Irish abortion regime must be resisted

 Irish abortion regime must be resisted

As the rather pathetic summer turns into autumn we have to keep our eye on one of those issues where there is a "consensus" among the left wing politicians and some of the hacks in our newspapers on one hand and the majority of the population on the other. The indubitable Cora Sherlock, chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign has her say in The Examiner.

Irish abortion regime must be resisted

By Cora Sherlock

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The introduction of abortion has far-reaching effects. Everyone should be free to voice an opinion, says Cora Sherlock
WE’VE come to expect a certain level of divisiveness in the abortion debate. It’s an emotive subject simply because it concerns the most fundamental right of all — the right to life. 

Ironically, many call for a calm debate one minute, and then revert to accusations of cowardice the next. We saw this in action recently when a group of Fine Gael TDs indicated that they were not prepared to vote for abortion legislation. 

But why should they, or anyone who opposes abortion, be accused of cowardice? Surely we’ve wrestled with this issue for long enough to have passed the stage of name-calling? The introduction of abortion to a society has far-reaching effects. As such, everyone living in that society should be free to voice an opinion without fear of being castigated, regardless of where they stand on the issue. 

Health Minister James Reilly’s comments and actions over the past few weeks mean it will not come as any great surprise if the expert group on abortion reports back in September with a limited list of options, all of which lead to the introduction of abortion, whether by legislation or regulation. However, if this happens it will be on the basis of a political decision and will have nothing to do with the requirements of either medicine or law. 

Women don’t die in Ireland because abortion is illegal here. We have a lower maternal mortality rate than countries such as the Netherlands or the UK, where abortion is legal. This fact is often dismissed by those who would like to see abortion introduced here, but their arguments ignore the fact that pregnant women in Irish hospitals already receive whatever treatment they need for an existing medical condition. The only difference is that doctors here have a duty of care towards the unborn child as he or she is recognised as a separate patient. The same cannot be said of the UK, for example, where abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and up to birth if the baby is suffering from even a minor disability. 

Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph carried out an undercover investigation which revealed systematic abuses in a number of abortion clinics, including the illegal practice of sex-selective abortion. Babies are born alive during "botched abortions" in the UK — and then left to die. 

These facts are unpalatable, but it is incumbent on those who advocate the introduction of abortion to explain how we will be any different to countries such as the UK, which introduced abortion on supposedly "limited grounds" and subsequently found it impossible to restrict or control. Legally, there is no obligation on the Government to introduce abortion. The oft-quoted ABC European court decision merely obliged us to state our laws clearly; it did not state what those laws should be but recognised the right of the Irish people to decide this issue. 

If, as some have suggested, we legislate on the basis of the X Case, we would be ignoring the fact that the court in X heard no medical evidence. In making its decision, the court set no time limits. Legislation based on X means late-term abortions would be protected in law right up to birth. Since the X Case too, there has been a wealth of peer-reviewed evidence showing that abortion often has negative consequences on the woman involved — a fact exemplified by the testimonies of the women in groups like Women Hurt and this year’s HSE/Crisis Pregnancy Programme Study, which found a marked increase in the level of abortion regret since the last study carried out in 2003. An honest debate accepts that there are negative effects on many women. Their voices must not be drowned out. 

In its pre-election commitment to the Pro-Life Campaign, Fine Gael restated its opposition to the legalisation of abortion and research conducted on human embryos. It undertook to bring to the expert group a clear "commitment that women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld". 

This is the genuine pro-life, pro-woman position that is currently in practice in Irish hospitals and is consistently supported in independent opinion polls. A careful review of the facts has meant several governments have realised abortion is not necessary to safeguard women’s health. On the contrary, it may jeopardise their psychological wellbeing and end the life of a separate human being. 

Right now, Dr Reilly has primed the expert group to produce a list of options that would impose an abortion regime on Ireland. This is an affront to human dignity and the right to life and must be opposed.

 



* Cora Sherlock is deputy chairwoman of the Pro-Life Campaign

Number of Irish women seeking abortion in Britain declines for the tenth consecutive year. 

British health authorities have released their statistics for abortions over the last year and for the tenth consecutive year the number of women with Irish addresses has declined. The figures are back to where they were about 30 years ago.  Some people, like the IFPA, will like to claim credit for this, people are using contraception they say (yet our birth rate is at a 118 year high) so obviously something is off in their reasoning. But I suppose when your raison d'être is abortion and contraception you have to come out with some spin. They will also tell you that fewer and fewer Irish women give Irish addresses because of a variety of reasons. Again no evidence to support this, and indeed it calls into question the method the British use to compile their statistics. Highly original. 
Anyway this is good news. 
One of the main arguments for introducing abortion into Ireland is that Irish women will only go to Britain anyway. Not much of an argument but now that fewer Irish women feel the need to go to Britain does this mean we will hear less of that argument? One final note. Just because fewer women feel the need to have an abortion does not mean that we do not try to help them, change our culture and society to one that values mothers and their babies. 

 PLC welcomes fall in abortion rates for tenth consecutive year.   While abortion rates fall, rate of women regretting abortions rise

29th May 2012

The Pro Life Campaign has welcomed the latest Irish abortion figures released today by the British Department of Health,* which show that the number of Irish women travelling to Britain for abortions has decreased for the tenth consecutive year.

In 2011, 4,149 Irish women travelled to Britain for abortions, down from 4,402 in 2010 and 4,422 in 2009.  The 2011 figures show a marked decrease over previous years.  2011 is the tenth consecutive year that Irish abortions have declined and represents a 38% decline since the high of 6,673 Irish abortions in 2001.

The release of these figures follows the recent report ** from the HSE/Crisis Pregnancy Programme showing an increase in the number of women expressing abortion regret.  In that study, 44 per cent of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions up from 33 per cent in a similar HSE study in 2003.

In a statement welcoming the continuing reduction in the number of Irish women travelling to Britain for abortion, Cora Sherlock of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“While it is too early to draw firm conclusions, the fact that the abortion figures are decreasing while the number of women expressing regret after abortion is increasing, shows the need for a much closer examination of women’s experiences of abortion, including abortion regret."

She said: “There has been a refusal on the part of those campaigning for abortion in Ireland to take on board the research indicating the negative consequences of abortion for women. This does a tremendous disservice to women. The claims by some groups that the reduced figures can be explained by the fact that women are travelling to other countries is not backed by the evidence."

 *Summary Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2011 (29/05/12)
 ** Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Study 2010 (ICCP 2010), published in May 2012 (HSE/CPP 

Ignoring abortion regret. 

If you frequent discussion boards about abortion you will, from time to time, see people disusing abortion regret. Now those who are content with having liberal abortion laws and a liberal abortion culture blame conservative, Catholic guilt culture and so on. If only people weren't so judgmental. I've seen people write things like women who have regrets over their abortions should just "suck it up" "get over it" and so on.
A study released by the HSE recently reveled that 44% of women who have had an abortion regret the experience. That is an enormous amount and begs the question,  are women who regret their abortions being ignored? It also, and maybe more importantly, begs the question, what is being done to help women who have regrets?
There is help out there though. Women who have been through the experience are there to help others. Women Hurt is an organization where women who have had abortions and regret them reach out to other women who have regrets to offer hope and healing. They want to tell those contemplating having an abortion that there is another side. Women Hurt have their own website, that can be accessed here, womenhurt.ie
Here is a statement by the Pro Life Campaign on the findings with further analysis.

Study showing regret after abortion must be considered by the Minister For Health says Pro Life Campaign

15th May 2012

A comprehensive study showing that 44 per cent of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions “must be urgently considered by the Minister for Health”, the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) has said.
They were responding to the Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Study 2010 (ICCP 2010), produced by the HSE's Crisis Pregnancy Programme (CPP).
The study showed that 31pc of women who had abortion experienced "some regrets", with 13pc reporting that they experienced “a lot of regrets”. This represents an increase from 2003, when 22pc reported experiencing some regret, with 11pc saying they had a lot of regrets.
Spokesperson for the PLC, Dr Ruth Cullen, said the figures showed that the abortion debate “needed to make room for the voices of the increasing number of women who regret their abortion”.
She said: "While there has been considerable media focus on the stories of women who wished to see abortion legal in Ireland, the same cannot be said for the stories of women who regret their abortions. This has to change.
She said: “Even organisations like the National Women's Council of Ireland, which are supposed to represent all women, dismiss organisations that seek to express the pain of women hurt by abortion.
Dr Cullen also said that Minister James Reilly needs to take into account the experiences of women who regretted their abortion and ensure that counselling services also acknowledge this reality.
She expressed surprise that the CPP had not conducted research into the mental health impact of abortion, given the fact that there were now a number of studies showing that abortion presented a considerable risk to the mental health of women.
Dr. Cullen said: “A number of peer reviewed studies have now shown that women who have abortions are up to 30pc more likely to experience subsequent mental health problems. This is even after those studies controlled for women with pre-existing mental health conditions.
“One might have expected a comprehensive study on crisis pregnancy to have examined this area.”
Dr Cullen also noted that the study's findings on attitudes to abortion were compromised by the question asked.
According to the survey, 45 per cent of adults believed abortion should be permissible in all circumstances, down from over 50 per cent in a similar study in 2003. And 44 per cent said it should be available under certain circumstances, up from 39 per cent in 2003.
However, Dr Cullen said, the survey's question relating to abortion when there is a risk to the woman's life “failed to make the distinction between medical interventions in pregnancy to save the mother's life and induced abortion, the sole aim of which is to end the life of the baby.
She said that this shortcoming in the research made the findings on attitudes to abortion “effectively irrelevant”.

Great to see RTÉ reporting on Reggie Littlejohn's visit to Ireland.

Well no actually, not a mention, not a peep. Nothing in the print media either.

It seemed pretty obvious a couple of months past when the Chinese Premier was visiting Ireland for a couple of days that we were courting him and his country. The level of obsequiousness in the voice and actions of our Minister for Foreign affairs was at a level never seen before. You see China is going to invest in us and help us out of the economic mess that we're in. China's economic success (doubtful, possible the mother of all bubble economies) is in stark contrast to Ireland's decline. You see the major reason why China is so successful is that her people save a high percentage of their earnings, the major reason why Ireland failed is because people spent so much of theirs. Mara Hvistendahl believes that one reason why the Chinese save so much money is because since there is such a shortage of women due to genercide men have to save up to "buy" brides, this is, I believe, a good segue to talking about Reggie Littlejohn and her talk at The Gresham last night. I posted a video below which outlines her work so I won't go into that in depth, instead I'd just encourage you to look at her. I'm more concerned about why a major human rights figure was ignored by the Irish media. I have not noticed any coverage of her visit in the Irish print or broadcast media. No figures from the section of society who have made 'uman rights a career bothered to turn up to her public talk. Not one. We have turned this kind of work into a minor industry but not one person bothered to come hear her. Why is that I wonder? The word hypocrite is often misused, people apply it to people who say one thing and then (often in a moment of weakness) do something contrary. Properly it is applied to a person who says one thing and believes another. In other words it is a deliberate, calculated deception.
The dirty truth is that certain organizations in Ireland will never acknowledge Reggie Littlejohn because she campaigns on behalf of women who have been forced to undergo abortions in China. The people who should be highlighting this in Ireland and raising further outrage in our media fear speaking about this issue because they fear the wrath of pro-abortion opinion makers. Is it that or are they themselves so pro-abortion that they cannot see the true horror of China's forced abortions?
Anyway, enough of the disgust with Irish print and broadcast media and their hangers on. They are in crisis. Print media has suffered a 20% decline in sales over the last 5 years and is not about to win that back. The hollowness of RTÉ abilities was revealed by the way they treated Fr. Kevin Reynolds, it was further exposed by the way they dealt with the presidential election last year. The TV License, AKA the "telly tax" isn't working for them, people are refusing to pay it for a variety of reasons, they don't have the money, they object to being insulted and patronized or they no longer watch RTÉ and if they do they watch online.
I intend to write some more and maybe even document some of the biased treatment of the abortion issue at a later date. I'm far more concerned about the bias in RTÉ because it reaches more people and as a license payer I have to pay for their bias.

Reggie Littlejohn to speak tomorrow at the Gresham. 

Reggie Littlejohn of www.Womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org will be speaking about her work on Tuesday, 24th April at 7pm in the O' Casey Room, Gresham Hotel, O' Connell Street, Dublin 1. Places are limited so if you would like to attend, please email mail@prolifecampaign.ie or telephone 086 2195317 with your details.

Over several years, she has testified before the US Congressional Human Rights Commission, briefed the White House, the European Parliament, the British Parliament and others on this issue.   As a lawyer she has represented Chinese refugees in political asylum cases in the United States. The meeting is hosted by the Pro Life Campaign.

Daly abortion bill defeated.

There was a time when socialists really had a claim to defending the poor and vulnerable in society, not so any longer.
 This past week we saw the hard left wing members of the Dáil unite to sponsor and vote for a bill that would have significantly relaxed Ireland's abortion law. It was defeated by the government parties but not before some members of the Labour Party expressed their personal pro abortion position. Extraordinarily Anne Ferris TD (Labour) stood up and proclaimed that though a Catholic she favoured abortion services being available in Ireland.
Gerry Adams TD said that he did not favour abortion but wouldn't like to criminalise women who had abortions. Weasel words to be sure and I won't even make any jokes about Sinn Féin and their treatment of women.

Pro Life Campaign accuses sponsors of Dáil abortion motion of wilfully ignoring the negative effects of abortion for women

Responding to news that a number of TDs are to table a Private Members motion in the Dáil calling for legislation on abortion, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:
Those tabling the Dáil motion have chosen to wilfully ignore all the peer reviewed psychological evidence in the intervening years since the X Case highlighting the adverse effects of abortion for women. They also seem determined to gloss over the fact that Ireland without abortion is a safer country for pregnant women than places like England and Holland where abortion is available on demand right up to birth.
There is nothing liberal or progressive about proposing to take away the most basic right of all, namely the right to life. In fact it does a tremendous disservice to women and their unborn children to ignore the basic facts of what abortion entails for both the mother and her baby.

Pro Life Stereotype.
All pro lifers are religious nutters, old men who tell women what to do with their bodies ...
Err, no actually. Take a look at some of the faces in this protest outside the Dáil the other day. Young, articulate (and can I say as a man, very attractive) women who know that abortion is a bad thing, that it hurts women and destroys lives. Photos are via the Pro Life Campaign website. 
The photocall 

Here with some women from womenhurt.ie who know first hand how abortion harms women.

Caroline Simons Pro Life Campaign Spokesperson talking to RTÉ

 

The Labour Party and their pro abortion stance. 

Last weekend the Labour Party held their annual conference in Galway. There was a huge hullabaloo over the household charge and other taxes. There were people there expressing their feelings about the minor party of government deciding to go Frankfurt's way after all. Among the other dross at the conference was a motion that set out clearly Labour's feelings about abortion. Some of their candidates were very tetchy before the last general election when the issue was brought up. Some went as far as to start name calling and screaming hysterical calumnies against pro life advocates.
I wonder if many of their decent members are truly in favour of abortion or if they accept it as part of the socialist package. It certainly seems the case that a wannabe socialist party like Sinn Féin are not pro abortion out of conviction but because it's part of the socialist package. Certainly most of the voters in Donegal North East and South West are not pro abortion, quite the opposite. The same goes for many working class Labour voters. Their urban middle class elite (from which most of their TDs and senators are drawn) are another matter.

16th April 2012

Pro Life Campaign says Labour Party abortion stance 'ignores hurt abortion causes women.

A motion passed at yesterday’s Labour Party conference in favour of abortion legislation has been described by the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) as “ignoring the hurt that abortion causes women”.
In a statement, PLC spokesperson, Dr Ruth Cullen said that those who spoke in favour of the motion had “tried to imply that legislation would safeguard women’s lives”.
“In fact, the motion was about seeking abortion on demand,” Dr Cullen said.
She added: “Those who supported the motion should know that Ireland, without abortion, is the safest country for pregnant women and that there is a clear distinction between necessary medical treatment in pregnancy and direct abortion, the aim of which is to end the baby’s life.
“Repeatedly, figures from the United Nations on maternal mortality show that Ireland is a world leader in this area. Yet instead of celebrating this achievement, pro-abortion campaigners repeatedly distort the facts.
“The adoption of the motion also shows that the Labour Party is ignoring the hurt that abortion causes women.
“Increasingly, research is showing that abortion is a leading risk factor for increased mental health problems for women.
“Despite this, Labour has assumed an outdated position that refuses to take on board this evidence, or the stories that many women are telling about the trauma that abortion has caused them.”
Dr Cullen added: “There is nothing progressive about adopting a policy that disregards the right to life and ignores the negative effects of abortion on women.
“This latest evidence of Labour’s aggressive stance in favour of abortion makes it all the more imperative that voters hold Fine Gael to their election promise to retain Ireland’s pro-life stance.”

Reggie Littlejohn speaking in Ireland.

Reggie littlejohn of www.Womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org will be in Ireland next week!

China criticises Ireland's many child policy?

Hearing that the United Nations was recommending that Ireland change its laws to legislate for abortion was a little like sliding into a parallel universe. Apparently the UN Human Rights Council gets to review Ireland's record on human rights on a regular basis. Along with issues like prison conditions they get to remark on our abortion laws. Anyway this fine organization told us that we were naughty and needed to change.  Current members include China (no, seriously it does!) and Nigeria (home of many an asylum seeker in Ireland). You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed with this august body. Admittedly China was not one of the countries asking Ireland to change her laws, but each country asking Ireland to change it's laws has a poorer maternal mortality rate than us with abortion laws that are very liberal. Perhaps they should take some of their own members aside and have a chat with them regarding what's happening at home.

Pro Life Campaign welcomes Government's rejection of abortion recommendations15th March 2012

The Irish Government's decision to reject recommendations made by a number of UN member states for Ireland to legislate for abortion “recognises the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world for women to give birth” the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) has said.
Last October the Irish government appeared before the UN Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review process and rejected calls made by six countries for Ireland to legislate for abortion.  The countries were Holland, Germany, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway and Spain.
A Government report designed as a response to a series of other recommendations made last year as part of the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was presented in Geneva this morning and confirms Ireland's decision to reject calls for abortion.
Responding to the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review report, PLC spokesperson Dr Ruth Cullen welcomed the Government’s stance.
Dr Cullen said: “Calls for abortion legislation fly in the face of the United Nation's own recent research showing that Ireland, without abortion, is a world leader in terms of safety for women in pregnancy. Maternal safety in Ireland, it should be noted, is better than in the six countries which last year sought to put pressure on Ireland to introduce abortion. The latest UN study on maternal mortality, published in 2010, shows that out of 172 countries for which estimates are given, Ireland remains a world leader in safety for pregnant women.”

Abortion and mental health.

A follow up letter in today's Irish Times by Dr Ruth Cullen to some of the responses in her Irish Times article. Apparently some didn't like or agree with her:

Irish Times letters, March 13, 2012.

Sir, – Patrick Walsh (March 8th) takes issue with me (Opinion, March 5th) for not referring to the recent systematic review by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) and its comments on mental health outcomes for women following abortion.
Mr Walsh also says that the review holds that unwanted pregnancy rather than abortion itself is linked to mental health problems. However, the review states that whether an unwanted pregnancy is continued or ends in abortion makes no difference to the mental health of the mother. This, therefore, undermines the argument that the termination of pregnancy by abortion will protect women’s mental health.
This feature of the review also completely undercuts the medical justification for abortion in countries like England where the vast majority are carried out on alleged mental health grounds. It is odd how some pro-choice groups are using the latest review as evidence to back up their case when it does nothing of the sort.
In addition, the review points to situations where abortion poses adverse outcomes for women. There is also mounting peer- reviewed evidence showing that abortion has negative consequences for women with no prior mental health problems. We need to acknowledge this honestly and factor it into the debate. – Yours, etc,
Dr RUTH CULLEN,

Are judges capable of making decisions about psychiatry without hearing psychiatric evidence?

The infamous X Case judgement of 20 years ago was a very tragic situation. It involved a fourteen year old girl who became pregnant after being raped and if she had a right to travel to England for an abortion.
I was struck by an RTÉ documentary a few nights ago. In it journalist Fintan O'Toole made a very emotive remark, saying something along the lines that the state was going to make the girl involved bear a child for her rapist. Well at least he admitted that it was a child. Of course the problem with is his argument was that because the child was conceived in rape it had less of a right to live than a child not conceived in rape. That just isn't logical. It puts limits on the right to life.
My own opinion is that if the state was to really help victims of sexual assault it would make greater effort to catch, prosecute and convict those guilty. Right now Ireland has a 7% conviction rate for sexual assault. But, I digress ...
Here is an excellent article by Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign and printed in the Irish Times a few days ago.

Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion

Dr. Ruth Cullen, The Irish Times, 5th March 2012

OPINION: TWO DECADES have passed since the Supreme Court ruled on the tragic X case.
The teenage girl at the centre of that case found herself in a horrific situation, and the Irish people’s overriding feeling at the time was one of immense sympathy for her.
Tragically, however, the decision of the Supreme Court seemed to be that, in order to show care for the girl, article 40.3.3, introduced specifically to protect the unborn child, had to be interpreted to allow abortion.
Over the last 20 years, there has been quite an amount of legal and political commentary on the ruling.
However, the evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, upon which the ruling was grounded has received less scrutiny.
The court decided that Ireland’s pro-life amendment permitted legal abortion in circumstances where there was “a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother”.
It further ruled that these circumstances included the threat of suicide.
However, the court heard no medical evidence on the question of whether abortion protected women from suicide. And increasingly, we are seeing medical research demonstrating that far from protecting women from suicide, abortion increases the risk that women will suffer grave mental health problems.
For example, the widely publicised Finnish study, which appeared in the European Journal of Public Health, showed that there was a significantly increased risk of suicide among women who had abortions.
They were six times more likely to commit suicide compared with those who had their babies.
Research carried out recently by Dr David Fergusson in New Zealand and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that, compared to other women, there was a 30 per cent greater risk of mental health complications among women who had abortions.
This research undercuts the rationale at the very heart of the X case ruling, a rationale for which there had been little basis in the first place.
The Supreme Court also failed to hear evidence showing that Ireland is the safest place in the world for women to give birth.
Sadly, and alarmingly, politicians seeking to legalise abortion are inexcusably ignoring this fact even today. The TDs who introduced a private members’ Bill on abortion a fortnight ago have attempted to create the impression that pregnant women in Ireland are being denied medical treatment because of the lack of available abortion.
However, they are wilfully ignoring the evidence of UN statistics which show Ireland as a world leader in terms of maternal mortality.
What has been missing from this debate are the voices of women who regret their abortions.
Five years after the X case, Ireland was confronted with yet another traumatising abortion court case, the C case.
This involved a young girl who was pregnant as a result of rape. The High Court decided that it was in the best interests of the girl to permit the then Eastern Health Board, who had taken the girl into care, to take her to England for an abortion.
But in an interview in 2009 the woman at the centre of the case said that her abortion caused great pain and sorrow.
Her story and the stories of many other women who regret their abortions have been effectively silenced.
For too long they have been ignored and in some cases dismissed by those, such as the National Women’s Council, who claim to speak for all women.
The group recently appointed by the Government to examine Irish law on abortion, must take these stories into account, as well as the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant.
It might also look at what happens in countries where abortion is made legal.
In the US, abortionist Dr Kermit Gosnell was recently charged with killing seven born babies and a 41-year-old woman on whom he had performed an abortion.
One of Gosnell’s victims, Robyn Reid, said that when she heard he had been charged with killing viable babies with scissors and giving a woman a lethal dose of painkillers, she felt sick.
“I didn’t know that he was such a monster doing this to everyone,” Reid said.
“I didn’t think it’d happened to somebody else. I thought it was just me.”
Stories like this and the recent revelations from Britain about abortionists performing sex-selective abortions reveal the full implications of what legal abortion entails.
Fine Gael gave clear commitments at the last election that “women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments in pregnancy are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld”.
Public opinion backs this stance.
When people have the distinction between necessary medical interventions during pregnancy and induced abortion made clear to them, in poll after poll, they reject abortion.
Twenty years after the X case, the Irish people deserve to hear the full story about abortion

Actually, no, they said that we needed to clarify the situation.

When the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement on the A, B, C v Ireland case a lot of people were quick to jump to judgement. They told us that Ireland now had to legislate for abortion. They said nothing of the sort. In fact they upheld the Irish constitution as it stands where mothers and their unborn babies have the equal right to life.
Paul Brady, barrister and author wrote this article for last week's Sunday Business Post. Because you have to pay for online access to the Sunday Business Post (worth it, but I know that not all readers have that subscription) I'm linking to the Pro Life Campaign site.

Opportunity to clarify abortion law

By Paul Brady, Sunday Business Post, 29th January 2012

The group considering the implementation of the European Court's abortion decision must produce a 'series of options' that covers all the issues
The government has established an expert group to "recommend a series of options" on how to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in A, B, C v Ireland.
This case involved a challenge to Ireland's abortion laws by three women who claimed, on various grounds, that Irish law violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
There was widespread — but needless — confusion when the court's judgment was published in December 2010. Some sought to portray it as a ruling from Strasbourg that Ireland was now legally obliged to legislate for a right to abortion on the terms of the 1992 Irish Supreme Court decision in the X case. This interpretation is contradicted by the actual judgment.
In fact, the decision rests on two key conclusions. First, the court held that current restrictions on abortion in Ireland constitute a fair balance of the rights and interests in what the court called the "wide margin of appreciation" enjoyed by member states on this issue.
Secondly, the court found that the "uncertainty" arising from the lack of legislation or "effective and accessible procedures" for deciding what is legally permissible in individual cases violated the third applicant's right to private life. All other complaints were dismissed.
The judgment is fairly straightforward. The court noted that it was up to each state to decide if it would legally protect unborn human life and, if so, to balance such protection fairly with the rights of others. Once that balance is struck, states must provide "implementing…and institutional procedures" to ensure that the legal implications for individuals can be readily established with reasonable certainty.
But even a "wide margin of appreciation" is not the same as a blank cheque, and its exercise remains — at least in principle — subject to review by the court.
The current "balance" in Irish law was created by the Supreme Court decision in the X case. It held that an abortion is lawful only when there is a "real and substantial risk" to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother. The court also ruled that such a risk included any real and substantial risk that the mother might commit suicide. However, the court reached this conclusion without hearing expert psychiatric evidence.
In the past ten years, knowledge of the potential mental health effects associated with abortion has been greatly advanced by peer-reviewed studies. This raises a legitimate question as to the appropriateness of basing Ireland's legislative response on terms decided by five judges 20 years ago, uninformed by the findings of expert research.
The experience of Britain of abortion on psychiatric grounds is instructive. Of the 189,574 abortions recorded in England and Wales in 2010, 97.7 per cent were carried out on the reported ground that a doctor considered that continuing the pregnancy carried a greater risk of injury to the mental health of the woman than an abortion. In other words, almost one in five pregnancies in England and Wales are ended by abortion on mental health grounds.
It is no exaggeration to say that it has been an fundamental working assumption of the law and practice of abortion in Britain over the last 40 years that ending a pregnancy by abortion will typically lead to improved mental health outcomes.
This assumption has been challenged by one of the most sophisticated studies on the question ever conducted. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2009, Professor David Fergusson concluded that his research "clearly suggested that unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion was likely to be a risk factor for subsequent mental health problems, whereas unwanted pregnancy leading to live birth was not a risk factor for these problems".
Fergusson noted that no study had ever reported that abortion reduced mental health risks. In other words, on the empirical evidence available, it appears that a primary assumption underlying both the reasoning in the X case and the legal basis for the vast majority of abortions in Britain is, at best, questionable and, at worst, dangerously wrong.
Given the long debate over abortion in Ireland, it is perhaps understandable that some view the establishment of an expert group with a mix of cynicism and suspicion. If it is to confound such critics, the group must be fully cognisant of the Irish state's right — confirmed in ABC v Ireland — to determine its own substantive view on abortion and the equal dignity of every human life.
As persons chosen for their technical expertise rather than the representativeness of their moral views, the members of the expert group can best add value to the political process by producing as extensive and comprehensive a "series of options" as possible. Their report should detail objectively the constitutional, medical, legal and ethical issues and technicalities in respect of each option identified.
After that, as Europe has made clear, the responsibility will be on us, not only to decide our position, but to implement it clearly and thoroughly.
Paul Brady is a barrister and co-author of Psychiatry and the Law (Blackhall, 2010)

Why the "X" case ruling was not good basis for law. 

Very few people would argue that Professor William Binchy does not know the law better than most. He has some very good insights regarding the "X" case judgement of 20 years ago, how it was flawed and how it has contributed to the confusion ever since.This article from yesterday's Irish Times sets out why.

Supreme Court 'X' case ruling not good basis for abortion law

The Irish Times – Thursday, January 19, 2012
WILLIAM BINCHY
OPINION: THE GOVERNMENT’S appointment of the expert group to address the implications of the European Court of Human Rights decision in A, B C v Ireland gives us all the opportunity to reflect on the issue of legal protection for mothers and their unborn children.
Ireland has the enviable record of being among the very safest countries in the world for mothers during pregnancy – safer than a range of countries with far greater economic resources that have wide-ranging legalised abortion.
The task for the expert group is to recommend legal support for doctors to continue to uphold the principle of doing the best possible for two patients – mother and child – during pregnancy. There are times when this can result in the death of the unborn child, which is not the intended purpose of the treatment of the mother.
The mistake that the Supreme Court made in the X case was to embrace a quite different principle: that it is permissible to target the unborn child and intentionally terminate his or her life.
The Supreme Court heard no expert psychiatric evidence. Over the 20 years since the X case, the international research has shown a different reality: studies have been published that identify abortion as involving a significant increase in suicidal ideation and outcome.
The work of Dr David Fergusson and his colleagues in New Zealand in 2005 is perhaps the most striking example, especially since Fergusson’s own personal value position favours the “right to choose”. Fergusson noted the difficulty he had experienced in getting his research published.
Contrary to sustained misrepresentation by advocates of legalised abortion, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights does not require Ireland to give legislative effect to the Supreme Court decision of 20 years ago. What it does require is that we in Ireland choose a law that is clear.
We could, choose to endorse what the Supreme Court did but, if we took that course, we would be introducing into our hospitals an abortion regime, requiring abortion at all stages of pregnancy up to birth – the Supreme Court mentioned no time limits, in stark contrast to the notorious decision of the United States supreme court in Roe v Wade.
The Supreme Court decision represents injustice to the child, since it requires that his or her life be intentionally terminated. That abortion targets the child is a sad fact we should not ignore, however unpalatable it is to contemplate.
In England, some children – a small number – survive abortion. The Confidential Inquiry into Maternal and Child Health reported in 2007 that 66 babies had survived in one year. The policy in these cases is not to attempt to resuscitate them but rather to ensure that they die. That is not the policy of Irish hospitals but, if abortion was authorised on the principles set out in the Supreme Court decision, it would have to apply.
I do not believe that Irish people would wish to introduce a legal regime where the destruction of a child’s life was the object of the exercise.
We are free to make a different choice: one that ensures that Ireland can continue to be in the forefront of maternal safety and that does not target the child.
If the debate is about medicine, then Ireland, with its world class record on the care and safety of mothers during pregnancy, is a living example of how respect for human rights maximises positive outcomes.
But in truth the debate is really about values – not just about personal autonomy and privacy but about the dignity and equal worth of every human being. It is not easy to justify the intentional termination of the life of another human being, however small, powerless or undeveloped she or he may be. The insight of human rights philosophy is that, regardless of the estimation of others, every human being has inherent dignity and worth.
An unborn child is a distinct human being, with a unique identity different from that of his or her parents. He or she is no more or no less “a lump of cells” than a mature person.
Of course many (though not all) mature people lead lives of impressive intellectual and interpersonal fulfilment that bear no comparison with the experience or capacity of an infant in its mother’s womb or in the care of its parents in the years after birth. To build a lethal distinction on these differences in capacity and experience is not consistent with respect for the core values of human dignity and equal worth.
I hope that the expert group will take a broad view of its mandate and will guide the Government on the range of social supports that parents need in the awesome challenges that they may face in rearing the children who depend on their care.

Government Expert Group on Abortion

Will Rogers defined an expert as "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase," that came to mind when I saw some of the names on the government Expert Group on Abortion the other day. I hope that they are sincere and that this is not used as a Trojan Horse to bring even "limited" abortion into Ireland. Abortion doesn't improve the health of women, it doesn't save their lives and it always destroys the life of the baby.
If they do recommend that we legislate for abortion the government does not have to accept their recommendations. Of course the fear is that Fine Gael TDs and senators, most of whom are pro-life, would be corralled by the Labour Party minority and forced into supporting legislation that they and a majority of the people in the country don't want. The Labour Party are pro-abortion, of that there is no doubt, you won't see them promoting that position very strongly but it is a very important issue for many of them, especially the deputy leader of the Seanad (and failed Dáil candidate) Senator Ivana Bacik and Anne Ferris TD.
Some soft pro-life Fine Gael TDs don't think they can fight the Labour Party on this issue and may hide behind recommendations of the Expert Group. I hope that on this issue the Fine Gael backbenchers get greater warning than they did on the closing of the Embassy to the Holy See (it cost too much money, though that would still be about 5% of the mission to the European Community). This is not a matter of money, this is a matter of life and death. Anyway Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign has expertise in this area far beyond my own.

 13th January 2012

Pro Life Campaign Says Expert Group on Abortion Presents Opportunity to Clarify Key Ethical Distinctions

The establishment by the Government of the Expert Group on abortion presents an opportunity to clarify important ethical distinctions in this area, the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) has said.
The Government this evening announced the members of the 14-member group from the medical, legal and nursing professions, in response to the A, B and C v. Ireland ruling on abortion from the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. The Expert Group will be chaired by Mr Justice Seán Ryan and has to report back to Government within six months with options on how to implement the judgment of the European Court.
In a statement responding to the announcement, spokesperson for the Pro Life Campaign, Dr Ruth Cullen said:
“The establishment of the expert group presents a genuine opportunity to re-affirm the ethical distinction between necessary medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion, which intentionally targets the life of the baby.
“Pro-choice activists are falsely claiming that Ireland is obliged to introduce abortion following the European Court of Human Rights decision. In reality, the court recognised the right of the Irish people to decide on the issue.
“It is also of critical importance that the new expert group take account of the latest peer-reviewed research, published in leading periodicals, which highlights the negative psychological effects of abortion for many women.”