Commentary on the non-applicability of the recent Northern Ireland judgement on abortion to the Republic of Ireland

Liam Gibson, the Northern Ireland representative for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, has prepared a commentary on the recent Horner judgement with respect to the Republic of Ireland.
This is a very timely commentary as it is likely that the judgement will be cited by pro-abortion organisations and politicians in the lead up to the coming general election.

Why the Horner judgement cannot be used to change the law in the Republic of Ireland.
The salient points of Liam's commentary are included below.

1. The ruling by Mr Justice Horner that abortion laws in Northern Ireland are incompatible with the European Convention was not based on his interpretation of the Convention. Instead he claimed that the Northern Ireland law, unlike the law in the Republic, does not recognise the right to life of the unborn child. (This claim is untrue but was based entirely on UK law. Not only can his judgement not apply to the Republic, he actually set out to use the law in the South to undermine the law in the Six Counties.)

2. He acknowledged that the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights did not find the Republic’s law, which prohibits abortion on grounds of fatal anomaly and rape, to be incompatible with the Convention. (In A B & C v Ireland the court said that C had been prevented from obtaining an abortion that would have been lawful because her life was threatened and therefore her rights were violated.)

3. Horner cited various English cases, including Paton v UK and Re MB, to claim that unlike the Republic, under English law the foetus had no right to life. He then claimed that the situation in Northern Ireland was the same as England by pretending that the absence of the Abortion Act in Northern Ireland made no difference.

4. He explicitly pointed to the differences between the law in the Republic and the North:

• The Eighth Amendment recognised the right to life before birth with the purpose of  preventing the legalisation of abortion;
• The Eighth Amendment was adopted by popular vote; 
• As Strasbourg said in Open Door v Ireland, it was based on the profound moral views of the Irish people on the nature of life; 
• No one knows what the people of the North think about the subject. (He was either ignorant of or disregarded the public consultation which took place less than12 months earlier which overwhelmingly rejected a change in the law.)

5. The Convention requires restrictions on the Article 8 right to privacy to be, among other things, proportionate to their aim. He argued that since the foetus has no right to life, punishing abortion with life imprisonment was disproportionate and therefore violated the Convention when it prohibited abortion in the circumstances he approved of, that is, fatal abnormality and rape. (He should have recognised that the severity of the sentence reflected the high regard in which the foetus is held. The 1861 Act and the 1945 Act require life imprisonment precisely because abortion deprives the unborn child of his life.)

6. Mr Justice Horner did not claim that the Convention recognises a human right to abortion so the Republic does not have to change its law. He acknowledged that Art 40.3.3 prevents the legalisation in the Republic of abortion on the grounds he dealt with and that this is entirely compatible with human rights. The Horner judgement only confirms the importance of the Eighth Amendment and pro-lifers must fight to keep it in the Constitution.

The full text of the commentary can be provided. Please contact Patrick Buckley on the following e-mail address. patrick@europeanlifenetwork.org
 

Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion

The Irish Times on March 5th published an article by Dr Ruth Cullen " Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion". The article can be read in full below or on the above link.

The teenage girl at the centre of that case found herself in a horrific situation, and the Irish people’s overriding feeling at the time was one of immense sympathy for her.

Tragically, however, the decision of the Supreme Court seemed to be that, in order to show care for the girl, article 40.3.3, introduced specifically to protect the unborn child, had to be interpreted to allow abortion.

Over the last 20 years, there has been quite an amount of legal and political commentary on the ruling.

However, the evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, upon which the ruling was grounded has received less scrutiny.

The court decided that Ireland’s pro-life amendment permitted legal abortion in circumstances where there was “a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother”.

It further ruled that these circumstances included the threat of suicide.

However, the court heard no medical evidence on the question of whether abortion protected women from suicide. And increasingly, we are seeing medical research demonstrating that far from protecting women from suicide, abortion increases the risk that women will suffer grave mental health problems.

For example, the widely publicised Finnish study, which appeared in the European Journal of Public Health, showed that there was a significantly increased risk of suicide among women who had abortions.

They were six times more likely to commit suicide compared with those who had their babies.

Research carried out recently by Dr David Fergusson in New Zealand and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that, compared to other women, there was a 30 per cent greater risk of mental health complications among women who had abortions.

This research undercuts the rationale at the very heart of the X case ruling, a rationale for which there had been little basis in the first place.

The Supreme Court also failed to hear evidence showing that Ireland is the safest place in the world for women to give birth.

Sadly, and alarmingly, politicians seeking to legalise abortion are inexcusably ignoring this fact even today. The TDs who introduced a private members’ Bill on abortion a fortnight ago have attempted to create the impression that pregnant women in Ireland are being denied medical treatment because of the lack of available abortion.

However, they are wilfully ignoring the evidence of UN statistics which show Ireland as a world leader in terms of maternal mortality.

What has been missing from this debate are the voices of women who regret their abortions.

Five years after the X case, Ireland was confronted with yet another traumatising abortion court case, the C case.

This involved a young girl who was pregnant as a result of rape. The High Court decided that it was in the best interests of the girl to permit the then Eastern Health Board, who had taken the girl into care, to take her to England for an abortion.

But in an interview in 2009 the woman at the centre of the case said that her abortion caused great pain and sorrow.

Her story and the stories of many other women who regret their abortions have been effectively silenced.

For too long they have been ignored and in some cases dismissed by those, such as the National Women’s Council, who claim to speak for all women.

The group recently appointed by the Government to examine Irish law on abortion, must take these stories into account, as well as the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant.

It might also look at what happens in countries where abortion is made legal.

In the US, abortionist Dr Kermit Gosnell was recently charged with killing seven born babies and a 41-year-old woman on whom he had performed an abortion.

One of Gosnell’s victims, Robyn Reid, said that when she heard he had been charged with killing viable babies with scissors and giving a woman a lethal dose of painkillers, she felt sick.

“I didn’t know that he was such a monster doing this to everyone,” Reid said.

“I didn’t think it’d happened to somebody else. I thought it was just me.”

Stories like this and the recent revelations from Britain about abortionists performing sex-selective abortions reveal the full implications of what legal abortion entails.

Fine Gael gave clear commitments at the last election that “women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments in pregnancy are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld”.

Public opinion backs this stance.

When people have the distinction between necessary medical interventions during pregnancy and induced abortion made clear to them, in poll after poll, they reject abortion.

Twenty years after the X case, the Irish people deserve to hear the full story about abortion.

Irish Presidential Election Thursay 27th Oct

For whom do we vote?

On Thursday, 27 October, the Irish electorate will vote to elect a new President of Ireland, who will take office for the next seven years.

The Constitution of Ireland proclaims that the President ‘shall take precedence over all other persons in the State and … shall exercise and perform the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution and by law.’  The Constitution further states that the President shall enter that office ‘by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas [parliament], of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

‘ “In the presence of Almighty God I ……  do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities in the service and welfare of the people of Ireland.  May God direct and sustain me.” ’

That’s a serious declaration for anyone to make.

There are seven people who have put themselves forward in the upcoming election as a possible president.   But how do we decide who is the person most suitable to represent the Irish people and to guard the Constitution of Ireland?   The Constitution deals with many aspects of life in a State but, in particular, it deals in detail with the rights of the citizens.   These basic rights include the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life, which, of course, includes the right to life of the unborn child.  Another most important right is that recognition given by the Constitution to the family founded on marriage, and the pledge of the State to protect the family founded on marriage against attack.  The State guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order, and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Indeed, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Note on the participation of Catholics in political life [2002] warns that we cannot close our eyes to ‘the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on future generations.’ 

Now, who of all the seven candidates can truthfully (and the President must be truthful) say that he or she subscribes to the requirements of the presidency to uphold the Constitution?   Only one person comes to mind, and that person is Dana. All of the others want to change it in various degrees.

A Number 1 vote for Dana on Thursday next will show that we still have a conscience, and that we still respect the important things in life.

Some issues of concern, which arose during Ireland’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Our initial review of Ireland’s UPR concentrated on the issue of abortion, however there are a number of additional issues in the draft report, which are a cause for concern.

The draft report outlined 126 recommendations in total, 62 of which were accepted by the Irish Government. The Government also made a commitment that it would "study carefully" a further 49 recommendations before the next Human Rights Council session in March 2012.

One of the issues recommended by Mexico and set out in the Irish Government list of accepted recommendations related to making contraceptive information “available and accessible” to “boys, girls and adolescents”.



“Ensure the national availability and accessibility to contraceptive services and methods including through the dissemination of information and education to boys, girls and adolescents taking into account prevention of discrimination based on geographic (sic), status, disability or migrant status”. 



The Government has also agreed to consider the following recommendations made by Spain, Switzerland and Uruguay

The Spanish recommendation  called on the Irish Government to, 

“Deepen the Reform of the law on same-sex marriage and change the concept of traditional family as enshrined in the Constitution”

The fact that the Government are prepared to consider this recommendation it is a cause for grave concern

The Government also agreed to consider Switzerland’s recommendation to “amend Article (sic) 37 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act in order to prevent such discrimination against homosexual and unmarried parents”.

Again this is a cause for concern in that section 37 of the act allows religious institutions, such as schools or hospitals, to hire or to refuse to hire in accordance with their ethos.



The Irish Government also agreed to consider a recommendation by Uruguay to explicitly prohibit “any form of corporal punishment in the family”.

 

 

Ireland's Universal Periodic Review

Ireland’s first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) took place yesterday at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Ireland’s Justice Minister, Alan Shatter who represented the Irish Government was questioned on a wide range of issues including Ireland’s pro-life laws. The report of the UPR session will be adopted on Monday next and will be considered by the full council next March. 

In his presentation Minister Shatter told the UN UPR Working Group that the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B & C case found that there was an absence of effective procedures to establish a right to termination in Ireland and that as stated in the national report 

“Ireland is committed to expeditious implementation of the judgment and an expert group will be appointed in November, drawing on appropriate medical and legal expertise with a view to making recommendations to Government on how this matter should be properly addressed.”

During the subsequent session Ireland’s, anti-abortion laws were questioned by delegates from the following countries, Holland, Germany, Slovenia, Norway, Spain and the UK, all of whom, called on Ireland to legislate for abortion. Denmark additionally called for abortion on demand.

Minister Shatter in response to the questions and recommendations on the abortion issue told the meeting that Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution guarantees both the right to life of the unborn with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother and continued by saying that the issue therefore has a constitutional context. He the told the meeting that the Irish Supreme Court in the X case had decided that it was lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland when it is necessary to preserve the life, as distinct from the health of the mother, and that the government would address the issue and meet their obligations. He also told the meeting that the Court in the A, B & C judgment had found that Irish law is in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was he said the lack of an identifiable procedure that a woman could avail of if her life was genuinely at risk, on which the European Court had ruled

Despite the demand of pro-abortion governments and pro-abortion groups such as  the IFPA Ireland is not obliged to legislate for abortion as a result the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling in the A, B & C case.

It is to be hoped that the expert group to be appointed in November will include pro-life legal and medical advice and will take into account the numerous peer reviewed studies, highlighting the negative consequences of abortion for women, rather than adopting a pro-abortion ideological stance, bearing in mind that Ireland has the lowest level of maternal mortality in the world. In fact Ireland has a much better record of safeguarding the lives of women in pregnancy than any of the countries that challenged the Irish laws on abortion.

BAIL OUT FAMILIES NOT THE BONDHOLDERS Says Dana Rosemary Scallon

BAIL OUT FAMILIES NOT THE BONDHOLDERS

Says Dana Rosemary Scallon

There is a real crisis of trust, a crisis of fear and a crisis of confidence in almost every home.  “Middle Ireland” is reeling from mismanagement of those who profiteer. 

Governments have failed us, politicians have failed us and banks have failed us. We are in a time of crisis for families. We need to start looking after each other first before we look after the bondholders, banks and speculators. Families are suffering as jobs are lost, house values tumble and bills soar.

I will offer a Presidency that upholds values, trust, equity and fairness; one that supports the families of Ireland and ensures the most vulnerable are listened to. I will ensure that no government will be allowed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Irish people, subject families to penal times, facilitate a bail out foreign banks, speculators and the elite, or undermine our Constitution,” concluded Dana Rosemary Scallon.

Dana appearing on the Late Late show last Friday night promised as President to uphold the Constitution which is in fact vitally important at a time when the Government is setting up a Constitutional Convention and threatening to make significant changes to it

This theme was also reflected by Dublin's Archbishop Martin over the weekend when he made the following statement.

Our Constitution, Bunreacht na hEireann, is sometimes presented just as a fossilised child of its time; within its limitations, it has proven to be a document which was ably capable of guaranteeing rights and curbing power – including the power of the State - and has fostered a valuable culture of legal interpretation which has served the people of Ireland well. 
The Constitutional Convention which is to be launched soon must be a moment of true discernment. Renewal does not always mean discontinuity. Tradition is not outdated each new day. True values are different to fashion, where the fashion of the day can tomorrow be quickly out of fashion. Values must be rooted somewhere. They must represent a constant in society and what society aspires to.