Kenyan Constitution Battle Goes To Washington DC (US Congress). PDF Documents

See story published earlier : Congress To Investigate Michael Ranneberger Activity

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Kenyan Constitution Battle Goes To Washington DC (US Congress). PDF Documents

  1. Fact 1: The Proposed new constitution provides for the Kadhis Court;
    Fact 2: The Current constitution provides for Kadhis Court;

    Fact 3. The proposed new Constitution provides for abortion by “a trained health worker” when the “mothers life is in danger”;
    Fact 4: The current constitution does not recognize life at conception and thus does not deal with abortion; but abortion is allowed through statute when the life of “the mother is in danger” and can be performed by “any person” (penal code section 240: a person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for his benefit, or upon an upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mothers life….. also penal code 214 which determines when life begins: A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state form the body of the mother…..)

    Fact 5: Denial of abortion under all circumstances happens in only four countries in the world. (Chile, El-salvador, Malta and the Vatican)

    Fact 6: Abortions will continue weather or not we pass a new law.

    Fact 7. If you manage to illegalise all abortions, when my child gets an ectopic pregnancy I will travel with her to Uganda or Tanzania and guess what-have a legal abortion.

    Fact 8. The clamour for the new constitutions was based on poor governance and human rights and not religious issues. And the new constitutions deals with these issues well.

    Is there something I am missing here? Why does it seem like in winning the Christian right is actually loosing.

  2. Jeffrey, Thank you for your comments.If you go through our blog you will find that the abortion debate has been well covered .See post Article 26 and Njoki Ndungu(CoE) response to Article 26 post Both legal opinions and not just views of ordinary kenyans.

    On the kadhi courts and abortions going on in the current constitution.

    1. a constitutional court ruling has declared the kadhi courts unconstitutional.You may not agree with this ruling but as the law stands today Kadhi courts in our current constitution are illegal.(just in case you and others want to dispute that (just for your information since the ruling kadhi courts have not been in operation and have been suspended).

    2. Yes Abortions will go on in the current constitution but they will do so illegally since the current constitution does not allow abortions.

    3.The Abortion debate is not about the mothers life being in danger as some politicians have sort to paint it .When the life of a mother is in danger abortion is allowed, in the current constitution and in the new draft constitution.The church accepts both.What is in dispute are the loopholes that the church says will allow abortions to happen under the pretense of danger. Please read both articles to understand the debate rather than depending on politicians who choose to misunderstand the debate

  3. I don’t depend of politicians to interpret the constitution for me. I read at and interpret it.

    The documents that we are comparing at this point is the current constitution vs. the draft, not the draft vs. the earlier versions. The earlier ones could not reach this referendum stage and to assume that they will next time is to rely too much on hope. The process of amending the constitution will not be too different from the process of passing the draft that we have now; so it does make sense to pass the good that is in the current draft and try and amend it later.
    I repeat:
    Proposed constitution Sec 26 (1): The life of a person begins at conception.

    What we have now: Penal Code Sec 214: A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an independent circulation or not and weather the naval-string is severed or not.
    The proposed constitution Sec 26 (4): Abortion is not permitted, unless in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or is permitted by any other written law.

    What we have now: Penal Code Sec 240: A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for his benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard for the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.

    We are comparing “A person vs. a trained health care professional”

    2. The point is that in Kenya a registered medical practitioner is at best found in a district hospital. To hope that the trained health care professional in a rural clinic who meets a condition that requires a medical decision has to plead “the constitution” and lets a woman die because he/she is not allowed to attempt any life saving intervention is beyond belief. The trained health care professional is allowed by law to do his/her best to deal with accidents victims, infections, poisoning and all sorts of emergency interventions that are required to save life; however when it comes to an issue of saving the life of the mother because of say, an ectopic pregnancy, then we are suggesting can’t use that skill we so readily allow in all other scenarios. (According to KDHS 2009, only 43% of the country birth is done under the care of a trained health professional. 47% done at home or non-trained health professional). Question: Who do you suggests makes a decision when there is a medical emergency to save the life of the mother within a rural health facility?
    3. Don’t imagine that everybody is blindly opposed to choice. In fact I am quite happy that a statute that allows for abortion should be made. Many women undertake abortions everyday in this country for many reasons. Is law going to magically reduce abortions? Or probably just make it more dangerous. Even the woman who undertakes abortion does not like it, how can we suggest that the answer to every social/moral problem is to criminalize it? In the fine continuum between guilt and innocence there many options; one of the more glaring ones is for preachers to undertake their tasks with more vigour so that we have less abortions; for fathers to be more accepting of children born out of wedlock; for churches and schools to be more accepting of unmarried pregnant girls; for the Children Act to apportion some of the child care responsibility to the father if a child is born out of wedlock… Abortion is a result of many systemic failures and dealing with the root causes makes more sense. And our laws should progressively take care of these realities and change over time so that finally we never have an abortion.

  4. In my view, though i,m mot legal expert, the terms “a mothers life is in danger” don’t refer to when she has been kidnapped by the “Onyachas” of this world, the reference is made in relation to the pregnancy and its status to the mother health. If a health situation involving the pregnancy is a threat to the mother life then abortion is allowed. As for the term “trained health care professional” i,m sure the body that registers medial practitioners has its own rules on who is supposed to do what in the medical field.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s