GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/109621/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 109621,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/109621/?format=api",
"text_counter": 575,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Keter",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Energy",
"speaker": {
"id": 169,
"legal_name": "Charles Cheruiyot Keter",
"slug": "charles-keter"
},
"content": " Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to say from the outset that todayâs debate reminds me of the year 2005. We debated until midnight. It was such small things which made the whole Constitution to be thrown out. The right to life is something which is controversial. The Attorney-General has tried to remove part (4) of Article 26. However, I have a problem. If it says every person has a right to life, the other things which should have come should have been put under subsidiary legislation. If we try to justify what the Attorney-General is trying to do, we are going the wrong way. The Attorney-General is remaining with part (2) of Article 26 which says that the life of a person begins at conception. Now, if it begins at conception, where does it end? Why should we have such things in the Constitution? I thought we can describe this under other legislations. I oppose the amendment by the Attorney-General."
}