A judge's ruling could add New Zealand to the list of countries making their abortion laws more restrictive, Jeff Fleischer reports today. But the issue, while hugely partisan in the United States, isn't being mentioned by the re-election campaign of Prime Minister Helen Clark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's today's update:
INTERNATIONAL
New Zealand Campaigns Sidestep Abortion Scuffle
By Jeff Fleischer
WeNews correspondent
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (WOMENSENEWS)--New Zealand has joined the list of nations reviewing its abortion law.
A recent court ruling, now under appeal, found the country's abortion law is being interpreted too liberally. If the law is upheld it would force the government to rewrite its policies.
Unlike the United States, however, the issue isn't stirring heated campaign interest. Neither Prime Minister Helen Clark of the Labour Party nor her main rival, John Key of the National Party, have weighed in on the appeals process, which could mark the first change in abortion law in 30 years.
"They have been worried about commenting before they understand what the ramifications of the ruling are, and this won't be known until the appeals process has finished," says Jackie Edmond, chief executive of Wellington-based New Zealand Family Planning. "I would imagine that they are not wanting abortion to become an election issue."
Edmond said she was glad to see the issue kept out of the political ring. "Any public debate around changes needed to abortion law are best done when we have the time and commitment to focus on the needs of women, rather than in the heat of an election campaign," she said.
The two-sided appeals battle doesn't have a fixed end date, but will definitely come after the next election, in which Clark and her Labour Party face their longest re-election odds since coming to power in 2000.
Clark Behind in Polls
The most recent poll, released Sept. 15, showed National with 53 percent support compared to 35 percent for Labour in the multi-party system. Under the country's parliamentary system, Clark chose the election date, Nov. 8.
As prime minister, Clark--who took office in 2000 as the country's second consecutive female premier--has helped pass laws creating civil unions and parental leave. In 1989, as health minister, she tried unsuccessfully to simplify the approval process for abortion.
Key is generally credited with moving the National Party to the political center. He opposed the civil-union law, for instance, but also voted against a National-backed bill that unsuccessfully tried to amend the constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.
In response to a lawsuit filed this year by Right to Life--an advocacy group based in the Pacific Region city of Christchurch--Justice Forest Miller of the High Court undertook a judicial review of existing abortion rules, put in place to allow "restricted abortion" in a number of cases but not "abortion on-demand."
In June, after completing the inquiry, he announced "powerful misgivings" about how the law is being followed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee, the organization set up to oversee the administration of abortion under a 1977 law.
"There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorized by certifying consultants," Miller said in his decision, noting that 99 percent of women who seek abortions receive approval. "Indeed, the committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended."
Both Sides Join Appeal
Now the Abortion Advisory Committee is appealing the decision, saying abortions are being approved as the law intends. For its part, Right to Life is also appealing because Miller ruled that the existing law "neither confers nor recognizes a legal right to life for the unborn child," which contradicts the group's claim in its initial court filing.
In the wake of the ruling pro-choice groups generally sided with the committee, arguing that the law is being followed now. Activism has been fairly quiet so far, however, as groups wait to hear what the legal system decides before publicly making their next move.
If the appeals court upholds Miller's decision in the coming months, the government would be forced to either enforce the law more strictly or--if it wanted to keep the process more liberal--to change the law for the first time in more than three decades.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, lists five countries--the United States, Japan, Nicaragua, Hungary and the Russian Federation--that added restrictions to abortion since 2000, with Nicaragua removing all exceptions to its prior abortion ban. Seven countries have loosened restrictions in the past five years. Among them, for instance, Portugal now allows abortion for any reason in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.
Countries such as Kenya and Zambia have closed clinics and eliminated staff due in part to the "global gag rule." This policy prevents United States and Australia family-planning funds from going to foreign medical clinics that provide abortions, inform their patients about abortion or lobby to change their nation's abortion laws.
Early Leader in Female Suffrage
New Zealand women won the right to vote in 1893, making it the first developed country to permit women's suffrage. Women from both major parties have served as prime minister, starting with National's Jenny Shipley in 1997.
Abortion, however, was slower to change, and its law grew out of compromise.
After the state of South Australia legalized the procedure in 1969 and many New Zealanders began going there to obtain the procedure, the country created a commission to look into changing its own laws. That led Parliament in 1977 to pass the Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act, a compromise bill that capped off heated debate.
The law did not permit women to access abortion freely, or "on demand." Instead it legalized abortion in cases of incest, where the fetus is at risk of disability, when the life of the woman is in danger, or when the pregnancy risks the woman's physical or mental health. (Other situations, including rape or the pregnancy of a minor, can also be considered.)
Under existing law an abortion must be approved by two doctors, at least one of whom must be an obstetrician or gynecologist. Doctors can require applicants to receive counseling before or after the procedure.
In the first year after the law took effect, New Zealand saw 2,094 legal abortions. By 2007, the number was 18,382, which fell short of the record 18,511 in 2003.
With a population of slightly above 4 million, the nation's current rate of about 20 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15 to 45) is slightly higher than that of the United States or Australia, and has generally hovered around those nations' rates in the recent past.
Jeff Fleischer is a Chicago-based journalist. He has written regularly for publications such as Mother Jones, the Sydney Morning Herald, Mental Floss and Chicago magazine. He is a 2008 Alicia Patterson Foundation fellow in Oceania.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Australia: Victorian Lower House Passes Abortion Law
The Victorian lower house has approved a bill to decriminalise abortion. (ABC)
A law to decriminalise abortion in Victoria has been passed by the lower house of Parliament.
The debate continued into the early hours of this morning before the bill was passed 49 to 32.
The proposed legislation, which legalises abortion up to 24 weeks, will now be sent to the upper house.
Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand says she is optimistic the bill will be passed by the Legislative Council.
"A lot of women have been waiting for this for a very long time, I met somebody today who told me she's been waiting for this for 40 years," she said.
"So for a lot of women who remember backyard abortions and abortions being prosecuted this a very, very important day for them."
A law to decriminalise abortion in Victoria has been passed by the lower house of Parliament.
The debate continued into the early hours of this morning before the bill was passed 49 to 32.
The proposed legislation, which legalises abortion up to 24 weeks, will now be sent to the upper house.
Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand says she is optimistic the bill will be passed by the Legislative Council.
"A lot of women have been waiting for this for a very long time, I met somebody today who told me she's been waiting for this for 40 years," she said.
"So for a lot of women who remember backyard abortions and abortions being prosecuted this a very, very important day for them."
Friday, August 22, 2008
Politicians On Both Sides Part Ways Over Abortion Bill
Politicians on both sides part ways over abortion bill
The Age (Australia)
MAJOR divisions have emerged in the Brumby Government and the Opposition over whether landmark legislation to make abortion legal in Victoria would increase the number of pregnancies terminated.
Sports Minister James Merlino has spoken out against the bill to decriminalise abortion, saying he would "oppose moves to allow a greater number of abortions".
His views are in conflict with Premier John Brumby, who has argued there is no evidence to suggest that passage of the bill would result in more abortions.
Coalition leader Ted Baillieu said he did not believe the legislation would increase the number of abortions.
But his Coalition partner and National's leader Peter Ryan said it was logical that if the perceived punitive aspects of abortion up to 24 weeks were removed, the number of terminations might increase.
Mr Ryan said he opposed the bill as a matter of principle. "There is no question abortion is a matter deeply bound up with women's health, but the first issue is a question of dignity of life," he said.
MPs will have a conscience vote on the bill, which, if passed, would remove abortion from the Crimes Act.
Under the legislation, introduced in Parliament this week, women would be able to choose to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Late-term abortions would be allowed if two doctors believe the termination to be appropriate on medical grounds and with regard to the woman's physical, psychological and social cir-cumstances.
A report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which forms the basis of the legislation, found there was no correspondence between the rate of abortion and legislation.
Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand also said yesterday that there was no link between the abortion rate and the restrictiveness of abortion laws.
"The rate of unwanted pregnancy is . . . relative to access to contraception," she told 3AW.
Ms Morand, who is sponsoring the bill, acknowledged there could be more hospitals offering abortions under the legislation.
The Premier, Ms Morand and Health Minister Daniel Andrews have all said the proposed law would reflect current clinical practice on abortion and take away the threat of prosecution for women and medical professionals.
But shadow attorney-general Robert Clark said there was a very substantial risk that the bill would increase the number of terminations.
"The legislation greatly increases the scope for abortions and sets standards that are much less restrictive than current practice," he said.
About 20,000 abortions are performed in Victoria each year under the protection of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling.
Former Bracks government minister and anti-abortionist Christine Campbell said the legislation would require less medical consultation for abortions than current requirements, increasing terminations.
Ms Campbell called a meeting of MPs from all parties last night to push for amendments to the bill, including: mandatory counselling for women deciding to have an abortion; no career disadvantage for medical professionals who object to performing or assisting with abortions; and a requirement that those performing abortions have obstetric or gynaecological training.
The Age (Australia)
MAJOR divisions have emerged in the Brumby Government and the Opposition over whether landmark legislation to make abortion legal in Victoria would increase the number of pregnancies terminated.
Sports Minister James Merlino has spoken out against the bill to decriminalise abortion, saying he would "oppose moves to allow a greater number of abortions".
His views are in conflict with Premier John Brumby, who has argued there is no evidence to suggest that passage of the bill would result in more abortions.
Coalition leader Ted Baillieu said he did not believe the legislation would increase the number of abortions.
But his Coalition partner and National's leader Peter Ryan said it was logical that if the perceived punitive aspects of abortion up to 24 weeks were removed, the number of terminations might increase.
Mr Ryan said he opposed the bill as a matter of principle. "There is no question abortion is a matter deeply bound up with women's health, but the first issue is a question of dignity of life," he said.
MPs will have a conscience vote on the bill, which, if passed, would remove abortion from the Crimes Act.
Under the legislation, introduced in Parliament this week, women would be able to choose to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Late-term abortions would be allowed if two doctors believe the termination to be appropriate on medical grounds and with regard to the woman's physical, psychological and social cir-cumstances.
A report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which forms the basis of the legislation, found there was no correspondence between the rate of abortion and legislation.
Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand also said yesterday that there was no link between the abortion rate and the restrictiveness of abortion laws.
"The rate of unwanted pregnancy is . . . relative to access to contraception," she told 3AW.
Ms Morand, who is sponsoring the bill, acknowledged there could be more hospitals offering abortions under the legislation.
The Premier, Ms Morand and Health Minister Daniel Andrews have all said the proposed law would reflect current clinical practice on abortion and take away the threat of prosecution for women and medical professionals.
But shadow attorney-general Robert Clark said there was a very substantial risk that the bill would increase the number of terminations.
"The legislation greatly increases the scope for abortions and sets standards that are much less restrictive than current practice," he said.
About 20,000 abortions are performed in Victoria each year under the protection of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling.
Former Bracks government minister and anti-abortionist Christine Campbell said the legislation would require less medical consultation for abortions than current requirements, increasing terminations.
Ms Campbell called a meeting of MPs from all parties last night to push for amendments to the bill, including: mandatory counselling for women deciding to have an abortion; no career disadvantage for medical professionals who object to performing or assisting with abortions; and a requirement that those performing abortions have obstetric or gynaecological training.
The Guardian: Legalised Abortion in Mexico City Faces Supreme Court Fight
Legalised abortion in Mexico City faces supreme court fight
• Abortion remains illegal in most of Mexico
• Activists argue measure violates constitution
• Number of women who die during procedure decrease
More than a year after abortion was decriminalised in Mexico City, abortion opponents hope the Mexican supreme court will reverse the legislation in a decision that could reverberate across Mexico and Latin America.
Mexico's highest court heard public testimony in the spring, and is expected to rule as early as this month on the constitutionality of the local abortion measure.
The Federal District is governed by the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution. Through its control of the city assembly, the party in April 2007 legalised abortion in the city for women who are up to 12 weeks pregnant.
The measure is unusual because it legalises abortion in the capital. Except in cases of rape or risks to the mother's life, abortion remains illegal in most of rest of this devoutly Roman Catholic nation.
States in Mexico set their own policies on abortion rights, and only Yucatan in Mexico's far south has allowed abortion in cases of extreme poverty.
University studies estimate between 500,000 and 1 million abortions take place in Mexico annually, but most are of questionable legality.
The Catholic Church and anti-abortion activists want the high court to strike down the Mexico City measure. They argue that life begins at conception and carrying out an abortion amounts to a taking of life that violates Mexico's constitution.
"A person's life has such a great value that we cannot take it, we are not the owners," insists Ana Elena Cantu, a city legislator in the northern industrial city of Monterrey and an anti-abortion leader in Mexico.
But the 11 members of Mexico's high court may look beyond the constitutional question.
"It is not a philosophical debate. It is mostly about the criminality. Should you or should you not be penalising it," said Miguel Sarre, a university law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico.
In prior rulings, Mexico's high court declared abortion to be a crime but said it should not be penalised.
That ruling mollified both sides, but such a broad decision is unlikely this time, Sarre said, partly because Mexico City is drawing women in from other parts of the nation for abortions.
Since May 2007, 12 participating public hospitals in Mexico City have performed more than 12,000 free abortions, and are averaging about 35 to 40 such procedures per day, according to the city's director of emergency medical services, Dr. Arturo Gaytan. Most of the women are poor, he said.
"There isn't a way to measure this. What was clandestine is now authorised. We don't know what the measure is outside these medical units," Gaytan said.
Women who could afford it traditionally went to private clinics for abortions that technically were illegal. Today, these clinics continue to perform the procedures, but women who visit them have more recourse.
"If something happens, your family or you have legal grounds to allege negligence," said Daphne, a 23-year-old law student who first spoke to McClatchy Newspapers in March 2007 as she readied to have an abortion just weeks before it became legal.
Speaking again on condition that her last name be withheld to protect her privacy, Daphne said she would still choose a private clinic today for an abortion because "people are still afraid of the (public) institutions".
To combat that image of poor quality, city health officials point to the number of recorded deaths of mothers during the procedure. In 2005, 15 women died during a reported abortion, eight in 2006, one in 2007 and none in 2008, Gaytan said.
"What this suggests is that procedures in clandestine areas have disappeared and given way to this," he said.
Of the now-decriminalised abortions at public hospitals, 39 percent involved women who already have children and cannot afford another. Students represented almost 27 percent of the women seeking abortions, while 20 percent were maids and domestic workers. In 58 percent of the cases, the women seeking an abortion had an intrauterine device implanted to prevent another unwanted pregnancy.
• Abortion remains illegal in most of Mexico
• Activists argue measure violates constitution
• Number of women who die during procedure decrease
More than a year after abortion was decriminalised in Mexico City, abortion opponents hope the Mexican supreme court will reverse the legislation in a decision that could reverberate across Mexico and Latin America.
Mexico's highest court heard public testimony in the spring, and is expected to rule as early as this month on the constitutionality of the local abortion measure.
The Federal District is governed by the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution. Through its control of the city assembly, the party in April 2007 legalised abortion in the city for women who are up to 12 weeks pregnant.
The measure is unusual because it legalises abortion in the capital. Except in cases of rape or risks to the mother's life, abortion remains illegal in most of rest of this devoutly Roman Catholic nation.
States in Mexico set their own policies on abortion rights, and only Yucatan in Mexico's far south has allowed abortion in cases of extreme poverty.
University studies estimate between 500,000 and 1 million abortions take place in Mexico annually, but most are of questionable legality.
The Catholic Church and anti-abortion activists want the high court to strike down the Mexico City measure. They argue that life begins at conception and carrying out an abortion amounts to a taking of life that violates Mexico's constitution.
"A person's life has such a great value that we cannot take it, we are not the owners," insists Ana Elena Cantu, a city legislator in the northern industrial city of Monterrey and an anti-abortion leader in Mexico.
But the 11 members of Mexico's high court may look beyond the constitutional question.
"It is not a philosophical debate. It is mostly about the criminality. Should you or should you not be penalising it," said Miguel Sarre, a university law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico.
In prior rulings, Mexico's high court declared abortion to be a crime but said it should not be penalised.
That ruling mollified both sides, but such a broad decision is unlikely this time, Sarre said, partly because Mexico City is drawing women in from other parts of the nation for abortions.
Since May 2007, 12 participating public hospitals in Mexico City have performed more than 12,000 free abortions, and are averaging about 35 to 40 such procedures per day, according to the city's director of emergency medical services, Dr. Arturo Gaytan. Most of the women are poor, he said.
"There isn't a way to measure this. What was clandestine is now authorised. We don't know what the measure is outside these medical units," Gaytan said.
Women who could afford it traditionally went to private clinics for abortions that technically were illegal. Today, these clinics continue to perform the procedures, but women who visit them have more recourse.
"If something happens, your family or you have legal grounds to allege negligence," said Daphne, a 23-year-old law student who first spoke to McClatchy Newspapers in March 2007 as she readied to have an abortion just weeks before it became legal.
Speaking again on condition that her last name be withheld to protect her privacy, Daphne said she would still choose a private clinic today for an abortion because "people are still afraid of the (public) institutions".
To combat that image of poor quality, city health officials point to the number of recorded deaths of mothers during the procedure. In 2005, 15 women died during a reported abortion, eight in 2006, one in 2007 and none in 2008, Gaytan said.
"What this suggests is that procedures in clandestine areas have disappeared and given way to this," he said.
Of the now-decriminalised abortions at public hospitals, 39 percent involved women who already have children and cannot afford another. Students represented almost 27 percent of the women seeking abortions, while 20 percent were maids and domestic workers. In 58 percent of the cases, the women seeking an abortion had an intrauterine device implanted to prevent another unwanted pregnancy.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Women's enews: An Abortion Sets Major Milestone in Her Life
An Abortion Sets Major Milestone in Her Life
By Joy Pincus
WeNews correspondent
(WOMENSENEWS)--I have several milestones by which I measure my life; like moving to Israel, deciding to get married or quitting my job to become a full-time freelance writer.
Today, however, my life is divided into two distinct periods: before and after my abortion.
After a few years of trying to conceive, my spouse and I were overjoyed when our first attempt at in-vitro fertilization succeeded; doubly so, because six weeks later we discovered I was pregnant with twins. At age 39, I would be giving birth just short of my 40th birthday. I found a midwife and began to plan for my perfect home birth, which of course would be preceded by as few ultrasounds or other intervening procedures as possible. It all felt like a dream come true.
That feeling lasted about six weeks, until the first test results came in and we understood that fetal development would have to be carefully monitored. From that moment on, my spouse and I found ourselves strapped in a nightmare of a rollercoaster ride. When that ride finally ended, seven months had passed and we faced one of the most difficult decisions of our lives.
Knowing that something may or may not be very wrong with one's unborn children demands a precarious psychological balance. One has to walk a very thin line between expectation and resignation; simultaneously hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. I walked that line as best I could.
Losing Hope
After several inconclusive tests, we finally received confirmation beyond a doubt that one fetus was malformed to an extent that would preclude any normal existence. I gave up all hope of having twins, consoling myself with the thought that at least one child would somehow make it through.
The ride had not yet ended.
We soon discovered that the second fetus was suffering from IUGR, intrauterine growth retardation. By 27 weeks she was in terrible distress, some five weeks underdeveloped and with next to no amniotic fluid surrounding her.
The team of doctors following the case--including the specialist who had been monitoring the pregnancy from the first sign of trouble--were now recommending a full termination of both. Such a unanimous decision is extremely rare in a country where it often seems rare for even two people to agree on anything.
I went for one last consultation with my specialist, who explained that there was a strong likelihood that with termination of the first fetus, I would spontaneously go into labor and give birth to the second, with devastating consequences. Even worse, at any moment I might enter labor and give birth to two extremely damaged children. A monumental decision had to be made, quickly. I went home, feeling like Solomon, but without his wisdom.
Decision Becomes Clear
That night, my spouse and I escaped into the solace of sleep. In the morning, as we looked at each other, the decision was clear for both of us. Born in Israel and raised to be stoic, my husband may have found it easier to accept the circumstances; born in America and raised on happy endings, I felt like I had misplaced my life.
We phoned the hospital and told them we would proceed with a full termination.
In Israel, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is permissible in several cases, one of them being the presence of fetal anomaly. We met with the hospital's genetic counselor, who wrote a petition on our behalf and presented it to the official committee for their sanction. Our motion was approved, and on the following Monday morning, I was admitted for the procedure.
Termination of a 28-week pregnancy entails full labor and birth. After admission into the hospital I was shown to my room, thoughtfully located in the gynecological rather than the obstetric ward; it was explained to me in advance that this was to protect me from having to hear the sounds of mothers and their newborn babies. Mine was the only private room on the floor.
Next I was taken to the ultrasound department, where a doctor administered an injection of KCL, a chemical that stopped the hearts of the fetuses. This was followed by the insertion of seaweed into my cervix, inducing first a roaring fever throughout my body, and ultimately what became extremely severe contractions. Supported by my husband and mother-in-law, I got through the rest of the day and the night, my husband backing me up as I refused an epidural, in order to remain an active participant in what was to come.
By the following morning, it was over and I was able to sleep, and the next afternoon the hospital discharged me.
A Kind of Shiva
In Judaism, when a family member dies, one observes "shiva," a tradition of staying home to receive the condolences of visiting friends. In a similar way, for the week following my hospital stay, friends came by, bringing gifts and food and--more important--listening to the story of what had happened.
I discovered that it was a vital part of the process to tell my story, again and again, and in the telling I found understanding, new perspective and a way to remove any sense of lingering shame, stigma or self-pity.
Also helping me to avoid the feeling of stigma was the fact that the Israeli National Health Service bestowed upon me all the privileges given to every other woman who has given birth. In a case of twins, this means a monetary gift of around $2,000 and four months' paid maternity leave. Besides relieving the financial stress and giving me time in which to heal, the recognition and legitimization of what I had been through helped to maintain my sense of dignity.
Today, nine months later, my life has been transformed; not in spite of my experience, but because of it.
It has strengthened my marriage, allowing my partner and me to be there for each other in a time of great need and to discover tenderness toward one another that we had never known. It has taught me to stop measuring events as either "good" or "bad" by how they may affect me personally, and rather to see them for the opportunity they provide for me to develop and grow.
And it has shown me once and for all that while so many things we meet in life are beyond our control, how we respond to them is not. In fact, our ability to choose how we respond may be the greatest gift we have as humans, and of the most powerful things we have to offer others.
Joy Pincus is a freelance writer, lecturer and workshop facilitator living in central Israel.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.
By Joy Pincus
WeNews correspondent
(WOMENSENEWS)--I have several milestones by which I measure my life; like moving to Israel, deciding to get married or quitting my job to become a full-time freelance writer.
Today, however, my life is divided into two distinct periods: before and after my abortion.
After a few years of trying to conceive, my spouse and I were overjoyed when our first attempt at in-vitro fertilization succeeded; doubly so, because six weeks later we discovered I was pregnant with twins. At age 39, I would be giving birth just short of my 40th birthday. I found a midwife and began to plan for my perfect home birth, which of course would be preceded by as few ultrasounds or other intervening procedures as possible. It all felt like a dream come true.
That feeling lasted about six weeks, until the first test results came in and we understood that fetal development would have to be carefully monitored. From that moment on, my spouse and I found ourselves strapped in a nightmare of a rollercoaster ride. When that ride finally ended, seven months had passed and we faced one of the most difficult decisions of our lives.
Knowing that something may or may not be very wrong with one's unborn children demands a precarious psychological balance. One has to walk a very thin line between expectation and resignation; simultaneously hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. I walked that line as best I could.
Losing Hope
After several inconclusive tests, we finally received confirmation beyond a doubt that one fetus was malformed to an extent that would preclude any normal existence. I gave up all hope of having twins, consoling myself with the thought that at least one child would somehow make it through.
The ride had not yet ended.
We soon discovered that the second fetus was suffering from IUGR, intrauterine growth retardation. By 27 weeks she was in terrible distress, some five weeks underdeveloped and with next to no amniotic fluid surrounding her.
The team of doctors following the case--including the specialist who had been monitoring the pregnancy from the first sign of trouble--were now recommending a full termination of both. Such a unanimous decision is extremely rare in a country where it often seems rare for even two people to agree on anything.
I went for one last consultation with my specialist, who explained that there was a strong likelihood that with termination of the first fetus, I would spontaneously go into labor and give birth to the second, with devastating consequences. Even worse, at any moment I might enter labor and give birth to two extremely damaged children. A monumental decision had to be made, quickly. I went home, feeling like Solomon, but without his wisdom.
Decision Becomes Clear
That night, my spouse and I escaped into the solace of sleep. In the morning, as we looked at each other, the decision was clear for both of us. Born in Israel and raised to be stoic, my husband may have found it easier to accept the circumstances; born in America and raised on happy endings, I felt like I had misplaced my life.
We phoned the hospital and told them we would proceed with a full termination.
In Israel, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is permissible in several cases, one of them being the presence of fetal anomaly. We met with the hospital's genetic counselor, who wrote a petition on our behalf and presented it to the official committee for their sanction. Our motion was approved, and on the following Monday morning, I was admitted for the procedure.
Termination of a 28-week pregnancy entails full labor and birth. After admission into the hospital I was shown to my room, thoughtfully located in the gynecological rather than the obstetric ward; it was explained to me in advance that this was to protect me from having to hear the sounds of mothers and their newborn babies. Mine was the only private room on the floor.
Next I was taken to the ultrasound department, where a doctor administered an injection of KCL, a chemical that stopped the hearts of the fetuses. This was followed by the insertion of seaweed into my cervix, inducing first a roaring fever throughout my body, and ultimately what became extremely severe contractions. Supported by my husband and mother-in-law, I got through the rest of the day and the night, my husband backing me up as I refused an epidural, in order to remain an active participant in what was to come.
By the following morning, it was over and I was able to sleep, and the next afternoon the hospital discharged me.
A Kind of Shiva
In Judaism, when a family member dies, one observes "shiva," a tradition of staying home to receive the condolences of visiting friends. In a similar way, for the week following my hospital stay, friends came by, bringing gifts and food and--more important--listening to the story of what had happened.
I discovered that it was a vital part of the process to tell my story, again and again, and in the telling I found understanding, new perspective and a way to remove any sense of lingering shame, stigma or self-pity.
Also helping me to avoid the feeling of stigma was the fact that the Israeli National Health Service bestowed upon me all the privileges given to every other woman who has given birth. In a case of twins, this means a monetary gift of around $2,000 and four months' paid maternity leave. Besides relieving the financial stress and giving me time in which to heal, the recognition and legitimization of what I had been through helped to maintain my sense of dignity.
Today, nine months later, my life has been transformed; not in spite of my experience, but because of it.
It has strengthened my marriage, allowing my partner and me to be there for each other in a time of great need and to discover tenderness toward one another that we had never known. It has taught me to stop measuring events as either "good" or "bad" by how they may affect me personally, and rather to see them for the opportunity they provide for me to develop and grow.
And it has shown me once and for all that while so many things we meet in life are beyond our control, how we respond to them is not. In fact, our ability to choose how we respond may be the greatest gift we have as humans, and of the most powerful things we have to offer others.
Joy Pincus is a freelance writer, lecturer and workshop facilitator living in central Israel.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Newstrack India: Bombay High Court Allows Abortion of 25-week old Foetus
Bombay HC allows abortion of 25-week old foetus
Mumbai, Thu, 31 Jul 2008 NI Wire
Laws are made for the welfare of a large section of the society. And, if the same law creates a certain kind of discomfort to a particular people or a section of people, some kind of leniency in a particular case becomes imperative. Mind it! Leniency is made in an extreme stage to an exceptional case, but the same law remains applicable to others in the existing form.
The Bombay High Court met with such leniency when a couple from Bhayander, Mumbai was allowed to go for abortions even after surpassing 20th week of pregnancy. The Court has directed the doctors to examine the 25-week pregnant woman and admit her for abortion. The bench sought the reference of Article 21 of the Constitution which ensures fundamental right of life.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act-applicable to whole of India except to the Jammu and Kashmir- was enacted in 1971 to prevent female foeticide. The Act prohibits abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, which is also the time to determine the sex of a child in foetus. Any couple found guilty in practising illegal abortions could be sent to jail for a period of two to seven years.
In this particular case, a pregnant petitioner when found during routine diagnosis in her 24th week that her unborn child was suffering from a congenital heart block, resorted to go for abortions. But, doctors denied as it was against the law. However, a paediatrician said, the baby would need the placement of a peacemaker immediately after being born.
Normally a peacemaker has four to five years of life. This way, the child would have to go for five peacemaker replacement surgeries throughout life. Doctors also said that even surgery is not the guarantee of a normal life. They also expressed fear of a possible intra-uterine death of the foetus and if survives, continuous ailment would also compromise the life of the child.
The pregnant mother and petitioner in her plea said that she “does not want to have a compromised quality of life for her own child and can not afford the expensive treatment, which may or may not give results.”
Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist and also a petitioner in the same case, informed the court that many women come across such a situation. Due to a stringent law, many such pregnant women go to ignorant medical practitioner for making illegal abortions.
The petitioner couple-identified in court papers as Mr X and Mrs Y-sought the help of Bombay High Court after being denied by doctors for the abortion in her 25th week pregnancy.
A division bench of Justices JN Patel and KA Tated gave this decision as the case was linked to the life of mother and baby.
The petition also sought amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to allow abortion beyond 20-weeks if the mother faced a fatal risk due to the abnormal condition of the foetus. The two-member bench constituted a committee headed by the dean of JJ Hospital to submit report in this matter by August 1, when next hearing is scheduled.
Mumbai, Thu, 31 Jul 2008 NI Wire
Laws are made for the welfare of a large section of the society. And, if the same law creates a certain kind of discomfort to a particular people or a section of people, some kind of leniency in a particular case becomes imperative. Mind it! Leniency is made in an extreme stage to an exceptional case, but the same law remains applicable to others in the existing form.
The Bombay High Court met with such leniency when a couple from Bhayander, Mumbai was allowed to go for abortions even after surpassing 20th week of pregnancy. The Court has directed the doctors to examine the 25-week pregnant woman and admit her for abortion. The bench sought the reference of Article 21 of the Constitution which ensures fundamental right of life.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act-applicable to whole of India except to the Jammu and Kashmir- was enacted in 1971 to prevent female foeticide. The Act prohibits abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, which is also the time to determine the sex of a child in foetus. Any couple found guilty in practising illegal abortions could be sent to jail for a period of two to seven years.
In this particular case, a pregnant petitioner when found during routine diagnosis in her 24th week that her unborn child was suffering from a congenital heart block, resorted to go for abortions. But, doctors denied as it was against the law. However, a paediatrician said, the baby would need the placement of a peacemaker immediately after being born.
Normally a peacemaker has four to five years of life. This way, the child would have to go for five peacemaker replacement surgeries throughout life. Doctors also said that even surgery is not the guarantee of a normal life. They also expressed fear of a possible intra-uterine death of the foetus and if survives, continuous ailment would also compromise the life of the child.
The pregnant mother and petitioner in her plea said that she “does not want to have a compromised quality of life for her own child and can not afford the expensive treatment, which may or may not give results.”
Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist and also a petitioner in the same case, informed the court that many women come across such a situation. Due to a stringent law, many such pregnant women go to ignorant medical practitioner for making illegal abortions.
The petitioner couple-identified in court papers as Mr X and Mrs Y-sought the help of Bombay High Court after being denied by doctors for the abortion in her 25th week pregnancy.
A division bench of Justices JN Patel and KA Tated gave this decision as the case was linked to the life of mother and baby.
The petition also sought amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to allow abortion beyond 20-weeks if the mother faced a fatal risk due to the abnormal condition of the foetus. The two-member bench constituted a committee headed by the dean of JJ Hospital to submit report in this matter by August 1, when next hearing is scheduled.
Northern Ireland: UN Committee Urges Abortion Law Reform
August 1st 2008
Irish Times
UN committee urges abortion law reform - GERRY MORIARTY
A UNITED Nations committee has indicated support for extending the 1967 British abortion act to Northern Ireland, a suggestion that all the main Northern parties oppose.
The UN Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) said there should be a debate in Northern Ireland on removing "punitive provisions" on women who want to have an abortion in the North.
"The committee reiterates its call to the state party to initiate a process of public consultation in Northern Ireland on the abortion law," it said.
"The committee also urges the state party to give consideration to the amendment of the abortion law so as to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion," it said.
The North's department of health is currently holding a consultation process to clarify in what circumstances abortions can take place in Northern Ireland.
The Alliance for Choice group in the North yesterday called on trade unions, women's groups and community organisations to unite behind a campaign to extend the 1967 act.
Irish Times
UN committee urges abortion law reform - GERRY MORIARTY
A UNITED Nations committee has indicated support for extending the 1967 British abortion act to Northern Ireland, a suggestion that all the main Northern parties oppose.
The UN Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) said there should be a debate in Northern Ireland on removing "punitive provisions" on women who want to have an abortion in the North.
"The committee reiterates its call to the state party to initiate a process of public consultation in Northern Ireland on the abortion law," it said.
"The committee also urges the state party to give consideration to the amendment of the abortion law so as to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion," it said.
The North's department of health is currently holding a consultation process to clarify in what circumstances abortions can take place in Northern Ireland.
The Alliance for Choice group in the North yesterday called on trade unions, women's groups and community organisations to unite behind a campaign to extend the 1967 act.
BBC: Call For Northern Ireland Abortion Law Review
Thursday 31st July 2008
Call for NI abortion law review
By Martina Purdy
BBC NI political correspondent
The 1967 Abortion Act does not extend to NI at present
A UN committee has repeated its call for a review of Northern Ireland's abortion law through public consultation.
The Committee on the Elimination for Discrimination Against Women noted in its latest report the 1967 Abortion Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.
It also suggested this was having a detrimental impact on women's health.
The call coincides with moves by some Westminster MPs to have the act extended to Northern Ireland.
This is despite significant opposition from NI church and political leaders.
Labour's Diane Abbott is among the MPs who want to effectively end the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland, by tabling a legislative amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
'Punitive'
In its report, the Committee on the Elimination for Discrimination Against Women urges the UK to amend the existing law to remove what it calls the "punitive provision" imposed on women who undergo abortion.
A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office said it had not yet received a copy of the report.
But it has long been the NIO's position that abortion law is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, with the best place for debate being a devolved assembly once Stormont accepts responsibility for justice.
Call for NI abortion law review
By Martina Purdy
BBC NI political correspondent
The 1967 Abortion Act does not extend to NI at present
A UN committee has repeated its call for a review of Northern Ireland's abortion law through public consultation.
The Committee on the Elimination for Discrimination Against Women noted in its latest report the 1967 Abortion Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.
It also suggested this was having a detrimental impact on women's health.
The call coincides with moves by some Westminster MPs to have the act extended to Northern Ireland.
This is despite significant opposition from NI church and political leaders.
Labour's Diane Abbott is among the MPs who want to effectively end the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland, by tabling a legislative amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
'Punitive'
In its report, the Committee on the Elimination for Discrimination Against Women urges the UK to amend the existing law to remove what it calls the "punitive provision" imposed on women who undergo abortion.
A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office said it had not yet received a copy of the report.
But it has long been the NIO's position that abortion law is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, with the best place for debate being a devolved assembly once Stormont accepts responsibility for justice.
Ireland: State Faces Defeat Over Abortion Law in Court of Human Rights
Irish Times Wednesday July 29th 2008
State faces defeat over abortion law in court of human rights
The women who claim Irish abortion law is deficient will win their case unless Ireland settles it with legislation, writes Adam McAuley.
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights will judge the legality of Irish abortion law in the near future. Three Irish women are claiming that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated because of the deficiencies in Irish abortion law. This is not the first time that the court has addressed the sensitive issue of abortion.
Two types of abortion cases have come before this court.
The first involves a claim that the convention confers a right to life on the unborn child or a right to abortion for a woman. The court has adopted an equivocal approach in these types of cases because the convention contains no reference to the unborn child or abortion.
For example, the convention protects the right to life of "everyone".
Unlike the Constitution, the convention is silent as to whether this protection extends to the unborn child.
There are exceptions to the right to life, such as the use of reasonable force in self-defence. Abortion is not listed as an exception. Therefore, the court has refused to rule that an unborn child has a right to life or that a woman has a right to abortion.
Assuming that the unborn child has a right to life, the court has stated that any right of the unborn may be limited by the mother's rights and interests, such as her right to "life and health". This suggests that a right to abortion may exist to protect the mother's rights to life and health.
The three Irish women may claim that Irish law breaches the convention because Irish law will permit an abortion only where there is a real and substantial risk to a woman's life. A risk to the mother's health is insufficient.
The European court has tentatively suggested that a threat to the mother's health could justify an abortion. It is unlikely that the court will rule that Irish law breaches the convention by failing to allow for abortion on health grounds. The reason for this is the approaches of other states to abortion.
The court has reviewed these approaches in previous cases and found that states have adopted different approaches which range from conservative to liberal. Where there is a wide spectrum of state approaches to an issue, the court grants states a "wide margin of appreciation" to determine their law.
However, these Irish women's claim will succeed as it involves the second type of abortion cases brought before the court. This involves a claim that the operation of a state's abortion law in practice is incompatible with the convention.
In 2007, the court assessed the operation of Poland's abortion law, which permits abortion under certain exceptions, such as a risk to a woman's life or health. A doctor commits a criminal offence if an abortion is performed outside these exceptions. A doctor must certify that an abortion is necessary to safeguard the woman's life or health.
The certifying doctor could not be the doctor who will perform the abortion.
In the Polish case, a woman sought an abortion because the birth threatened her limited eyesight. A doctor certified that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health. Another doctor disagreed with this opinion and no abortion was performed.
After the birth of the child, it was discovered that the woman's eyesight had deteriorated and there was a risk of blindness. The woman claimed that Poland had violated her right to physical integrity under the convention by failing to provide her with access to a therapeutic abortion.
The court decided that every state has a positive duty to secure respect for a person's physical and psychological integrity. It found that Poland had breached the woman's right by failing to implement procedural safeguards regarding access to a therapeutic abortion. The court decided that the law must, first and foremost, ensure clarity of the pregnant woman's legal position.
The court suggested that Polish law should establish a procedure before an independent body which could review reasons for the abortion and relevant evidence. This procedure should allow a pregnant woman to be heard in person in order to have her views considered. The independent body should also issue written grounds for its decision.
The court recognised that time is of the essence. It noted that the laws of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden had recognised the need to protect women's right to legal abortion in situations where a doctor denies such a request, including in cases where a woman's health was at risk.
The court found that the operation of the Polish law created for the woman a situation of prolonged uncertainty. As a result, she suffered severe distress and anguish.
The three Irish women will succeed because Irish abortion law is in a worse state than the invalid Polish law.
In the X case, the Supreme Court established a principle that abortion is lawful in very limited circumstances.
The people voted in favour of constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights to travel and information in 1992, and against two amendments on abortion in 1992 and 2002. Therefore, the law on abortion remains the principle in X.
Legislation is necessary to regulate the operation of this principle in practice. In the absence of legislation, there is no process by which a woman can seek an abortion.
It is uncertain as to what exact circumstances must exist before a doctor can perform a therapeutic abortion. Finally, there is no established procedure for a woman who has been refused an abortion by a doctor.
The failure of successive governments to legislate is understandable - abortion legislation may cost votes. The European Court of Human Rights will ignore this political consideration when assessing Ireland's abortion law.
Ireland can settle the case by undertaking to propose legislation reflecting the approach set out by the European court in the Polish case. Such legislation would clarify the operation of the law for women and the medical profession. Surely, this is a better approach than fighting a case that Ireland looks certain to lose.
Dr Adam McAuley is a law lecturer in the school of law and government at Dublin City University
State faces defeat over abortion law in court of human rights
The women who claim Irish abortion law is deficient will win their case unless Ireland settles it with legislation, writes Adam McAuley.
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights will judge the legality of Irish abortion law in the near future. Three Irish women are claiming that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were violated because of the deficiencies in Irish abortion law. This is not the first time that the court has addressed the sensitive issue of abortion.
Two types of abortion cases have come before this court.
The first involves a claim that the convention confers a right to life on the unborn child or a right to abortion for a woman. The court has adopted an equivocal approach in these types of cases because the convention contains no reference to the unborn child or abortion.
For example, the convention protects the right to life of "everyone".
Unlike the Constitution, the convention is silent as to whether this protection extends to the unborn child.
There are exceptions to the right to life, such as the use of reasonable force in self-defence. Abortion is not listed as an exception. Therefore, the court has refused to rule that an unborn child has a right to life or that a woman has a right to abortion.
Assuming that the unborn child has a right to life, the court has stated that any right of the unborn may be limited by the mother's rights and interests, such as her right to "life and health". This suggests that a right to abortion may exist to protect the mother's rights to life and health.
The three Irish women may claim that Irish law breaches the convention because Irish law will permit an abortion only where there is a real and substantial risk to a woman's life. A risk to the mother's health is insufficient.
The European court has tentatively suggested that a threat to the mother's health could justify an abortion. It is unlikely that the court will rule that Irish law breaches the convention by failing to allow for abortion on health grounds. The reason for this is the approaches of other states to abortion.
The court has reviewed these approaches in previous cases and found that states have adopted different approaches which range from conservative to liberal. Where there is a wide spectrum of state approaches to an issue, the court grants states a "wide margin of appreciation" to determine their law.
However, these Irish women's claim will succeed as it involves the second type of abortion cases brought before the court. This involves a claim that the operation of a state's abortion law in practice is incompatible with the convention.
In 2007, the court assessed the operation of Poland's abortion law, which permits abortion under certain exceptions, such as a risk to a woman's life or health. A doctor commits a criminal offence if an abortion is performed outside these exceptions. A doctor must certify that an abortion is necessary to safeguard the woman's life or health.
The certifying doctor could not be the doctor who will perform the abortion.
In the Polish case, a woman sought an abortion because the birth threatened her limited eyesight. A doctor certified that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health. Another doctor disagreed with this opinion and no abortion was performed.
After the birth of the child, it was discovered that the woman's eyesight had deteriorated and there was a risk of blindness. The woman claimed that Poland had violated her right to physical integrity under the convention by failing to provide her with access to a therapeutic abortion.
The court decided that every state has a positive duty to secure respect for a person's physical and psychological integrity. It found that Poland had breached the woman's right by failing to implement procedural safeguards regarding access to a therapeutic abortion. The court decided that the law must, first and foremost, ensure clarity of the pregnant woman's legal position.
The court suggested that Polish law should establish a procedure before an independent body which could review reasons for the abortion and relevant evidence. This procedure should allow a pregnant woman to be heard in person in order to have her views considered. The independent body should also issue written grounds for its decision.
The court recognised that time is of the essence. It noted that the laws of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden had recognised the need to protect women's right to legal abortion in situations where a doctor denies such a request, including in cases where a woman's health was at risk.
The court found that the operation of the Polish law created for the woman a situation of prolonged uncertainty. As a result, she suffered severe distress and anguish.
The three Irish women will succeed because Irish abortion law is in a worse state than the invalid Polish law.
In the X case, the Supreme Court established a principle that abortion is lawful in very limited circumstances.
The people voted in favour of constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights to travel and information in 1992, and against two amendments on abortion in 1992 and 2002. Therefore, the law on abortion remains the principle in X.
Legislation is necessary to regulate the operation of this principle in practice. In the absence of legislation, there is no process by which a woman can seek an abortion.
It is uncertain as to what exact circumstances must exist before a doctor can perform a therapeutic abortion. Finally, there is no established procedure for a woman who has been refused an abortion by a doctor.
The failure of successive governments to legislate is understandable - abortion legislation may cost votes. The European Court of Human Rights will ignore this political consideration when assessing Ireland's abortion law.
Ireland can settle the case by undertaking to propose legislation reflecting the approach set out by the European court in the Polish case. Such legislation would clarify the operation of the law for women and the medical profession. Surely, this is a better approach than fighting a case that Ireland looks certain to lose.
Dr Adam McAuley is a law lecturer in the school of law and government at Dublin City University
Irish Times: Judge Withdraws from Irish Abortion Hearing
July 30th 2008
Judge withdraws from Irish abortion hearing
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent
THE IRISH judge appointed to the European Court of Human Rights is to withdraw from hearing a forthcoming case involving three women living in Ireland who are challenging the State’s ban on abortion.
Dr Ann Power SC, who was appointed to the court earlier this year, will be replaced by the Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns. The court did not say why Dr Power had withdrawn except that she had done so in accordance with rule 28 of the court. This states, among other things, that judges may not take part in the consideration of any case where they have a personal interest or where they have previously acted as an adviser, advocate of a party which has an interest in the case.
Dr Power has previously represented the Irish Bishops’ Conference at an Oireachtas hearing on abortion. The group strongly supports a constitutional ban on abortion which would guarantee the right to life of the unborn child.
No date has been set for the case to be heard involving the three women, although it is likely to be within the next year.
As many as 17 judges may sit on an individual case if it is heard in public before the court’s grand chamber.
The case involving the three women is being contested on the basis that their human rights were infringed by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State. The identity of the three women – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as it proceeds through the court.
They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman with addiction problems whose children were placed in care. Their complaint centres around four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The Irish Family Planning Association, which is supporting the case as part of its campaign to introduce legal abortion services in Ireland, said the grounds on which the case is being taken are “very strong”. The association said it was pleased the case was now progressing and it understood that the Government has been invited to respond to the complaints lodged by each of the three women before the end of September.
Once the Government has submitted its response, the association – together with the three women and their legal team – will be invited to consider and comment on what has been presented.
A spokesperson for the association said: “We are hopeful that the court will issue a positive recommendation in favour of the three women. This will bring pressure to bear on the Government to reform Irish abortion laws.”
The campaign to liberalise abortion law is opposed by anti-abortion groups which argue that a new constitutional amendment is needed to prohibit abortion. They say there is a need to restore legal protection for unborn children after the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the X case, which legalised abortion in certain circumstances
Judge withdraws from Irish abortion hearing
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent
THE IRISH judge appointed to the European Court of Human Rights is to withdraw from hearing a forthcoming case involving three women living in Ireland who are challenging the State’s ban on abortion.
Dr Ann Power SC, who was appointed to the court earlier this year, will be replaced by the Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns. The court did not say why Dr Power had withdrawn except that she had done so in accordance with rule 28 of the court. This states, among other things, that judges may not take part in the consideration of any case where they have a personal interest or where they have previously acted as an adviser, advocate of a party which has an interest in the case.
Dr Power has previously represented the Irish Bishops’ Conference at an Oireachtas hearing on abortion. The group strongly supports a constitutional ban on abortion which would guarantee the right to life of the unborn child.
No date has been set for the case to be heard involving the three women, although it is likely to be within the next year.
As many as 17 judges may sit on an individual case if it is heard in public before the court’s grand chamber.
The case involving the three women is being contested on the basis that their human rights were infringed by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State. The identity of the three women – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as it proceeds through the court.
They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman with addiction problems whose children were placed in care. Their complaint centres around four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The Irish Family Planning Association, which is supporting the case as part of its campaign to introduce legal abortion services in Ireland, said the grounds on which the case is being taken are “very strong”. The association said it was pleased the case was now progressing and it understood that the Government has been invited to respond to the complaints lodged by each of the three women before the end of September.
Once the Government has submitted its response, the association – together with the three women and their legal team – will be invited to consider and comment on what has been presented.
A spokesperson for the association said: “We are hopeful that the court will issue a positive recommendation in favour of the three women. This will bring pressure to bear on the Government to reform Irish abortion laws.”
The campaign to liberalise abortion law is opposed by anti-abortion groups which argue that a new constitutional amendment is needed to prohibit abortion. They say there is a need to restore legal protection for unborn children after the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the X case, which legalised abortion in certain circumstances
Monday, July 28, 2008
Ireland- European Court To Hear Women's Challenge To Ban on Abortion
Irish Times
Monday July 28th 2008
· European court to hear women's challenge to ban on abortion
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three Irish women to the Government’s ban on abortion on the basis that their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.
The women claim the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardised their health and their wellbeing. Their complaint centres around four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The identity of the three women – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as it proceeds through the court.
They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), which is supporting the case as part of its campaign to introduce legal abortion services in Ireland, said the grounds on which the case is being taken are “very strong”.
“We hope the case will advance quickly through the court, ultimately making a strong recommendation to the Government to reform Irish laws and the current status quo on abortion,” a spokesperson said.
The Government has been asked by the court to indicate who they wish to sit as a judge in the case and to submit its observations to the Strasbourg-based court.
The case was originally lodged with the court three years ago. However, the court has in recent weeks requested written observations from the Government and the women involved.
Any decision of the court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except in very limited circumstances.
The court can decide to hold a public hearing, which would be likely to be held in the middle of next year. Alternatively, the court may review the case in paper format, followed by a public ruling, which could occur more quickly.
The IFPA says the case has the potential to contribute to a change in the law, just as the 1988 Norris case resulted in the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
It points to a ruling by the court two years ago which resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
It awarded damages to Alicia Tysiac, a 36-year-old woman who had sought an abortion when her doctor warned that giving birth again would seriously damage her already failing eyesight.
She was unable to terminate the pregnancy. After giving birth, she suffered a retinal haemorrhage, and her sight deteriorated drastically.
Anti-abortion groups here, meanwhile, argue that a new constitutional amendment is needed to prohibit abortion.
They say there is a need to restore legal protection for unborn children as a result of the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the X case, which legalised abortion in certain circumstances.
Monday July 28th 2008
· European court to hear women's challenge to ban on abortion
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three Irish women to the Government’s ban on abortion on the basis that their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.
The women claim the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardised their health and their wellbeing. Their complaint centres around four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The identity of the three women – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as it proceeds through the court.
They include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), which is supporting the case as part of its campaign to introduce legal abortion services in Ireland, said the grounds on which the case is being taken are “very strong”.
“We hope the case will advance quickly through the court, ultimately making a strong recommendation to the Government to reform Irish laws and the current status quo on abortion,” a spokesperson said.
The Government has been asked by the court to indicate who they wish to sit as a judge in the case and to submit its observations to the Strasbourg-based court.
The case was originally lodged with the court three years ago. However, the court has in recent weeks requested written observations from the Government and the women involved.
Any decision of the court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except in very limited circumstances.
The court can decide to hold a public hearing, which would be likely to be held in the middle of next year. Alternatively, the court may review the case in paper format, followed by a public ruling, which could occur more quickly.
The IFPA says the case has the potential to contribute to a change in the law, just as the 1988 Norris case resulted in the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
It points to a ruling by the court two years ago which resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
It awarded damages to Alicia Tysiac, a 36-year-old woman who had sought an abortion when her doctor warned that giving birth again would seriously damage her already failing eyesight.
She was unable to terminate the pregnancy. After giving birth, she suffered a retinal haemorrhage, and her sight deteriorated drastically.
Anti-abortion groups here, meanwhile, argue that a new constitutional amendment is needed to prohibit abortion.
They say there is a need to restore legal protection for unborn children as a result of the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the X case, which legalised abortion in certain circumstances.
Tug of War Over Right to Choose in Poland
Tug-of-war over the right to choose
DEREK SCALLY The Irish Times July 28th 2008
The dramatic case of a 14-year-old girl who sought a termination to her pregnancy became a high-profile battle between the two sides of the bitter Polish abortion debate, writes Derek Scally.
ON A BUSY Warsaw street, a dazed teenage girl trots to keep up with her mother, who strides through the crowd, throwing anxious glances behind her. A small woman is following them, running to keep up. The mother hails a taxi and jumps in with her daughter.
"Just drive, just drive!" she screams at the driver. Outside, she hears the small woman calling in the taxi's licence plate on her mobile phone. Then the passenger door is ripped open and their pursuer climbs in.
"Leave us alone, woman!" screams the mother.
The smaller woman ignores her and barks at the speechless taxi driver: "If you don't want to have problems with the police you'll stay right where you are." The woman delivering the orders isn't an undercover police officer chasing bank robbers. She is a pro-life activist; the prize she is chasing lies inside the 14-year-old.
It's the dramatic high point of an extraordinary tale that played out last month, of an ordinary mother and daughter in the limbo of Poland's abortion laws, caught between passive public officials and intimidating pro-life activists.
The story began several weeks earlier when Anna, a single mother in Lublin, southwest Poland, got a call from a local gynaecologist. The doctor said that Anna's daughter was pregnant, even though she was underage. The father, also underage, was a boy in school, the circumstances of the pregnancy unclear. Today, Agata, the pseudonym by which the 14-year-old is now known in Poland, is reticent about how she became pregnant.
"I knew I was pregnant but it didn't feel like it was happening to me," she says, sitting in a Lublin basement bar, studying her fingers as she relives her ordeal. She is a gamine, dark-haired girl with jewel-like eyes, one minute a nervous child, the next an engaging young woman. She is a collection of pubescent contradictions who falls silent when her mother interrupts her.
"She knew she was pregnant, but she didn't know what it meant," says Anna, a thin, outspoken woman with long blond hair and a friendly, tired smile.
"When I heard, I just thought: 'What to do? What to do? Go somewhere, do something.' I felt like I was watching my own life from a distance."
When mother and daughter agreed that an abortion would be best, Anna knew they would have a fight on their hands. But she says she had no idea of the battle they would face.
Along with Ireland, Poland has some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in Europe.
Termination is permitted in only three cases: where the life or health of the mother is at risk, where the foetus is severely and irreversibly damaged or incurably ill, or where the pregnancy is the result of a criminal act. In Agata's case it was the third category: both she and the boy were minors. But the reality of modern Poland is that these already restrictive laws are applied even more restrictively. Gynaecologists may refuse to perform an abortion for reasons of conscience. If so, they are obliged under law to find another doctor who will comply with the woman's wishes. But there is no legal mechanism to sanction doctors who refuse to do so, which often happens.
"The government accepts that women have these limited rights to abortion under the law, but says it doesn't have an obligation to make these rights real," says Wanda Nowicka, head of the Women's Federation in Warsaw, and the country's leading campaigner for the liberalisation of reproductive rights.
Some 30 years ago, she says, women from all over Europe headed to communist Poland for abortions. Today, Poland is experiencing a return to "traditional" Catholic values with an active pro-life lobby and a growing number of doctors who refuse to perform even legal abortions. In 2006, among 10 million Polish women of a reproductive age, just 340 women had legal abortions, down from 682 a decade earlier.
RECENTLY IN PARLIAMENT, a new law to allow for the protection of life from the moment of conception only narrowly failed to pass.
"It's a top-down movement of Catholic clergy, opportunisitic politicians and conservative lawyers that want further restrictions," says Nowicka, pointing to a recent survey showing that 46 per cent are in favour of more liberal regulations. With the restrictive regulations, between 50,000 and 80,000 women have back-street abortions each year, costing as much as 4,000 Polish zlotych (€1,200) a time; others travel to Britain, Ukraine and Belarus. An unknown number order so-called "abortion pills" via the internet.
Anna and Agata decided against a backstreet abortion and decided to proceed officially. It was a decision they came to regret as one hospital after another in Lublin rejected their request, claiming they were unsure whether they were legally entitled to perform the procedure.
"The law is clear on this, it's people who make it complicated, and you can create obstacles if you want, without fear of disciplinary proceedings," says Monika Gasiorowska, lawyer for Anna and Agata.
"Officials told Anna she needed one statement, then another, she needed signatures, then witnessed signatures. All unnecessary obstacles. This was a crime, we had statements, but they kept putting obstacles in her way."
As her mother battled the bureaucrats, Agata spent a week waiting in a Lublin hospital as the 12-week deadline neared, after which it would be illegal to have an abortion.
A frequent visitor was Fr Krzysztof Podstawka, a pro-life activist and head of the local church-sponsored centre for single mothers. Fr Podstawka, a tanned, handsome 39-year-old, grew up in Lublin. At a cafe behind the city's Catholic University, he speaks in an earnest, modulated tone about how he became involved in the Agata case.
"I heard through the hospital that there was a girl there who needed help. There were signals that her decision to have an abortion was not fully independent," he says. "I decided to drop by to talk to her because I felt she should know all her options. I got the impression after talking to her that here was a girl who was expecting my help."
Today, he declines to elaborate on who at the hospital contacted him, and is unclear about what signals he received. But, after meetings Agata several times, he produced a letter from her in which she wrote that she was prepared to keep the baby.
"Fr Krzysztof pressured me to write the letter. I didn't think he would use it against me," says Agata, shaking her head at the memory. "He cared more about the baby than me, he would have done anything to save the baby without any regard for me."
Fr Podstawka denies pressuring Agata to write the letter, claiming she had told school friends that she wanted a baby.
After a week and no abortion, Agata and Anna left the Lublin hospital. Fr Podstawka heard through sources he declines to identify that they had contacted the Women's Federation and were travelling to Warsaw to go through with the abortion.
Mother and daughter, confident they had left their problems behind in Lublin, were shocked when the priest walked into the Warsaw clinic. "I had business in Warsaw and decided to drop by the hospital," he says.
Anna and Agata don't believe that; they say he obtained Agata's medical records from fellow pro-lifers at Lublin hospital, a breach of patient confidentiality.
"He went to the hospital in Warsaw on purpose, 1,000 per cent," says Anna vigorously. "I'd cut off my hand to swear that he came to the hospital on purpose." Shortly after Fr Podstawka arrived in Warsaw, Agata's details appeared on the internet and events spiralled out of control.
HUNDREDS OF E-MAILS began arriving in the hospital administration office, and the phones starting ringing incessantly. A crowd of pro-life campaigners picketed the hospital entrance and smuggled in gifts to Agata: a box of chocolates with a card reading "Open your heart"; a foetus development picture book. Anna's hopes that everyone would leave them alone were draining away, replaced by constant, growing psychological pressure.
"We wanted to be polite to Fr Podstawka as we're talking to you now," says Anna. "But I simply cannot understand how complete strangers forced themselves so brutally into our lives with no respect whatsoever."
As a media circus pitched up outside the hospital, the hospital director and a city official held a crisis meeting with Anna to explain why they would not now be able to perform the abortion.
"They showed me hundreds of e-mails from pro-lifers, starting with one from Fr Podstawka, containing Agata's personal data. I was so emotional I broke down in tears," says Anna. "I started screaming: 'What the f**k do they want from us?' Then the city hall official said that if they went ahead with the abortion, the protesters would ruin the hospital. 'They won't leave us alone, they'll destroy the hospital's reputation, women will be afraid to come here in future.' "
Unknown to Anna at the time, pro-life campaigners had lobbied Lublin family court to strip her of custody of Agata. The grounds: suspicion that she was forcing her daughter to have an abortion. A fax to that effect was sent to the hospital in Warsaw, just as a distraught Anna left with Agata, pushing her way through the crowd of campaigners outside.
One of them followed them through the streets of Warsaw, shouting "Agata, I love you!" When that didn't slow them down, she cornered them in the taxi, announcing: "This woman has been stripped of her parental rights."
"I don't know how she knew about the Lublin court ruling," says Anna. "It wasn't even public yet."
By now in panic, Anna dragged Agata from the taxi and hailed a passing police car that took them to the next police station. When the police heard about the Lublin court decision, Fr Podstawka had shown up once again, and mother and daughter were returned to Lublin in a police van. There, they were separated and Agata was placed in juvenile care.
After two unsuccessful attempts to have an abortion, confronting a pro-life mob and being chased through the streets of Warsaw, the 14-year-old was still pregnant and now very much alone. She was headline news, but her only contact with the outside world was the chirruping of her mobile phone, delivering text messages of "support" from strangers as well as a steady stream of texts from Fr Podstawka.
He says she contacted him first after he gave her his number. She says the messages were initiated by him, and that he made her number public on the internet.
"He would keep sending messages," Agata remembers, "saying things like: 'People from Krakow, Warsaw and Poznan are joining together to help you. Be brave.' " After 10 hours in the juvenile home, she began bleeding heavily and was rushed to hospital and placed in an isolation ward, away from her mother. For Anna, this was the lowest point in the ordeal.
"They put her in isolation to enable her to make up her own mind. It was just too much to have so many people judging us, judging me as a bad mother, a good-for-nothing," she says.
Unknown to her, assistants of Fr Podstawka were still able to visit Agata. As the pressure continued to build, health minister Eva Kopacz was forced to intervene. She arranged for Agata to travel to a clinic in another city for the termination. After that news leaked via a Catholic news agency, pro-life campaigners called for the minister's resignation; others are campaigning for her excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The health ministry declined requests for an interview, noting only in a written statement that, in Poland, the "right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion in limited circumstances is equivalent to the right of a doctor to deny health services for reasons of conscience".
IN MANY WAYS, the Agata saga is of the government's own making. Two years ago, Poland was instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It awarded damages to Alicia Tysiac, a 36-year-old woman who had sought an abortion when her doctor warned that giving birth again would seriously damage her already failing eye-sight. She was passed from one doctor to the next, each delivering a different diagnosis about the risks of giving birth, until it became too late to terminate the pregnancy. After giving birth, she suffered a retinal haemorrhage, and her sight deteriorated drastically.
In Strasbourg she won costs and €25,000 in damages and a ruling that the Polish government "must not structure its legal framework in such a way as to limit" legal access to abortion. Poland had breached Tysiac's rights by not having an effective mechanism to rule on whether she had met the legal conditions for a legal abortion.
Two years on, provisions to change that situation are in political limbo in parliament, along with the rest of a health reform bill.
"The government has still done nothing," says Tysiac, the euphoria of last year's ruling long past. "There is a complete lack of interest by the government in the situation of women, and they don't act unless they absolutely have to."
She is not sure that the situation will even improve for women refused legal abortions, particularly if the proposed appeals body is filled with doctors who have conscientious objections to abortion.
An even greater obstacle in the battle for greater reproductive rights, says Wanda Nowicka of the Women's Federation, is widespread public hypocrisy towards abortion.
"The hypocrisy extends to women who come to us seeking help. They say they are actually anti-abortion but need an abortion just in their own, special case. It's difficult to plan a revolution with people like that."
HYPOCRISY ABOUT abortion is not limited to Poland, but the Agata case did demonstrate several other uniquely Polish elements.
The strength of the religious right in Poland means that, in the public debate on abortion, it is able to define the terms, for instance, warning that liberalising abortion laws will create what they term a "culture of death".
Public officials defer to these groups, wittingly or unwittingly, and demonstrate little knowledge - or interest in knowing - about Poland's human rights obligations under various international treaties.
The most Polish element of the Agata saga, however, is a tradition of public piety, one that compels people to actively and publicly intervene in a stranger's personal decision. In the battle to prevent a "culture of death", it seems that the end justifies almost all means.
"After learning about the case, I was prepared to do virtually everything for her," said Fr Podstawka. Today, he says he regrets how the case turned into a media circus, and that Agata had an abortion. However he says he acted in clear conscience and alone, denying that he leaked Agata's details. But Agata and her mother say they have seen proof that he did just that.
"Even if law permits abortion of a pregnancy resulting from a forbidden act - sex between minors - it doesn't mean you have to agree to it," says Fr Podstawka. "From the beginning I acted as a man of faith who tried to help a girl in a difficult situation. We lost this battle but the war is not over."
Asked how she may have given him the impression that the decision to terminate the pregnancy was not her own, an incredulous Agata replies with a flash of anger in her eyes.
"Let's put it this way: if the leader of a pro-life movement wants to protect a baby, what else would he say?" In the moral hall of mirrors of modern Poland, little is as it appears. Fr Podstawka sees himself as a man of moral convictions who saw a girl in need and an unborn life to protect. Speaking to him, it is clear that, far from the Polish media portrayals, he is a measured, earnest and intense man of genuine conviction. Women's groups condemn Fr Podstawka for taking a 14-year-old girl hostage in an ideological battle, and the government for allowing him to do so. But the silent majority in Poland isn't lining up to support them in their condemnation.
Agata and Anna feel harassed and betrayed, but have limited options for redress: the only clear breach of the law was the leaking of Agata's medical details. Their lawyer is doubtful that they would secure a conviction if they pursued a case.
"Every day I have to repeat that it's over, it's gone, it won't come back," says Agata slowly. "I will feel it's over once I am able to cry and shout in Fr Krzysztof's face after all he's done to me: 'You shouldn't have done that. All those people shouldn't have done that to me.' I need to do that."
Her mother shakes her head, gathering herself up to head home. "That's not the way to do it, you can't do that," she says. "All I want, the way to solve this, is for our public servants to perform their duty."
Anna and Agata's names have been changed
DEREK SCALLY The Irish Times July 28th 2008
The dramatic case of a 14-year-old girl who sought a termination to her pregnancy became a high-profile battle between the two sides of the bitter Polish abortion debate, writes Derek Scally.
ON A BUSY Warsaw street, a dazed teenage girl trots to keep up with her mother, who strides through the crowd, throwing anxious glances behind her. A small woman is following them, running to keep up. The mother hails a taxi and jumps in with her daughter.
"Just drive, just drive!" she screams at the driver. Outside, she hears the small woman calling in the taxi's licence plate on her mobile phone. Then the passenger door is ripped open and their pursuer climbs in.
"Leave us alone, woman!" screams the mother.
The smaller woman ignores her and barks at the speechless taxi driver: "If you don't want to have problems with the police you'll stay right where you are." The woman delivering the orders isn't an undercover police officer chasing bank robbers. She is a pro-life activist; the prize she is chasing lies inside the 14-year-old.
It's the dramatic high point of an extraordinary tale that played out last month, of an ordinary mother and daughter in the limbo of Poland's abortion laws, caught between passive public officials and intimidating pro-life activists.
The story began several weeks earlier when Anna, a single mother in Lublin, southwest Poland, got a call from a local gynaecologist. The doctor said that Anna's daughter was pregnant, even though she was underage. The father, also underage, was a boy in school, the circumstances of the pregnancy unclear. Today, Agata, the pseudonym by which the 14-year-old is now known in Poland, is reticent about how she became pregnant.
"I knew I was pregnant but it didn't feel like it was happening to me," she says, sitting in a Lublin basement bar, studying her fingers as she relives her ordeal. She is a gamine, dark-haired girl with jewel-like eyes, one minute a nervous child, the next an engaging young woman. She is a collection of pubescent contradictions who falls silent when her mother interrupts her.
"She knew she was pregnant, but she didn't know what it meant," says Anna, a thin, outspoken woman with long blond hair and a friendly, tired smile.
"When I heard, I just thought: 'What to do? What to do? Go somewhere, do something.' I felt like I was watching my own life from a distance."
When mother and daughter agreed that an abortion would be best, Anna knew they would have a fight on their hands. But she says she had no idea of the battle they would face.
Along with Ireland, Poland has some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in Europe.
Termination is permitted in only three cases: where the life or health of the mother is at risk, where the foetus is severely and irreversibly damaged or incurably ill, or where the pregnancy is the result of a criminal act. In Agata's case it was the third category: both she and the boy were minors. But the reality of modern Poland is that these already restrictive laws are applied even more restrictively. Gynaecologists may refuse to perform an abortion for reasons of conscience. If so, they are obliged under law to find another doctor who will comply with the woman's wishes. But there is no legal mechanism to sanction doctors who refuse to do so, which often happens.
"The government accepts that women have these limited rights to abortion under the law, but says it doesn't have an obligation to make these rights real," says Wanda Nowicka, head of the Women's Federation in Warsaw, and the country's leading campaigner for the liberalisation of reproductive rights.
Some 30 years ago, she says, women from all over Europe headed to communist Poland for abortions. Today, Poland is experiencing a return to "traditional" Catholic values with an active pro-life lobby and a growing number of doctors who refuse to perform even legal abortions. In 2006, among 10 million Polish women of a reproductive age, just 340 women had legal abortions, down from 682 a decade earlier.
RECENTLY IN PARLIAMENT, a new law to allow for the protection of life from the moment of conception only narrowly failed to pass.
"It's a top-down movement of Catholic clergy, opportunisitic politicians and conservative lawyers that want further restrictions," says Nowicka, pointing to a recent survey showing that 46 per cent are in favour of more liberal regulations. With the restrictive regulations, between 50,000 and 80,000 women have back-street abortions each year, costing as much as 4,000 Polish zlotych (€1,200) a time; others travel to Britain, Ukraine and Belarus. An unknown number order so-called "abortion pills" via the internet.
Anna and Agata decided against a backstreet abortion and decided to proceed officially. It was a decision they came to regret as one hospital after another in Lublin rejected their request, claiming they were unsure whether they were legally entitled to perform the procedure.
"The law is clear on this, it's people who make it complicated, and you can create obstacles if you want, without fear of disciplinary proceedings," says Monika Gasiorowska, lawyer for Anna and Agata.
"Officials told Anna she needed one statement, then another, she needed signatures, then witnessed signatures. All unnecessary obstacles. This was a crime, we had statements, but they kept putting obstacles in her way."
As her mother battled the bureaucrats, Agata spent a week waiting in a Lublin hospital as the 12-week deadline neared, after which it would be illegal to have an abortion.
A frequent visitor was Fr Krzysztof Podstawka, a pro-life activist and head of the local church-sponsored centre for single mothers. Fr Podstawka, a tanned, handsome 39-year-old, grew up in Lublin. At a cafe behind the city's Catholic University, he speaks in an earnest, modulated tone about how he became involved in the Agata case.
"I heard through the hospital that there was a girl there who needed help. There were signals that her decision to have an abortion was not fully independent," he says. "I decided to drop by to talk to her because I felt she should know all her options. I got the impression after talking to her that here was a girl who was expecting my help."
Today, he declines to elaborate on who at the hospital contacted him, and is unclear about what signals he received. But, after meetings Agata several times, he produced a letter from her in which she wrote that she was prepared to keep the baby.
"Fr Krzysztof pressured me to write the letter. I didn't think he would use it against me," says Agata, shaking her head at the memory. "He cared more about the baby than me, he would have done anything to save the baby without any regard for me."
Fr Podstawka denies pressuring Agata to write the letter, claiming she had told school friends that she wanted a baby.
After a week and no abortion, Agata and Anna left the Lublin hospital. Fr Podstawka heard through sources he declines to identify that they had contacted the Women's Federation and were travelling to Warsaw to go through with the abortion.
Mother and daughter, confident they had left their problems behind in Lublin, were shocked when the priest walked into the Warsaw clinic. "I had business in Warsaw and decided to drop by the hospital," he says.
Anna and Agata don't believe that; they say he obtained Agata's medical records from fellow pro-lifers at Lublin hospital, a breach of patient confidentiality.
"He went to the hospital in Warsaw on purpose, 1,000 per cent," says Anna vigorously. "I'd cut off my hand to swear that he came to the hospital on purpose." Shortly after Fr Podstawka arrived in Warsaw, Agata's details appeared on the internet and events spiralled out of control.
HUNDREDS OF E-MAILS began arriving in the hospital administration office, and the phones starting ringing incessantly. A crowd of pro-life campaigners picketed the hospital entrance and smuggled in gifts to Agata: a box of chocolates with a card reading "Open your heart"; a foetus development picture book. Anna's hopes that everyone would leave them alone were draining away, replaced by constant, growing psychological pressure.
"We wanted to be polite to Fr Podstawka as we're talking to you now," says Anna. "But I simply cannot understand how complete strangers forced themselves so brutally into our lives with no respect whatsoever."
As a media circus pitched up outside the hospital, the hospital director and a city official held a crisis meeting with Anna to explain why they would not now be able to perform the abortion.
"They showed me hundreds of e-mails from pro-lifers, starting with one from Fr Podstawka, containing Agata's personal data. I was so emotional I broke down in tears," says Anna. "I started screaming: 'What the f**k do they want from us?' Then the city hall official said that if they went ahead with the abortion, the protesters would ruin the hospital. 'They won't leave us alone, they'll destroy the hospital's reputation, women will be afraid to come here in future.' "
Unknown to Anna at the time, pro-life campaigners had lobbied Lublin family court to strip her of custody of Agata. The grounds: suspicion that she was forcing her daughter to have an abortion. A fax to that effect was sent to the hospital in Warsaw, just as a distraught Anna left with Agata, pushing her way through the crowd of campaigners outside.
One of them followed them through the streets of Warsaw, shouting "Agata, I love you!" When that didn't slow them down, she cornered them in the taxi, announcing: "This woman has been stripped of her parental rights."
"I don't know how she knew about the Lublin court ruling," says Anna. "It wasn't even public yet."
By now in panic, Anna dragged Agata from the taxi and hailed a passing police car that took them to the next police station. When the police heard about the Lublin court decision, Fr Podstawka had shown up once again, and mother and daughter were returned to Lublin in a police van. There, they were separated and Agata was placed in juvenile care.
After two unsuccessful attempts to have an abortion, confronting a pro-life mob and being chased through the streets of Warsaw, the 14-year-old was still pregnant and now very much alone. She was headline news, but her only contact with the outside world was the chirruping of her mobile phone, delivering text messages of "support" from strangers as well as a steady stream of texts from Fr Podstawka.
He says she contacted him first after he gave her his number. She says the messages were initiated by him, and that he made her number public on the internet.
"He would keep sending messages," Agata remembers, "saying things like: 'People from Krakow, Warsaw and Poznan are joining together to help you. Be brave.' " After 10 hours in the juvenile home, she began bleeding heavily and was rushed to hospital and placed in an isolation ward, away from her mother. For Anna, this was the lowest point in the ordeal.
"They put her in isolation to enable her to make up her own mind. It was just too much to have so many people judging us, judging me as a bad mother, a good-for-nothing," she says.
Unknown to her, assistants of Fr Podstawka were still able to visit Agata. As the pressure continued to build, health minister Eva Kopacz was forced to intervene. She arranged for Agata to travel to a clinic in another city for the termination. After that news leaked via a Catholic news agency, pro-life campaigners called for the minister's resignation; others are campaigning for her excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The health ministry declined requests for an interview, noting only in a written statement that, in Poland, the "right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion in limited circumstances is equivalent to the right of a doctor to deny health services for reasons of conscience".
IN MANY WAYS, the Agata saga is of the government's own making. Two years ago, Poland was instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It awarded damages to Alicia Tysiac, a 36-year-old woman who had sought an abortion when her doctor warned that giving birth again would seriously damage her already failing eye-sight. She was passed from one doctor to the next, each delivering a different diagnosis about the risks of giving birth, until it became too late to terminate the pregnancy. After giving birth, she suffered a retinal haemorrhage, and her sight deteriorated drastically.
In Strasbourg she won costs and €25,000 in damages and a ruling that the Polish government "must not structure its legal framework in such a way as to limit" legal access to abortion. Poland had breached Tysiac's rights by not having an effective mechanism to rule on whether she had met the legal conditions for a legal abortion.
Two years on, provisions to change that situation are in political limbo in parliament, along with the rest of a health reform bill.
"The government has still done nothing," says Tysiac, the euphoria of last year's ruling long past. "There is a complete lack of interest by the government in the situation of women, and they don't act unless they absolutely have to."
She is not sure that the situation will even improve for women refused legal abortions, particularly if the proposed appeals body is filled with doctors who have conscientious objections to abortion.
An even greater obstacle in the battle for greater reproductive rights, says Wanda Nowicka of the Women's Federation, is widespread public hypocrisy towards abortion.
"The hypocrisy extends to women who come to us seeking help. They say they are actually anti-abortion but need an abortion just in their own, special case. It's difficult to plan a revolution with people like that."
HYPOCRISY ABOUT abortion is not limited to Poland, but the Agata case did demonstrate several other uniquely Polish elements.
The strength of the religious right in Poland means that, in the public debate on abortion, it is able to define the terms, for instance, warning that liberalising abortion laws will create what they term a "culture of death".
Public officials defer to these groups, wittingly or unwittingly, and demonstrate little knowledge - or interest in knowing - about Poland's human rights obligations under various international treaties.
The most Polish element of the Agata saga, however, is a tradition of public piety, one that compels people to actively and publicly intervene in a stranger's personal decision. In the battle to prevent a "culture of death", it seems that the end justifies almost all means.
"After learning about the case, I was prepared to do virtually everything for her," said Fr Podstawka. Today, he says he regrets how the case turned into a media circus, and that Agata had an abortion. However he says he acted in clear conscience and alone, denying that he leaked Agata's details. But Agata and her mother say they have seen proof that he did just that.
"Even if law permits abortion of a pregnancy resulting from a forbidden act - sex between minors - it doesn't mean you have to agree to it," says Fr Podstawka. "From the beginning I acted as a man of faith who tried to help a girl in a difficult situation. We lost this battle but the war is not over."
Asked how she may have given him the impression that the decision to terminate the pregnancy was not her own, an incredulous Agata replies with a flash of anger in her eyes.
"Let's put it this way: if the leader of a pro-life movement wants to protect a baby, what else would he say?" In the moral hall of mirrors of modern Poland, little is as it appears. Fr Podstawka sees himself as a man of moral convictions who saw a girl in need and an unborn life to protect. Speaking to him, it is clear that, far from the Polish media portrayals, he is a measured, earnest and intense man of genuine conviction. Women's groups condemn Fr Podstawka for taking a 14-year-old girl hostage in an ideological battle, and the government for allowing him to do so. But the silent majority in Poland isn't lining up to support them in their condemnation.
Agata and Anna feel harassed and betrayed, but have limited options for redress: the only clear breach of the law was the leaking of Agata's medical details. Their lawyer is doubtful that they would secure a conviction if they pursued a case.
"Every day I have to repeat that it's over, it's gone, it won't come back," says Agata slowly. "I will feel it's over once I am able to cry and shout in Fr Krzysztof's face after all he's done to me: 'You shouldn't have done that. All those people shouldn't have done that to me.' I need to do that."
Her mother shakes her head, gathering herself up to head home. "That's not the way to do it, you can't do that," she says. "All I want, the way to solve this, is for our public servants to perform their duty."
Anna and Agata's names have been changed
UN Human Rights Committee Makes Recommendation on Abortion to Ireland
UN Human Rights Committee makes recommendation on abortion to Ireland.
13. The Committee reiterates its concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the Committee regrets that the progress in this regard is slow. (arts. 2, 3, 6, 26)
The State party should bring its abortion laws into line with the Covenant. It should take measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies so that they do not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions that could put their lifes at risk (article 6) or to abortions abroad (articles 26 and 6).
13. The Committee reiterates its concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the Committee regrets that the progress in this regard is slow. (arts. 2, 3, 6, 26)
The State party should bring its abortion laws into line with the Covenant. It should take measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies so that they do not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions that could put their lifes at risk (article 6) or to abortions abroad (articles 26 and 6).
Abortion raised in Report of UN Human Rights Committee Examination of Ireland
Irish Times July 24th 2008
· State urged to control suspected rendition flights
THE UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva has called on the Government to establish a regime for the control of suspected rendition flights through its airports, and has also urged an amendment to the keynote article of the Constitution dealing with the family to ensure its wording is "gender-neutral".
The international committee of jurists has also urged amendments to the recent Immigration Bill to ensure the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers are protected, and to remove provisions in the legislation that would allow for summary deportation even in cases that are being reviewed or where appeals have been lodged in the courts.
The UN committee has also thrown its weight behind criticisms of overcrowding and "slopping out" conditions in Irish prisons.
These are among 19 recommendations in the committee's concluding observations on Ireland's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have been seen by The Irish Times.
The observations follow two days of questioning in Geneva last week of the Government on its compliance with the covenant, which it signed in 1989. The Government was represented by the Attorney General, Paul Gallagher, and the secretary general of the Department of Justice, Sean Aylward.
The committee praised various measures taken by the Government since 1989, including the Mental Health Act in 2001, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, and the establishment of a Human Rights Commission, the Garda Ombudsman Commission, the Equality Authority and the Equality Tribunal.
However, it recommended measures to ensure the effective functioning of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and to enhance the independence of the Human Rights Commission by increasing its resources and making it directly answerable to the Oireachtas. At the moment it falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice.
This recommendation comes as news emerged yesterday of a proposal that the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority be merged with a number of other bodies, including the Disability Authority, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Equality Tribunal.
The Irish Human Rights Commission yesterday responded to this suggestion by recalling its position under the Belfast Agreement, and stressed that any changes should comply fully with the letter and spirit of the agreement, and in no way undermine human rights protection.
The UN committee also urged the Government to ensure the Civil Partnership Bill will include tax and welfare benefits. It called for the reinforcement of measures to ensure equality between women and men, including more funding for the institutions established to promote it.
It recommended that the State bring its abortion laws into line with the articles in the covenant dealing with the right to life and equality between men and women, so that women did not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions.
It outlined a number of recommendations for amendments to the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, including the outlawing of summary removal, full access to early and free legal representation and an independent appeals procedure. The Minister for Justice should not appoint members of the new Protection Review Tribunal, it stated.
Welcoming the observations, Irish Council for Civil Liberties deputy director Tanya Ward urged the Government to immediately acknowledge these concerns and address them in a substantive and meaningful way.
· UN committee not accepting Ireland's excuses for inaction on human rights
"Much done, more to do" describes the UN Human Rights Committee's observations on Ireland's human rights record, writes Carol CoulterLegal Affairs Editor
IN THE 19 years since Ireland signed up to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights much progress has been made, as the UN committee charged with overseeing it acknowledges in its third progress report on Ireland. It identifies about 19 areas where compliance should be improved.
This follows the third report from the Government, as part of the monitoring process that goes with signing up to the covenant. Every five years a report is submitted by the signatory, known as the "State party", followed by a questioning of government representatives at a meeting in Geneva.
The UN committee is assisted in its questioning by the preparation of a "Shadow Report" by human rights NGOs. That meeting took place last week, where Ireland, represented by the Attorney General Paul Gallagher and the secretary general of the Department of Justice Seán Aylward, sought to defend Ireland's record.
It is clear from the final observations, issued yesterday, that many of Ireland's excuses for inaction or lack of provision were not accepted, and a number of both policy and structural changes in its human rights machinery have been recommended. Action is urged in the following areas:
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
While welcoming the establishment of the Irish Human Rights Commission, the committee regretted the limited resources of the commission as well as its administrative link to a Government department (Justice). It urged strengthening of the independence and capacity of the Irish Human Rights Commission by endowing it with adequate and sufficient resources, and linking it to the Oireachtas.
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL
The committee, while noting the State party's intention to adopt legislation on a Civil Partnership Bill, expressed concern that no provisions on taxation and social welfare are proposed. It is concerned the State party has not recognised a change of gender by transgender persons by allowing revised birth certificates for these persons.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The committee, while noting efforts by the State party in combating domestic violence, is still concerned about continuing impunity due to high rates of complaint withdrawal, and few convictions. It regrets the lack of gender-based statistics on complaints, prosecutions and sentences in matters of violence against women.
EQUALITY
The committee was concerned that, despite considerable progress in recent years, inequalities between women and men continue to persist in many areas of life, and urged increased funding for the institutions established to promote and protect gender equality.
COUNTER-TERRORISM
The State party should introduce a definition of "terrorist acts" in legislation, limited to offences which can justifiably be equated with terrorism and its consequences. It urged the State party to establish a regime for control of suspicious flights and to ensure all allegations of so-called renditions are publicly investigated.
ABORTION
The committee reiterated its concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the committee regrets that the progress in this regard is slow.
POLICING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The committee said the State party should take measures to ensure effective functioning of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The State party should give full effect to rights of suspects to contact counsel before, and to have counsel present during, interrogation.
PRISONS
The committee has numerous concerns about prisoners. Overcrowding and "slopping out" of human waste should be priority issues, it said.
RELIGION
It expressed concern at the requirement that judges take a religious oath, and that most primary schools were denominational, and urged that alternative non-denomination primary education be available.
IMMIGRATION
It expressed concern at a number of aspects of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill over summary deportation, absence of an immediate right to legal assistance and independence of the appeals procedure.
· State urged to control suspected rendition flights
THE UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva has called on the Government to establish a regime for the control of suspected rendition flights through its airports, and has also urged an amendment to the keynote article of the Constitution dealing with the family to ensure its wording is "gender-neutral".
The international committee of jurists has also urged amendments to the recent Immigration Bill to ensure the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers are protected, and to remove provisions in the legislation that would allow for summary deportation even in cases that are being reviewed or where appeals have been lodged in the courts.
The UN committee has also thrown its weight behind criticisms of overcrowding and "slopping out" conditions in Irish prisons.
These are among 19 recommendations in the committee's concluding observations on Ireland's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have been seen by The Irish Times.
The observations follow two days of questioning in Geneva last week of the Government on its compliance with the covenant, which it signed in 1989. The Government was represented by the Attorney General, Paul Gallagher, and the secretary general of the Department of Justice, Sean Aylward.
The committee praised various measures taken by the Government since 1989, including the Mental Health Act in 2001, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, and the establishment of a Human Rights Commission, the Garda Ombudsman Commission, the Equality Authority and the Equality Tribunal.
However, it recommended measures to ensure the effective functioning of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and to enhance the independence of the Human Rights Commission by increasing its resources and making it directly answerable to the Oireachtas. At the moment it falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice.
This recommendation comes as news emerged yesterday of a proposal that the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority be merged with a number of other bodies, including the Disability Authority, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Equality Tribunal.
The Irish Human Rights Commission yesterday responded to this suggestion by recalling its position under the Belfast Agreement, and stressed that any changes should comply fully with the letter and spirit of the agreement, and in no way undermine human rights protection.
The UN committee also urged the Government to ensure the Civil Partnership Bill will include tax and welfare benefits. It called for the reinforcement of measures to ensure equality between women and men, including more funding for the institutions established to promote it.
It recommended that the State bring its abortion laws into line with the articles in the covenant dealing with the right to life and equality between men and women, so that women did not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions.
It outlined a number of recommendations for amendments to the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, including the outlawing of summary removal, full access to early and free legal representation and an independent appeals procedure. The Minister for Justice should not appoint members of the new Protection Review Tribunal, it stated.
Welcoming the observations, Irish Council for Civil Liberties deputy director Tanya Ward urged the Government to immediately acknowledge these concerns and address them in a substantive and meaningful way.
· UN committee not accepting Ireland's excuses for inaction on human rights
"Much done, more to do" describes the UN Human Rights Committee's observations on Ireland's human rights record, writes Carol CoulterLegal Affairs Editor
IN THE 19 years since Ireland signed up to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights much progress has been made, as the UN committee charged with overseeing it acknowledges in its third progress report on Ireland. It identifies about 19 areas where compliance should be improved.
This follows the third report from the Government, as part of the monitoring process that goes with signing up to the covenant. Every five years a report is submitted by the signatory, known as the "State party", followed by a questioning of government representatives at a meeting in Geneva.
The UN committee is assisted in its questioning by the preparation of a "Shadow Report" by human rights NGOs. That meeting took place last week, where Ireland, represented by the Attorney General Paul Gallagher and the secretary general of the Department of Justice Seán Aylward, sought to defend Ireland's record.
It is clear from the final observations, issued yesterday, that many of Ireland's excuses for inaction or lack of provision were not accepted, and a number of both policy and structural changes in its human rights machinery have been recommended. Action is urged in the following areas:
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
While welcoming the establishment of the Irish Human Rights Commission, the committee regretted the limited resources of the commission as well as its administrative link to a Government department (Justice). It urged strengthening of the independence and capacity of the Irish Human Rights Commission by endowing it with adequate and sufficient resources, and linking it to the Oireachtas.
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL
The committee, while noting the State party's intention to adopt legislation on a Civil Partnership Bill, expressed concern that no provisions on taxation and social welfare are proposed. It is concerned the State party has not recognised a change of gender by transgender persons by allowing revised birth certificates for these persons.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The committee, while noting efforts by the State party in combating domestic violence, is still concerned about continuing impunity due to high rates of complaint withdrawal, and few convictions. It regrets the lack of gender-based statistics on complaints, prosecutions and sentences in matters of violence against women.
EQUALITY
The committee was concerned that, despite considerable progress in recent years, inequalities between women and men continue to persist in many areas of life, and urged increased funding for the institutions established to promote and protect gender equality.
COUNTER-TERRORISM
The State party should introduce a definition of "terrorist acts" in legislation, limited to offences which can justifiably be equated with terrorism and its consequences. It urged the State party to establish a regime for control of suspicious flights and to ensure all allegations of so-called renditions are publicly investigated.
ABORTION
The committee reiterated its concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the committee regrets that the progress in this regard is slow.
POLICING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The committee said the State party should take measures to ensure effective functioning of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. The State party should give full effect to rights of suspects to contact counsel before, and to have counsel present during, interrogation.
PRISONS
The committee has numerous concerns about prisoners. Overcrowding and "slopping out" of human waste should be priority issues, it said.
RELIGION
It expressed concern at the requirement that judges take a religious oath, and that most primary schools were denominational, and urged that alternative non-denomination primary education be available.
IMMIGRATION
It expressed concern at a number of aspects of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill over summary deportation, absence of an immediate right to legal assistance and independence of the appeals procedure.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Current Position in Northern Ireland on Abortion
1) Current Position in Northern Ireland
· Women in NI are not entitled to the same funded NHS care for abortion as other tax payers. Women in Northern Ireland have fewer rights to abortion than women living in Italy or the Republic of Ireland. They are still subject to the 1861 Offences against the Person Act as NI was excluded from the 1967 Abortion Act.
· The status quo violates Northern Irish womens’ rights as UK citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on Ending all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
· Women in NI do not have the same reproductive and abortion rights that the UK government advocates for women in developing countries, and funds, in the interests of safe motherhood and family planning.
· A woman who is raped or a victim of incest or both, or carrying a foetus with major congenital abnormalities is not entitled to an abortion in Northern Ireland. They are expected to continue the pregnancy and give birth
· The only grounds for a legal abortion in Northern Ireland are where 'there is a threat to the life of the woman, or a risk of real and serious harm to her long-term or permanent health (physical or mental)'. 60-80 abortions are performed in Northern Ireland each year on this basis.
· Department of Health statistics show that in 2007 alone, 1,343 Northern Irish women travelled to England and Wales for a private abortion. Since the 1967 Abortion Act, official data show that almost 50,000 women have travelled from Northern Ireland to England and Wales to access abortion.
· NI women are not entitled to NHS funding for abortion, so must find at short notice up to £2,000 to pay for travel, accommodation and the cost of abortion. Only better-off women can afford this, adding to the inequity of access to healthcare for poorer, more vulnerable women. No help is available for young women, less wealthy women, unsupported, socially excluded women, learning disabled women, women with uncertain residency status in this respect.
· There have been recorded deaths of women from illegal back-street abortion in Northern Ireland.
· Abortion is not a devolved matter to Scotland, but, exceptionally, is proposed to be devolved to Northern Ireland when they take responsibility for the criminal law in future. Northern Ireland MPs in Westminster voted in May 2008 to reduce the upper time limit for abortions to 12 weeks in England, Scotland and Wales. Abortion is a free vote issue in the Commons at every stage of the HFE Bill.
2) fpa are campaigning to extend access to abortion to women in Northern Ireland - http://www.fpa.org.uk/news/campaigns/current%5Fcampaigns/detail.cfm?contentid=993
3) Voice for Choice is a coalition of charities and groups calling for policymakers to defend and extend women's choice on abortion - http://www.vfc.org.uk/
4) Amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 tabled to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill appear as new clauses, as abortion is not contained within the text of the Bill. The amendment tabled is New Clause 30.
New Clause 30 Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967: Application to Northern Ireland
Diane Abbott, Jacqui Lait, Dr Evan Harris, Katy Clark, John Bercow, John McDonnell
To move the following Clause:—
'(1) Section 7 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) (short title, commencement and extent) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.".’
· Women in NI are not entitled to the same funded NHS care for abortion as other tax payers. Women in Northern Ireland have fewer rights to abortion than women living in Italy or the Republic of Ireland. They are still subject to the 1861 Offences against the Person Act as NI was excluded from the 1967 Abortion Act.
· The status quo violates Northern Irish womens’ rights as UK citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on Ending all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
· Women in NI do not have the same reproductive and abortion rights that the UK government advocates for women in developing countries, and funds, in the interests of safe motherhood and family planning.
· A woman who is raped or a victim of incest or both, or carrying a foetus with major congenital abnormalities is not entitled to an abortion in Northern Ireland. They are expected to continue the pregnancy and give birth
· The only grounds for a legal abortion in Northern Ireland are where 'there is a threat to the life of the woman, or a risk of real and serious harm to her long-term or permanent health (physical or mental)'. 60-80 abortions are performed in Northern Ireland each year on this basis.
· Department of Health statistics show that in 2007 alone, 1,343 Northern Irish women travelled to England and Wales for a private abortion. Since the 1967 Abortion Act, official data show that almost 50,000 women have travelled from Northern Ireland to England and Wales to access abortion.
· NI women are not entitled to NHS funding for abortion, so must find at short notice up to £2,000 to pay for travel, accommodation and the cost of abortion. Only better-off women can afford this, adding to the inequity of access to healthcare for poorer, more vulnerable women. No help is available for young women, less wealthy women, unsupported, socially excluded women, learning disabled women, women with uncertain residency status in this respect.
· There have been recorded deaths of women from illegal back-street abortion in Northern Ireland.
· Abortion is not a devolved matter to Scotland, but, exceptionally, is proposed to be devolved to Northern Ireland when they take responsibility for the criminal law in future. Northern Ireland MPs in Westminster voted in May 2008 to reduce the upper time limit for abortions to 12 weeks in England, Scotland and Wales. Abortion is a free vote issue in the Commons at every stage of the HFE Bill.
2) fpa are campaigning to extend access to abortion to women in Northern Ireland - http://www.fpa.org.uk/news/campaigns/current%5Fcampaigns/detail.cfm?contentid=993
3) Voice for Choice is a coalition of charities and groups calling for policymakers to defend and extend women's choice on abortion - http://www.vfc.org.uk/
4) Amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 tabled to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill appear as new clauses, as abortion is not contained within the text of the Bill. The amendment tabled is New Clause 30.
New Clause 30 Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967: Application to Northern Ireland
Diane Abbott, Jacqui Lait, Dr Evan Harris, Katy Clark, John Bercow, John McDonnell
To move the following Clause:—
'(1) Section 7 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) (short title, commencement and extent) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.".’
Irish Times Blog from July 11th- Abortion on Internet Revives Old Controversy
July 11, 2008
Abortion on the internet revives an old controversy
Filed under: Medicine, Feminism, Abortion, Deaglan de Breadun — Deaglán @ 10:01 am
As a morning-radio addict, I find it often has a soporific effect and helps me go back to sleep before the inevitable moment when the day must start. But I nearly jumped out of bed when the BBC’s Today programme reported that medications which induce an abortion can now be obtained on the internet.
This morning’s programme revealed that a group called Women on Web is offering customers the opportunity to perform abortions on themselves with a combination of pills that are ordered by post.
Women on Web is reportedly available in five languages and mails the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol only to jurisdictions where abortion is heavily restricted, and to women who declare they are less than nine weeks pregnant. Women in Northern Ireland - and presumably the Republic - have used the internet site to purchase the medications for a minimum donation of €70 (£55) a time.
However the report adds that a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that 11% of 400 customers went on to need a surgical procedure - either because the drugs had not completed the abortion or because of excessive bleeding.
Needless to say, anti-abortion campaigners are already up in arms over this development. Journalists in Ireland will feel a strong sense of déjà vu. Those of us who were around in the 1980s spent a great deal of time on the “A-word” and now it could be a case of back to the future. Way back then, before the internet and cheap cross-channel air travel, it was a case of taking the mailboat to England which, whatever one’s moral stance on the issue, must have been pretty rough on a woman already several months pregnant.
Northern Ireland Family Planning Association director Audrey Simpson told the BBC: “The Women On Web site is very helpful and reputable. But for Northern Ireland women, it is encouraging them to break the law - and as an organisation, we have to work within the law. We’re really concerned about women accessing the rogue sites - we’re hearing about it and we know it’s happening. There are potentially serious medical complications for women from sites which aren’t well managed and this could be the new era of backstreet abortions.”
Deaglán de Bréadún
Abortion on the internet revives an old controversy
Filed under: Medicine, Feminism, Abortion, Deaglan de Breadun — Deaglán @ 10:01 am
As a morning-radio addict, I find it often has a soporific effect and helps me go back to sleep before the inevitable moment when the day must start. But I nearly jumped out of bed when the BBC’s Today programme reported that medications which induce an abortion can now be obtained on the internet.
This morning’s programme revealed that a group called Women on Web is offering customers the opportunity to perform abortions on themselves with a combination of pills that are ordered by post.
Women on Web is reportedly available in five languages and mails the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol only to jurisdictions where abortion is heavily restricted, and to women who declare they are less than nine weeks pregnant. Women in Northern Ireland - and presumably the Republic - have used the internet site to purchase the medications for a minimum donation of €70 (£55) a time.
However the report adds that a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that 11% of 400 customers went on to need a surgical procedure - either because the drugs had not completed the abortion or because of excessive bleeding.
Needless to say, anti-abortion campaigners are already up in arms over this development. Journalists in Ireland will feel a strong sense of déjà vu. Those of us who were around in the 1980s spent a great deal of time on the “A-word” and now it could be a case of back to the future. Way back then, before the internet and cheap cross-channel air travel, it was a case of taking the mailboat to England which, whatever one’s moral stance on the issue, must have been pretty rough on a woman already several months pregnant.
Northern Ireland Family Planning Association director Audrey Simpson told the BBC: “The Women On Web site is very helpful and reputable. But for Northern Ireland women, it is encouraging them to break the law - and as an organisation, we have to work within the law. We’re really concerned about women accessing the rogue sites - we’re hearing about it and we know it’s happening. There are potentially serious medical complications for women from sites which aren’t well managed and this could be the new era of backstreet abortions.”
Deaglán de Bréadún
UK Voice For Choice Press Release:MPs Seek Equal Access to Abortion for All Women in the UK by Extending 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
Move to give Northern Irish women full family planning rights
MPs seek equal access to abortion for all women in the UK by extending 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
For IMMEDIATE release: 9.30am Wednesday 23rd July 2008
Today a cross-party group of MPs have tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill intending to give women in Northern Ireland- for the first time- the right to fair and rapid access to safe, legal abortion care when they need it.
Currently Northern Irish women are the only women in the UK who do not have access to safe abortion and are denied the NHS treatment and funding for abortion permitted to other UK women. Northern Ireland is not covered by the 1967 Abortion Act.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is expected to reach report stage in the House of Commons after the summer recess – probably some time from mid-October. MPs will have a free vote on this issue then.
Dr Audrey Simpson, Director of fpa (Family Planning Association) Northern Ireland said
“A Northern Irish woman in the twenty first century who is the victim of rape or incest is expected to give birth, or find up to £2,000 to travel for treatment in England where women have the right to access safe abortion. These are a vulnerable group of women who need support – not to be forced to find money and travel long distances on their own.”
Diane Abbot MP, who has tabled the new clause, said
“This fundamental inequity must be remedied. Forty years after the 1967 Act women in Northern Ireland are still facing conditions more reminiscent of the 19th century. All women in the UK must be given fair and rapid access to safe, legal abortion when they need it. The Abortion Act must be extended to include women in Northern Ireland.”
Marge Berer, Chair of Voice for Choice the coalition of pro-choice groups in the UK, said:
“This is an opportunity for the voices of the women of Northern Ireland to be heard. The UK Parliament must stop ignoring the needs of its own citizens.”
The move to end health inequality by giving women in Northern Ireland access to safe, legal abortion is supported by the British Medical Association, fpa¸ British Pregnancy Advisory Service, MSI, Brook, Antenatal Results and Choices, Abortion Rights, Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion, Education for Choice, the Pro-Choice Forum, the Trade Union Movement and religious groups.
MPs seek equal access to abortion for all women in the UK by extending 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
For IMMEDIATE release: 9.30am Wednesday 23rd July 2008
Today a cross-party group of MPs have tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill intending to give women in Northern Ireland- for the first time- the right to fair and rapid access to safe, legal abortion care when they need it.
Currently Northern Irish women are the only women in the UK who do not have access to safe abortion and are denied the NHS treatment and funding for abortion permitted to other UK women. Northern Ireland is not covered by the 1967 Abortion Act.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is expected to reach report stage in the House of Commons after the summer recess – probably some time from mid-October. MPs will have a free vote on this issue then.
Dr Audrey Simpson, Director of fpa (Family Planning Association) Northern Ireland said
“A Northern Irish woman in the twenty first century who is the victim of rape or incest is expected to give birth, or find up to £2,000 to travel for treatment in England where women have the right to access safe abortion. These are a vulnerable group of women who need support – not to be forced to find money and travel long distances on their own.”
Diane Abbot MP, who has tabled the new clause, said
“This fundamental inequity must be remedied. Forty years after the 1967 Act women in Northern Ireland are still facing conditions more reminiscent of the 19th century. All women in the UK must be given fair and rapid access to safe, legal abortion when they need it. The Abortion Act must be extended to include women in Northern Ireland.”
Marge Berer, Chair of Voice for Choice the coalition of pro-choice groups in the UK, said:
“This is an opportunity for the voices of the women of Northern Ireland to be heard. The UK Parliament must stop ignoring the needs of its own citizens.”
The move to end health inequality by giving women in Northern Ireland access to safe, legal abortion is supported by the British Medical Association, fpa¸ British Pregnancy Advisory Service, MSI, Brook, Antenatal Results and Choices, Abortion Rights, Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion, Education for Choice, the Pro-Choice Forum, the Trade Union Movement and religious groups.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Joint Spanish NGO Statement- Madrid July 14th
We would like to share with you all a common statement launched today by the Spanish Federation of Family Planning (FPFE); the Spanish Society of Contraception (SEC); the Spanish Federation of Associations Defending Public Health (FADSP); and the Spanish Association of Clinics Accredited for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies (ACAI), concerning the situation of abortion in Spain.
Kind regards,
Alejandra Herranz
Communication Officer
Spanish Federation of Family Planning- FPFE
Webpage: www.fpfe.org
Common Statement by FPFE, SEC, FADSP and ACAI
A law allowing abortion on demand with a gestational limit and decriminalizing it, are be the best formula to guarantee the right to abortion
Madrid, July 14, 2008.- The Spanish Federation of Family Planning; the Spanish Society of Contraception; the Spanish Federation of Associations Defending Public Health; and the Spanish Association of Clinics Accredited for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies, have expressed in a common statement their satisfaction for the announcement from the Government to modify the current legislation on abortion.
The common statement includes the signatures of Ms Isabel Serrano Fuster, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Federation of Family Planning (FPFE); Ms Esther de la Viuda, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Society of Contraception (SEC); Ms Carmen Ortíz Ibáñez, radiologist and President of the Spanish Federation of Associations Defending Public Health (FADSP); and Mr Santiago Barambio, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Association of Clinics Accredited for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies (ACAI). Such common statement reflects the institutional, common position of the four entities that have reached consensus on abortion and the reasons to modify the current legislation.
The common statement stresses the following:
The reasons to broaden the legal framework are the same of the past years, however, like many other times, many individuals (for example, women who have aborted legally but even this, they were humiliated without mercy) have to suffer in order to change the situation of the abortion legal framework.
A woman could have more than 25 sons or daughters if she does not use any contraceptive method to avoid pregnancies. No one discuss the fact that pregnancies must be planned with contraceptive methods. However, even using contraceptive methods, unwanted pregnancies can happen. Forced pregnancies, are nonsense.
If we accept the human right to control fertility, we have to recognise the right to choose on all those aspects linked to sexual and reproductive life, in addition to access all the necessary health care.
From these premises, two elements should guide any change concerning the legal regulation of the pregnancy interruption; the acknowledgement that woman are the one and only that can decide on their pregnancies as well as the acknowledgement of the implication of the Public Health care.
With the current legal framework, women do not have the last word. At present, in Spain, abortion is considered a crime except in case a doctor authorises a woman to abort. However, this evidence has not been the engine of change but what has open the eyes of many individuals concerning the fact of the confirmation of any anti-choice associations (commonly know as “pro-life”), pursue with impunity those women. Or even the Civil Guard or the Police can take women to declare at Court or even that their clinical records can be made public.
The role of the Spanish Health Care System
Protecting health means reducing abortions, starting from the improvement of family planning services, as well as guaranteeing the practice of abortions in safe, adequate health conditions. Despite this, there has done a little concerning prevention, and the public health care related to abortion is more deficient. A woman does not know where to go because neither her health centre nor her specialist, want to know about her problem. Even those women with fetus with malformations, have been derived from a public hospital to private ones, generally due to purely ideological reasons. The majority of abortions are paid by women and many of them have to leave their autonomous / regional community for there are not public resources or private ones to provide health care to these women. Sometimes, such women have to put up with the mistreat of professionals “protected” by the conscientious objection.
What do we expect from the Government?
We hope that the current legislation will change in a brave, decided way. We hope that those changes proposed by the Socialist Party will include abortion (together with its protocols and human and material resources) in those services given trough the National Health Care System.
Women are not respected nor protected if they are not allowed to decide freely upon something that is closely linked to their intimacy, like the fact of undergoing an abortion or not. The fact of supposing that women should be controlled for they can damage themselves or even acting happily concerning such a painful situation is simply cruel. Women who abort are legally adults and should not be slated as they have lately been. Thus, we need a legal framework to allow abortion by women’s decision within a right gestation term.
The next step is to define the term we are speaking about. Recent statements by the Spanish Society of Gyneacology and Obstetrics (SEGO) said that from a medical point of view the abortion is acceptable until the 22 weeks of gestation. The most developed countries in Europe keep this 22-weeks term which allow the incorporation of serious pathological cases or even malformated fetus –many of them can be diagnosed in the second quarter.
In our opinion, a bill of terms until 22 weeks plus the fact of stopping considering abortion as a crime should be the best formula to guarantee the right to abortion.
The PSOE and the Government have the opportunity to do something else to defend women. Along the way, both will have by their side those organizations committed to sexual and reproductive health, family planning, contraception, the right to abortion and the public health care system.
Kind regards,
Alejandra Herranz
Communication Officer
Spanish Federation of Family Planning- FPFE
Webpage: www.fpfe.org
Common Statement by FPFE, SEC, FADSP and ACAI
A law allowing abortion on demand with a gestational limit and decriminalizing it, are be the best formula to guarantee the right to abortion
Madrid, July 14, 2008.- The Spanish Federation of Family Planning; the Spanish Society of Contraception; the Spanish Federation of Associations Defending Public Health; and the Spanish Association of Clinics Accredited for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies, have expressed in a common statement their satisfaction for the announcement from the Government to modify the current legislation on abortion.
The common statement includes the signatures of Ms Isabel Serrano Fuster, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Federation of Family Planning (FPFE); Ms Esther de la Viuda, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Society of Contraception (SEC); Ms Carmen Ortíz Ibáñez, radiologist and President of the Spanish Federation of Associations Defending Public Health (FADSP); and Mr Santiago Barambio, gynaecologist and President of the Spanish Association of Clinics Accredited for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies (ACAI). Such common statement reflects the institutional, common position of the four entities that have reached consensus on abortion and the reasons to modify the current legislation.
The common statement stresses the following:
The reasons to broaden the legal framework are the same of the past years, however, like many other times, many individuals (for example, women who have aborted legally but even this, they were humiliated without mercy) have to suffer in order to change the situation of the abortion legal framework.
A woman could have more than 25 sons or daughters if she does not use any contraceptive method to avoid pregnancies. No one discuss the fact that pregnancies must be planned with contraceptive methods. However, even using contraceptive methods, unwanted pregnancies can happen. Forced pregnancies, are nonsense.
If we accept the human right to control fertility, we have to recognise the right to choose on all those aspects linked to sexual and reproductive life, in addition to access all the necessary health care.
From these premises, two elements should guide any change concerning the legal regulation of the pregnancy interruption; the acknowledgement that woman are the one and only that can decide on their pregnancies as well as the acknowledgement of the implication of the Public Health care.
With the current legal framework, women do not have the last word. At present, in Spain, abortion is considered a crime except in case a doctor authorises a woman to abort. However, this evidence has not been the engine of change but what has open the eyes of many individuals concerning the fact of the confirmation of any anti-choice associations (commonly know as “pro-life”), pursue with impunity those women. Or even the Civil Guard or the Police can take women to declare at Court or even that their clinical records can be made public.
The role of the Spanish Health Care System
Protecting health means reducing abortions, starting from the improvement of family planning services, as well as guaranteeing the practice of abortions in safe, adequate health conditions. Despite this, there has done a little concerning prevention, and the public health care related to abortion is more deficient. A woman does not know where to go because neither her health centre nor her specialist, want to know about her problem. Even those women with fetus with malformations, have been derived from a public hospital to private ones, generally due to purely ideological reasons. The majority of abortions are paid by women and many of them have to leave their autonomous / regional community for there are not public resources or private ones to provide health care to these women. Sometimes, such women have to put up with the mistreat of professionals “protected” by the conscientious objection.
What do we expect from the Government?
We hope that the current legislation will change in a brave, decided way. We hope that those changes proposed by the Socialist Party will include abortion (together with its protocols and human and material resources) in those services given trough the National Health Care System.
Women are not respected nor protected if they are not allowed to decide freely upon something that is closely linked to their intimacy, like the fact of undergoing an abortion or not. The fact of supposing that women should be controlled for they can damage themselves or even acting happily concerning such a painful situation is simply cruel. Women who abort are legally adults and should not be slated as they have lately been. Thus, we need a legal framework to allow abortion by women’s decision within a right gestation term.
The next step is to define the term we are speaking about. Recent statements by the Spanish Society of Gyneacology and Obstetrics (SEGO) said that from a medical point of view the abortion is acceptable until the 22 weeks of gestation. The most developed countries in Europe keep this 22-weeks term which allow the incorporation of serious pathological cases or even malformated fetus –many of them can be diagnosed in the second quarter.
In our opinion, a bill of terms until 22 weeks plus the fact of stopping considering abortion as a crime should be the best formula to guarantee the right to abortion.
The PSOE and the Government have the opportunity to do something else to defend women. Along the way, both will have by their side those organizations committed to sexual and reproductive health, family planning, contraception, the right to abortion and the public health care system.
SPAIN- Government Steps in to Protect Identity of Women Who Abort
Source: El Pais newspaper, 11/07/08
Government steps in to protect identity of women who abort
Aiming to put words into action after last weekend’s Socialist Party convention, the Cabinet plans to take the first step today on the road to revamping Spain’s existing abortion laws.
While there are still a number of issues to resolve before a final reform bill on the conditions in which abortion is legal can be introduced to Congress, the Cabinet will today decree that the identity of women having abortions must remain confidential from the first visit they make to an authorized clinic and cannot be accessed later, even by judicial order.
The new decree, which was drafted by the Health and Justice Ministries, comes in response to recent investigations into the activities of abortion clinics in which women patients have been called as witnesses.
Apart from protecting the identity of women, the new regulations also aim to make confidential the identity of the doctors that carry out abortions.
In some cases, medics are still charged by judges under dubious circumstances for carrying out allegedly illegal abortions. Critics of Spain’s present abortion law see it as too rigid. For example, women pregnant as the result of rape must abort within 12 weeks, although the terms are longer should the termination be necessary for health reasons.
Government steps in to protect identity of women who abort
Aiming to put words into action after last weekend’s Socialist Party convention, the Cabinet plans to take the first step today on the road to revamping Spain’s existing abortion laws.
While there are still a number of issues to resolve before a final reform bill on the conditions in which abortion is legal can be introduced to Congress, the Cabinet will today decree that the identity of women having abortions must remain confidential from the first visit they make to an authorized clinic and cannot be accessed later, even by judicial order.
The new decree, which was drafted by the Health and Justice Ministries, comes in response to recent investigations into the activities of abortion clinics in which women patients have been called as witnesses.
Apart from protecting the identity of women, the new regulations also aim to make confidential the identity of the doctors that carry out abortions.
In some cases, medics are still charged by judges under dubious circumstances for carrying out allegedly illegal abortions. Critics of Spain’s present abortion law see it as too rigid. For example, women pregnant as the result of rape must abort within 12 weeks, although the terms are longer should the termination be necessary for health reasons.
UK- Abortion Change Debate Postponed To Autumn
Abortion change debate postponed to autumn
21-Jul-08
The debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which proposed changes to the Abortion Act of 1967, has been delayed until the autumn.
The debate was originally scheduled to have taken place last week but has now been put back until after the summer recess.
Leader of the House of Commons MP Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) said that the bill had been delayed to allow more time for debate.
A number of amendments to the Abortion Act have been tabled including plans to carry out early medical abortions (EMAs) in GP practices and polyclinics.
The need for two doctor’s signatures could be scrapped and EMAs may be allowed to take place at home under the proposals.
Nurses could be handed powers to carry out abortions by next year.
21-Jul-08
The debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which proposed changes to the Abortion Act of 1967, has been delayed until the autumn.
The debate was originally scheduled to have taken place last week but has now been put back until after the summer recess.
Leader of the House of Commons MP Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) said that the bill had been delayed to allow more time for debate.
A number of amendments to the Abortion Act have been tabled including plans to carry out early medical abortions (EMAs) in GP practices and polyclinics.
The need for two doctor’s signatures could be scrapped and EMAs may be allowed to take place at home under the proposals.
Nurses could be handed powers to carry out abortions by next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
