Wendz wrote:@faa
The did you listen to a lawyer interpretation of that clause? I think its the most misunderstood clause of the whole constitution.
The constitution clearly says that abortion is illegal. any other laws can only rotate around that clause. The constitution also states very clearly that life begins at conception and everyone has a right to life and no one can termite a life arbitrarily so which other law can be made to allow abortion without contradicting all these clauses? the "any other laws" if you listened to a lawyer's interpretation refers to other laws that are existing including the penal code and the doctors Act and code of conduct.
@faa, it will be grave mistake to make a judgement based just on one issue of the whole of the constitution and i would like to request you one thing. Because you only have a problem with one issues only, why dont you talk to your lawyer friends and seek their opinion on that particular clause and how it relates to other laws? Am not saying you vote YES, all am saying, you will have done yourself and future generations a big favour for voting when informed than learning later that you would have done otherwise - my thots.
@ Wendz.With all the due respect we accord you here madam.On this one you are gravely wrong.As someone said here the proposed draft constitution will fail.
Right to Life.” What started as a straightforward and noble protection of the right to life—a constitutional ban on abortion except where medically necessary to save a woman’s life—has been turned completely on its head. In the latest version rewritten by the “Committee of Experts” (CoE), the “right to life” has been slyly transformed into a constitutional right to abortion. Comparing the versions of earlier drafts shows what has happened. The original Harmonised Draft (November 2009) and the Revised Harmonised Draft (January 2010) submitted by the CoE to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), both protected the “Right to Life.” Indeed, it is the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights: “Every person has the right to life.” Under the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008, the CoE was required to submit the draft to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) for its “deliberation and consensus building on the contentious issues.” This occurred at January’s important meeting at Naivasha. The PSC enhanced and clarified the “Right to Life” by adding that “The life of a person begins at conception” and specifically prohibiting abortion except to save the mother’s life: “Abortion is not permitted unless in the opinion of a registered medical practitioner, the life of the mother is in danger.”This reflected a consensus that Kenya’s constitution should protect life and prohibit abortion. At this point, the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 directed the CoE to “revise the draft Constitution taking into account the achieved consensus” and submit the draft to the PSC, which would then lay it before Parliament. The CoE did not do this. It did not revise the draft to reflect “the achieved consensus” at Naivasha. On the contrary, the CoE hijacked the “Right to Life” entirely, turning it instead into a right to abortion. Article 26(4) now provides: “Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is a need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.”This provision completely negates the right to life in four ways. First, it changes the decision-maker from a “registered medical practitioner” to any “trained health professional.” Thus, it need not be a doctor or nurse who makes the medical judgment that an abortion is necessary; it can be any professional “trained” in “health,” whether certified or not. This is code language for permitting abortionists to decide whether an abortion should be permitted. Second, the PSC consensus at Naivasha only permitted abortion when “the life of the mother is in danger.” The CoE re-wrote this to permit abortion when “the life or health” of the mother is in danger. What does “health” include? How broad is this exception? Unfortunately, America provides a bad example. The phrase “health of the mother” is a term-of-art in American constitutional law concerning abortion. It means that the mother may choose abortion for any physical, emotional, psychological, social, financial, or “family” reason she chooses. The effect, in America, is to permit abortion for any reason, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, as a matter of constitutional right. This language is not in the U.S. Constitution, but comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which created an unlimited right to abortion in America by using a trick definition of “health” in a companion decision, Doe v. Bolton. But the “health of the mother” language is in the proposed Constitution of Kenya. It is therefore very likely that this language may be interpreted by courts and government officials in Kenya as creating a right to abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy, after the fashion of America. Third, the CoE’s new version explicitly provides that abortion may be made legal if “permitted by any other written law.” In other words, the constitutional right to life may be entirely nullified, simply by passing a new law, without changing the constitution. This means that the right to life is really no constitutional right at all. Fourth, the exception for “emergency treatment” means something more than protecting the life or health of the mother. Otherwise, this language would have no effect. The CoE added this language. To what does “emergency treatment” refer, if not protecting life or health? A likely answer is that “emergency treatment” is code language for “emergency contraception” that works by producing an early abortion after conception has occurred. There is one more provision of the current draft that further reinforces the right to abortion. Under Article 43 of the CoE’s latest version, “every person” has the constitutional right to “health care services, including reproductive health care.” In America, the phrase “reproductive health care” is polite language for abortion. In America, one of the debates over health care is whether abortion is truly “health care.” “Reproductive health care” is the code term that is used when abortion is what is meant. Because Article 43 of the current draft appears to provide an affirmative right to “reproductive health” services, this language probably provides a social-welfare entitlement to publicly-provided or publicly-funded abortions. In short, the current draft provides a constitutional right to abortion, for any reason, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, paid for by all Kenyans. These are dramatic changes from the earlier versions of the proposed constitution. Nothing like this was in any of the earlier drafts. Article 26 is a completely new invention. It completely undermines the right to life. Indeed, it produces its opposite. It creates a right to abortion.