In response Minister Roderic O’Gorman was unable to address their concerns and said that the courts would define its meaning.

Sinn Fein deputy, Sorca Clarke, said the phrase was “unnecessarily vague” and risks being “open to very different interpretations”.

Another Sinn Féin TD, Réada Cronin, called the wording “strange and weak”, “far too nebulous”, and “open to a multiplicity of interpretations”.

She added: “It is more suited to describing a battery than to complex and sensitive human relationships, never mind Bunreacht na hÉireann”.

Social Democrats leader, Holly Cairns, asked: “What exactly is being defined as a durable relationship under the law?”

In response, Children’s Minister, Roderic O’Gorman said the definition of “durable” that the Government want to put into the Constitution is not influenced by the EU law definition of “durable”.

He added: “We are giving guidance to the courts but the courts can ultimately decide in individual cases, does a relationship represent a durable relationship and therefore constitute protection for the family”.

The Gender Recognition Amendment Bill which would curb the more extreme effects of Ireland’s radical transgender laws, has passed the First Stage unopposed.

Speaking in the Dáil yesterday Aontú Leader and Meath West TD Peadar Tóibín said a consequence of the 2015 Gender Recognition Act is that it allows biological men who identify as women to be placed in women’s prisons, even those “who have been jailed for horrific sexual offences”.

He gave the example of a Barbie Kardashian who “was found guilty of threatening to kill, rape and torture his mother”.

“Kardashian was granted a gender recognition certificate by the Department of Social Protection and as a result was placed in a women’s prison”, he said.

“This was a horrendous dereliction of duty by this government in terms of the protection of women and this Aontú Bill is designed simply to prevent male born criminals being placed into Women’s Prisons. Our Bill provides that a gender recognition certificate does not affect whether a person is deemed male or female for the purpose of applying the existing rule as to single-sex accommodation in prisons”.

Medics who care for the dying have warned an Oireachtas committee against euthanasia.

Professor Regina McQuillan told the committee that the Irish Palliative Medicine Consultants Association is “fundamentally opposed to the introduction of assisted dying, assisted suicide or euthanasia”.

The Joint Committee on Assisted Dying was examining the potential impact legalising euthanasia could have on palliative care.

“My question to the committee is, what percentage of incorrect deaths would be acceptable to legalise assisted suicide?” Matthew Doré of the Association of Palliative Medicine asked.

He pointed to “consistent surveys and polls” showing that “upwards of 82% of our membership are against this legislation”, as they believe that “inevitably there will be incorrect deaths” if it is introduced.

These could include people with an incorrect or unpredictable medical diagnosis, those struggling with mental health issues or “fluctuating autonomy”, or someone who is being subjected to elder abuse, Dr Doré said.

With 366 votes in favour and 145 against, the European Parliament approved today a ‘European Certificate of Parenthood’.

However, the EU Council, composed of the Heads of Member States, is not bound to follow this advice.

Critics slammed the proposal for enabling commercial surrogacy and called on national Governments to ignore it.

FAFCE President, Vincenzo Bassi, said that “Member States should not follow the advice of the European Parliament. The latter – with today’s vote – clearly goes against the principle of subsidiarity, ignoring the exclusive competence of Member States and its own explicit condemnation of the practice of surrogacy”.

“In this proposal, the European Parliament plans to limit the possibility for EU Member States to refuse to recognise parenthood established in another Country. The draft regulation would enable parenthood as established in a EU Member State to be recognised throughout the EU, including in situations such as surrogacy”, he said.

An article promoting a “Satanic Abortion Ceremony” appeared last month in a leading pop culture magazine for young women.

Among pieces dedicated to fashion and lifestyle advice, Cosmopolitan published a feature article provided by the Satanic Temple abortion clinic, an online facility based in New Mexico that provides abortion pills via mail and is run by Satanists.

A set of slides detailing the procedures for performing a ritualised abortion ceremony in accordance with The Satanic Temple’s guidelines were posted in the article. This involved staring at one’s reflection before taking an abortion pill and saying “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” The ritual is completed when the pill is taken and the person has declared “By my body, by my blood; by my will, it is done.”

According to Cosmopolitan, the idea behind this clinic is to defend abortion rights by using religion as justification.

The imposition of so-called “safe-access” zones around facilities providing abortion will further silence the voice of the unborn and represents a disproportionate response with wide implications for freedom of religion and speech.

That’s according to the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh.

In a statement, he said over the years, “many mothers in crisis have felt supported – sometimes at the very last minute – by a sensitive offer of practical help to find a way out of their crisis other than by ending the life of their unborn baby”.

He added that harassment laws are already in place to prevent intimidation.

“The introduction of these zones increases fears that freedom of religion, belief, expression and association are being undermined and open to attack.  The introduction of punitive sanctions will undermine the Common Good as they disproportionately shut down the rights of those who wish to peacefully and prayerfully offer support and alternative options and to save the lives of innocent unborn children”.

Anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh have led to nearly 400 arrests of Christians over the last three years.

The laws currently apply in 12 of India’s 28 states, with fears they could become national.

Andrew Boyd, of Release International, says laws that aimed to prevent conversion by force have, in effect, opened the gates for increasingly forceful oppression of India’s Christians.

He said the intention is to prevent conversions by force or bribery, but the trouble is “these laws are being imposed by radicals. . . . through very loosely worded legislation, they’re looking at relief aid which has been provided by Christians and saying it’s bribery. They’re looking at talk of heaven and saying that’s bribery, talk of hell – that’s coercion.

“Pretty much any attempt to share your faith in India, where these groups are militant and rising, is being opposed.”

Attacks in the northeastern state of Manipur in India, believed in part to be motivated by anti-Christian hate, cost the lives of 175 people earlier this year.  300 churches were burned down and 60,000 people were driven from their homes.

The Cabinet has approved comprehensive surrogacy legislation that includes a broad facilitation of commercial arrangements abroad that will remain illegal at home. Most countries ban commercial surrogacy on the grounds that it exploits low income women and commodifies children.

This includes granting legal parenthood to non-biological guardians of babies born to surrogates.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, which passed the second stage in the Dáil last year, was paused to allow changes around the regulation of international surrogacy agreements.

Having now been approved by Cabinet, the amendments will be referred to the Oireachtas Committee on Health for committee stage and the process is likely to begin in January.

Under the legislation, Ireland would become the first State in the world to have a special legislative regime to facilitate international surrogacy.

It would mean that prospective international surrogacy arrangements would be pre-approved by a new authority/regulator and that a post-birth Circuit Court process would grant a parental order.

For retrospective surrogacies, the High Court may grant a parental order on the basis of a number of criteria being met, including a determination by the court that it is in the best interests of the child.

New Zealand looks set to axe the radical gender theory underpinning sex education in schools after the election of its new right leaning government led by Prime Minister Chris Luxon.

The government has reportedly vowed to “refocus the curriculum on academic achievement and not ideology, including the removal and replacement of the gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines”.

During his first parliamentary address, Luxon slammed the previous Labor government saying as many as 40% of children were “not attending school regularly” and students’ OECD PISA test results were the “worst they’ve ever been”.

Regarding sex-ed, he said the new Government would respond to the expressed concerns of parents.

The Prime Minister said he wanted a “a well-defined (sex ed) curriculum, agreed to by experts, that actually makes sure that the content is age-appropriate, that parents have been consulted and importantly that parents also have an ability to withdraw”.

A controversial proposal for a certificate of parenthood with regard to commercial surrogacy goes to vote in the plenary of the EU Parliament this week.

Though the measure, which would facilitate surrogacy abroad by Europeans, is unlikely to be approved by member states in the EU Council, pro-family groups point out that even the proposal sets a dangerous precedent.

Last year, the Commission proposed an EU-wide certificate recognising a parent-child relationship, in principle, to ease the administrative burden for families caught in cross-border situations where legal documents certifying the relationship of a minor to a parent may not be easily recognised between member states.

However, family law is not a competency of the EU, and opponents warn that it could also facilitate surrogacy arrangements made by European families in other countries, force member states to recognize same-sex marriages, and diminish protections for children.