FROM THE ARCHIVES:The "right to life of the unborn" referendum to insert a ban on abortion into the Constitution in 1983 was as divisive as it was confusing to many people, as this report by Judi Doherty exemplified. – JOE JOYCE
If the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion were written in Greek, it might be only marginally more confusing to the voters who were canvassed in Dublin South Central recently, three weeks before the vote.
Nearly a quarter of the people had never heard of the proposed amendment, several didn’t know what amendment meant, and at least one person didn’t know what a constitution was.
The canvass was being done by members of the Anti-Amendment Campaign who had leafleted the neighbourhoods in and around Bangor Road and Devenish Road, Kimmage, several days earlier and were returning for a face-to-face opportunity to present their views and urge people to vote “no”.
“I’m not really interested,” said one woman who answered her doorbell from an upstairs window. She said that friends of hers had recently gone on a pilgrimage and leaflets were distributed throughout the buses urging a “yes” vote.
“The bishop and all told them to vote ‘yes’. I’m against abortion . . . and I should be against it but I don’t really understand it. They want to bring it into the Constitution that we can have abortion.”
“No, no,” said Molly O’Duffy and Ita O’Connor in chorus and they gave their presentation. They concentrated on the ambiguity of the wording and said it could cost women their lives if doctors were forced to choose between saving a foetus and saving a pregnant woman. They also emphasised that some kind of contraceptives could be outlawed if the amendment were passed.
The woman listened thoughtfully. “Like you say, the woman’s life is important. It’s all right if she’s only on her first, but if she’s got 10 children . . . what does amendment mean anyway?” The campaigners explained.
“So,” puzzled the woman, “if you say ‘yes’ to the amendment you’re putting in a clause that women will be saved?”
“No, no,” cried Ms O’Duffy and Ms O’Connor again and explained once more.
“So amendment means they’re going to change the Constitution?” the woman asked. Yes, yes, at last. The woman squinted her eyes. “Hmmmmm,” she said. If she was still confused, the anti-amendment campaigners advised that she should vote “no”. One rather tired looking woman opened her door further down the street and said, “I’m not going to have any more so I’m not interested.”
She listened to the argument and then, almost on impulse she took a leaflet. “Okay, I’ll do it for the sake of me daughter,” she said.
One young man, the father of two, said he had heard something about it all right but was very confused. He thought for a moment. “You say, choose the mother? Why. The campaigners explained. “You say the child should be saved? No, no, wait, start off again?”
http://url.ie/ctqz