On the day of the tragedy, during an examination by a doctor, Caitlin went into a bathroom and spent 13 minutes giving birth without telling anybody, an unimaginably traumatic event. Caitlin is currently suffering from depression and post traumatic symptoms, yet the trial showed little concern for her physical and mental wellbeing. It is concerning that the DPP would criminalise a young woman who gave birth in shock. This breaks will previous compassionate views in similar cases, the Gardaí always appealed for women to come forward and they would be treated with compassion and privacy, alas, this wasn't to be for Caitlin. What is not on trial is how Caitlin is a victim of domestic abuse. During her trial she spoke of being beaten and punched by her father and bullied at school. Caitlin, is a survivor of bullying and abuse, and will not likely see justice for the harm that was done to her.

To help encourage people that this day and age, everyone from any place, race, age, gender should be accepted no matter what. Especially in the area of Blanchardstown where most crime and violence occur, people have fear of coming out. It would make such a difference to display the rainbow-pride crossing on that particular busy intersection as it could make a very big change mainly on the peoples perspective on the LGBTQIA+ community.

Unregulated private consultants or 'experts' are routinely used in the Family Law Courts to determine if children should be forced to be 'reconciled' with a parent (usually a father) without any consideration of the children's wishes or reports of evidence of abuse and violence in the home. Because of the 'in camera' rule there is no exposure of this widespread practice, no data, no oversight or accountability and if women and children speak about what is happening they can be criminalised for breaking the 'in camera' rule. Very recently a woman's young children were taken without warning from their school in the company of Gardai. They were removed from the care of their mother and the only home they have ever known and forced to live in their father’s house. They are not allowed to see or speak to their mother. The children have told their teachers, doctor and the social workers what they want and why but the court won’t listen and says they can’t have a voice - on the recommendation of a so called unregulated 'family expert witness'. The 2015 Child and Family Relationship Act says that all children have a right to be heard in matters concerning their lives and should be involved in decisions made about them. The children’s father has continued to exert power and control through post-separation abuse. The greatest way to hurt her is by taking the children away from her, aided by unregulated experts in the family law courts who are silencing victims of domestic violence and their children. We hear from many mothers who are victims of domestic and sexual violence, that in the family courts, when it comes to guardianship, custody and access hearings, domestic abuse survivors are not being heard or prioritised. Many of the reports are very similar to the story outlined above. The reasons offered for these forced separation/reconciliation decisions by 'family court experts' are unreliable. Their arguments draw on concepts that are unscientific and discredited ie. parental alienation. To stop this 'in plain sight' abuse of children and women who are survivors of violence - scrutiny of the decisions being made in Family Law Courts is urgently needed. Unregulated experts have to be investigated and their decisions published and reviewed. Mandatory training and education, accreditation and accountability for all professionals is desperately needed for all professionals working in the Family Courts. There must be independent monitoring and oversight. Children should have the right to live free from fear. Our children should never be subjected to forced removal from their home and family and silenced by so called unregulated 'experts'. Children’s views, voice and wishes, their feelings and human rights should be paramount in all decisions by the court regarding contact arrangements.

The new NMH will be our new maternity hospital. We need all uncertainty removed (all documents published) and questions answered such as: - Publishing all correspondence between the Sisters of Charity & the Vatican to demonstrate what, if any, conditions apply to the transfer of land to SV Holdings CLG - What conditions, if any, are applied to the Indemnity provided by SVHG to the Sisters of Charity? - What happens to operation of new NMH if a claim against the Sisters of Charity significantly impacts SVHG finances? Will the State be expected to vail out the hospital group? - Given a new hospital lifespan is 50-70 years, does this 299 year lease sign the taxpayer up to building successive new maternity hospitals in order to not breach 10 euro yearly discounted rent? - What requirements are detailed in contracts to require SVHG to provide all required adult services (as detailed in 2008 KPMG report) for the life of the new National Maternity Hospital (and potential subsequent replacement hospitals)? - Why not adopt Slaintecare patient rights based values as opposed to the Sisters of Charity values in the constitutions of SV Holdings CLG and SVHG (which new National Maternity Hospital will be a subsidiary of)? - Will a definition of "clinically appropriate" be added to the contracts? Or removed? - Under what conditions can the HSE/State break the lease with the landlord, SVHG? - Why do SV Holdings CLG refuse to sell or gift the land at Elm Park to the State given single ownership is not required at the James' site to facilitate and support co-location? - If a patient at the new National Maternity Hospital requires the Minister of Health to enact their golden share, what is the procedure for this to happen? - In the published documents, SVHG has the power to set healthcare policy in the new National Maternity Hospital. As such it is possible to impede the access of healthcare that is prohibited by Catholic ethos. How will the Minister ensure that accessibility of elective/on-demand healthcare is not overly onerous on a patient? - In the published documents, SVHG has the power to hire staff. As such it is possible for SVHG to hire predominantly anti-choice staff. How will the Minister ensure that this will not happen? - Specific adult services (as identified in the 2008 KPMG report) are required to support the new National Maternity Hospital and is the purpose of co-location. Where in the contracts is SVHG required to ensure adequate staffing at all times, night and at the weekend for example, to ensure that all services required are accessible to new NMH patients? Similarly, what legal guarantee is there that patients of the new NMH will be prioritised as they compete for resources at St. Vincent's University Hospital?

Justyna Wydrzyńska is facing three years in prison in Poland for helping someone access abortion pills. Justyna is an activist with the Abortion Dream Team and is dedicated to ensuring that pregnant people in Poland can access the abortion care they need. Helping someone have an abortion should never be a crime. It is unconscionable that Justyna is being target for her activism and human rights work. Justyna’s hearing will take place on Friday, April 8th in the Warsaw Praga Południe District Court.

The experience of people going through menopause needs to be taken seriously. HRT is a lifeline for many of us and we should not have to worry if the pharmacy has it in stock or not.

Doug Beattie, the UUP Leader, said in January that "Northern Ireland has been blighted by division.. and yet we don't take the brave steps to try and deal with that division...we need to end educational apartheid which is taking place here in Northern Ireland." But his party is opposed to the Bill and may join the DUP in using this undemocratic Assembly mechanism to block the Bill. Doug and his party need to rule out using a Petition of Concern to block the Bill.

Right now, the Integrated Education Bill is going through the NI Assembly - but those opposed to integrated education are misleading schools and parents, telling them the Bill will harm existing schools - it won't. The Bill can pass if enough parties support it - and what the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) do will be crucial. Last month, Doug Beattie, the UUP Leader, signalled his support for integrated education and said "Northern Ireland has been blighted by division.. and yet we don't take the brave steps to try and deal with that division...we need to end educational apartheid which is taking place here in Northern Ireland." We need Doug and his MLAs to support the Integrated Education Bill, and resist attempts by the Bill's opponents to sign a "Petition of Concern" - an Assembly motion that would doom the Bill. Write now and tell Doug how you feel!

Offaly currently has no domestic violence refuge. This is despite domestic violence being a known red flag. We need safe spaces for women and children who are fleeing domestic violence.

It's been 40 years since the first integrated school was started here, but in 2022 only 7.5% of schools here are integrated schools - bringing together children from all backgrounds - Catholic, Protestant and other. But there is overwhelming demand: 71% of people here believe our children should be educated together. Stormont has commissioned a new Independent Review of Education that could change everything - but we need you to tell them integrated education matters to you so that they make recommendations to promote integrated education! Now's your chance to speak up! Email the panel members now and tell them that you want to live in a future where all our children are educated together, promoting reconciliation.

Please add your signature if want to see a change in attitudes among our young people, if you want to see the equality of genders, and if you care about eliminating aggression and violence against girls, women, and our LGBTQI+ friends.

Violence cannot be seen as a series of isolated incidents - but part of a bigger societal problem. It's enabled by our policing and legal system; how our children are educated about consent; the way women are silenced in politics, public life and workplaces; how women are portrayed in the media; the silence of too many men; and how all this is made worse for many women living with with racism and hate.