would support. Since, for example, the Women’s Right to Choose Campaign had decided to not launch an explicit feminist campaign before the Referendum in 1983, as it
99 was the concern that many people would be discouraged by that to support them, it can be assumed that a similar thought lies behind Together for Yes not clearly or openly relating to the concept of feminism – especially since particularly digital activists within this area often face “much misogynist vitriol against feminism” (Mendes, Ringrose & Keller, 2018, 242).
It is striking that the ‘discourse of religion’ is not mentioned in direct ways. Looking at Ireland’s traditional Catholicism, it is rather impossible to believe that religion does not play a part in the campaigns, especially when some member groups of LoveBoth are known for their religious stance. Therefore, it has not been possible to clearly say which utterances draw on the ‘discourse of religion’ explicitly, but the Catholic context within the campaigns surely has to be considered.
The discussion of how Together for Yes and LoveBoth are drawing on previous discourses of abortion has shown that several discourses that have been existent in the past, are repeatedly used and further reproduced. However, even if both campaigns reproduce certain regulatory frames and gender norms that construct who is an ‘intelligible gender’ and who is not, the final outcome of the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment gives the impression that some subversion has been initiated by LoveBoth’s and Together for Yes’ engagement in the discourse. Although it is currently not possible to escape from gendered norms and cultural configurations of gender, a political decision like this has the theoretical potential to have some influence on loosening the regulatory frame of how women have to be performative of their gender, and might possibly take us closer to a society with broader regulations of gender. If it was possible to leave the notion behind that certain identities are inseparably connected to certain practices and interests, then there might be a chance that a ‘new system’ could evolve. But even within a ‘new system’ where gender binaries, heteronormative positions, and hegemonic masculinity no longer existed, new reproductive acts would be implemented which fit to the ‘new system’ (Butler, 1999, 189-190).
10.2 Previous Assumptions
Several assumptions were made based on the literature review and a first rough skimming of the data. At the beginning of my research project, I had assumed that many discourses from previous debates of abortion would be present in the current discussions as well. I did nonetheless not expect that there would be such a relatively big amount of common discourses that both campaigns are drawing on. However, I could possibly already have predicted that after having argued in the chapter outlining pro-choice and pro-life activism that there is room for common ground within the pro-choice and pro-life campaigns (Porter, 1996, 291). Even if the 100 discourses were interpreted and used very differently by the respective campaigns, I would have not assumed that there would be such a similarity the general use of discourses.
I assumed that religion and Catholicism would play a less important role within the campaigns and have been partly right, as it is not mentioned very frequently. Nonetheless, I have brought forward the argument that not involving religion that explicitly can also be seen as a strategy, and pointed out that many utterances can still somewhat be connected to religion.
In addition, the assumption was made that Ireland’s colonial history would be of relevance within the campaigns. This assumption has been confirmed as both campaigns rely on the ‘discourse of Ireland’s colonial history’, albeit LoveBoth has a stronger focus on it than Together for Yes. Connected to this, I also assumed that LoveBoth will be acting as “guardian of collective morality” (Smyth, 1998, 62) to protect Irish women from abortion. This assumption as well proved to be true, although it is important to mention that also Together for Yes is acting in the name of protecting the ‘morality of the state’, even though in a different way.
I expected that the campaigns would look at the foetus and the woman as separated from each other, which has been partially confirmed, as both campaigns certainly do focus either on the woman or the foetus, but LoveBoth also connected both with each other through its concern about women as well being harmed by abortion. However, altogether it still puts more emphasis on the foetus than on the woman.
Furthermore, I supposed that both campaigns would be focussing on individual cases like those of Savita Halappanavar and Ms C, X, and Y. Together for Yes did refer to Savita Halappanavar and also her parents who supported the repeal of the Eighth Amendment several times, and Ms X once, but the others were not directly mentioned. LoveBoth only used the case of Ms C to accuse Together for Yes of exploiting Ms C’s story (LoveBoth, 2018). Both campaigns nonetheless had a strong focus on individual stories, but most of the people telling them were not ‘well-known’ or had not been heard before.
The last key point I had assumed was that the campaigns will define an image of how women have to follow certain norms to enact her gender correctly. This is of course one of the main points of my research project as both campaigns took part in repeating gendered acts and therefore established a regulatory frame of how one is possible to be an ‘intelligible gender’. As I will evaluate more in-depth within the limitations of my work, I have somewhat failed to recognise that not only women but all genders are restricted by these norms.
101
10.3 Limitations
The role of men in discourses of abortion has not been successfully integrated into the previous discourses of abortion. During the analysis it got clear that their absence within those discourses is unjustified as how or if they are being engaged by the campaigns is an essential part of my argument of how discourses on abortion (reproduce) gender norms. Thus it would be important to involve their ‘absent’ role a bit more. I am aware of that I have been shaped by discourse on abortion being a ‘women’s issue’ – not that something like this would actually exist – and therefore failed to implement men’s role within the previous discourses correctly. However, I believe that I have still included the effect the campaign has on men as well in-depth in the discussion of my research project and therefore provide a solid analysis.
It would have assumingly been even more effective if all platforms of campaigning would have been researched, that is e.g. the Facebook pages, national television debates, and marches, events and canvassing. Because my time, space, and funds were limited within this project, this has unfortunately not been possible, but would have most likely produced more detailed results than the analysis can provide from one source. However, as there was a rather big amount of Tweets to analyse, the research results provide a reliable analysis of how LoveBoth and Together for Yes have been drawing on gendered discourses of abortion.
10.4 Current Situation in Ireland
After it became clear that the majority of Irish citizens had voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment, Flynn (2018) described the atmosphere on the yes-side as having been relieved rather than celebrative. In a statement after the Referendum’s results were published, LoveBoth called it a “tragedy of historic proportions” (Flynn, 2018) and assured that it would continue to campaign against abortion. Some pro-life supporters also added that “If anything, this has started an anti-abortion revolution because people are not going to step back now” (Flynn, 2018).
When Pope Francis visited Ireland in August, he mainly spoke on incidents of clerical abuse in Ireland, but he also made a comment on abortion where he referred to a “materialistic ‘throwaway culture’” (Doyle, 2018) – as he has before – which caused the Irish people to be “increasingly indifferent to the poor and to the most defenceless members of our human family, including the unborn, deprived of the very right to life” (Doyle, 2018).
Concerning the legislation on abortion several people have challenged the results of the Referendum at High Court, claiming, for example, that some no-voters were de-registered or 102 that the Minister for Health and the Taoiseach have spread misinformation (O’Loughlin, 2018). Until all challenges have been concluded and the Eighth Amendment has finally been removed from the Constitution, no legislation on abortion will be introduced in the Oireachtas. However, some parts of the proposed legislation might be realised earlier, such as that Irish doctors can give information of their patients to British medical professionals (Bardon, 2018).
Within the Irish health system several medical services are free while others are not. A pro- choice supporter voices that it is now crucial that abortion will be made available to all women, irrespective of their financial resources. Since abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland, pro- choice activists have announced that they also want to support a change there (Flynn, 2018). Minister for Health Simon Harris has nevertheless announced that women from Northern Ireland will also be able to access abortion in the Republic of Ireland. He also stated that he hoped the Northern Irish politicians will address the issue of abortion in the near future (RTÉ, 2018b). It will be interesting to observe the following steps leading to the implementation of the legislation on abortion.
10.5 Suggestions for further research
In the Discourse-Historical Approach it is suggested that the analytical findings are applied to practice if possible (Reisigl, 2017, 54-55). Within the limited time frame and possibilities of this research project this has unfortunately not been possible although it would have surely been very interesting to do so. If one has the possibilities and the including network to do so, I would suggest that this analysis could serve as part of a base to develop guidelines to advocacy groups on how to avoid gender-stereotyping within their activism, especially in discourses on abortion, but also in other areas. Another idea of mine would be to use part of this thesis to evaluate on how sexual education in Irish schools is influencing pupils in certain issues and whether there needs to be a change in the teaching of sexual education. My thesis might be helpful for a project like this as much of the content and ideas of gender reflected within the campaigns can surely also be traced down to primary and secondary education, as especially the field of primary education is dominated by Catholic schools (Sherwood, 2016).
For further research it also might be interesting to analyse how the laws regulating terminations of pregnancies are enacted and to do an analysis of the gendered discourses leading to the final version of the legislation on abortion. Another aspect that might be worth to look into is how/if LoveBoth and Together for Yes still continue to produce content under changed outer circumstances. For example, the change of name from @loveboth8 to @lovebothireland in
103
August suggests it will continue to work to promote abortion as wrong. How are other pro-life and pro-choice organisations in Ireland acting?
When it became clear that the Referendum’s outcome was the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, LoveBoth posted the following Tweet and ‘pinned’ it so that everyone visiting LoveBoth’s Twitter page would see it at the first glance already: “Our campaign does not end with the Referendum, but when the Government properly supports the mother and child. #LoveBoth” (LoveBoth, 2018). It would, therefore, be interesting to follow how LoveBoth intends to implement that ‘proper’ support for ‘mother and child’ within an abortion system standing against its values.
104
References: Bibliography
Andre, S. (1986). Pro-Life or Pro-Choice: Is There a Credible Alternative? Social Theory and Practice 12(2). 223-240. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://jstor.org.stable/23556592.
Bacik, I. (1992). Abortion in Ireland: Constitutional Wrangles. Socialist Lawyer (17), 10-11. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from http:/www.jstor.org/stable/42948819.
Bardon, S. (2017, December 20). Oireachtas committee on Eighth Amendment publishes 40-page report. The Irish Times. Retrieved May 23, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes- 40-page-report-1.3333670.
Bardon, S. (2018, Aug 12). No abortion legislation until court challenges concluded. The Irish Times. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/no-abortion-legislation- until-court-challenges-concluded-1.3594020.
Big Think (2011, Jun 06). Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender. Retrieved August 23, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7o2LYATDc.
Boss, J.A. (1993). Pro-Child/Pro-Choice: An Exercise in Doublethink? Public Affairs Quarterly 7(2). 85-91. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40435837.
Breaking News (2018, May 11). Together For Yes funding age attacked by unknown ‘Irish based entity’. Breaking News. Retrieved June 24, 2018 from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/together-for- yes-funding-page-attacked-by-unknown-irish-based-entity-842307.html.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York/London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 2nd edition. New York/London: Routledge.
Cook, J. (2018, Mar 11). Dublin Divided: Tensions Swell In Irish Capital Ahead Of Historic Abortion Referendum. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2018/03/11/dublin-divided-tensions-swell-in-irish-capital- ahead-of-historic-abortion-referendum_a_23382831/.
Collins Dictionary (n.d.). Definition von Oireachtas. Retrieved March 14, 2018 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/oireachtas.
Crawley, S.L. & Willman, R.K. & Clark, L. & Walsh, C. (2009). Making Women the Subjects of the Abortion Debate: A Class Exercise that Moves Beyond “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life”. Feminist Teacher 19(3). 227-240. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40546102. de Londras, F. & Enright, M. (2018). Postscript to Repealing the 8th: Reforming Abortion Law in Ireland. Birmingham: Birmingham Law School/University of Birmingham. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from http://policypress.co.uk/asset/4626/repealing-the-8th-postscript.pdf.
Department of Health (2018, Jan 30). Information note on legal advice received on options for a Referendum on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Info-note-on-legal-advice-received-on-options- for-a-Referendum-300118.pdf.
105
Dooley, D. (1992). The Laws of Ireland. The Hastings Center Report 22(3), 2. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3563284.
Doyle, K. (2018, Aug 25). Pope Francis speech: Calls clerical abuse scandal in Ireland 'repugnant', makes thinly-veiled reference to abortion referendum. Irish Independent. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pope-francis-in-ireland/pope-francis-speech-calls- clerical-abuse-scandal-in-ireland-repugnant-makes-thinlyveiled-reference-to-abortion-referendum- 37250833.html.
Duffy R. (2018, Jan 29). 'We’re asking people to trust women': Repeal referendum to be held before the end of May. The Journal. Retrieved May 28, from http://www.thejournal.ie/repeal-referendum-date- varadkar-3822918-Jan2018/.
Duvnjak, A. (2012). Feminism and the ‘Woman Equals Mother’ Discourse in Reproductive Politics in Australia. Adelaide: Adelaide University/Flinders University.
Elster, N. (2016, Sep 19). How U.S. Policies Shape Abortion Rights Around The World. The Establishment. Retrieved June 25, 2018 from https://theestablishment.co/how-u-s-policies-shape- abortion-rights-around-the-world-4ffcb3677a43.
Enright, M., Conway, V., de Londras, F., Donnelly, M., Fletcher, R., McDonnell, N., McGuinness, S., Murray, C., Ring, S. & uí Chonnachtaigh, S. (2015). Abortion Law Reform in Ireland: A Model for Change. feminists@law. 5(1). 1-17.
Erdman, J.N. (2014). Procedural abortion rights: Ireland and the European Court of Human Rights. Reproductive Health Matters 22(44). 22-30. Retrieved May, 15, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43288358.
Felluga, D. (2011). Modules on Butler: On Gender and Sex. Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Retrieved July 10, 2018 from https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/Theory/genderandsex/modules/butlergendersex.html.
Felzmann, H. (2014). Bringing abortion to Ireland? The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 7(1). 192-198. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/intjefamppbio.7.1.192.
Ferree, M.M., Gamson, W.A., Gerhards, J. & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping Abortion Discourse. Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fletcher, R. (2001). Post-colonial Fragments: Representations of Abortion in Irish Law and Politics. Journal of Law and society 28(4). 568-589. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3657961.
Fletcher, R. (2014). Contesting the cruel treatment of abortion-seeking women. Reproductive Health Matters 22(44). 10-21. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43288357.
Flynn, E. (2018, Jun 15). Ireland's abortion vote: The fight for women's bodies goes on. BBC. Retrieved August, 25 from https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d925edfd-b11a-49f1-9f23-4fc86d1a5e86.
Gervais, M (n.d.). The History of the Shamrock. Fine Gardening. Retrieved August 24, 2018 from https://www.finegardening.com/article/the-history-of-the-shamrock.
106
Gildemeister, R. (2004). Geschlechterdifferenz – Geschlechterdifferenzierung: Beispiele und Folgen eines Blickwechsels in der empirischen Geschlechterforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
Gilmartin, M. & White, A. (2011). Interrogating Medical Tourism: Ireland, Abortion, and Mobility Rights. Signs 36(2). 275-280. Retrieved May 15, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/655907.
Ginsburg, F. (1987). Procreating Stories: Reproduction, Nurturance and Procreation in Life Narratives of Abortion Activists. American Ethnologist 14(4). 623-636. Retrieved May 21, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/645317.
Ginsburg, F. & Rapp, R. (1991). The Politics of Reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology 20. 311- 343. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155804.
Gleeson, C. (2018, March 22). Rotunda distances itself from launch of Together for Yes. The Irish Times. Retrieved June 24, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/rotunda- distances-itself-from-launch-of-together-for-yes-1.3435552.
Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting and integrating theoretical framework in dissertation research: creating the blueprint for your “house”. Administrative Issues Journal. 4(2). 12-25. Retrieved March, 30, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf.
Guardian Film (2018, Jun 29). Film about abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell gets US cinema release. The Guardian. Retrieved August 22, from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/29/abortion- doctor-kermit-gosnell-the-trial-of-americas-biggest-serial-killer-release.
Gupta, R. (2014). Pro-choice: all the way to the sex-selection gallows. Feminist Review (107). 84-89. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org./stable/24571891.
Healy, J. (2016, May 4). When Can Fetuses Feel Pain? Utah Abortion Law and Doctors Are at Odds. The New York Times. Retrieved August 20, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/utah- abortion-law-fetal-anesthesia.html.
Henshaw, S.K. (1986). Induced Abortion: A Worldwide Perspective. Family Planning Perspectives. 18(6), 250-254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable2134947.
Heshmat, S. (2015, Apr 23). What Is Confirmation Bias? Psychology Today. Retrieved June 24, 2018 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias.
Horgan, G. (1982). Abortion vote debated. Off our backs, 12(7). 6, 15. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25774494.
Houses of the Oireachtas (2017, Apr 4). Establishment of a Special Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution: Motion. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2017-04-04/8/.
Houses of the Oireachtas (2017, Sep 20 to Dec 14). Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution – 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/find/?debateType=committee&datePeriod=dates&fromDate= 20%2F09%2F2017&toDate=14%2F12%2F2017.
Houses of the Oireachtas (2013). Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf.
107
Irish Government (2018). Policy Paper Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy. Retrieved August 24, 2018 from https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment- 8-March-2018.pdf.
Irish Labour Party (2015, Nov 25). Labour Women launch Heads of their Repeal the Eighth Amendment Bill. Retrieved June 11, 2018 from https://www.labour.ie/news/blog/2015/11/25/labour-women- launch-heads-of-their-repeal-the-eighth/.
Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (2017). Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Dublin: Houses of the Oireachtas.
Jones, K. & Chaloner, C. (2007). Ethics of abortion: the arguments for and against. Nursing Standard (21)37. 45-48.
“Justice for Magdalenes Research” (n.d.). About the Magdalene Laundries. Retrieved May 21, 2018 from http://jfmresearch.com/home/preserving-magdalene-history/about-the-magdalene-laundries/.
Komut, S. (2009). A Disocurse Analysis of the Abortion Debate in Turkey and the United States. Istanbul: Kadir Has University.
Leahy, P. & Bardon, S. & Kelly, F. (2018, Jan 10). Cabinet to discuss Oireachtas Committee report on abortion. The Irish Times. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-to-discuss-oireachtas-committee-report-on- abortion-1.3350273.
“Legislation.gov.uk” (n.d.). Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/crossheading/attempts-to-procure- abortion#commentary-c563688.
Lentin, R. (2013). a woman died: abortion and the politics of birth in Ireland. Feminist Review (105). 130-136. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from htpp://jstor.org./stable/24571903.
Life Dynamics (n.d.). History of the Movement. Retrieved June 25, 2018 from https://lifedynamics.com/the-pro-life-movement/history-of-the-movement/.
Lillington, K. Referendum apps may be sharing data illegally. The Irish Times. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/business/referendum-apps-may-be-sharing-data-illegally- 1.3505978.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland] (2018). Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://twitter.com/loveboth8.
Lowe, P. & Page, S.-J. (2018). ‘On the wet side of the womb’: The construction of ‘mothers’ in anti- abortion activism in England and Wales. European Journal of Women’s Studies. Retrieved July 11, 2018 from https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818785191.
Lundqvist, M. (2016). Performativity. Retrieved July 10, 2018 from https://www.genus.se/en/wordpost/performativity/.
Maxwell, C.J.C & Jelen, T.G. (1995). Narratives of Male Pro-Life Activists. Review of Religious Research 37(2). 117-131. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512396
McDonald, H. & Graham-Harrison, E. & O’Carroll, L. (2018a, May 27). Ireland moves forward with abortion law reform after historic vote. The Guardian. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/27/ireland-to-start-abortion-law-reform-after- historic-vote.
108
McDonald, H. & Graham-Harrison, E. & O’Carroll, L. (2018b, May 26). Ireland votes by landslide to legalise abortion. The Guardian. Retrieved May 27, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/ireland-votes-by-landslide-to-legalise-abortion.
McDonald, H. & Sherwood, H. (2018, Mar 08). Ireland’s government approves abortion referendum bill. The Guardian. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/irelands-government-approves-bill-paving-way- for-abortion-referendum.
McDonald, H. (2018a, Jan 29). Irish referendum on abortion reform to be held by end of May. The Guardian. Retrieved May, 28, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/29/ireland-to- greenlight-referendum-on-abortion-law-reform.
McDonald, H. (2018b, Feb 11). Ireland’s opposition leader wants to liberalise abortion law. The Guardian. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/11/micheal- martin-ireland-opposition-leader-wants-to-liberalise-abortion-law.
McDonald, H. (2018c, March 28). Ireland sets May date for historic abortion referendum. The Guardian. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/28/ireland-sets- abortion-referendum-date.
McQuinn (Dec 13, 2017). Committee recommends legalising terminations without restrictions up to 12 weeks. Irish Independent. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.independent.ie/irish- news/news/committee-recommends-legalising-terminations-without-restrictions-up-to-12-weeks- 36405585.html.
Mendes, K., Ringrose, J. and Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s Studies 25(2). 236-246. DOI: 10.1177/1350506818765318.
Merelli, A. (2017, January 28). A brief history of a marketing masterpiece: branding the anti-abortion movement “pro-life”. Quartz. Retrieved June 13, 2018 from https://qz.com/896566/where-does-the- term-pro-life-come-from/.
Meyer, M. (2017). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (14-31). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Misik, R. (2016, June 25). Das Volk gegen die da oben. taz. Retrieved August 19, 2018 from http://www.taz.de/!5313212/.
Munson, Z.W. (2002). The Making of Pro-life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mustonen, A.M., Paakkonen, T., Ryökäs, E. & Nieminen, P. (2017). Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussion. Reproductive Health 14(163). 1-12.
Oaks, L. (2002). “Abortion is part of the Irish experience, it is part of what we are”: The transformation of public discourses on Irish abortion policy. Women’s Studies International Forum 25(3). 315-333. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539502002583?via%3Dihub.
109
O’Carroll, S. (2013, Dec 27).History lesson: What happened during the 1983 abortion referendum? The Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2018 from http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-referendum-1983-what- happened-1225430-Dec2013/.
Official Website LoveBoth. About Us. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://loveboth.ie/about/.
Official Website LoveBoth. 8 Reasons to Vote No. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://loveboth.ie/why-vote-no/.
Official Website Together for Yes (2018). Doctors tell us why they are voting for yes. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://www.togetherforyes.ie/doctors/.
O’Loughlin, A. (2018, Jun 05). Three separate challenges initiated to 8th Amendment referendum result. Irish Examiner. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-separate-challenges-initiated-to-8th- amendment-referendum-result-847049.html.
Oxford Dictionary (n.d.). Embryo. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/embryo.
Oxford Dictionary (n.d.). Fetus. Retrieved June 22, 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fetus.
Oxford Dictionary (n.d.). Zygote. Retrieved June 22, 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/zygote.
Pentz Bottini, S. (2007). Europe’s Rebellious Daughter: Will Ireland be Forced to Conform Its Abortion Law to That of Its Neighbors? Journal of Church and State 49(2). 211-249. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23922406.
Peterson, A.M. (2012). Histories of Abortion in Europe and the United States. Origins 6(2). Retrieved June 25, 2018 from http://origins.osu.edu/article/commonplace-controversial-different-histories- abortion-europe-and-united-states.
Pierson, C. (2018). Rights Versus Rites? Catholic Women and Abortion Access in Northern Ireland. In Burgess, T. P. (Ed.). The Contested Identities of Ulster Catholics (39-55). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Porter, E. (1996). Culture, Community and Responsibilities: Abortion in Ireland. Sociology 30(2), 278- 298. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42855682.
Reisigl, M. (2017). The Discourse-Historical Approach. In Flowerdew, J. & Richardson, J.E. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (44-59). London: Routledge.
Rodríguez-Ruiz, B. (2016). Gender in Constitutional Discourses on Abortion: Looking at Spain from a Comparative Perspective. Social and Legal Studies 25(6). 699-715. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0964663916668251.
RTÉ (2018a, Jan 15). Dáil to debate report on Eighth Amendment over two days. RTÉ. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0115/933327-fg-to-discuss-oireachtas-report- on-8th-amendment/.
RTÉ (2018b, Aug 08). Abortion services to be available to women from Northern Ireland – Harris. RTÉ. Retrieved August 25 from https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0807/983694-harris-abortion-northern- ireland/.
110
Ryan, F. (2018, Feb 8). Ireland’s 8th Amendment: Repeal or Retain? Verfassungsblog. Retrieved April 16, 2018 from https://verfassungsblog.de/irelands-8th-amendment-repeal-or-retain/.
Ryan, Ó. (2018, May 7). Q&A: Here's how many women and girls travel to the UK for abortions. The Journal. Retrieved August 26, 2018 from http://jrnl.ie/3986043.
Salih, S. (2002). Judith Butler. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Salih, S. (2007) On Judith Butler and Performativity. In: Lovaas, K./Jenkins, M. M., Sexualities & communication in everyday life: a reader (pp. 55-68). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Sambaraju, R., Sammon, M., Harnett, F. & Douglas, E. (2018). ‘Her choice of course’: Negotiating legitimacy of ‘choice’ in abortion rights deliberations during the ‘Repeal the Eighth’ movement in Ireland. Journal of Health Psychology 23(2). 263-276. Retrieved June 11, 2018 from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1359105317741659.
Scally, D. (2018, Feb 6). Shadow of history hangs over Germany’s abortion debate. The Irish Times. Retrieved August 23, 2018 from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/shadow-of-history- hangs-over-germany-s-abortion-debate-1.3381181.
Sherwood, H. (2016, Feb 17). Faith, hope and secularity: Ireland on brink of change as church power wanes. The Guardian. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/faith-hope-and-secularity-ireland-on-brink-of- change-as-church-power-wanes.
Smith, A. (2005). Beyond Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice. NWSA Journal 17(1). 119-140. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4317105.
Smyth, L. (1998). Narratives of Irishness and the Problem of Abortion: The X Case 1992. Feminist Review (60). 61-83. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395547.
Staggenborg, S. & Skoczylas, M.B. (2017). Battles over Abortion and Reproductive Rights: Movement Moblization and Strategy. In McCammon, J., Taylor, V., Reger, J. & Einwohner, R.L. (Eds.). Retrieved June 13, 2018 from DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190204204.013.11.
Staggenborg, S. (1995). The survival of the pro-choice movement. Abstract. Retrieved June 26, 2018 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346343.
The Citizens’ Assembly (2017). First Report and Recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the- Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl- Appendix-A-D.pdf
The Citizens’ Assembly (2018). About the Citizens’ Assembly. Retrieved May 28, 2018 from https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/About-the-Citizens-Assembly/.
The Pro Life Campaign (n.d.). About. Retrieved August 20, 2018 from https://prolifecampaign.ie/main/about/.
Threedy, D. (1994). Slavery Rhetoric and the Abortion Debate. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 2(1). Retrieved August 15, 2018 from https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=mjgl.
Together for Yes [together4yes] (2018). Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/together4yes.
111
Van Dijk, T.A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In: In Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and Practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. (pp. 84- 104). Routledge: London.
Villa, P.-I. (2010a). (De)Konstruktion und Diskurs-Genealogie: Zur Position und Rezeption von Judith Butler. In Becker, R./Kortendieck, R. (Eds). Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung (pp. 146-157). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Villa, P.-I. (2010b). Poststrukturalismus: Postmoderne + Poststrukturalismus = Postfeminismus? In Becker, R./Kortendieck, R. (Eds). Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung (pp. 269-273). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wambui Njagi, J. (2013). Gender Power and Reproductive Rights: Discourses of Abortion in Kenya. Hamilton: The University of Waikato.
Whitney, D. (2012, Oct 12). Why Is It So Hard for Men to Cry? Psych Central. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from https://psychcentral.com/blog/why-is-it-so-hard-for-men-to-cry/.
Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (1-13). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Wodak, R. (2001b). The Discourse-historical approach. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (63-94). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse Studies – Important Concepts and Terms. In: Wodak, R. & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. 1-29. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Woltersdorf, V. (2003). Queer Theory und Queer Politics. UTOPIE kreativ (156). 914-923.
Wylie, C. (2018, Apr 18). Campaigners urge debate on ‘barbaric’ reality of abortion before referendum. Irish Independent. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish- news/campaigners-urge-debate-on-barbaric-reality-of-abortion-before-referendum-36819503.html.
Youth Defence (2004, Oct 21). How many more babies will die in your name? Retrieved August 22, 2018 from http://www.youthdefence.ie/article/how-many-more-babies-will-die/.
Zelezny, J. (2014). 'The Incest Taboo': Judith Butler and Julia Kristeva. Paper presented at Conference Latrobe University. Retrieved July 05, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271076976_'The_Incest_Taboo'_Judith_Butler_and_Julia _Kristeva.
Ziegler, M. (2013). Women’s Rights on the Right: The History and Stakes of Modern Pro-Life Feminism. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 28(2). 232-268. Retrieved June, 24, 2018 from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bglj/vol28/iss2/3/. References: Tweets
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Mar 28). The "Eighth Amendment" saves lives - #LoveBoth #savethe8th #RealStory https://t.co/CNrcFBvQtT [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/979062062557970432.
112
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). Sinead Slattery tells #LoveBothVoteNO launch that government has spent much effort promoting abortion but proportio… https://t.co/FpiF7bZL7v [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986536445602160640
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). Sinead Slattery tells #LoveBothVoteNO that the 8th Amendment values the lives of mothers and babies. 13 homeless pr… https://t.co/5D5dVo4A7B [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986536082517975040
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). "I was almost aborted. I'm someone, not someone's choice" - hear Victoria's story: https://t.co/GMdGrEPoQQ The 8th… https://t.co/qsBIo7ehuh [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986546127343357953.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). In this video, Theresa Moylan, a former NHS nurse, speaks about her experience of the abortion industry in England.… https://t.co/w2DeXIN1FQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986666168214683648.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). #LoveBothVoteNO based on facts replies to some common questions https://t.co/EvHpJQqlGp https://t.co/jRE7cejHHa [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986583152360599552.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). "I have my ideas, but I don’t want to restrict the freedom of anyone else". Apply the same principle to a comparab… https://t.co/6Yicaop93x [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986653585462218752.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 18). About 0.07% of the German population has Down Syndrome ... Ireland's rate is 0.15%. This is not an accident. It’s… https://t.co/8WgPgrXJoH [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/986631439604244480
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 19). The Government is planning: * Abortion on demand up to 3 months, with requirement to give a reason * Abortion for v… https://t.co/8LmKST8Fmm [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/987011694370086913
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 20). See here 3 peer-reviewed studies that confirm the testimony of post-abortive women: abortion itself heightens the r… https://t.co/rfOPbu7vbN [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/987227113685106690.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 23). In Britain, 90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted https://t.co/xN5YMMehmD #LoveBothVoteNO #8thref [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/988481402403524608
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 24). The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland recognized the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn… https://t.co/kiuQlno5ue [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/988914231226568704
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 24). This piece was published on our blog last year: "I'm 18... It is also extremely important for men to respect and de… https://t.co/WSjUAmVzaW [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/988764939715301379.
113
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 25). Being “planned”, being “chosen”, being “wanted and being “perfect”? I’ll take being “alive”! - Sile. Adopted after… https://t.co/ewnXl6nyek [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989099220253757440.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 25). 8th Amendment in Midlands - Carol Nolan: "People are shocked this country is facing such a proposal. From the doors… https://t.co/Wdb1tuCFyT [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989059347513856000.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 25). There are so many stories of mothers and parents who contemplated abortion, but the unavailability of abortion in I… https://t.co/w6hXZ9JP0x [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989227568426553345.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 25). Women all around the world are asking for abortion regret to be recognised as a significant phenomenon.… https://t.co/CUHSzErnMO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989136193492172800.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 26). Changing minds....help us inform the public so they Vote No on 25th May. Join one of our canvass teams like this o… https://t.co/z9BosyzqyL [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989509402813083648.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). Don't give politicians a blank cheque. Vote No on 25th May! https://t.co/u0UGfcZeFD #latelate #latelateshow #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989996350539534337
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). This referendum isn't about abortion in limited circumstances, its about abortion for any reason. Every life has me… https://t.co/dlh9cXlqyX [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989979950483689475
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). 90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb in Britain are aborted. Abortion discriminates.… https://t.co/733Y4bhslQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989976230459072512.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). Shame on Mark Murphy for creating fears. Women should visit their doctors if they need help. #latelate #latelateshow #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989994912811814912.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). Rape is a horrendous crime but we do not suggest ending the life of a human being to rectify any other crime… https://t.co/q8agXF7nix [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989991052537974784.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). “Today is a sad day for Britain where over 8 million babies have lost their lives to abortion since the Abortion Ac… https://t.co/00la21pEMS [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989946030413287424.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 27). I am concerned that recent statements are causing unnecessary fears for women. Dr. Mary Holohan, Consultant Obste… https://t.co/5nuXrEMdN3 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/989986385879883779.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 29). We often hear it said that we should trust women. The biggest betrayal of trust is happening in the abortion indust… https://t.co/TPIGdisxh5 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/990616446844653569
114
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 29). Abortion is not compassionate for women. We deserve better. Wendy Grace #latelate #LoveBothVoteNO https://t.co/QsoRoCg5Tl [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/990643374549098496.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 29). "The only guaranteed outcome of an abortion, in medical terms, is that a child’s heartbeat is stopped and its life… https://t.co/cDFGl1yeoZ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/990686911038603265.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 29). Theresa, former NHS nurse: "Today in Britain 1 in every 5 pregnancies are aborted. I've seen over the years that t… https://t.co/DCjpiKBiAU [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/990636834890792962.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 30). - Dr. Gosnell is the most prolific serial killer in American History, but almost no one knows who he is. Free tick… https://t.co/WpocGQi3gY [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991044526138576896
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, Apr 30). Only a “No” vote will stop Ireland’s abortion laws becoming like Britain https://t.co/mTdAGKb3ls #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/990946374513561600.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 01). The Government is planning for free abortions paid for with your taxes #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991303727549243392
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 01). We could not trust politicians to reform our failing health service, and yet we’re being asked to trust them with t… https://t.co/P6pxa9ib60 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991393568156774401
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 01). Dr Rhona Mahoney scaremongering on #rtept John Monaghan says 2013 clarified position for clinicians #rtept #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991421965163487233.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 01). The Government's plan is more extreme than the law in Britain which results in almost 200,000 abortions every year.… https://t.co/96KL9g7gtS [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991298441228705792.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 02). Dr Hayes, Consultant in Obstetrics & Gynaecology: “Recent weeks have seen significant and untrue public statements… https://t.co/oYkzdDBTQh [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/991726512368861184.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 04). "My brother, Seosamh, has quite severe special needs and his life has always taught me that no matter what, life wi… https://t.co/XvHmpN153W [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/992368240935383040.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 04). "I was 19 when I had an abortion. I was never told it would lead to deep depression and suicidal thoughts."… https://t.co/vmb6lWvCN1 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/992447529680683008.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 05). "The 8th amendment does not inhibit our ability to treat a woman. It does one thing only – it bans us from intentio… https://t.co/OYGUzzXQZl [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/992847659928039424
115
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 06). "Many of my friends who have faced unplanned pregnancy make the point that abortion is not really a choice at all.… https://t.co/sgywOu7svt [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/993084962722099202.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 08). “The Irish people are not so easily fooled as to follow the consensus in the media and entertainment world, and inc… https://t.co/E38TLEvVXo [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/993776519171465217.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 08). "It is the only example of a referendum in the modern, liberal, democratic world that removes human rights from a w… https://t.co/4AsiMILhZb [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/993885739942232066.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 09). Why we are talking about #DownSyndrome. Reason 2) Parents of children with disabilities or #DownSyndrome have asked… https://t.co/SoJbRTcRZB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/994321612353753089.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 10). "I will be voting “No”. Not because I don’t agree with choice and rights, but because the referendum on the 25th wo… https://t.co/vIy1rLgIWB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/994604223462498304.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 12). "The Irish Medical Council guidelines say that doctors must intervene to save a woman – the risk does not have to b… https://t.co/WhvcmitLoI [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995352158785757184.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 12). Five of Ireland's most senior doctors, including four former Chairmen of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaeco… https://t.co/MYeAE7gvN2 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995288234610647042.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 12). "... Faroe Islands, Hungary, Korea, South Africa; I have heard the stories of regret and loss from women from all t… https://t.co/Gb91n8KNgW [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995392668413739008.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 13). The Government is planning: *Abortion up to 6 months on the same grounds that has led to abortion on demand in Brit… https://t.co/kHMjjgtiaz [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995716804453449729
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 13). Without the 8th Amendment, Irish citizens would have no vote on future abortion laws #LoveBothVoteNO #8thRef https://t.co/5F0UqGf72x [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995688619150004224.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 13). There is no medical evidence that abortion safeguards or improves women’s mental health. No evidence at all.… https://t.co/7OblamFgIA [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995746751519715328.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). "I'm horrified that some colleagues claim the 8th Amendment endangers women's lives - it does no such thing." – Con… https://t.co/GZc68HNTOs [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996134324536832005.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). Dr Cliodhna Donnelly, MD. "Never has medicine in Ireland shown favouritism of the babies over the mothers if her li… https://t.co/NqoYYuw6eE 116
[Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/995965694410805248.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). The reality is that once abortion is introduced the rates skyrocket. This is the experience of every other country.… https://t.co/ezimguHaYF [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996124743479844866.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). This proposal allows British-style abortion up to 6 months on unspecified mental health grounds. This is NOT healt… https://t.co/isq8IumO7V [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996136822039240704.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). Essentially we are talking about removing the most fundamental right from our constitution. This is NOT progressiv… https://t.co/tOPe4jVuPO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996132795490516992.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 14). Abortion survivor tells it like it is. Can we acknowledge what this procedure actually is? #LoveBothVoteNO #CBLive https://t.co/qJvWC98nJD [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996130530855964678.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 15). The government’s plan to introduce abortion on demand will place further strain on currently overstretched health s… https://t.co/112bc0oMLK [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996394772083298305
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 15). If the 8th Amendment is removed, we will have no vote on future abortion laws. #LoveBothVoteNo #Arklow https://t.co/cPr4uPBizd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996382441215479814.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 15). Legalising abortion as the solution to unplanned pregnancy removes the incentive for positive change. A truly compa… https://t.co/o7DD2M3lD0 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996504258789994502.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 15). Legalising abortion as the solution to unplanned pregnancy removes the incentive for positive change. A truly compa… https://t.co/o7DD2M3lD0 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996504258789994502.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 15). "It seemed like we were given a death sentence. Now I can’t believe how much happiness and peace our son brought in… https://t.co/0IvrSENprZ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/996458964069109761.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 17). Down Syndrome babies in the womb will be targeted if we don't #LoveBothVoteNO on May 25th. It has happened in every other country. #WYB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997235848105086976
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 17). Fuller - 'What we are asking the people to vote is not about abortion in 'hard cases'. It is about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks' [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997241221025357824.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 17). Wendy Grace: Why would Ireland be any different? In all other countries where it was introduced abortion rates inc… https://t.co/tkAZ6NXVko [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997240705667010560. 117
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 18). "My friends who were considering voting yes have been shocked to see that there are no protections for people with… https://t.co/8Z85VAWMnQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997401994838061056.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 18). Repeal is pro-fear. "I feel fear is the biggest thing in relation to abortion: the fear of telling family, the fea… https://t.co/sJwCu5tf4c [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997516161364316160.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 19). Our canvassers are meeting many fathers who say: "I saw my child's scan. That's why I'm voting NO" #LoveBothVoteNo https://t.co/oD2pOs5eMT [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997932656590499847.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 19). Taoiseach has said that if people reject the Government’s abortion on demand proposals they will be responsible for… https://t.co/jSx8TUmi18 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997825449559449600.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 19). The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no ‘right to abortion’. Ireland is under no obligation t… https://t.co/zMJ3P9nC9x [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/997794746847277058.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 20). The assault on our campaign has been unprecedented: thousands of posters vandalized and removed, volunteers assault… https://t.co/8mh9ZXPoVb [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/998145558694060032.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 20). Do your friends know this? Our abortion laws changed in 2013. It is already lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Irel… https://t.co/Z43VZJJJy5 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/998239930877923328.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 20). MUST WATCH VIDEO: The YES campaign is exploiting the story of a 13 year-old rape victim (who supports a NO vote) to… https://t.co/edbWlZP5ax [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/998193821640024064.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 21). NEW AD: Even those who support abortion in some circumstances realise the Government’s plan is too extreme. Listen… https://t.co/W37ezE7jF6 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/998652496678739968.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 21). Women AND men should be involved. It's a fundamental human rights issue. We're all agreed on that! #LoveBothVoteNO #tonighttv3 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/998691561490780167.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 22). We are a society. We are a community. There is a responsibility for all of us to protect the most vulnerable - To… https://t.co/426EsLPlL9 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999036023123431424.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 22). Mickey Harte - 'I've always felt that people in Ireland are good at supporting each other' #LoveBothVoteNO #rtept https://t.co/Cj55O74eZB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999026660098957312.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 23). Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to have a baby. It is safer than countries with abortion on dem… https://t.co/AEffyIEuB3 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999412208168775681. 118
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 23). The 8th creates a climate whereby unborn babies are valued, where pregnancy is seen very positively, and where medi… https://t.co/EEjlFKo5gN [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999332630402224128
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 23). Vote NO on Friday because you can't repeal regret. #LoveBothVoteNO #TooFarForMe #8thRef https://t.co/2nYULnpCyJ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999386485479608321.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 23). The only progressive vote is a 'NO' vote #BelieveInScience #LoveBothVoteNo #8thref https://t.co/Suq50xFyyP [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999285318703448065.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 23). Lowe: This is beyond gender, religion and politics. It is a human rights issue #TonightTV3 #LoveBothVoteNO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999418430255173636.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 24). "When abortion is made readily available it stops being a last resort and rapidly becomes the first option."… https://t.co/oaj3uNQfC6 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/999717346569748481.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 25). "When you vote on Friday, think of me. My name is Gavin Boyne, I am a student, I am 20 years old. I am not someone’… https://t.co/skykSSzxay [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/1000049353782939648.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 25). #8thref isn’t about abortion in limited cases. It’s about abortion on demand for any reason. Only a NO VOTE can sto… https://t.co/X4RTZIPHpU [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/1000111763587649536.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 25). #8thref isn’t about abortion in limited cases. It’s about abortion on demand for any reason. Only a NO VOTE can sto… https://t.co/X4RTZIPHpU [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/1000111763587649536.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 25). Abortion on demand for 12 weeks is TOO extreme. #VoteNO: https://t.co/G2GvAGmzKM #LoveBothVoteNO #TooFarForMe… https://t.co/viQUKBIict [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/1000109750586032128.
LoveBoth [lovebothireland]. (2018, May 26). Our campaign does not end with the referendum, but when the Government properly supports the mother and child… https://t.co/LAIcDUMrAd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/lovebothireland/status/1000324918360260608.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). “We’ve moved on from dropping our pregnant women at the gates of a laundry. I think we’ve moved on from dropping th… https://t.co/soXRY1vD7o [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976776453621764096.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). “The dignity and respect shown to us and our son in the hospital was in complete contrast to the abandonment we fel… https://t.co/5A36sqdshM [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976775470279774208.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). Will we continue to deny people support or are we compassionate and will we care for women, partners and families i… https://t.co/Rwt3gAquZC
119
[Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976772144750309376.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). We are #Together4Yes. We are a vibrant, broad and diverse campaign, working together to remove the Eighth Amendment… https://t.co/3jgThdBhyJ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976730206139432961.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). Dr Boylan powerfully recalls the case of Savita Halappanavar - “As her consultant said, in any other European count… https://t.co/4jWgU8I8w5 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976778342081990656.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). We are asking Ireland to turn away from a law which has driven women in Ireland into flight, shame and secrecy - Ca… https://t.co/JLNPs31sHb [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976783668164399104.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 22). “This referendum matters to all of us, men and women. We’re campaigning for a fairer, kinder Ireland, a place where… https://t.co/1BYX8bD0Si [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/976781735244521473.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 23). Dr Boylan, chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said NHS Liverpool Women's Hospital recently… https://t.co/IBCvnKdpCs [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/977227161902907392.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 23). “The Eighth Amendment has caused grave harm to many women in Ireland, including death.” Dr Peter Boylan… https://t.co/R1nncSVExd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/977111544571027456
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 24). We are the broadest platform ever assembled to create a more compassionate Ireland that cares for its women by prov… https://t.co/hvthVXAy9f [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/977478546556903425.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 26). The full text of @simoncoveney's piece is available online now "This is not an easy issue, many of us have seen our… https://t.co/In7KSWRCcC [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/978300756074926080.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 28). Louise O’Neill was 7 when the X Case happened, and it was the first time she realised her body didn’t belong to her… https://t.co/Er8PMUEZJ8 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/979055396534018048.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 28). Honoured to be joined here tonight by Annie Roche, speaking about how the Eighth Amendment harmed her when she foun… https://t.co/2GTixdoqx8 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/979056274196324352.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 28). GP Susan Smith, who specialises in Primary Care - abortion is one area of medicine that I cannot provide safe and e… https://t.co/RoZCecOQlt [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/978924752373985280.
120
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 28). We are women, we are men, we are workers, we are students, we are your family, friends and neighbours, we are toget… https://t.co/Fdht432FvU [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/979053656149495809.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 28). Rhona Mahony - “the Eighth requires that a woman is dying before she can access abortion care, and where doctors de… https://t.co/FEtLHopM53 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/978922417648267264.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 30). Master of the National Maternity Hospital explains what made her mind up on Eighth Amendment #together4yes https://t.co/s1qd71DvjE [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/979640164430614528.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 31). To Cavan, where we had a brilliant turnout for canvassing training in Bailieborough #together4yes https://t.co/UlvBgxY6au [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/980161332073857026.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Mar 31). Church of Ireland bishop says he will vote to repeal ‘flawed’ Eighth Amendment #together4yes https://t.co/jS6zF934g8 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/979994466873434112.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 03). Many women can’t travel - they can’t afford it, they are migrant women who don’t have papers. We know trans and non… https://t.co/Oj4hKXlmtH [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981247960703959040.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 03). The Constitution is too blunt an instrument to deal with women’s healthcare. The best decisions take place when pre… https://t.co/vH5qQKDVUF [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981248194561617920.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 03). May 25 is our chance to remove one of the most reckless and ill advised constitutional measure in our history says… https://t.co/wxQtXwduv6 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981242125563068417.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 03). We have a sitaution where abortion pills are being ordered online, and in some cases, without necessary medical fo… https://t.co/scnq59ryW9 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981215903244341249.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 05). The only equitable, workable & compassionate way to offer choice to women pregnant after rape is to provide safe an… https://t.co/L4VBWjXU15 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981851993680613377.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 05). Abortion access is very unequal and women who are highly controlled as well as women who are living in poverty and… https://t.co/gK4gHLmBCM [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/981855184333758464.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 08). “People who expect others to respect their own privacy should do likewise themselves. That’s the main reason why I’… https://t.co/jC8gXVxoFF
121
[Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/982893804410810368.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 08). Why is a 12 week period where a woman can access abortion so important for a woman pregnant as a result of rape?… https://t.co/O06aTMqMhd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/982909682837852160.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 11). New figures released by online provider, Women Help Women, show that 878 women in Ireland used its service in 2017,… https://t.co/FkMJRAooHV [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/983983106033115136.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 12). “We need the courage to remove the Eighth Amendment” A powefdul piece from Amanda Mellet, the first woman to succes… https://t.co/sFt3fNS9Wd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/984341598782844928.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 13). We did it!!! Half a million euro for our caring and compassionate Yes message! Thank you so much to the more than 1… https://t.co/qR7aby0rc4 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/984890051837472768.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 14). Inclusion Ireland is taking an official position in support of a repeal of the Eighth Amendment, and will campaign… https://t.co/JAzNIBLYh9 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985112769606414336.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 15). Obstetricians and gynaecologists have agreed to establish principles of safe practice that will “underpin safe care… https://t.co/6xY2lB5NTT [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985502682206167042.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). 'Women with intellectual disabilities have very little choice in their decision making" [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985817313072091137.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). It is not a matter of conscience for the state to ignore the rights of people with disabilities - Paddy Connolly [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985814818916626437.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). "Is there broad support for a Yes in @InclusionIre's members?" "If you support the ratification of the Convention o… https://t.co/kkDqXDEWeL [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985815065965232129.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). What we’re seeing is attempts to hide the harm that the 8th Amendment causes to women and girls in Ireland. It’s ti… https://t.co/45IR5lTAOW [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985915383881392128.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). “How my wife was treated, it doesn’t sit with the people of Ireland. The 8th harms women and girls. We need to vote… https://t.co/DNyq5F8fGO
122
[Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985916252940980224.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). Disabled people should always be able to make decisions about their personal and private lives - all barriers to eq… https://t.co/ILtPivcxRX [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985813148715438081.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution discriminates against women with disabilities and those with mobility issu… https://t.co/FWdmjT9c59 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985892965381017600.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). "It is the default that women with intellectual disabilities who become pregnant and have the child, have their chi… https://t.co/YJamXTf08v [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985816205222187008.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 16). "We don't know how many people with disabilities have taken abortion pills because they are illegal" @DrMarkMurphy [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/985815270492196865.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 17). Inclusion Ireland, advocacy organisation group which promotes the rights of people with an intellectual disability,… https://t.co/KvBRsyML9i [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/986176399882031104.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 20). Pronta/o per il referendum? Assicurati di #Register4Yes entro l’8 maggio per votare per servizi medici più giusti p… https://t.co/1tfLF7FbAs [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/987408114130587648.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 20). The 8th amendment was a bizarre legal experiment in 1983 that has failed to work, and has failed women's healthcare… https://t.co/JOaWXYZHFb [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/987231655290171392.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 20). We have a rise in the self administration of abortion pill in this country, facing a prison sentence of 14 years. T… https://t.co/ZlYF2tC0oP [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/987232523225915392.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 22). Listen to Tracey on Together for Yes’s Real Stories Podcast tell her story of baby Grace, and how the 8th Amendment… https://t.co/aMX2ZMTIqj [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/988075268672811011.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 22). The 8th Amendment creates extra barriers to healthcare for people with disabilities. We need to vote Yes May 25 for… https://t.co/0d30aAgdwB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/987978983454199808.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 24). Why did I get involved? In simple terms, the 8th Amendment harms women and I have so many women in my life I want t… https://t.co/NszYbMJ1VQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/988664240964820992.
123
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 24). Sporting and TV personalities launch campaign urging men to vote 'Yes' in abortion referendum #men4yes https://t.co/a0xMgkMo4L [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/988803065443647494
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 25). The 8th Amendment is getting in the way of a more compassionate Ireland, where women have the choice to get the car… https://t.co/KLX2QnH394 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989109694114476032.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 25). The 8th Amendment is getting in the way of a more compassionate Ireland, where women have the choice to get the car… https://t.co/KLX2QnH394 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989109694114476032.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 25). "I've seen everything from the 14 year old travelling with her parents to the 40 year old travelling without her ch… https://t.co/LZrNLXSgpt [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989075069472329729.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 25). "As a doctor, my hands are tied. This is not okay. Irish people are compassionate. When Irish people know how the 8… https://t.co/ll7AT5tutt [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989075318139965441.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 25). What is particularly striking about the #CorkSaysYes #Together4Yes campaign is the number of men who have stepped f… https://t.co/H68RZtIZ34 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989076704978235392.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 26). "Make Ireland a safer place for women." "We have heard too long how women have walked through airport terminals."… https://t.co/RhQ9gDqxDL [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989559468508753920.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 26). Young people have a vital role to play in this campaign. Make sure you are registered to vote on May 25… https://t.co/7jXeEXp7AS [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989416485092196353.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). That a woman should not die in pregnancy is the absolute lowest bar to aim for in a modern country. Savita should b… https://t.co/y6xuE09qb0 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989986674657685504.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). Doctors everyday fight to preserve rights in Ireland, including foetal rights. but the constitution is too rigid a… https://t.co/1EX7kD4nke [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989996132121051136.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). The 8th Amendment causes harm, including death #LateLateShow https://t.co/VyTWKOrb09 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/990004325878521857.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). "At the moment we are failing women. We are failing them, by not trusting them and not trusting doctors." A powerfu… https://t.co/d9Mx36opmY [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989998163279974400.
124
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). If we were to retain the 8th amendment, we are effectively saying we want to continue to export the problem or impo… https://t.co/Gbow1pYQTw [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989998435905482752.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). For a woman who is raped and says "I can't have this baby", what would you say? We have heard from the experts… https://t.co/LzcwGo0AQQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989991382218608646.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). "A yes vote would mean Grace could rest in peace. It would mean my 16 year old daughter would have access to health… https://t.co/uV3TW9OMpY [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989993390468198400.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 27). "In Ireland, we have abortion. Women import abortion pills. We are worried, as doctors, that women will die. Women… https://t.co/3ASqsewsUo [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/989990142483030016.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 30). A yes vote means we have the capacity to legislate for the complex medical situations which courts find it difficul… https://t.co/uxdR563Iur [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/990870151489867776.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 30). Women who choose to have an abortion when they are informed their baby will not survive outside the womb are abando… https://t.co/vwVSjMOg3t [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/990846949329981440.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 30). A constitutional provision should never get in the way of good medical care. A doctor should never feel it necessar… https://t.co/DIMiAMhusb [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/990868587115175937.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 30). The 8th amendment disproportionately impacts migrant women. #together4yes wants every pregnant woman in Ireland to… https://t.co/eDrmLycH6g [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991006596200325120.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, Apr 30). “It is profoundly socially unjust that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to travel if she can afford i… https://t.co/iZHCLDz74s [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/990928547245109248.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 01). We know that the 8th has a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, migrant women, trans and non binary… https://t.co/gh3L9wd8Ut [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991285313313140736.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 02). Fact check: Have more than 170,000 Irish women travelled abroad for an abortion? Verdict: Yes #together4yes https://t.co/8JKMN8alKI [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991731687674531840.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 03). ‘Everyone should have a choice’ says Sonia O Sullivan ahead of 8th amendment referendum #together4yes https://t.co/gWuCGqUMwk [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991987131378782208.
125
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 03). “They nicknamed the delivery room in Liverpool Hospital The Shamrock Suite, because so many Irish women have been c… https://t.co/qhj4CN6EFT [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991958686192013313.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 03). "But if as a man, you respect the right of women and girls to have control over their bodies, their health and thei… https://t.co/bk5nFvXhtL [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/991950707690524672.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 05). As part of our Faces of the 8th video series, this is a heartbreaking video from Amy, sharing her story of travelli… https://t.co/f0qLciegUh [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/992842210264670208.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 06). An open letter calling for a Yes vote on May 25. We are all #together4yes Vote Yes on May 25 for a more caring a… https://t.co/HfrBw4Awwe [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/993174221265174529.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 07). “Nobody sets out to have an abortion. It wasn’t in my list of things to do, until I had to” Arlette tells her sto… https://t.co/aFzeSe6ssx [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/993536868519202819.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 07). She’s your friend, she’s your neighbour, she lives on your street. There is a woman in your life who needs your Y… https://t.co/1Udc1QgWsQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/993467346902798336.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 08). "In Ireland today, we play medical roulette with women's lives." Dr Rhona Mahony Top obstetricians, psychiatrists,… https://t.co/h0f14arpYG [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/993764975670906880.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 08). “Making the decision to travel saved me. I had the control to say okay, we will decide to end this pregnancy early… https://t.co/JPvVrCOnMz [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/993945140199854080.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 09). A plethora of medical professionals, obstetricians and maternal medicine specialists have come out in favour of vot… https://t.co/DM4i0XpOnB [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994180405879300096.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 09). The law as it stands demands that we try to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term irrespective of the impact o… https://t.co/qT94wWDx9H [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994250692012531712.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 09). A No vote will mean that Ireland will continue to be a cold place for women in the most terrible circumstances – an… https://t.co/od8pGF1dhq [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994251703703801857.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 10). "The 8th amendment prevents doctors from doing their jobs properly by making it difficult to know when to intervene… https://t.co/bdLU0YhMEa [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994660782985105413.
126
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 10). "The 8th amendment prevents doctors from doing their jobs properly by making it difficult to know when to intervene… https://t.co/bdLU0YhMEa [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994660782985105413.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 10). Over 35 years the 8th amendment has caused immense harm to women, cast a chilling effect upon medical practice and… https://t.co/KawkfQHJGQ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994541407653244928.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 10). We are a national grassroots movement which relies on small donations from large numbers of people. Our crowdfund i… https://t.co/dKjhWw3JxA [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994581474375557120.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 10). "People in Ireland don't want to be judgemental, but whether you like it or I like it, abortions happen in Ireland.… https://t.co/sExqu25LgN [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994491551450583040.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 11). These City Lights by Oliver Cole and Niamh Farrell All proceeds from this pay-what-you-want single go to the Togeth… https://t.co/1hFs9gykZA [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994864715355578371.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 11). Voting YES will enable evidence based and compassionate care for women who have a crisis pregnancy. Dr Mark Murphy… https://t.co/pU7dwePsUo [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/994993795895824387.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 12). “Often, we're making a decision on the real and substantial risk to the life of the woman and the woman isn't even… https://t.co/AkP9z66Y6K [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/995215174943563777.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 12). “I’m Mary Henry and I was opposed to the 8th amendment in 1983. Anything to do with women’s reproductive health in… https://t.co/NhNsJk3JgM [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/995240985381785601.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 13). "All of these women and all of these men and all of these couples and families at the most desperately dark time of… https://t.co/0oXfVO3Igs [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/995713209494638592.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 13). "We have been sending our most vulnerable girls and women to our colleagues in the UK for too long." Prof Deirdre M… https://t.co/te7s4FgJar [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/995690380791296000.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). "Mothers have been denied the right to life and the right to health because of the 8th amendment. The Institute of… https://t.co/UF06hOgSk9 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996128812562894848.
127
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). "Once a woman in this country becomes pregnant, her right to life is diminished. I do not agree that a woman should… https://t.co/yrKENST3gv [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996136938242441216.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). "It is time that our young families grow up in an Ireland that wraps its arms around them when they most need suppo… https://t.co/HGygrWRmcA [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996116768107257856.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). Deaf Community Together for Yes have launched their official statement on the impact of the 8th Amendment on the De… https://t.co/7HcNB6ahmd [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996035831423959042.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). This is an important statement from the Minister for Disabilities - please read and share widely #together4yes https://t.co/snCfoGlpFI [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996095333124968448
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 14). "What is really important in this referendum is we recognise the reality. Abortion happens. Abortion exists for the… https://t.co/4qxsHSOfNZ [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996128007508066304.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 15). “People ask as how being Catholic influences our vote. The Vatican’s own statement says Catholics have a duty to fo… https://t.co/8DiQrSXKr9 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996468058368741377.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 16). "What about the lies of anti choicers online? We need to counteract it" - "Don't engage. The more you engage, the m… https://t.co/Xr21VmIUWu [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996834780288311296.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 16). Ronan Keane, Chief Justice between 2000 and 2004: Repeal of Eighth does not mean unborn have no right to life… https://t.co/VjL405mKmA [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996724122674704384.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 16). "Life is complicated. Couples get a diagnosis of a fatal foetal anomaly. Women get raped. The law turns its back on… https://t.co/pdKKAOQBfq [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/996786229743104000.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 17). Over 1,200 individual Irish scientists with @ScienceForYes advocate for a YES vote in print edition of today's… https://t.co/VeXwAbC0aw [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997087092093136897.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 17). “Irish women are responsible. The majority of Irish women having abortions are mothers. They understand what mother… https://t.co/TfGJB3mfR5 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997182732412293120.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 17). The Together for Yes Campaign Platform brings together a wide range of civil society organisations who represent va… https://t.co/aXyEiKZ8Bd
128
[Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997056348360790016.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 18). “Can we stop talking about Hard Cases? We are talking about women in crisis. There is no doubt that the 8th Amendme… https://t.co/jn1l39JgjX [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997547412997791744.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 18). You will never give a more important YES in your life than the YES you will give next Friday. Polling stations wi… https://t.co/SwMwWgD4rE [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997386115362500608.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 19). The horrific story of a young Cork woman forced to travel alone to the UK for an abortion and return with her dead… https://t.co/iHIF3xkwoO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/997813620669988865.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 20). We cannot provide access to healthcare for people who have become pregnant because of a rape, or those who have rec… https://t.co/QN1NXkBJBw [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998237114167853058.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 20). "We are letting down victims of rape, couples with wanted pregnancies whose babies will not survive. These are not… https://t.co/0x94lscRUO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998199477134659584.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 21). Fantastic to see interstellar support for the removal of the 8th Amendment #Together4Yes Vote Yes on Friday May 25th https://t.co/tLyqVAASm1 [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998646190710370306.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 21). The 8th Amendment has not stopped abortion, it just means it takes place dangerously, in large numbers, at least 15… https://t.co/VP3ZNfedNc [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998501363209433088.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 22). At the moment, the foetal right to life under the 8th Amendment prevents courts and doctors from considering a woma… https://t.co/8NGVedFnLS [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999032852372180992.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 22). Two women leave Ireland every week for a termination after receiving a diagnosis of a fatal foetal anomaly. Watch t… https://t.co/ovvLW2rFms [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998884160822390784.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 22). A father’s instinct is to protect his daughter. Share this with your dad to help start any last-minute conversation… https://t.co/xoHDVDGzOg [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998994683052412928.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 22). Cillian Murphy sent us in cake! Fantastic to have support from men around the country to will stand with us and vot… https://t.co/LJuenOYjko [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998873394513940480.
129
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 22). This Friday, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity, a chance to make Ireland a safer, more caring country for al… https://t.co/alnzggHPCY [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/998828651180429313.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 23). "Someday, someone in going to die, alone in her bathroom because she is too afraid to go to a GP." Irish families… https://t.co/dpvU3ZYCTV [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999352876882374667.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 24). Dr Marian Dyer, one of the GPs signed up to our petition, speaks about her experiences dealing with patients who, f… https://t.co/7jYsEJfNiU [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999720336185798657.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 24). The vote tomorrow is going to be tight. We need #men4yes to stand with the women in their lives to make a once in a… https://t.co/SOvh7MFc3z [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999619402940153856.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 25). The final push for YES - get out and vote, bring your family and friends with you! 2 hours 20 minutes left. We can… https://t.co/jWMHtxhE9H [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/1000084245228982273.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 25). The women of Ireland are amazing. This is the best voting story so far today. #together4yes #together2vote https://t.co/qPxZQ2KJbP [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999958244452978688.
Together for Yes [Together4yes]. (2018, May 25). A flight with people coming #HomeToVote was clipped by another plane on the runway at Stansted - everyone is ok and… https://t.co/VrVrmABtdO [Tweet]. Retrieved August 25, 2018 from https://twitter.com/Together4yes/status/999982146054950912.
Author’s Declaration Unless otherwise indicated in the text or references, or acknowledged above, this thesis is entirely the product of my own scholarly work. Any inaccuracies of fact or faults in reasoning are my own and accordingly I take full responsibility. This thesis has not been submitted either in whole or part, for a degree at this or any other university or institution. This is to certify that the printed version is equivalent to the submitted electronic one.
130