Milo;394711 wroteThe way in which the decision is worded, makes it clear that the SCoC is telling Parliament to come up with a new law that balances the Rights of the unborn child with those of the woman. Further, every interpretation of that decision says the same thing, namely that the Court is telling Parliament that the old Law was unconstitutional, so they need to formulate a new one.
As for the fact (happy?) that successive Governments have not done so, that is more about moral cowardice than anything else. The fact that they have ignored the SCoC decision is not proof that the decision's directive is not plain.
So no then? The decision is plain? The court stating that the old law is unconstitutional does not demand the creation of a new one. If you crash your car, the situation does not DEMAND you get a new one. You'll need to if you want to get around, but maybe you can walk, or take the bus? Maybe you can do without a car. Maybe we can do without laws on abortion.
It's interesting to me that I have never once read that supreme court decision and come to the same conclusion you have. It's even more interesting that you continue to use the word fact when we're clearly not talking about facts. The fact that others have interpreted it the way you have is irrelevant. The fact that others would interpret it the way I have is also irrelevant.
Here's my take on the SCOC decision that you linked to previously.
The court is saying: we find the current laws unconstitutional because they interfere with a womans right to safety liberty, security etc. However, we want to make very clear that we are NOT stating that there can be no law or regulation on this issue that would pass muster. "The protection of foetal interests is a valid objective..." and so on.
That's a far cry from stating that such laws MUST be passed.
