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.
Monday, May 07, 2007
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
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.
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.
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!
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!
Sunday, May 06, 2007
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
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.
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.
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
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
Saturday, May 05, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
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.
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.'
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.'
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
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.'
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.'
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'.
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 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.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
