Partial Decision Expected Wednesday May 9th 2pm

Irish Independent Breaking News.

Partial decision expected Wednesday in 'Miss D' case 17:01 Monday May 7th 2007

The judge in the Miss D High Court case has said he will deliver a partial decision on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie said it was not possible to give an immediate view on the case and he needed the day and a half.

He said he was extremely conscious that there were implications and ramifications.The HSE has asked him to quash the decision by the District Court on Saturday not to give Miss D permission to travel to the UK for an abortion.

Lawyers for the health authority told the judge that this decision was fundamentally wrong.

Miss D Decision from High Court Due This Wednesday at 2pm

RTE BREAKING NEWS
Abortion case decision due Wednesday Monday, 7 May 2007 18:54

The High Court has been told that the fetus being carried by a 17-year-old girl who wants an abortion in the UK has the same right to life as any other unborn child, even though it will not survive long after being born.
The girl, known as Miss D, is in the care of the Health Service Executive and is four months pregnant with a child that cannot survive after he or she is born.
The High Court has said it will give its decision on Wednesday afternoon.
Advertisement
Earlier, Mr Justice Liam McKechnie said this case was not about people with disabilities and the incontrovertible evidence was that the child would not live.
Senior counsel representing the unborn said the unfortunate physical condition of Miss D's child was neither here nor there.
James Connolly said the Constitution did not allow the court to measure quality or duration of life when deciding whether an unborn child's right to life should be protected.
Mr Connolly said the State could not facilitate someone going abroad for an abortion if there was no real or substantial risk to their life.
But he acknowledged there did not appear to be any law to stop someone in the position of Miss D from ignoring her care order and travelling.
Senior Counsel for the HSE, Gerry Durcan said the HSE now wanted the High Court to quash the district court's refusal on Saturday to give Miss D permission to travel.
He said in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the High Court could make a declaration as to whether or not her travel to the UK for an abortion would be lawful.
Mr Justice Liam McKechnie said his decision would have implications and he was extremely conscious of these.

printable version
send to a friend
Audio & Video
News At One: Orla O'Donnell, Legal Affairs Correspondent, explains that the District Court has refused permission for a 17-year-old girl to travel to the UK for an abortion.
News At One: Tom O'Malley of NUI Galway gives his views on the ongoing case
Story from RTÉ News:http://rte.ie/news/2007/0507/abortion.html

What The Masters Of The Maternity Hospitals Said In 2002

From an article written by Carol Coulter in the Irish Times on 28th February 2002.

Masters of the Dublin Maternity Hospitals call for Yes Vote

The Masters of the three Dublin maternity hospitals have called for a Yes vote in the referendum on the basis that it protects obstetric practice where a woman's life is at stake.
However, they told a press conference yesterday they favour abortion being available in Ireland, under strictly controlled conditions where the foetus could not survive outside the womb.

In a joint statement, Dr Sean Daly, Masetr of the Coombe Women's Hospital, Dr Declan Keane of the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street and Dr Michael Geary of the Rotunda Hospital said they believed the amendment gave protection to doctors caring for women at risk of dying as a result of being pregnant. They said they were speaking in a personal capacity, rather than on behalf of the boards of their hospitals or their colleagues, some of whom have different views.

...... The three masters were asked what they thought should be done in a case such as that of Ms Deirdre De Barra, a woman carrying a foetus with a congenital abnormality which meant it could not survive outside the womb- her letter was published in The Irish Times earlier this week.

'Ms De Barra's case is very tragic and it is not an isolated one,' Dr Geary said. 'The current system does not address the needs of these women sufficiently. Their care and counselling is not sufficiently addressed.'

Dr Keane said all the maternity hospitals offered amniocentesis (a test for foetal abnormalities). 'We would be all sympathetic and would wish to help. This needs to be addressed. It is not addressed in any fashion in this amendment.'

Pressed on what should be done for women in this situation, Dr Keane said: 'I would be keen to see it addressed in this country. When they go abroad there is no post-mortem and our ability to counsel women in this situation about future pregnancies is not addressed.'

Dr Geary said: 'In principle such women should be looked after.'

Dr Daly said: 'I broadly agree. I would need to see the wording before I could agree to it. It can be very difficult to make a statement absolutely'

Burying Our Heads In The Sand

Burying our heads in the sand / Irish Times Thursday May 3rd 2007
Mary Raftery
Almost exactly five years ago Deirdre de Barra publicly revealed the tragic personal circumstances which had afflicted herself and her family. It was an act of great bravery and was widely credited as a turning point in this country's tortured dealings with the issue of abortion.
Deirdre wrote in a letter to this newspaper (25/2/2002) that her unborn baby had recently been diagnosed with a severe chromosomal abnormality which would result in death soon after birth. At this stage she was 16 weeks pregnant.
She made it clear that this was very much a wanted baby. But she added that "the trauma of this news was vastly exacerbated by the thought of being forced to carry to full term a foetus which would never know extra-uterine life".
The similarities between her experience and the dreadful situation in which Miss D currently finds herself should come as no surprise.
While there is no statistical breakdown on the precise motivations of the roughly 6,000 Irish women who seek abortions in the UK each year, it is reasonable to consider that a number do so as a result of diagnosis of serious foetal abnormality.
It is a cruel twist that having already received the devastating news that her baby will die at birth or shortly afterwards, a pregnant woman should then have to face the reality that there is no help for her in this country.
All we tell her is that she must carry the pregnancy to term, regardless of her wishes.
She can, of course, leave and take her problem elsewhere. We don't know anything about that, and we don't want to know. So long as the 6,000 remain anonymous and silent, the sand in which we collectively bury our heads remains comfortably undisturbed.
Every so often, though, reality intrudes, invariably in the form of the stark human suffering involved in such cases.
So it is with Miss D's attempt this morning in the High Court to ensure that she will not be arrested and detained if she tries to leave the country to terminate her pregnancy.
As we know her baby's brain defect will result in certain death almost immediately after birth.
Deirdre de Barra's tragedy provided us with a similar insight five years ago. It had occurred in the maelstrom of the run-up to the fifth and latest referendum to amend the Constitution on abortion.
This was the one where the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats government of the day attempted to enshrine an entire piece of legislation in the Constitution.
Based on a commitment made in 1997, largely to placate a group of four Independent TDs on who the then government relied for support, the proposal sought to remove a woman's right to an abortion in this country if she were at risk from suicide.
This right had in turn arisen as a result of the X case in 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled that a suicidal 14-year-old girl, pregnant as a result of rape, was entitled to an abortion to safeguard her life.
The 2002 referendum proposal was rejected by the electorate, as indeed had been a similar amendment put 10 years previously in the wake of the X case. Despite a particularly vitriolic campaign, full of dire predictions that a No vote would catapult us into abortion on demand, it was clear that there was no public will to impose draconian restrictions on women already facing such difficult choices in their lives.
However, none of the five abortion referendums so far has yet tackled the question of therapeutic abortion, where the foetus has severe abnormalities.
The only official response to Deirdre de Barra's case in 2002 was a cryptic comment from the government that her situation was not "comprehended" by the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Interestingly, however, it should be recalled that the three masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals, while supporting the 2002 referendum banning suicide as a reason for abortion, did agree that termination of pregnancy should be legally available in Ireland in cases such as Deirdre de Barra's.
One of her main reasons in revealing her story was to point to the inhumanity involved in forcing her to "secretly seek contact numbers, book flights and accommodation, take trains and taxis to a strange hospital in a foreign city, to meet strange medical staff who see me as yet another statistic of the Irish problem, to be sent back to this country where there is no compassion - or else to carry on for a further five months, with all the attendant mental and physical strain, knowing that there will be a burial and not a baby to look forward to".
She pleaded for legislation to address the issue. In the wake of the 2002 referendum, Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach then as now, said that it would be a matter for the next government - which is of course the one we've had for the past five years.
Its refusal to act has been nothing short of craven.

Abortion Debate Resurfaces

Irish Times Vincent Browne from Tuesday May 2nd

The election was supposed to be about stamp duty, trolleys and traffic. Now, uncomfortably, two old familiar issues have intruded: money and abortion. Bertie has got into a terrible tangle on the money issue, a tangle that should have been unravelled last October had the media and the Opposition had the guts to pursue it then. Instead, we allowed a misty-eyed apologia to disarm us. The abortion issue is more difficult, although again because we failed so many times before to deal with it.
Remember how the abortion issue surfaced originally? Abortion had been illegal here since 1861, and in 1974 the Supreme Court said that abortion, as well as being illegal, was also contrary to the Constitution. Nevertheless, a head of steam got up in 1981 to have an explicitly anti-abortion clause inserted into the Constitution. This wasn't because anybody was saying abortion should be legalised here or because there was a new doubt about the constitutional position. It just arose.
And because neither Charlie Haughey nor Garret FitzGerald wanted to be ambushed by an issue they both thought peripheral, they gave in to the lobby and agreed a change to the Constitution, which went through in a referendum in 1983. This said that we could not have abortion at all. It gave equal protection to the right to life of the unborn and to the right to life of the mother.
But then the European Court of Justice in the 1980s caused alarm here that abortion would be introduced by fiat of the European Union, and to guard against this we secured an amendment to the constitution of the European Union. This was the protocol to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which decreed that nothing in the constitution of the European Union would have any bearing on Ireland's abortion law. Gerard Collins, the then Fianna Fáil minister for foreign affairs, negotiated this diplomatic triumph.
Then there came the X case. The then attorney general, Harry Whelehan, obtained an injunction prohibiting a 14-year-old pregnant girl from leaving the jurisdiction, knowing that she had already left the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court decided that, because this girl was considered suicidal as a result of the trauma of her pregnancy, her constitutional equal right to life meant that she was free to have an abortion. This caused outrage among the pro-life lobby, which demanded another constitutional referendum. This was granted, but in late 1992 the people rejected the proposed amendment, which would have ruled out suicide as grounds for permitting an abortion where the equal right to life of the mother was at stake. In that referendum, however, two other amendments were passed: one of these ensured that there was a freedom to travel abroad to have abortions and the other that there was a right to information about abortion services available abroad.
Meanwhile, there was alarm that the Maastricht Treaty would be defeated here because of the triumph of Gerard Collins in having the protocol inserted. It was suddenly appreciated that the protocol might interfere with the right to travel. The government wanted to renegotiate the protocol, which meant opening up the treaty all over again. Our EU partners said no and instead a declaration was added, which had no legal effect whatever. It said that the protocol did not infringe on the right to travel.
The scale of this hypocrisy remains a monument to contemporary Ireland.
We are absolutely opposed to having abortion here but absolutely opposed to any inhibition on Irish people going abroad to have abortions; indeed, we facilitate them by way of as much information as they need to have an abortion.
Just before that late 1992 referendum the Fianna Fáil-led government had said that if the proposal about ruling out suicide as grounds for permitting abortion was defeated it would introduce legislation to deal with the conditions in which abortion was permissible in Ireland.
But when Fianna Fáil returned to government after the election of November 1992, this time in tandem with the reforming Labour Party, nothing was done. And now we are back to square one, or at least several squares back.
The problem now in the D case is that it is not clear there is a "right" to travel to have an abortion that would not be legal here. In a 1998 case, a judge now on the Supreme Court, Hugh Geoghegan, said: "The amended Constitution does not confer a right to abortion outside Ireland. It merely prevents injunctions against travelling abroad for that purpose."
And because the 17-year-old girl is under the care of the HSE, it means, if the opinion of Hugh Geoghegan is to be upheld, that she has no "right" to travel abroad for an abortion and therefore no entitlement to have the HSE ban on her travelling lifted.
All this will raise again the terror of another debate in the midst of an election campaign on abortion. All the parties want to fudge the issue - none want to take on the tricky commitment to legislate for the abortion that the judgment in the X case permits.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Previous D Case May Prove Relevant To Current Abortion Case

Irish Times Thursday May 3rd Tom O'Malley


The kernel of the D case, which is before the High Court today, is not abortion but the powers the HSE may exercise over a minor in its care, writes Tom O'Malley

Irish law on abortion remains essentially governed by the Supreme Court ruling in the X case. This means that an abortion may legally be performed within the State when it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother.

It must be a risk that cannot be avoided by any means other than the termination of pregnancy. A real and substantial risk that the mother will commit suicide unless she is allowed to have an abortion is treated as a risk to life for this purpose.

Whether deliberately or otherwise, the Supreme Court did not place any time limit on the legal availability of abortion, though the performance of an abortion in circumstances where the unborn child could have a viable existence outside of the womb must be questionable.
At first sight, the current case is complicated by the absence of any obvious risk to the life of the mother. She has specifically averred that she is not suicidal. To that extent, she would not appear to be entitled to an abortion in Ireland.

However, a more complex and potentially controversial question could arise in light of concessions apparently made by Government lawyers before the European Court of Human Rights last year. The applicant in that case, known also as the D case, was pregnant with twins.
However, a scan conducted after 12 weeks showed that one of them had died and, a few weeks later, another scan showed that the second twin was suffering from a lethal chromosomal anomaly.

Having had a termination in England, she complained to the European court about the unavailability of the necessary facilities in Ireland. The court deemed her complaint inadmissible, but for rather ironic reasons. It said that the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland in these circumstances might have been compatible with the Constitution, and therefore she could have pursued a remedy in the Irish courts. (It is a fundamental principle of human rights law that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies before taking a case to an international tribunal, such as the European Court of Human Rights.)

More specifically, in the 2006 D case, the European court said that a feasible argument could be made that the balance between the right to life of the mother and the life of the foetus could have shifted in favour of the mother when the foetus suffered from "an abnormality incompatible with life".

This appears to have been the stance adopted by Government lawyers. Needless to say, the European court cannot purport to give an authoritative interpretation of the Irish Constitution; that is solely a matter for the Supreme Court in this country. Secondly, it is unclear if the principle apparently accepted by the State's lawyers would apply if the unborn child was predicted to survive for some length of time after birth.

This may become an issue in the current D case. However, it is more likely that the current case will centre on the precise powers of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in respect of persons taken into care under the terms of the Child Care Act 1991.

The applicant was subject to a care order and was therefore legally within the care of the HSE. However, it appears that she was for all practical purposes living independently.
It is said, for instance, that she was living in a supportive environment with her boyfriend and his family. Only when she happened to mention to a social worker that she was contemplating having an abortion did the present course of events begin to unfold.

While it would be inappropriate at this point to comment on the manner in which the HSE reacted, and no doubt the relevant personnel acted in good faith, it would seem that this case provides a good opportunity for the courts to clarify the powers and duties of public bodies towards young persons committed to their care.

Here after all is a 17-year-old girl, approaching the age of majority (18) at which point a child care order is no longer possible. She now has the support of one parent, of her boyfriend and other friends. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that the expressed right to life of the unborn "shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state".

Two points should be noted about this.
First, the freedom to travel is not confined to any age group. On the face of it, the freedom is conferred on everybody, irrespective of age. In fact, as we know, the two leading Irish cases on abortion to date - the X case of 1991 and the C case of 1997 - involved teenagers, so it is highly unlikely that either the Oireachtas or the People, in enacting the travel amendment in 1992 with the X case fresh in everyone's mind, intended that it should apply to adults only.
Secondly, the significance attaching to the word "freedom" as opposed to "right" in the travel provision is not entirely clear. However, it suggests that while the State is not obliged to take positive steps to assist persons to travel abroad to have an abortion (as might be the case if they had a "right"), it may not at the same time restrict or injunct persons from travelling for that purpose if they wish to do so.

If a person such as the applicant in the current D case has, for all practical purposes, a right to travel abroad to avail herself of a service that is legally available elsewhere, the next question is whether the HSE can stop her from doing so, despite the fact that she is formally in its care.
As late as 2001, in Western Health Board v KM, the Supreme Court said that the protection of constitutional rights of children in care rests ultimately with the courts and not with health authorities. An application can always be made to the District Court for directions on any matter relating to the welfare of a child in care.

However, there can scarcely be any power vested in the HSE to "direct" the Garda to take any particular step such as stopping a person from leaving the country, as was reportedly done in this case. Needless to say, the HSE can always consult the Garda or other relevant authorities on any matter concerning the welfare of a child, and that may have been what really happened in this case.

But giving a direction would be an entirely different matter.

Tom O'Malley is senior lecturer in law at NUI Galway

Lawyers Say Longevity Doesn't Affect Rights Of Unborn

Irish Independent Breaking News 16:18 Monday May 7th 2007

Lawyers representing the rights of the unborn child in the Miss D case have said it is protected under the constitution until it dies.

They said that regardless of its condition this is a live foetus and its right to life is the same as that of any other foetus or child.Lawyers for the unborn said that longevity doesn't come into play in any way when measuring a child's constitutional rights and there's no logic in seeking to define the current status of a foetus with reference to what will happen after birth.

Mr Connolly, for the unborn, is making his submissions in response to the legal challenge by Miss D who wants to travel to the UK to have a termination because her baby has a fatal brain condition.

Earlier, it emerged that a district court judge on Saturday refused to make an order permitting the 17-year-old to travel saying it would amount to a failure of the court to protect the rights of the unborn.The HSE said the judge misconstrued the law and is bringing a judicial review challenge in a bid to overturn this decision.

The case continues before Mr Justice Liam McKechnie.

District Court Refuses Girl Permission To Travel- Case Continues At Special Sitting Of High Court

RTE BREAKING NEWS
Court refuses girl permission to travel Monday, 7 May 2007 15:46

The district court has refused to give permission for a 17-year-old girl to travel to the UK for an abortion.
The High Court heard that the Health Service Executive made an application to the district court on Saturday seeking directions as to whether the girl, known as Miss D, could travel for an abortion.
The girl is four months pregnant with a child that cannot live for more than a few days after birth.
Advertisement
The court heard that the district judge refused to grant an order allowing the girl to travel because he said that would be a failure on his part to respect, defend and vindicate the rights of the unborn.
He also said having regard to the judgment in the C case, where a 13-year-old girl who had been raped sought permission to go to the UK for an abortion, he believed the granting of such an order would be improper and unlawful.
It has also emerged that there was a special sitting of the High Court yesterday where the HSE were given permission to challenge the district court's order.
Counsel for the HSE, Gerry Durcan said there had to be clarification today on whether or not Miss D had a right to travel. The court is now discussing how the case will proceed.


Audio & Video
News At One: Orla O'Donnell, Legal Affairs Correspondent, explains that the District Court has refused permission for a 17-year-old girl to travel to the UK for an abortion.
News At One: Tom O'Malley of NUI Galway gives his views on the ongoing case

Miss D To Hear Fate Today

Irish Independent Monday May 7th 2007

Special sitting to be told if HSE application successful

THE High Court will today hear if a teenage girl has been granted permission to travel to England for an abortion.
A special sitting of the court is taking place after the Health Service Executive made an application to the district court to allow the girl to leave the country.
The girl (17), who is in the HSE's care, is carrying a baby that stands no chance of survival outside the womb.
The HSE had originally moved to prevent her from leaving for a termination but did a u-turn last week and said it had no objection to her request to travel abroad. It applied to the district court for authorisation at a hearing on Saturday to allow the girl to leave the country.
Last week, lawyers for the Health Service Executive agreed it would be in the best interests of the girl to travel to England - on condition she received district court approval.
The HSE said it was willing to make an application to the district court to this effect.
It said that it would agree that her travelling for a termination was in her best interest if the judge was satisfied that she had considered her decision carefully.
The executive also said it was preferable that she had counselling first and that her mother also consented to the decision to travel.
Judge Liam McKechnie last week warned "time is running against us".
He convened a special sitting of the High Court on today's Bank Holiday to allow the case to proceed.
Miss D, who is four months pregnant, discovered that her 16-week-old foetus was suffering from the fatal brain condition anencephaly when she went for a scan.
The monitor showed that a large part of the baby's brain had failed to develop. Even if the baby survived birth, it would not live beyond three days.
After the teenager revealed her wish to terminate the pregnancy, the HSE said it could not legally allow her to go. She subsequently launched a High Court action to ask the State to restrain the HSE from preventing her travelling abroad for an abortion.
The Government's legal adviser, the Attorney-General said the State had no power to stop the pregnant girl from travelling.

Anne-Marie Walsh and Dearbhail McDonald

Crisis Pregnancy Agency Report 'Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy (ICCP) Study Sept 2004 Found Majority Support For Abortion

Crisis Pregnancy Agency Report No. 7
Kay Rundle, Collette Leigh, Hannah McGee and Richard Layte.

See http://crisispregnancy.ie/pub/Repseven.pdf
Table 3.25 Public Attitudes to circumstances in which a woman should have a choice to have
an abortion. Page 119.

The study was the first national representative survey of crisis pregnancy in Ireland: the Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Study (ICCP). This groundbreaking study established, for the first time, current attitudes, knowledge and the experience of crisis pregnancy amongst women and men in Ireland. The survey examined the factors that lead up crisis pregnancy and the services women and men need to support them during and after a crisis pregnancy.

Research was conducted jointly by Professor Hannah McGee, Ms Kay Rundle, and Ms Collette Leigh from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and Dr Richard Layte from the Economic and Social Research Institute.

A sample size of 3000 members of the public was targeted, to include equal numbers of women and men. The sample included people aged 18-45 in order to focus on those for whom contraceptive practices, service perceptions and service usage were most relevant.

3.317 interviews were completed (1,356 men and 1,961 women). There was an overall response rate of 63.8%. The sample was re-weighted to match the structure of the Irish population. The results, therefore, can be considered representative of the general population. The study sample comprised 40.9%men and 59.1% women.

TABLE 3.25 Public Attitudes to circumstances in which a woman should have a choice to have an abortion (page 119).

Should a woman have a choice to have an abortion in this circumstance?
1986 Fine-Davis 1988 (n=600) 2003 ICCP Study 2004 ( n=3,312)



If the pregnancy seriously endangered the
woman's life
57 % (1986) 90% (2003)
If the pregnancy seriously endangered the
woman's health
48% (1986) 86% (2003)
If the pregnancy is a result of rape
51% (1986) 86% (2003)
If the pregnancy is the result of incest
52% (1986) 86% (2003)
If there is evidence that the child will be
deformed
31% (1986) 70% (2003)
If the couple is not married
8% (1986) 56% (2003)
If the couple cannot afford another child
7% (1986) 55% (2003)

(For the sake of the issue of foetal anomaly in the current case of Miss D, the circumstance that a woman should have the choice to have an abortion if there is evidence that the child will be deformed is highlighted in bold)

A Brief Summary Of Abortion Law In Ireland.

Abortion Law in Ireland - a brief summary

- 2003 The Labour Party issued its policy position on abortion through the Wrynn Report. The 20th Anniversary of the 1983 abortion referendum was marked by an Alliance for Choice event which saw a broad coalition calling for the repeal of article 40.3.3 from the Constitution. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency, having suffered a cut in funding earlier in the year, launched the State's first strategy to address the issue of crisis pregnancy (November 12th).

- 2002 The Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill) 2002. On the 6th March this regressive bill was defeated. Turnout was 42.89% of which 49.58% voted yes while 50.42% voted no. The status quo continues.

- 2001In October after a five year consultation the government announced plans to hold a referendum to reverse the 1992 X case ruling. At the same time the government announced the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency.Medical Council Review of "A Guide To Ethical Conduct And Behaviour" - Submission From The Irish Family Planning Association, 2002. Available on request from info@ifpa.ieIFPA Policy Submission to the Crisis Pregnancy Agency 2002. Available on request from info@ifpa.ieThe Irish Journey – women's stories of abortion. A ground breaking book detailing authentic first hand accounts, by Irish women, of their experiences of abortion. (if you wish to purchase copies of the publication, please print out the order form)Always and Never - IFPA Submission to the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in response to the Green Paper on Abortion.Facing up to reality - an IFPA submission to the Interdepartmental Working Group on Abortion.

- 2000All Party Oireachtas CommitteeOrganisations and individuals were invited to address the Committee in May, June and July in a series of public oral hearings. Medical practitioners were heard first, followed by special interest groups and then faith groups. This process has resulted in a thorough discussion of the complexities surrounding the abortion issue in Ireland. However, the views of women who have direct experience of Irish abortion were not heard.

- 1999Green Paper on AbortionThe government's Green Paper on Abortion was published in September 1999. Seven possible options were outlined.
These were:
Absolute Constitutional Ban on Abortion.
Amendment of the Constitutional Provisions so as to restrict the Application of the X Case.
Retention of the Status quo.
Retention of the Constitutional Status quo with Legislative Restatement of the Prohibition on Abortion.
Legislation to regulate Abortion in circumstances defined in the X Case.
Reversion to the pre-1983 position.
Permitting Abortion on grounds beyond those specified in the X Case:
Risk to Physical/Mental Health of Mother
Abortion for Women Pregnant as a result of Rape or Incest
Congenital Malformations
Abortion for Economic or Social Reasons
Abortion on Request.
The All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution then invited written submissions on the basis of the Green Paper, to be received by 30th November.

- 1998 Abortion Working GroupThe government responded to the C case by establishing an 'Inter-Departmental Working Group on Abortion' supervised by a cabinet sub-committee. Submissions closed on March 28 and a Green Paper was promised for 'late summer 1998'.

-1997 (November) The C Case-A 13 year old girl, pregnant as a result of rape, and in the care of the Eastern Health Board was the subject of proceedings in the District Court as she sought permission to leave the state for the purposes of availing of a lawful abortion in England. The original proceedings related not to the abortion itself but to her leaving the jurisdiction while subject to a care order. That matter became more complex when her father, originally supportive of her decision, spoke in the media and came under the influence of extreme anti-abortion groups. Ultimately the matter was settled in the High Court.Mr Justice Geoghegan ruled that as Miss 'C' was likely to take her own life if forced to continue with the pregnancy, she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland by virtue of the Supreme Court judgement in the 1992 X Case. Since an abortion in this case would not be unconstitutional within this State then she could leave the State in order to have it. The main legal significance of this judgement is that another person, the subject of a care order, who may not be at risk of suicide, could be prevented from leaving the State to avail of an abortion and thus be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.The main political significance is that it demonstrated that the failure of successive governments to enact legislation, following the X case, had led to another similar harrowing court ordeal for a young victim of rape. Opinion Polls showed a high level of support for Miss 'C's right to make this choice for herself. More crucially it was now clear that if the government had succeeded in its 1992 attempt to limit the scope of X case judgement so as to exclude the risk of suicide as a ground for abortion within the State, Miss C would have been forced to continue this pregnancy.

- 1997 (March) The Students' Unions AppealThe Supreme Court lifted the injunctions against the students unions. Two conflicting reasons were given for this decision:
Denham and Keane JJ. said that the 1988 Supreme Court decision had been wrong, as it failed to give adequate weight to the right to life of the 'mother';
Hamilton and Blayney JJ. said that the injunctions were originally valid, but due to the change in law in Nov 1992, and the subsequent Regulation of Information Act, they could no longer be upheld. The fifth judge, Barrington J. gave an ambiguous judgment, but also declared that the injunctions should be lifted.
The anti-abortion campaign continued demanding a Referendum to outlaw 'direct' abortion absolutely.

- 1996 The Constitution Review GroupThe CRG issued their Report on the Constitution, recommending that legislation should be introduced to implement the X judgment, specifying under what conditions abortion could be carried out lawfully in Ireland. This recommendation was rejected by the anti-abortion campaign.

- 1995 Regulation of Information ActPassed to lay down the conditions under which abortion information can be provided. The Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, as it protected both the rights to life of the 'unborn' and of the 'mother' under Article 40.3.3. The Court held that unspecified rights of the 'unborn' could not be invoked to counter the clearly expressed will of the people in the 1992 Referenda.

- 1992 (Nov) The Travel and Information ReferendaTwo Referenda were passed, amending Article 40.3.3 to safeguard the rights to travel and to information. A third Referendum was defeated. It would have limited the effect of the X case, by restricting the test to cases where the risk to the pregnant woman's life was due to an illness or disorder, and not to a risk of suicide.Travel "Subsection 3 of this section [Article 40.3.3] shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."Information "Subsection 3 of this section shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."Abortion "It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

- 1992 (Oct) The European Court of Human RightsIn an appeal taken by Open Door Counselling and the Well Woman, the ECHR ruled that the ban on abortion information was in breach of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. It was 'overbroad and disproportionate' since it prohibited them from providing information to everyone, including women who came under the X test. This decision was not followed by the Supreme Court in 1993, which upheld the injunctions despite a strong dissent by Denham J.

- 1992 (Feb) The X CaseCostello J. granted an injunction in the High Court preventing a pregnant 14-year-old rape victim from leaving Ireland to have an abortion in England.
Amid public outcry, the Supreme Court overturned his decision two weeks later to allow her to go, ruling that "if it is established . . . that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible."Here, the Court held that there was a real and substantial risk of suicide if the pregnancy continued; thus the termination was permissible, even in Ireland. However, where no such risk existed, both information and possibly travel could be prevented in the interest of safeguarding the right to life of the 'unborn'. The Government then entered a Declaration to the Protocol, saying that they would not use it to restrict travel or information.

1986 - 1991 The Information CasesSPUC took a series of cases against the Dublin Well Woman, Open Door Counselling and three students' unions, to stop them providing women with information on where and how to obtain an abortion.
In 1986 Hamilton J. declared that the provision of such information was in breach of Article 40.3.3, as it undermined the right to life of the 'unborn'. In 1988 the Supreme Court confirmed his decision.
In 1991 the European Court of Justice ruled that, although abortion is a service under EC law, the students' unions could be prohibited from distributing information on it, because they had no financial link with the clinics providing the service in England. The Irish Government then entered a Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty removing the issue from the jurisdiction of EC law.

- 1983 Eight Amendment to the ConstitutionArticle 40.3.3 of the Constitution was amended as follows: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

- 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. Abortion was made a criminal offence.
Article 58 "Every woman being with child, who with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing.....and whomsoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or be not with child shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing....with the like intent shall be guilty of a felon, and being convicted thereof shall be liable......to be kept in penal servitude for life."
Article 59 "[W]homsoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing......knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or not be with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for the term of three years."

For a more detailed discussion of Irish Abortion Law, please see Abortion and the Law by James Kingston and Anthony Whelan with Ivana Bacik. Dublin, Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell, 1997.

IFPA Flagged Issue Of Minors Right To Travel To Obtain An Abortion In Submissions In March, 1998 and November 1999.

Facing Up To Reality, An Irish Family Planning Association Submission
to the Interdepartmental Working Group On Abortion, March, 1998.
http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/facing.html
See section 5.4

Also

Always & Never, An Irish Family Planning Association Submission
to the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in response
to the Green Paper on Abortion, November 1999.
http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/aen.html
See Primary recommendations 4.1.4 and Secondary recommendations
4.2.3

Hearing May Signal End Of Abortion Row Girls Plight

Sunday May 6th 2007
MAEVE SHEEHAN SUNDAY INDEPENDENT
THE traumatic plight of the pregnant teenager who was prevented by the Health Service Executive from going to England to abort her fatally deformed foetus may have come to an end. The 17-year-old, known as Miss D, attended a District Court yesterday accompanied by her boyfriend and her family. The legal team for the Health Service Executive (HSE) also attended.
The proceedings were held in camera yesterday afternoon, which means they cannot be reported in the media.
In the High Court on Friday, the HSE signalled that it was willing to apply to the District Court to allow the girl to travel to England to terminate her pregnancy. That application under Section 47 of the Child Care Act is likely to have been the subject of yesterday's proceedings. However, the outcome is unlikely to be known until tomorrow, when the High Court resumes deliberations on the D Case.
The HSE had initially sought to prevent the girl from travelling abroad for an abortion, prompting her to take a High Court action. During the hearing, it emerged that Miss D, who is in the care of the health board, learnt on April 23 that her baby suffered from a fatal brain defect and would not survive for more than three days.
She informed her social worker of her intention to terminate her pregnancy. It emerged that the HSE had asked the Garda to stop her
ANALYSIS
from travelling and had told the passport office that it had not consented to her being issued with a passport.
In an apparent U-turn on Friday, the HSE acknowledged that it may be in the best interests of the girl to travel to England for an abortion if certain conditions were met. Gerard Durkan, counsel for the HSE, said he believed the law dictated that the girl could not travel unless she had the authority or consent of the district court. The HSE also wanted to be sure of the mother's consent and suggested counselling for Miss D.

Shame On The Politicians Who Won't End This Insanity Over Abortion.

Editorial Sunday Tribune May 6th 2007.

ANYBODY reading the traumatic submission by Miss D, the 17-year-old seeking to travel to England for an abortion because the foetus she is carrying is severely brain-damaged, can only feel disgust at the treatment of this girl by the HSE.
All this week, legal experts have been analysing the contradictions in our law; the medical experts have been explaining what anencephaly means and balancing the risks to the life of the mother and the foetus; and the public have been encouraged to "phone or text" to share their advice or similar experiences. Every minute of it, every line written, sympathetic or not, has been a sickening invasion of this girl's privacy. In making this criticism, we take our own share of the blame.
But the engine for this steamroller was started by the HSE social worker who went so far as to call a garda superintendent to alert him that a "crime" might be committed if Miss D, perfectly reasonably, left the country to have an abortion.
This was a hideous step too far. It prompted her need to go to court, with all the attendant publicity, to argue for her right to travel.
Miss D has had to summon a legal team, prepare an affadavit, talk to psychiatrists. She has had to sit in a courtroom packed with five sets of legal teams and journalists, her every move watched and reported on, her relationship with her boyfrend described, her relationship with her mother anlaysed. She has had to leave the courtroom while detailed textbook descriptions of the medical condition the foetus she is carrying suffers from are described in terms no doctor would ever use when talking to a patient.
We have had four decades of this insanity over abortion. We still have no abortion law. Enda Kenny says he will not introduce an abortion law if elected taoiseach. Shame on him, shame on every cowardly politician who has allowed this to happen.

'We Can Only Hope Politicians Understand People In The New Ireland When It Comes To Tackling Abortion'

Nuala O'Faolain Sunday Tribune May 6th 2007.

I am awestruck by the way women bear and bring up children in even the most terrible situations and by the way they are so often their chjildren's protectors in the face of violence and other cruelties. In my experience, women long to be mothers if circumstances can possibly be made to allow it and when they have children will feed them before feeding themselves and will never walk away from them. I know, of course, that there are many exceptions; but I overwhelmingly trust women to act as responsibly as they can towards flesh of their flesh. Therefore when a pregnant woman, who must more fully than anyone else envisage and imagine the coming child, and measure herself and her circumstances against lifelong commitment that having that child would entail- when that woman decides to have an abortion, I respect her choice.

So- oh no! was my first thought, when news the news broke of 'Miss D' and her foetus that can never become a baby. Oh no, not abortion again! And yet there has to come a time when we can think and talk about the profound civic questions raised by abortion. Because cases like the X and C and D ones will keep presenting themselves. There are far too many sperm seeking far too many eggs in far too many complicated life-stories for it not to happen - over and over- and it will seem to some pregnant woman that it is better not to complete the pregnancy and it will seem to someone else that she should and must.

If I saw the slightest chance that any other political party would take on difficult but civic-minded task of legislating in accordance with judicial decisions on abortion which we're trying to juggle with now, I'd vote for that party. Because one thing we know for sure- Fianna Fáil have been here all the time and they have n't done anything. And we're dependent on politicians. It suits them to pretend that the hard questions don't exist. But they're in the hot seat on abortion-or, they should be. They're the branch of government we can influence through our votes. We can express our wishes through them- in theory, at any rate. And they're supposed to know us and be willing to frame legislation in accordance with their sense of what Irish people, on the whole want.

Judges can but be remote from common experience and paternalistic in manner- and that's particularly galling on the profoundly intimate subject of abortion. Last week I was a visitor to the Supreme Court in Wasghington and I felt great coldness towards the men on the bench who, a week before, had given anti-abortion forces a victory when they ruled against the method of abortion called by anti-abortion activists the 'partial birth' procedure. I was thrilled even to be in the Supreme Court building- a place where 'the republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith'- and I think the various arms of government in the United States was and is one of the great achievments of human thinking. But I sat there glaring uselessly at the five justices who formed the majority in the anti-abortion decision.

It's bad enough that men, and men only, made the decision about an experience that is absolutely gender-specific.But worse are the value judgments, put forward as reasoning, which reveal a worldview entirely formed by the experience of being male, and male of a certain 'superior' kind. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, suggested that a pregnant woman who chooses abortion 'falls away from true womanhood'. Somewhere else the ruling says, whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, which some women come to regret'- and this was put forward as a reason to ban late abortion.

Some women do of course bitterly regret their abortions. But why treat women as if they were children who have to be protected against their own regret? If it were really, fully accepted that women are moral beings, just as men are, their own regret would not be used against all the other moral women who do not at all regret having an abortion. 'It is beyond Alice in Wonderland' wrote a professor from Yale Law School,'to criminalize abortion to protect women'.

This Republican-Bush-Supreme Court seems to me to have a view of women which is very much out of date and, of course, a court can be like that. But when the politicians here in Ireland grasp the abortion nettle-and some day they'll have to- we can hope they'll have a better sense of how people are- how they are now. Because people in the new Ireland- especially, perhaps women- are very different from what they were in 1992(the X case) or 1983(the anti-abortion amendment to the constitution campaign). People have changed under the influence of money and education and hope and information streaming through travel and through new channels of communication. It is surely far less clear to anti-abortion people than it used to be that it is the wish of a loving God that Miss D should carry her foetus to certain death. And it is increasingly less acceptable that in a multicultural Ireland, with all-island cultural aspirations, the views of the followers of one church should be priveleged over other views.

So, on second thoughts- no. I'm not complaining that abortion is back agian. On the contrary bring- bring it on!

No Words Can Excuse The Terrible Suffering We Are Inflicting On Miss D

Irish Independent Saturday May 5th- Medb Ruane

English is used in the Miss D case, but don't let that fool you. The politest possible words tell how a 17-year-old woman discovers that her much-wanted first pregnancy is blighted by fatal foetal malformation such that if born, the baby can't survive outside the womb.

The language speaks of the HSE whose anonymous officer decides, for some mysterious reason, to stop Miss D travelling for a termination. Gardaí, various legal representatives, all speaking good English, take over to debate the awful trap in which Miss D and her boyfriend find themselves, through no fault of their own.

Yet this isn't 'normal'. Miss D's unnecessary suffering would not- and could not- be allowed happen in any civilised society anywhere on this planet. Except our own. The reason this could n't happen is because a termination in cases of foetal malformation is permitted for 74% of the world's population. Ireland, in distinction stands with Nigeria, Tonga, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and others in the minority on this earth who do not allow such a termination in their own countries. Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is more hospitable.

I do not want to hear reasons why anyone should have to give birth to a dead baby with a black macerated face, against their will. I don't want to imagine why a foetus should be enabled, because of a third party's will, to grow in its mother's womb, inseparable from her, only to suffer in pain of being born and dying then or soon after. I don't want to think of a man, standing by helplessly, desperate to make things different. Or force them into a lifetime of remembering.

Let me try to say why. During the last General Election campaign, a couple shared a story with me about what happened when they found themselves expecting their first child after getting everything together, buying a house, settling down. A scan, a dark silence, a sense of shock and then the news no would-be parent expects to hear.

Doctors and nurses expalined that this longed-for baby could not survive outside its mother. The parents questioned them and heard it would start feeling pain the more it grew in the womb because the body was so lethally deformed. The couple was devastated, got second opinions, called every support group on the net. But there was'n't a different opinion and they decide that they could n't continue the pregnancy because they could not endure it.

Yet they wanted to bury the baby in their family plot. That meant bringing the remains home to Ireland after a termination in Britain. Was there no end to the cruelty Ireland's use of language inflicts? The foetus was not old enough to qualify as a dead body so they could n't get a legal permit. That meant, they realised in shock, that they would have to smuggle the remains back into the country.

The man had brought a sports bag, as men do. They placed the the remains in the bag and held their breaths. Days later, back in Ireland, they held a burial service and began to mourn. I wrote this story into the public domain at the time. The woman won my lasting respect by deciding to go on radio to talk about it. She was put against an anti-abortion campaigner because of the need for balance, whatever that might mean in such a situation. Suddenly, she was stripped of her history and cast as a callous, baby killer. Her dignity won that day.

Here we go again, another general election and nothing has changed to ease this unnecessary suffering. Someone in so-called 'authority' thinks it better Miss D, her foetus (and her boyfriend and mother) suffer rather upset the applecart of polite English used to airbrush these issues away. Miss D is actually worrying that it's all her fault because she didn't take folic acid ( please tell her the rates for various malformations are higher in Ireland) because our gene pool was so isolated for so long- it's not her fault).

Fatal foetal malformation is not a slippery slope to abortion on request. You think parents are really going to abort pregnancies because their children aren't perfect? Mother's, especially, don't get pregnant for the pleasure of having a termination.

The way this case is spoken about perverts the English language and gives Irish people a twisted perspective on what is really at stake. But perhaps people are smarter than government politicians think. Attitudes have changed so much that the most recent report showed huge support for termination in circumstances such as this case.

What gall it takes for a Taoiseach- and a Health Minister - to speak for the need for compassion in this case when they have spent 10 years in Government preening themselves for keeping Ireland 'abortion-free', no matter what the circumstances.

Whatever Bertie Ahern did or did'nt do with a bag of money, nineties decor and Celia Larkin, it pales in comparison to the beligerent turning away from suffering that continues for whatever reason.

mruane@eircom.net

HSE Sought To Deny Pregnant Girl A Passport

The Irish Times Saturday May 5th 2007

The HSE contacted the passport office to stop the issuing of a passport to the pregnant 17 year old at the centre of the latest abortion controversy, the High Court heard yesterday. This was in addition to informing gardaí (Irish police) about Miss D's plans to go to Britain for an abortion, Gerard Durcan SC, for the HSE said.

Miss D, who is four months pregnant, has told the HSE of her proposal after learning on April 23rd that her baby had a serious head defect preventing its survival for more than three days after birth. The hearing of Miss D's application for an order restraining the HSE from stopping her travelling for an abortion entered its second day yesterday (Friday) and continues on Monday before Judge Liam McKechnie. The judge said that the basic question for the HSE was, in light of the scan result on Miss D's baby and her wish to travel for a termination, whether it considered if it would be in her best interests if she travelled abroad.

He added that he ventured to suggest that it would have been 'exceedingly difficult' for the District Court not to permit her to travel in view of her wishes. The core point was whether this 17-year-old could travel or not, the judge added. The court could have a good debate over rights and powers and what and which order but there was a 'core human issue before us all'.

Mr Durcan said that while nobody could ignore the tragedy, the HSE had to deal with it within the legal parameters. He welcomed Miss D's lawyers remarks that the HSE had acted in good faith. Everybody was attempting to do their best within certain legal parameters, he siad. Mr Durcan said the HSE had a lot of children in its care and the implications of this case may be greater in child care law than in the area of termination of pregnancy. The HSE had to act within the legal parameters.

Mr Justice McKechnie said while that was laudable, time was running and was of the essence. He also asked why, if the HSE was contemplating going to the District Court for an order under the Child Care Act in the case, it did not do so before contacting the gardaí or the passport office. Mr Durcan said the HSE found itself in awkward circumstances. The HSE was not entitled to facilitate the termination of a pregnancy. 'We can't get involved,' he said. The HSE could only get involved in situations similar to the X case, he added. If a girl in care travelled abroad when she was the subject of a care order, then the statutory body might be criticised for letting her go.

It was 'not fanciful' that the HSE thought it might be dealing with another X case but it was satisfied it was not when it got a consultant psychiatrist's report. In submissions on behalf of Miss D's mother, Dervla Browne SC said the argument had not been made anywhere that travelling abroad would be adverse to Miss D's welfare. If the parent of Miss D consented to travel and the HSE also consented, then no order was required from the District Court, Ms Browne said. There was no allegation that Miss D's mother was acting against her daughter's interests in supporting her and in making arrangements for her to travel to Britain for an abortion.

The HSE's letter to the passport office to stop Miss D getting a passport was contrary to her mother's right to guardianship and also in breach of her constitutional rights, Ms Browne argued. Miss D's mother believed it was in the best interests of her daughter to travel to have the termination.

A Legal Twilight Zone Which Is All Too Real

Irish Independent May 5th 2007-Dearbhail McDonald

Imagine a child is placed in care. Try not to dwell too much on the reason why. Imagine that child is a girl and she is aged 15. Because her welfare was in some sort of jeopardy, she became the subject of an interim care order and was removed, temporarily, from the custody of her mum and delivered into the protective arms of the State.

The child, lets call her Miss E, has been placed in a health board's care following an order by a district court judge. And it is the Health Services Executive- in tandem with her mother as legal guardian- who are jointly responsible for her safety and welfare. Ms E is a sturdy lass; she's had a difficult life but she knows her own mind and is definitely not suicidal.

Imagie Miss E is in the care of the State, but she wants to go to Amsterdam to cruise around the red light district (she's closer to the age of maturity than the age of reason, she can do what she wants). Or maybe she wants to go to Paris to do some shopping (its her money she can do whatever she wants). Or maybe se wants to go to England to terminate her unborn baby because it has a fatal brain condition and it wont survive more than a day after birth. (It's her body and she can do with it what she wants).

According to Miss E's mum, who supports her daughters decisions, as parent and legal guardian of E she does n't need any judge or health official to dictate to her when she can can't permit her offspring to travel out of the country. In any case, Miss E has a constitutional right to travel, that's what the amendment was for, right? But the health board isn't so sure.

Miss E is in its care, and if the child, even with the consent of her mum, is allowed to fly off to Amsterdam, Paris, or England without its knowledge or consent, the board could be in trouble.
Indeed, what if all the kids in its care decided to leave the country (and its custody) without its knowledge or permission? The sensible thing, you might think, is to go back to the judge who made the original care order and clarify the situation. There's even a special provision in the 1991 Child Care Act to allow the HSE, or a relevant party, to apply to the district court judge for directions.

Miss E is fictional. Miss D is not. The current drama unfolding in the High Court surrounding D, a 17 year old girl who wants to travel to England to abort her baby has exposed, once again, Ireland's deadly abortion faultline. But the D Case has also exposed the legal twilight zone that parents and health authorities can find themselves in when children are taken into care. And any new rulings on the powers of the State over minors in its care could have wide-ranging implications.

HSE Will Back Miss D's Bid 'If District Court Gives Approval'

Irish Independent Saturday May 5th Dearbhail McDonald and Ann O'Loughlin

A Teenager who wants to travel to England to abort her unborn baby because it will not survive may be allowed to travel if certain conditions are met, her carers said yesterday.

In the strongest signal yet that the D case could be resolved without a repeat of the public tumult that followed in the wake of the X case abortion saga, lawyers for the Health Services Executive agreed it would be in the best interests of the girl to travel to England if she received district court approval to do so.

Miss D, the 17 year old whose baby is suffering from the fatal brain condition anencephaly, was not present in court for day two of the High Court action as she is unwell. In her absence, the HSE said that it would be willing to make an application to the district court to allow Miss D to travel.

It said it would agree that travel for for the purpose of a termination would be in her best interests if a district court judge was satisfied the girl had considered her decision carefully, preferably after counselling.

It also wanted to ensure that Miss D's mother, known as Miss A, consented to her daughter travelling and that a district court judge was satisfied that the travel was lawful. The HSE insisted it did not 'cook up a strategy in some heartless manner' to say the girl, who is usbject of an interim care order, could not travel to England despite the horrific circumstances she found herself in.

Gerry Durcan, a senior counsel who is representing the HSE, said the HSE believed that in these circumstances, the law dictated that the girl could not travel unless she had the authority or consent of the district court. Mr Durcan said the HSE recognised the human tragedy behind the legal proceedings; and that HSE staff had acted in good faith and at all times had done their best.

He also warned that the HSE had a lot of children in its care who needed to travel for lots of reasons and the implications for of the case for the HSE were much wider than the single issue of the legal right to travel for the purpose of a termination. Mr Durcan said it would be a 'dangerous precedent' if every 16 year or 17 year old in care could exercise their right to travel in a manner that would take them outside of HSE care.

Judge Liam McKechnie has now heard opening submissions from two of five legal teams. Yesterday, he warned 'time is running against us' and he has convened a special sitting of the High Court this Bank Holiday Monday to allow the case to proceed

Psychologists for Choice Urge Compassionate Response for Miss D

PRESS RELEASE from Psychologists for Choice

Psychologists for Choice have said that Miss D should be given a compassionate response to her present traumatic condition, and that Miss D should have the right to have a ternmination of her pregnancy in Ireland should she so wish.

'We are extremely concerned for this young vulnerable and extremely brave woman. It should be abundantly clear that this woman should be afforded the respect to let her make her own decision to obtain an abortion, and that this should be available to her abroad or in Ireland should she so wish, and publicly funded by the HSE' said Dr Geraldine Moane, spokesperson of Psychologists for Choice.

Last year, at the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of D v Ireland, Government lawyers accepted that Irish law might actually permit abortion of foetuses that suffer from letahl abnormalities.

D was an Irishwoman forced to travel to Britain for an abortion of twins, one of whom was dead and the other was suffering from a genetic condition, which meant that it could not live more than a few days after birth.

In 2002, Deirdre De Barra, in a similar case, challenged the Government and the Catholic Church. In her letter to the Irish Times on February 24th 2002, she wrote-'I want to hear the response of the Taoiseach(Prime Minister), the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), the Attorney General, Cadinal Connell, to this specific aspect of the issue of the unborn. On behalf of other women and families who have suffered, I want to know this issue will be prioritised, addressed and resolved between the legislature and the medical profession.'

There was no response.

'The extent of political hypocrisy around the issue of abortion has been a scandal for 15 years since the X Case in 1992' added Dr Geraldine Moane.

Dr Geraldine Moane is spokesperson of Psychologists for Choice, an organisation campaigning for safe and legal abortion in Ireland.

Doctors for Choice Advocate Safe and Legal Abortion

PRESS RELEASE from Doctors for Choice

In the current case Miss D should be offered a termination of pregnancy in a publicly funded Irish obstetric unit.

'This would ensure that she receives local medical and social care, with the necessary follow-up of post mortem, genetic counselling and psychological support as is appropriate' siad Dr Mary Favier of Doctors for Choice.

'It is clear that there has been support from Irish obstetricians for this course of action. In 2002, two of the Masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals acknowledged that they would prefer to see termination of pregnancy offered in Ireland, to women who are affected by fatal foetal anomaly' she added.

Ireland has the second hightest rate of neural tube defects in the world. Anencephaly is an abnormal development of the brain and skull which occurs during the first weeks of pregnancy. The upper part of the brain and its protective skull are missing and the lower part of the brain and the base of the skull are not properly formed.

Doctors for Choice have said that it is time to end the political hypocrisy surrounding the matter of abortion and women's health care in this country. We call on leaders of all political parties to respond to our statement that Miss D be offered a termination of pregnancy.

International Human Rights Law Supports Women's Case

Irish Independent Dearbhail McDonald

Any efforts by the Irish Government to prevent Miss D from terminating her pregnancy could invite further legal action in Europe and international courts. Miss D is not the only mother-to-be carrying a foetus with the fatal brain condition anencephaly to face legal opposition to her request to have a termination.

Babies born with anencephaly die within hours or days after birth, but because the condition poses no risk to the life of the mother it is not, under current legislation a ground for legal abortion in Ireland.

Unlike Ireland, therapeutic abortions are legal in Peru. But when that country forced a 17 year-old girl to carry her unborn baby, who had anencephaly, to full term, it was forced to compensate her and adopt regulations to guarantee access to legal abortion.

KL v. Peru was the first abortion case to be heard by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). KL, a 17 year old girl, was forced by state officials to carry her fatally impaired foetus to term in 2001. Fourteen weeks into the pregnancy, doctors at a public hospital in Lima diagnosed the foetus with anencephaly, but because Peru had failed to adopt clear regulations, women there are at the mercy of public officials and KL was denied an abortion by the hospital's director. She was later forced to breastfeed the infant for the four days it survived.

Two years ago, the UNHRC, which monitors countries compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- to which Ireland is a party- found that KL's right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment had been violated.

It found Peru liable for denying KL's access to an abortion she needed to avoid a risk of serious harm to her health- harm associated with being forced to continue a pregnancy involving foetal anencephaly. It was the first time that an international human rights body has held a national government accountable for failing to ensure access to abortion.

Last March, the ECHR awarded €25,000 to a Polish woman after it ruled that her human rights were breached because Poland has no effective legal framework that enables a pregnant woman to assert her right to an abortion on medical grounds.

Groups To Gather Outside Court To Support Miss D.

Irish Times Carl O'Brien

Pro-choice groups are due to gather outside the Four Courts today to demonstrate their support for the 17 year old at the centre of the abortion case. Two groups, Choice Ireland and the Alliance forChoice, say the decision to prevent Miss D travelling abroad for an abortion is a denial of basic human rights.

A spokeswoman said: 'Miss D is another case of several that have gone before and will come agian that highlight the flaws in Irish abortion law. Without legislation to deal with this issue, yet more Irish women in difficult situatuons will have to be dragged through the courts.'

The Pro-Life Campaign, meanwhile have welcomed the appointment of a senior counsel to represent the interests of the unborn in the High Court today. Dr Ruth Cullen of the group said: 'There are precedents for appointing advocates for the unborn in court cases. It is only proper that respect for the dignity and value of the unborn child be taken into consideration. 'The Pro-Life Campaign does not believe an abortion is in the best interests of either the mother or the unborn baby.'

Yesterday's decision to appoint a senior counsel to represent the interests of the unborn child means the Attorney General will have two teams of lawyers at today's hearing: one representing the unborn and the other representing the Attorney General in his independent role as a constitutional officer.

Another pro-choice group, Doctors for Choice, called for Miss D to be allowed have a safe and legal abortion in Ireland. The group claimed that there was support from Irish obstetricians for this course of action. 'In 2002, two of the masters of the maternity hospitals acknowledged that they would prefer to seetermination of pregnancy offered in Ireland, to women who are affected by fatal foetal anomaly,' the group said in a statement. 'It is time to end the political hypocrisy surrounding... abortion and women's health care in this country. We call on leaders of all political parties to respond to our statement that Miss D be offered a termination of pregnancy in Ireland.'

Law May Permit Abortion In Such Cases

Government lawyers last year accepted that Irish law amy actually permit abortion of foetuses that suffer from lethal anomalies. The European Court of Human Rights in July last year ruled on a case taken by an Irishwoman. 'D', who sued the State after she had been forced to travel to Britiain for an abortion of twins, one of whom was dead and the other was suffering from a genetic condition which meant it could not live more than a few days after birth.

The court found against D on the grounds that she should have made her case first in the Irish courts but it cited in its ruling the State argument that she would have had a good chance of succeeding had she done so. Lawyers for the State had argued that the X case had demonstrated the potential for judicial development in this area.

According to the court's judgment, lawyers for the State had said: 'The foetus was viable in the X case, whereas in the present case there might be an issue as to the extent to which the State was required to guarantee the life of a foetus which suffered from a lethal genetic abnormality'

The State's lawyers also said that while Article 40.3.3 had to be understood as excluding a liberal abortion regime, 'the courts were nonetheless unlikely to interpret the provision with remorseless logic, particularly when the facts were exceptional...'

'If therefore, it had been established that there was no relaistic prospect of the foetus being born alive, then there was 'at least a tenable' argument which would be seriously considered by the domestic courts, to the effect that the foetus was not an 'unborn' for the purposes of Article 40.3.3, or that even if it was an 'unborn', it's right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb.'

No Such Thing As A Right To Abortion Says Archbishop

Irish Independent John Cooney, Dearbhail McDonald, Ann O'Loughlin

PRIEST SAYS IT IS UP TO THE COURTS, NOT THE CHURCH, TO MAKE LAWS.

The Catholic Primate of Ireland has said there is 'no such thing' as a right to abortion, as the courts grapple with the latest abortion crisis involving a 17-year-old pregnant girl whose foetus is suffering from a brain abnormality.

In an exclusive interview with the Irish Independent, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said the courts, and not the church hierarchy, will decide abortion laws. He described the latest abortion controversy as a sad case, but said the teenage girls unborn foetus baby is 'a human person with rights'. 'The most important thing is that the girl be given assistance that she needs in her situation,' he siad. 'The position of the Catholic Church against abortion is very clear and has not changed. It (the foetus) is still a human person and therefire has rights. The legal rpoblem was there for the entire last session of the Dail and I saw no politician rushing to address it.'

Abortion not an election issue- Harney

Minister Mary Harney has said that she does not believe that abortion would become an election issue as a result of the High Court challenge to a HSE refusal to allow a teenager to travel abroad for an abortion. 'We had a referendum a number of years ago in relation to abortion, where we put forward a very balanced approach, and that was rejected by the people' Ms Harney said. 'Therefore I am not certain that people are ready to determine in relation to these issues again.'

Ms Harney said she hoped that the case would be dealt with 'in a compassionate and sensitive way'. Clearly, because it was before the courts, it would be inappropriate for her to comment further. She added: 'I hope that there can be a decision very quickly. It does seem to be a tragic case.'

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said he believed that there was a humane solution to the case. 'I am a party leader, but I'm also Minister for Justice, and I don't want to be seen to be guiding the courts in one way or another, but I also believe that in this particular case there is a humane and sensible way out of all of this.' Asked on RTE's Morning Ireland if the courts would find it easier to deal with such a case if the Oireachtas had passed legislation, he said: 'Legislation would have to come down on one side or another, and I don't know whether in this particular case the courts would find it easier to deal with, because we are dealing here with a balance of constitutional rights.'

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said it was a 'complex, human, tragic case' which might end up in the Supreme Court, so he did not want to comment further. Labour Party leader Pat Rabitte said that the case was 'highly complex' and required clarification in the courts before any decision could be made on what laws, if any, might be needed.

Dr Berry Kiely, of the Pro-Life Campaign, said the view that abortion was the 'compassionate solution' in this case was mistaken. 'The minor at the centre of the case is entitled to be made fully aware of the possible consequences of going through with an abortion' she said. Youth Defence spokesman Eoghan De Faoite said he found it 'quite appallling that a child's life would be ended in such a violent way simply because that child might not live long after he or she is born'.

AG Tells Court Has Right To Travel For Abortion

Mary O'Carolan, Dr Muiris Houston and Carl O'Brien in the Irish Times.

The State does not have any power to stop a teenage girl travelling to the UK for an abortion, the High Court was told yesterday by counsel for the Attorney General. The 17 year old, who is four months pregnant, is challenging the Health Service Executive's (HSE) decision to prevent her from terminating her pregnancy abraod. The teenager, who can only be identified as 'Miss D' and is from the Leinster region, has been in the care of the HSE since February of this year. She was told last week that her aby was suffering from anencephaly, a condition where a major part of the brain is missing. The newborn baby will not survive outside the womb for more than a few days.

Mr Justice McKechnie yesterday granted the girl leave to bring a legal action to prevent the HSE restraining her leaving the country for an abortion. The case is being rushed through the courts and it will be heard it court in full tomorrow. The girl says she was told by the HSE that it contacted gardaí to request that she should not be permitted to leave the State unless she was suicidal. However, Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State, said the Attorney General's position was that the HSE had no legal power to direct the garda to restrain a person who was the the subject of an interim care order. Furthermore the garda did not have the legal power to restrain the girl simply because she was the subject of a care order, while the HSE order did not restrain a person from travelling anywhere. Gerry Durcan SC, for the HSE, said it was anxious to take whatever course of action best secured the girls's welfare, having regard to legal restraints, having regard to legal restraints where a child is subject to a care order. The HSE also wished to have the teenager assessed by a psychiatrist, counsel added.

Gerard Hogan SC, for Miss D, said his client was deeply distressed and could not live through the pregnancy knowing her baby would die, but he stressed she was not suicidal. Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health of the mother. This includes a risk arising from the threat of suicide. In her affadavit, the girl said her family circumstances had been strained because her mother was an alcoholic. Her father had never sought any involvement with her. Her boyfriend had agreed to bring proceedings on her behalf as she is a minor.

Meanwhile the Irish Times has learned that the HSE funded the cost of an abortion in the UK for a woman whose baby had serious congenital abnormalities that were incompatible with life outside the womb. It is understood approximately six other abortions for women in similar circumstances have been funded by the HSE in the last year.

The woman, who was four months pregnant, was referred by a gynaecologist here to a colleague in Britian using an E112 form. This is an EU procedure whereby a patient's consultant states that the person has a particular diagnosis and needs a specific procedure or treatment not available in the person's own country. The HSE then assesses the application and decides whether to fund the treatment or not. It is understood that the woman, who is in her mid- to late 20s, travelled to Liverpool and had her pregnancy terminated. She has returned home and is said to be well.

A GP who was involved in the woman's care said 'Having immediate first-hand experience of the patient... I think there is a contradiction between the current case, where the HSE is attempting to prevent a 17 year old travellling, and its approach in the case I was involved with, where the HSE is attempting to prevent a 17 year old travelling, and it's approach in the case I was involved with, where the HSE funded a patient to have an abortion.' A spokesman for the HSE said it did not comment in individual cases.

The Miss D Case

News of a 17 year old girl pregnant with anencaphelic pregnancy broke on Monday 30th April 2007. The case was mentioned in the High Court on Tuesday May 1st and is due to return for a hearing on Thursday May 3rd. The girl is seeking to travel to have an abortion abroad. The Health Service Executive has obstructed her from travelling. The main issue concerning Miss D, concerns the issue of minors and those in the care of the State accessing abortion. The issues of the ambit of the freedom to travel enshrined in the Constitution seem to be at issue, alongside the power and role of the health authorities in this matter.

15th anniversary of X case

National Women's Council of Ireland Launches Manifesto 2007

National Women's Council of Ireland Launches Women's Manifesto Election 2007

Fifth Anniversary of Deirdre DeBarra's Letter

February 25th 2002- Deirdre DeBarra's Letter to the Irish Times

REFERENDUM ON ABORTION

Sir,- I never thought that I would be in a position where the Government, legislature and Catholic Church of this country would violate my rights and dignity. There will have been many women in this position before, but today I must voice my anger and suffering at the inhuman treatment of women in this State.

Recently I was told that the 16-week old foetus I was carrying had a severe chromosomal abnormality, incompatible with life, which would result in death soon after birth. This was a very much wanted baby, but the trauma of this news was vastly exacerbated by the thought of being forced to carry to full term a foetus which would never know extra-uterine life.

The current media focus on the forthcoming abortion referendum has thrown into sharp relief the very real lack of attention to the substantive issue of foetal anomalies in the unborn, and the mental and physical detrimental impact on the mother.

The coincidence of the carers dispute was a further reminder of the forgotten in this society, the people who cannot function outside an institution and the parents who cannot cope.

I am a self-employed professional, I have two sons aged 12 and 10, who would welcome a baby brother or sister, but who also need and deserve my full attention. They will never see that baby-but why should they also suffer the excessive trauma visited on their mother by Irish legislation?

All three of us are citizens of a State which is turning its back on the reality of the suffering and family distress caused to the living. I pay for private health care and insurance in this country, yet in order to bring about a dignified and healthy conclusion and safeguard my mental well-being my partner and I are forced to secretly seek contact numbers, book flights and accomodation, take trains and taxis to a strange hospital in a foreign city, to meet strange medical staff who see me as yet another statistic of the Irish problem, to be sent back to this country where there is no compassion- or else to carry on for a further five months, with all the attendant mental and physical strain, knowing that there will be a burial and not a baby to look forward to.

If there is a constitutional requirement to hold a referendum, I appeal on behalf of the hundreds of women who undergo this untenable trauma every year, for recognition of foetal abnormalities as a case for humane intervention. It is a risible irony to allow the obstetric profession to carry out amniocentesis tests which identify these chromosomal abnormalities, and then demand that the harrowing results be ignored.

I do not advocate social abortion on demand. This, in my opinion, is a very separate issue.

I am very angry that men I do not know and who don't know me, people like Des Hanifin and William Binchy and others who have been complicit with Fianna Fail governments and the Catholic Church, have decided that my body is their demesne; that, regardless of the emotional and physical distress for us, I must do what they want; that their bigoted will rules my body.

They are all instrumental in perpetuating a very real human misery, with which I have tragically come face to face.

I want to hear the response of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Attorney General, Cardinal Connell, to this specific aspect of the issue of the unborn. On behalf of other women and families who have suffered, I want to know this issue will be prioritised, addressed and resolved between the legislature and the medical profession outside of the current referendum marketing extravaganza.

The only people who will benefit from the obscene proliferation of posters and glossy leaflets are PR companies and printers. Neither a Yes nor a No vote will change the situation about which I write, but Yes will further criminalise anyone who tries to help. How backward can we be?

Yours, etc.,

DEIRDRE DE BARRA
Clonskeagh
Dublin 14.

Irish Campaign Welcomes Portuguese Referendum Result

Press release issued on Monday 12th February 2007.

The Safe and Legal (in Ireland) Abortion Rights Campaign has welcomed the result of Sunday's Portuguese referendum on abortion. Of those who voted in the referendum, 59.3 per cent supported making abortion available in a wider range of circumstances. The Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates, has said that his Socialist government will liberalise the law on abortion as a result of the vote.

The Safe and Legal Campaign has called on the Irish Government to take action on abortion, and as a minimum to legislate for the X case. Ms X was a 14-year-old pregnant rape victim who was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy, and in whose case the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that abortion would be lawful. The X case allows for abortion on the grounds that a pregnancy poses a real and substantial risk to a woman's life. However, in the absence of any legislation clarifying how doctors may implement the X case, women seeking to have abortions in Ireland currently face criminal conviction and a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

Ivana Bacik, spokesperson for the Safe and Legal (in Ireland) Abortion Rights Campaign, said today:

'The Portuguese result means that Ireland has by far the most restrictive abortion law in Europe. It shows the need for us to have a public debate about the reality of crisis pregnancy in Ireland, and the problems faced by those women who must travel abroad to obtain legal abortion.'

The Safe and Legal (in Ireland) Abortion Rights Campaign believes that abortion should be safely and legally available in Ireland.

www.safeandlegalinireland.ie

Irish Abortion Statistics

At least 123,258 women women travelled from Ireland to the UK for abortions between January 1980 and December 2005.

5,585 women travelled to the UK for abortions in 2005. Women aged between 20-30 years represented the majority of those who travelled to Britain for abortion services in 2004.

These figures undercount the amount of women travelling to the UK for abortions as they only include those who choose to give Irish addresses to clinics at which they obtain abortion services.

For further information:
email: safeandlegalinireland@eircom.net
write to: Safe and Legal (in Ireland) Abortion Rights Campaign,
P.O. Box 10740
Dublin 1
Ireland.

Cardinal Urges Portugal to Reject Abortion in Poll

from Agence France-Presse in Lisbon.

Portugal's top cleric urged followers to reject abortion as the predominantly Catholic country decides in a weekend referendum whether to liberalise the country's strict anti-abortion stance.

Catholics must take into account the sanctity of life when casting their votes, Cardinal Jose da Cruz Policarpo said. Sunday's referendum will ask voters if they agree with the legalisation of abortion until the 10th week of pregnancy.

The conscience of Christians regarding abortion 'must be illuminated not only by natural light but also by the word of God and the teachings of the Church,' the cardinal, who is Patriarch of Lisbon, wrote in a text published on the church's website.

Predominantly Roman Catholic Portugal has one of the most restrictive laws against abortion in Europe. The practice is currently allowed only until the 12th week of pregnancy in cases of rape, a malformed foetus or if the woman's life is in danger.

The influential Church has vocally opposed any change to the law during the referendum campaign, with bishops and priests frequently speaking out from the pulpit against liberalisation.

Two Church-run daycare centres in Setubal, a pport city some 50 kilometres (30 miles) south of Lisbon, handed out copies of a letter purportedly from an aborted foetus to its mother which angered some parents and sparked controversy.

'Mom how were you able to kill me? How were you able to allow me to be cut up in pieces and thrown into a bucket?' asks the letter which was reprinted in seevral newspapers and internet sites.

In a referendum held in 1998 voters upheld the existing abortion law by 51 per cent to 49 per cent, but the result was declared void as nearly seven out of 10 voters stayed away.

Abortion Uptake Highest Among Twentysomethings

By Eilish O'Regan, Health Correspondent of the Irish Independent

The highest number of abortions are among Irish women aged between 20 and 24. A report from the Crisis Pregnancy Agency shows that of 6,522 women who had abortions in one year, 2,258(34%) were in this bracket.

But the group most likely to seek an abortion are teenagers. The rate of abortion is higher relative to the number of teenage pregnancies. By international standards, the abortion rate is not high. However, the picture is not fully clear because of a lack of data.

The report showed that 916 of the abortions took place among girls under the age of 20. There has been a rise in the number of teenagers from Ireland ahving abortions in the last three decades. But the number of teenage girls having babies has not changed significantly in those 30 years.

Most teenage births here are among girls aged about 18 or 19. In 1973, there were 16.3 births per 1000 teenagers aged between 15 and 19. It peaked in 1980, and since then it has fallen again. The figure is now at around 16.8 per 1,000.

The agency's statistical report for 2005 gives an overview of current pregnancy and birth trends as well as how they are changing. Despite a steady decrease in the birth rate here over the past two decades, it is still the highest in the EU.

The average age for giving birth is higher here than in other European countries. The average age is here is 30 while it is 29 in Norway and 28 in the UK.

The proportion of births outside of marriage here has increased steadily since the 1970s. Nearly one third of births take place among women who are not married, compared to just 3.2% in 1973. However, many of these women are in stable relationships and do not conform to the traditional image of the unmarried mother.

The reprot also underlines the dramatic fall in babies who are given up for adoption here. In 1976, nearly four in every ten children born outside marriage was adopted. But this has now declined to just 0.5%. More women are choosing to keep their babies and adoption is 'no longer seen as an expected or real solution to crisis pregnancy'.

Pro Choice Campaigning Meeting

A 'Pro Choice Campaigning' meeting will be held at 3pm on Saturday 27th January in the Central Hotel, Exchequer Street, Dublin 2. The meeting is open to all and is hosted by Labour Youth.

'Pro Choice Campaigning' is intended to be a working meeting as opposed to one involving speakers and questions. There will be a series of workshops designed to produce realistic and practical ideas about how we can advance the pro-choice campaign in Ireland today.

It's time to put the issue of abortion rights in Ireland back on the agenda. Abortion is an issue that Irish politicians and newspapers don't want to talk about anymore. In comparison to the years surrounding the referenda, column inches in the press devoted to the issue of reproductive rights have diminished remarkably. But the situation in Ireland has n't changed. The women who travel daily from this country to the UK for abortions continue to be ignored. Ireland is maintaining its position as one of the strictest countries in the world in terms of reproductive rights- only the Vatican and Malta rival Ireland at European level.

Successive Irish Government's have failed to legislate along the lines of the X Case decision, which ruled that abortion should be allowed in cases where the woman's life was in danger. As a result, doctors are left in an unacceptable position, unsure of whether they are legally able to perform a termination in any cases at all.

The situation will never change unless those of us who care about these issues become involved in a broad campaigning movement working for women's rights in Ireland.

This will be a functional meeting, using working groups and facilitators designed to produce practical and workable ideas rather than merely a string of speakers. A diversity of tactics, ideas and approaches is what is hoped will be produced by this meeting, in order to establish a broad based campaign aimed at improving and increasing reproductive rights in this country.

Pro Choice Campaigning Meeting

A 'Pro Choice Campaigning' meeting will be held at 3pm on Saturday 27th January in the Central Hotel, Exchequer Street, Dublin 2. The meeting is open to all and is hosted by Labour Youth.

'Pro Choice Campaigning' is intended to be a working meeting as opposed to one involving speakers and questions. There will be a series of workshops designed to produce realistic and practical ideas about how we can advance the pro-choice campaign in Ireland today.

It's time to put the issue of abortion rights in Ireland back on the agenda. Abortion is an issue that Irish politicians and newspapers don't want to talk about anymore. In comparison to the years surrounding the referenda, column inches in the press devoted to the issue of reproductive rights have diminished remarkably. But the situation in Ireland has n't changed. The women who travel daily from this country to the UK for abortions continue to be ignored. Ireland is maintaining its position as one of the strictest countries in the world in terms of reproductive rights- only the Vatican and Malta rival Ireland at European level.

Successive Irish Government's have failed to legislate along the lines of the X Case decision, which ruled that abortion should be allowed in cases where the woman's life was in danger. As a result, doctors are left in an unacceptable position, unsure of whether they are legally able to perform a termination in any cases at all.

The situation will never change unless those of us who care about these issues become involved in a broad campaigning movement working for women's rights in Ireland.

This will be a functional meeting, using working groups and facilitators designed to produce practical and workable ideas rather than merely a string of speakers. A diversity of tactics, ideas and approaches is what is hoped will be produced by this meeting, in order to establish a broad based campaign aimed at improving and increasing reproductive rights in this country.

Nicaraguan Activists Bid To Block Abortion Bill

Human rights activists in Nicaragua on Monday January 8th asked the Supreme Court to block a controversial law that bans abortions for rape victims and women who risk dying in childirth.

They urged the Central American nation's top court to declare the law, which was passed in Octoer and went into effect last year, as unconstitutional on grounds it violates 'fundamental rights and principles'.

Nicaraguan lawmakers approved the bill with support from two right-wing parties and leftist legislators from the Sandinista party of Daniel Ortega, the president elect who takes office on Wednesday.

Sandinista legislators backed the bill, also sought by Nicaragua's powerful Catholic Church, only a week before presidential elections to avoid alienating church leaders and religious voters.

It put Nicaragua alongside nations like Chile and El Salvador in imposing a blanket ban on abortions. Previously, abortions in Nicaragua were allowed for women who were victims of rape and incest or if their lives were in danger.

The Supreme Court, seen as free from political pressure, has no set date or time frame to rule on the case.