Thursday December 10, 2009
Paul Harrison, Sky News reporter
A woman who for years has helped Irish women seek terminations in the UK has warned that the credit crunch could bring about the return of "medieval" backstreet abortions.
Ann Rossiter, herself forced into having an illegal abortion, made the claim as three woman challenged Ireland's historic laws at Strasbourg's European Court of Human Rights.
"Travelling to the UK costs money and at the moment many students and older pregnant women don't have the funds they once had," explained the author of Ireland's Hidden Diaspora: The Abortion Trail.
"In my case my health was severely damaged. It was medieval torture. A return to the days of backstreet abortions will happen as long as the law remains unchanged."
Since abortions became legal in Britain in 1967, 150,000 women from the Republic and Northern Ireland have made the journey to the UK.
They would stay at homes like the one now owned by Ann in London.
Abortion is illegal in Ireland
"Low-budget airlines did a lot to help those escaping draconian laws, but there was always the fear or embarrassment of seeing someone they knew at the airport," she told Sky News.
"When they arrived they'd have a bed for the night. They would be scared and we did all we could to make them comfortable. The following day they would fly home."
The need to stay in for observation after an abortion was soon abolished by the NHS, meaning women would mainly fly in and out in a single day.
"But now that money is tight many are choosing the cheaper, late-night flights, meaning that many are starting to stay overnight again."
Fearing the law is not about to change any time soon, Ann's spare bedrooms are made up and ready.
Ireland's Hidden Diaspora: The Abortion Trail and The Making of a London-Irish Underground, 1980-2000 is distributed by IASC.
LINK
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Irish Times: 'Moral values' of abortion law defended
by CARL O'BRIEN Chief Reporter in Strasbourg
Thu, Dec 10, 2009
GOVERNMENT'S CASE: THE GOVERNMENT robustly defended Ireland’s abortion restrictions at the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, insisting they are based on “profound moral values embedded in Irish society”.
The case involves three women, known as A, B and C, who say their inability to get an abortion in Ireland jeopardised their health and violated their human rights. In a hearing which could have implications for Irish abortion law, Attorney General Paul Gallagher insisted the country’s legal position on abortion had been endorsed in three referendums, as well as safeguarded in protocols attached to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
Mr Gallagaher said the European Convention on Human Rights has recognised the diversity of traditions and values of countries which are signatories to the convention over the past six decades. The convention also extended protection of human rights to unborn children.
However, Mr Gallagher said this challenge sought to undermine these fundamental principles and align Ireland with countries with more liberal abortion laws.
Criticising the nature of the case taken by the three women – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association – Mr Gallagher said their case was based on “legal and factual propositions which, when analysed, cannot be supported.” The fact that the women’s cases had not been heard before the domestic courts meant key facts relating to their case – many of which were of an assumed and conditional nature – had not been properly tested. “Many of these facts are of an assumed nature … if these issues are to come before this court, it should be on the basis of established facts.”
He also questioned the women’s claims that their rights were violated due to poor provision of post-abortion counselling and medical support. This amounted to a “significant attack on the Irish system, on the medical treatment available, on the advice available and the support available to people” in crisis pregnancies.
The State-funded Crisis Pregnancy Agency provided a unique service in Europe and it was unfair to have its reputation denigrated, senior counsel Donal O’Donnell, also for the State,told the court.
The State rejected suggestions by the women’s legal team that abortion law was unclear and insisted the Constitution clearly stated that abortion was lawful in the circumstances of the X case, where the life of the mother is at risk.
“These grounds will rarely arise, but where there is a possibility of a risk to the life of the woman, physically or medically, there is a clear and bright line rule [provided by the Constitution] that is neither difficult to understand nor to apply,” Mr O’Donnell said.
There were detailed Medical Council guidelines available to doctors which set out the proper response for women presenting in these circumstances, he added.
Mr O’Donnell rejected assertions in legal submissions for the women that there was a move toward greater public support for liberalising Irish abortion law, and insisted such claims were based on the “fragments of opinion polls.”
On the failure of the Government to legislate for the provisions of the X case, he said the Government has taken the issue of abortion extremely seriously, as evidenced by a total of five referendums over 25 years, as well as Oireachtas committee reports and a constitutional review group. In conclusion, he said, the “law may be restrictive, but the law is clear, it is well-known and it is applied. What is not clear is how the situation will be improved if we had permanent and rigid legislation.”
The Attorney General and Mr O’Donnell were part of an eight-strong legal team which included senior counsel Brian Murray, as well as four legal advisers, Christine O’Rourke, Geraldine Luddy, Sarah Farrell and Bernadette McDonnell. The court adjourned yesterday following the hearing and a judgment is expected within the next six to eight months.
Based in Strasbourg, the court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
© 2009 The Irish Times
LINK
Thu, Dec 10, 2009
GOVERNMENT'S CASE: THE GOVERNMENT robustly defended Ireland’s abortion restrictions at the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, insisting they are based on “profound moral values embedded in Irish society”.
The case involves three women, known as A, B and C, who say their inability to get an abortion in Ireland jeopardised their health and violated their human rights. In a hearing which could have implications for Irish abortion law, Attorney General Paul Gallagher insisted the country’s legal position on abortion had been endorsed in three referendums, as well as safeguarded in protocols attached to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
Mr Gallagaher said the European Convention on Human Rights has recognised the diversity of traditions and values of countries which are signatories to the convention over the past six decades. The convention also extended protection of human rights to unborn children.
However, Mr Gallagher said this challenge sought to undermine these fundamental principles and align Ireland with countries with more liberal abortion laws.
Criticising the nature of the case taken by the three women – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association – Mr Gallagher said their case was based on “legal and factual propositions which, when analysed, cannot be supported.” The fact that the women’s cases had not been heard before the domestic courts meant key facts relating to their case – many of which were of an assumed and conditional nature – had not been properly tested. “Many of these facts are of an assumed nature … if these issues are to come before this court, it should be on the basis of established facts.”
He also questioned the women’s claims that their rights were violated due to poor provision of post-abortion counselling and medical support. This amounted to a “significant attack on the Irish system, on the medical treatment available, on the advice available and the support available to people” in crisis pregnancies.
The State-funded Crisis Pregnancy Agency provided a unique service in Europe and it was unfair to have its reputation denigrated, senior counsel Donal O’Donnell, also for the State,told the court.
The State rejected suggestions by the women’s legal team that abortion law was unclear and insisted the Constitution clearly stated that abortion was lawful in the circumstances of the X case, where the life of the mother is at risk.
“These grounds will rarely arise, but where there is a possibility of a risk to the life of the woman, physically or medically, there is a clear and bright line rule [provided by the Constitution] that is neither difficult to understand nor to apply,” Mr O’Donnell said.
There were detailed Medical Council guidelines available to doctors which set out the proper response for women presenting in these circumstances, he added.
Mr O’Donnell rejected assertions in legal submissions for the women that there was a move toward greater public support for liberalising Irish abortion law, and insisted such claims were based on the “fragments of opinion polls.”
On the failure of the Government to legislate for the provisions of the X case, he said the Government has taken the issue of abortion extremely seriously, as evidenced by a total of five referendums over 25 years, as well as Oireachtas committee reports and a constitutional review group. In conclusion, he said, the “law may be restrictive, but the law is clear, it is well-known and it is applied. What is not clear is how the situation will be improved if we had permanent and rigid legislation.”
The Attorney General and Mr O’Donnell were part of an eight-strong legal team which included senior counsel Brian Murray, as well as four legal advisers, Christine O’Rourke, Geraldine Luddy, Sarah Farrell and Bernadette McDonnell. The court adjourned yesterday following the hearing and a judgment is expected within the next six to eight months.
Based in Strasbourg, the court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
© 2009 The Irish Times
LINK
Belfast Telegraph: Republic of Ireland defends its strict abortion laws
Thursday, 10 December 2009
The Irish government has robustly defended the Republic's restrictive abortion laws before the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday Attorney General Paul Gallagher SC told the court's 17-judge Grand Chamber in Strasbourg that a landmark challenge by three women was a "significant attack" on the Irish health system, its treatment advice and support. The women — known as A, B and C — claim their health and human rights were violated because they had to travel to Britain to terminate their pregnancies.
However, Mr Gallagher said that the case by the women was an attempt to make Ireland's abortion laws more liberal — like they are in other European countries.
"The right to life of the unborn is based on profound moral values deeply embedded in the fabric of Irish society," he told the court, including Irish High Court Judge Mary Finlay Geoghegan.
If the abortion case succeeds, it could lead to abortion being made available here in certain circumstances. The court may dictate the minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion to safeguard her health and wellbeing is entitled.
Mr Gallagher said that Ireland's protection of the right to life of the unborn had been endorsed in three referenda and was explicitly recognised in a protocol attached to the Maastricht Treaty. Ireland had also secured a relevant legal guarantee as part of the re-run of the Lisbon Treaty.
Defending the government's record, Mr Gallagher said that it "had not let matters rest" since the infamous X case in 1992 — when a court banned a pregnant 14-year-old rape victim from travelling abroad to have an abortion. That restriction was later lifted.
Lawyers acting for the three women, who did not attend yesterday's hearing, said the trio were forced to travel for "clandestine abortions" abroad, and were forced to borrow money to pay for the procedures. Julie Kay, lead counsel for the women, said this conflicted with the minimum protection afforded under Article 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
LINK
The Irish government has robustly defended the Republic's restrictive abortion laws before the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday Attorney General Paul Gallagher SC told the court's 17-judge Grand Chamber in Strasbourg that a landmark challenge by three women was a "significant attack" on the Irish health system, its treatment advice and support. The women — known as A, B and C — claim their health and human rights were violated because they had to travel to Britain to terminate their pregnancies.
However, Mr Gallagher said that the case by the women was an attempt to make Ireland's abortion laws more liberal — like they are in other European countries.
"The right to life of the unborn is based on profound moral values deeply embedded in the fabric of Irish society," he told the court, including Irish High Court Judge Mary Finlay Geoghegan.
If the abortion case succeeds, it could lead to abortion being made available here in certain circumstances. The court may dictate the minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion to safeguard her health and wellbeing is entitled.
Mr Gallagher said that Ireland's protection of the right to life of the unborn had been endorsed in three referenda and was explicitly recognised in a protocol attached to the Maastricht Treaty. Ireland had also secured a relevant legal guarantee as part of the re-run of the Lisbon Treaty.
Defending the government's record, Mr Gallagher said that it "had not let matters rest" since the infamous X case in 1992 — when a court banned a pregnant 14-year-old rape victim from travelling abroad to have an abortion. That restriction was later lifted.
Lawyers acting for the three women, who did not attend yesterday's hearing, said the trio were forced to travel for "clandestine abortions" abroad, and were forced to borrow money to pay for the procedures. Julie Kay, lead counsel for the women, said this conflicted with the minimum protection afforded under Article 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
LINK
Politico.ie: Historic challenge to Ireland’s abortion laws brought to Europe
Wednesday, 09 December 2009
by Deirdra O'Regan
Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber, which consists of 17 judges, will hear a controversial landmark case on abortion, the outcome of which will have significant implications, both for the Irish state and Europe. The case involves a challenge to Ireland's ban on abortion, lodged with the ECtHR in August 2005 by three women resident in Ireland.
The women, known as A, B and C to protect their identity, were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, in the process incurring expenses and enduring unnecessary hardship. Each of the women was experiencing difficulties with her pregnancy; collectively they contend that Ireland has breached their human rights under a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This case is the first direct challenge to Irish abortion law by a group of women. The ECtHR, which is based in Strasbourg and is separate from the European Union, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. While the European Court of Human Rights does not have the authority to amend Irish law, it can find Ireland to be in violation of the human rights convention. If this were to happen, Ireland would be face significant pressure to comply with its obligations under the convention.
This case is also highly unusual in that it has received such significant attention and input internationally. Although the applicants are supported primarily by the Irish Family Planning Association, the American women’s organisation, ‘Legal Momentum’, is also providing legal counsel to the women. On the Government's side, a number of non-Irish third-party interveners describing themselves as ‘dedicated to the sanctity of human life’ have become involved in the litigation. The interveners include the 'Alliance Defence Fund' on behalf of the US Family Research Council and the London based 'Society for the Protection of Unborn Children'.
Background to the Case
All three women submitting the case to Strasbourg decided to travel to England to have an abortion.
* Applicant A ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb. She had taken emergency contraception the day after intercourse, but was advised by two different doctors that it had not only failed, but had given rise to a significant risk of an ectopic pregnancy.
* Applicant B had undergone chemotherapy for cancer treatment. She was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination about whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term, or to give her clear advice as to how the foetus might have been affected.
* Applicant C is a woman whose four children had been placed in foster care as a result of problems she faced as an alcoholic and because she was unable to cope, was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty.
The applicants argue that their human rights are being violated under Article 8 of the ECHR which relates to the right of privacy in all family, home and personal interests, and entitlement to no public interference from any public authority in exercising this right. They also allege a breach of:
* Article 2, which protects the life of an individual. They contend that the Irish Government has provided no clear guidance as to when abortion may be legally carried out under the ‘X’ case, where termination of pregnancy is necessary to save a woman’s life.
* Article 3, which protects individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment. The women argue that the criminalisation of abortion harms women by stigmatising them and can result in difficulty in accessing necessary follow up care.
* Article 14, which affords rights and freedoms without discrimination. The women argue that Irish abortion law discriminates on the basis of sex and financial status. Women are treated differently from men in making decisions concerning their private and family life, and the ban imposes particular burdens on economically disadvantaged women and those who have difficulty travelling because of their age or legal status.
The court will also look for information on what exact procedures are in place where a pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, and the course of action a woman must undertake to pursue a lawful abortion in Ireland.
The Irish Times recently reported on the Government’s position in this case. In papers filed with the court and seen by the newspaper, the Government has indicated it will launch a forceful defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion. Government contends that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. However, the central contention of its defence is that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
Likely Outcome
The biggest challenge facing the applicants in this case is indeed the issue of admissibility. In 2006, the ECHR ruled the case of D v. Ireland was inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Miss ‘D’, a 17 year old woman with an anencephalic pregnancy argued that Ireland's ban on abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities violated Articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2007 the Irish High Court ruled that she had the right to travel for an abortion.
While it is entirely possible that ABC v Ireland may suffer the same fate of inadmissibility as D v Ireland, the cases fundamentally differ in that A, B, and C were not facing the unique predicament of Ms. D. The purpose of ABC v Ireland is to directly challenge Ireland's general prohibition of abortion, rather than make an inroad through a particular exception, as in the ‘D’ case. This central difference may persuade the ECtHR that A, B, and C could not have found sufficient recourse in the Irish courts because of the general ban on abortion, whereas in the ‘D’ case, the Irish government recognised the possibility of an exception for very exceptional circumstances.
However A, B and C will argue that the lack of any effectual remedy in Ireland means they have fulfilled the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies. They say the "case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity".
Despite the question over admissibility, based on the merits of the case alone A,B and C will almost definitely win.The court does grant a "wide margin of appreciation" with regards to determining abortion law. This means that the court has reviewed the approaches of all European states and found that states have adopted vastly different approaches which range from conservative to liberal, therefore it is more ‘lenient’ with regards to various state’s abortion legislation. For this reason, it is improbable that the court will rule that Irish law breaches the convention by disallowing abortion on health grounds.
However, the Irish women's application will succeed as it involves a claim that the operation of a state's abortion law in practice is incompatible with the the convention. The precedent for this was set in 2007 when the ECtHR held in Tysiac v. Poland that every state has a positive duty to secure respect for a person's physical and psychological integrity. This ruling was in relation to a case taken by a Polish woman who claimed that Poland had violated her right to physical integrity under the convention by failing to provide her with access to a therapeutic abortion. Under Poland's abortion law, abortion is permitted under certain exceptions, such as a risk to a woman's life or health. The applicant sought an abortion because the birth threatened her limited eyesight. A doctor certified that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health. However, another doctor disagreed 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 court ruled 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.
Dr Adam McAuley a lecturer and specialist in international human rights law in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, believes the three Irish women will succeed "because Irish abortion law is in a worse state than the invalid Polish law”. Dr McAuley further argues: “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.”
'Rogue' Crisis Pregnancy Counselling Agencies
One of the most significant amendments to abortion law in the history of the state is the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995. The Act allows certain individuals to give information on abortions services abroad should a woman request it, provided the information is imparted along with information on parenting and adoption and given in the context of one to one counselling.
However, many of the ‘counselling’ services which have sprung up since the institution of the Act have met with controversy.
Various investigations into ‘rogue’ pregnancy counselling agencies have revealed unethical and often disturbing practices, particularly in relation to giving women inaccurate information about the availability and consequences of abortion. An undercover report by Choice Ireland, a pro-choice organisation, revealed certain ‘counselling’ providers told lies such as:
* It is impossible to have an abortion before two months, “because the baby parts are so small that they get left inside the mother and the mother could die”.
* Having an abortion can cause a quadrupled risk of breast cancer.
* Having an abortion can cause promiscuity and frigidity.
* Having an abortion can cause child abuse.
On 1 December, Choice Ireland appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children to present the results of its investigation into rogue crisis pregnancy agencies operating in Ireland and to call on the government to regulate the activities of these groups.
Committee members generally agreed that a regulatory framework should be introduced to regulate crisis pregnancy counselling services and that 'rogue' agencies were objectionable.
Sinead Ahern, spokeswoman for Choice Ireland, said the primary aim of such agencies was to prevent a woman with a crisis pregnancy from having an abortion. Though they advertised themselves as mainstream pregnancy counselling services, they used “lies and intimidation” as well as showing graphic videos and distressing images of foetal remains to “very vulnerable women”.
The reality of abortion in Ireland
Although Ireland has relaxed its position on other controversial social issues, such as divorce and homosexuality, it remains the only western country, except for Malta, where abortion is virtually banned by both law and the constitution. Ireland’s abortion legislation is exceptionally restrictive by international standards, allowing for abortion only when the life of the woman is in danger. In practice, however, due to ambiguity about when a physician may legally perform a life-saving operation, abortion is unavailable in virtually all circumstances. Irish legislation also fails to make any provision for a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, at risk of permanent bodily harm such as blindness, diabetes, kidney or heart disease or experiencing a severe foetal abnormality. This is despite the fact that Ireland has the second highest rate of neural tube defects in the world.
Official figures reveal that over 7,000 women each year travel from Ireland to England for abortions. This figure is based upon the number of women providing Irish addresses and vastly underestimates the actual number of women travelling, many of whom give false addresses in England or travel to other countries like Belgium and the Netherlands.
Recent studies have shown that restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women seeking terminations, a major report suggests. The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted. The study further noted that improved access to contraception leads to cuts in overall abortion rates.
In July of last year, Ireland was examined by the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee identified Ireland’s abortion regime as an area of concern, stating that Ireland ’should bring its abortion laws into line with the [ICCPR]. 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 lives at risk or to abortions abroad’. However, Government have, as of yet, failed to take any steps to do so.
Prompted by the current case, Dr. Gill Greer, Director-General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, of which the IFPA is a member, said “the Irish Government is not only going against the global trend to legalise and liberalise abortion laws, they are going against the majority of their own citizens whom recent opinion polls show to be broadly in favour of liberalizing the law.”
Exactly 9 years ago today, an article appeared in the economist entitled “Ireland's sad and confusing secret; Ireland's confusion over abortion". The author observed that “the current regime, which affirms the right of Irish women to undergo the procedure in England but virtually outlaws it in Ireland, in a strange way reflects the confused state of public opinion.” Very little progress has been made in clarifying abortion legislation since then and it would appear the issue is as confused as ever. The article also cites an instance where Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach, told a pro-referendum group (who were campaigning for a further tightening of abortion law) of his understanding and sympathy but confessed that proceeding with a ballot could bring down his coalition. Arguably, current government are in a much more precarious position, however increased awareness of international law and the ever increasing influence of Europe may mean that inaction is no longer an option.
Legal History of Abortion in Ireland
1861: Offences against the Person Act 1861 makes abortion a criminal offence in Ireland. These criminal laws remain on the Irish Statute books and are interpreted to criminalise abortion in all circumstances. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and court cases have interpreted further the dimensions of abortion, however, the 1861 Act remains the basis of criminal law on abortion in Ireland.
1983: Referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution is passed after a bitterly contested campaign. 53.67% of the electorate voted with 841 233 votes in favour and 416 136 against. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is amended to protect 'the right to life of the unborn'
1988: Ban on dissemination of abortion information from the Supreme Court, but it is appealed.
1991: The European Court of Justice rules that abortion could constitute a service under the Treaty of Rome (Treaty of the European Economic Community) and therefore a Member State could not prohibit the distribution of information by agencies having a commercial relationship with foreign abortion clinics, overturning the 1988 ban.
1992: The infamous ‘X’ case: Under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland, Mr Justice Costello grants a High Court injunction preventing a 14 year old, pregnant as a result of rape, from travelling to Britain for an abortion. In November of 1992, two referendums passed which amend Article 40.3.3 and allow the freedom to travel outside the State for an abortion and the freedom to obtain or make available information on abortion services outside the State, subject to conditions. Also, in the case of Open Door and Well Woman v Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights rules that Ireland violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by preventing Open Door and Well Woman receiving or imparting information on abortion services legally available in other countries.
1995: The Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 is enacted. The Act allows doctors, advisory agencies and individual counsellors to give information on abortions services abroad should a woman request it. However, the Act requires any information on abortion services be provided along with information on parenting and adoption and may only be given the context of one to one counselling.
1996: The Constitution Review Group recommends the introduction of legislation covering matters such as definition of the "unborn", protection for appropriate medical intervention, certification of "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" and a timeframe for lawful abortion.
1997: A 13 year old girl, known as Miss C, is raped and becomes pregnant. The Eastern Health Board takes C into its care and in accordance with the girl's wishes, obtains orders from the District Court to take C abroad for an abortion. C's parents challenge these orders in the High Court case A and B v Eastern Health Board. The court rules that, as Miss C was likely to take her own life if forced to continue with the pregnancy, she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland by virtue of the Supreme Court judgement in the 1992 X Case.
1999: A cabinet committee chaired by Brian Cowen, Minister for Health and Children, publishes the Green Paper on Abortion prepared by an Interdepartmental Working Group. A ‘discussion’ document rather than a policy document, the Green Paper aims to set out the issues surrounding abortion, provide a brief analysis and to consider possible options available.
2000: An All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Brian Lenihan, publishes its Fifth Progress Report and fails to reach consensus. The 700 page document is a political assessment of the issues raised in the Green Paper on Abortion, submissions received and hearings conducted. The views of women who have had abortions were not heard. The Committee fails to reach a political consensus on the substantive legal issues of abortion but agrees on a strategy to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies. The report further recommends the establishment of a dedicated agency under the Department of Health and Children to implement the strategy.
2001: Plans are formed for a referendum to allow abortion where a woman's life is at risk from pregnancy, but not suicide.
2002: The referendum is held. Irish voters reject the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2002 which would remove threat of suicide as a ground for abortion and increase the penalties for helping a woman have an abortion. Voter turn out is 42.89% of total electorate. 50.42% vote against. 49.58% vote in favour.
2004: A study by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency finds that nearly one in three woman had experienced a crisis pregnancy.
2005: Pro-Life Campaign says it intends to lobby for another referendum 'to restore legal protection to the unborn' while the Irish Family Planning Association launches campaign to demand legal abortion services in Ireland.
2006: European Court of Human Rights rules D v Ireland inadmissible because the case did not go through the Irish Courts. The Irish Government relies on the argument that in the Applicant's particular circumstances, she could have been legally entitled to an abortion in Ireland should she have gone through the Irish courts system. The Applicant, known as D, argued that Ireland's ban on abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities violated Articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, the largest survey on sexual health in Ireland finds that 64% of people see abortion as acceptable in certain circumstances.
2007: A 17-year-old woman known as Miss ‘D’ with an anencephalic pregnancy(Invariably fatal, an anencephalic pregnancy means the foetus has virtually no brain and most of the skull is missing) goes to High Court to force the Health Service Executive to allow her to travel to obtain an abortion. The High Court rules that she has a right to travel.
More Information
Choice Ireland, a non-funded pro-choice activist organisation has written to all the Irish political parties to ask under what circumstances, if any, they would allow legal abortion in Ireland. The replies are available here.
The IFPA's report on rogue pregnancy counselling agencies can be accessed here.
The Irish anti-abortion/pro-life campaign can be accessed here.
LINK: http://www.politico.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6060:historic-challenge-to-irelands-abortion-laws-brought-to-europe&catid=40:politics&Itemid=877
by Deirdra O'Regan
Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber, which consists of 17 judges, will hear a controversial landmark case on abortion, the outcome of which will have significant implications, both for the Irish state and Europe. The case involves a challenge to Ireland's ban on abortion, lodged with the ECtHR in August 2005 by three women resident in Ireland.
The women, known as A, B and C to protect their identity, were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, in the process incurring expenses and enduring unnecessary hardship. Each of the women was experiencing difficulties with her pregnancy; collectively they contend that Ireland has breached their human rights under a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This case is the first direct challenge to Irish abortion law by a group of women. The ECtHR, which is based in Strasbourg and is separate from the European Union, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. While the European Court of Human Rights does not have the authority to amend Irish law, it can find Ireland to be in violation of the human rights convention. If this were to happen, Ireland would be face significant pressure to comply with its obligations under the convention.
This case is also highly unusual in that it has received such significant attention and input internationally. Although the applicants are supported primarily by the Irish Family Planning Association, the American women’s organisation, ‘Legal Momentum’, is also providing legal counsel to the women. On the Government's side, a number of non-Irish third-party interveners describing themselves as ‘dedicated to the sanctity of human life’ have become involved in the litigation. The interveners include the 'Alliance Defence Fund' on behalf of the US Family Research Council and the London based 'Society for the Protection of Unborn Children'.
Background to the Case
All three women submitting the case to Strasbourg decided to travel to England to have an abortion.
* Applicant A ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb. She had taken emergency contraception the day after intercourse, but was advised by two different doctors that it had not only failed, but had given rise to a significant risk of an ectopic pregnancy.
* Applicant B had undergone chemotherapy for cancer treatment. She was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination about whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term, or to give her clear advice as to how the foetus might have been affected.
* Applicant C is a woman whose four children had been placed in foster care as a result of problems she faced as an alcoholic and because she was unable to cope, was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty.
The applicants argue that their human rights are being violated under Article 8 of the ECHR which relates to the right of privacy in all family, home and personal interests, and entitlement to no public interference from any public authority in exercising this right. They also allege a breach of:
* Article 2, which protects the life of an individual. They contend that the Irish Government has provided no clear guidance as to when abortion may be legally carried out under the ‘X’ case, where termination of pregnancy is necessary to save a woman’s life.
* Article 3, which protects individuals from inhuman or degrading treatment. The women argue that the criminalisation of abortion harms women by stigmatising them and can result in difficulty in accessing necessary follow up care.
* Article 14, which affords rights and freedoms without discrimination. The women argue that Irish abortion law discriminates on the basis of sex and financial status. Women are treated differently from men in making decisions concerning their private and family life, and the ban imposes particular burdens on economically disadvantaged women and those who have difficulty travelling because of their age or legal status.
The court will also look for information on what exact procedures are in place where a pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, and the course of action a woman must undertake to pursue a lawful abortion in Ireland.
The Irish Times recently reported on the Government’s position in this case. In papers filed with the court and seen by the newspaper, the Government has indicated it will launch a forceful defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion. Government contends that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. However, the central contention of its defence is that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
Likely Outcome
The biggest challenge facing the applicants in this case is indeed the issue of admissibility. In 2006, the ECHR ruled the case of D v. Ireland was inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Miss ‘D’, a 17 year old woman with an anencephalic pregnancy argued that Ireland's ban on abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities violated Articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2007 the Irish High Court ruled that she had the right to travel for an abortion.
While it is entirely possible that ABC v Ireland may suffer the same fate of inadmissibility as D v Ireland, the cases fundamentally differ in that A, B, and C were not facing the unique predicament of Ms. D. The purpose of ABC v Ireland is to directly challenge Ireland's general prohibition of abortion, rather than make an inroad through a particular exception, as in the ‘D’ case. This central difference may persuade the ECtHR that A, B, and C could not have found sufficient recourse in the Irish courts because of the general ban on abortion, whereas in the ‘D’ case, the Irish government recognised the possibility of an exception for very exceptional circumstances.
However A, B and C will argue that the lack of any effectual remedy in Ireland means they have fulfilled the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies. They say the "case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity".
Despite the question over admissibility, based on the merits of the case alone A,B and C will almost definitely win.The court does grant a "wide margin of appreciation" with regards to determining abortion law. This means that the court has reviewed the approaches of all European states and found that states have adopted vastly different approaches which range from conservative to liberal, therefore it is more ‘lenient’ with regards to various state’s abortion legislation. For this reason, it is improbable that the court will rule that Irish law breaches the convention by disallowing abortion on health grounds.
However, the Irish women's application will succeed as it involves a claim that the operation of a state's abortion law in practice is incompatible with the the convention. The precedent for this was set in 2007 when the ECtHR held in Tysiac v. Poland that every state has a positive duty to secure respect for a person's physical and psychological integrity. This ruling was in relation to a case taken by a Polish woman who claimed that Poland had violated her right to physical integrity under the convention by failing to provide her with access to a therapeutic abortion. Under Poland's abortion law, abortion is permitted under certain exceptions, such as a risk to a woman's life or health. The applicant sought an abortion because the birth threatened her limited eyesight. A doctor certified that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's health. However, another doctor disagreed 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 court ruled 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.
Dr Adam McAuley a lecturer and specialist in international human rights law in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, believes the three Irish women will succeed "because Irish abortion law is in a worse state than the invalid Polish law”. Dr McAuley further argues: “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.”
'Rogue' Crisis Pregnancy Counselling Agencies
One of the most significant amendments to abortion law in the history of the state is the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995. The Act allows certain individuals to give information on abortions services abroad should a woman request it, provided the information is imparted along with information on parenting and adoption and given in the context of one to one counselling.
However, many of the ‘counselling’ services which have sprung up since the institution of the Act have met with controversy.
Various investigations into ‘rogue’ pregnancy counselling agencies have revealed unethical and often disturbing practices, particularly in relation to giving women inaccurate information about the availability and consequences of abortion. An undercover report by Choice Ireland, a pro-choice organisation, revealed certain ‘counselling’ providers told lies such as:
* It is impossible to have an abortion before two months, “because the baby parts are so small that they get left inside the mother and the mother could die”.
* Having an abortion can cause a quadrupled risk of breast cancer.
* Having an abortion can cause promiscuity and frigidity.
* Having an abortion can cause child abuse.
On 1 December, Choice Ireland appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children to present the results of its investigation into rogue crisis pregnancy agencies operating in Ireland and to call on the government to regulate the activities of these groups.
Committee members generally agreed that a regulatory framework should be introduced to regulate crisis pregnancy counselling services and that 'rogue' agencies were objectionable.
Sinead Ahern, spokeswoman for Choice Ireland, said the primary aim of such agencies was to prevent a woman with a crisis pregnancy from having an abortion. Though they advertised themselves as mainstream pregnancy counselling services, they used “lies and intimidation” as well as showing graphic videos and distressing images of foetal remains to “very vulnerable women”.
The reality of abortion in Ireland
Although Ireland has relaxed its position on other controversial social issues, such as divorce and homosexuality, it remains the only western country, except for Malta, where abortion is virtually banned by both law and the constitution. Ireland’s abortion legislation is exceptionally restrictive by international standards, allowing for abortion only when the life of the woman is in danger. In practice, however, due to ambiguity about when a physician may legally perform a life-saving operation, abortion is unavailable in virtually all circumstances. Irish legislation also fails to make any provision for a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, at risk of permanent bodily harm such as blindness, diabetes, kidney or heart disease or experiencing a severe foetal abnormality. This is despite the fact that Ireland has the second highest rate of neural tube defects in the world.
Official figures reveal that over 7,000 women each year travel from Ireland to England for abortions. This figure is based upon the number of women providing Irish addresses and vastly underestimates the actual number of women travelling, many of whom give false addresses in England or travel to other countries like Belgium and the Netherlands.
Recent studies have shown that restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women seeking terminations, a major report suggests. The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted. The study further noted that improved access to contraception leads to cuts in overall abortion rates.
In July of last year, Ireland was examined by the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee identified Ireland’s abortion regime as an area of concern, stating that Ireland ’should bring its abortion laws into line with the [ICCPR]. 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 lives at risk or to abortions abroad’. However, Government have, as of yet, failed to take any steps to do so.
Prompted by the current case, Dr. Gill Greer, Director-General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, of which the IFPA is a member, said “the Irish Government is not only going against the global trend to legalise and liberalise abortion laws, they are going against the majority of their own citizens whom recent opinion polls show to be broadly in favour of liberalizing the law.”
Exactly 9 years ago today, an article appeared in the economist entitled “Ireland's sad and confusing secret; Ireland's confusion over abortion". The author observed that “the current regime, which affirms the right of Irish women to undergo the procedure in England but virtually outlaws it in Ireland, in a strange way reflects the confused state of public opinion.” Very little progress has been made in clarifying abortion legislation since then and it would appear the issue is as confused as ever. The article also cites an instance where Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach, told a pro-referendum group (who were campaigning for a further tightening of abortion law) of his understanding and sympathy but confessed that proceeding with a ballot could bring down his coalition. Arguably, current government are in a much more precarious position, however increased awareness of international law and the ever increasing influence of Europe may mean that inaction is no longer an option.
Legal History of Abortion in Ireland
1861: Offences against the Person Act 1861 makes abortion a criminal offence in Ireland. These criminal laws remain on the Irish Statute books and are interpreted to criminalise abortion in all circumstances. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and court cases have interpreted further the dimensions of abortion, however, the 1861 Act remains the basis of criminal law on abortion in Ireland.
1983: Referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution is passed after a bitterly contested campaign. 53.67% of the electorate voted with 841 233 votes in favour and 416 136 against. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is amended to protect 'the right to life of the unborn'
1988: Ban on dissemination of abortion information from the Supreme Court, but it is appealed.
1991: The European Court of Justice rules that abortion could constitute a service under the Treaty of Rome (Treaty of the European Economic Community) and therefore a Member State could not prohibit the distribution of information by agencies having a commercial relationship with foreign abortion clinics, overturning the 1988 ban.
1992: The infamous ‘X’ case: Under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland, Mr Justice Costello grants a High Court injunction preventing a 14 year old, pregnant as a result of rape, from travelling to Britain for an abortion. In November of 1992, two referendums passed which amend Article 40.3.3 and allow the freedom to travel outside the State for an abortion and the freedom to obtain or make available information on abortion services outside the State, subject to conditions. Also, in the case of Open Door and Well Woman v Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights rules that Ireland violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by preventing Open Door and Well Woman receiving or imparting information on abortion services legally available in other countries.
1995: The Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 is enacted. The Act allows doctors, advisory agencies and individual counsellors to give information on abortions services abroad should a woman request it. However, the Act requires any information on abortion services be provided along with information on parenting and adoption and may only be given the context of one to one counselling.
1996: The Constitution Review Group recommends the introduction of legislation covering matters such as definition of the "unborn", protection for appropriate medical intervention, certification of "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" and a timeframe for lawful abortion.
1997: A 13 year old girl, known as Miss C, is raped and becomes pregnant. The Eastern Health Board takes C into its care and in accordance with the girl's wishes, obtains orders from the District Court to take C abroad for an abortion. C's parents challenge these orders in the High Court case A and B v Eastern Health Board. The court rules that, as Miss C was likely to take her own life if forced to continue with the pregnancy, she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland by virtue of the Supreme Court judgement in the 1992 X Case.
1999: A cabinet committee chaired by Brian Cowen, Minister for Health and Children, publishes the Green Paper on Abortion prepared by an Interdepartmental Working Group. A ‘discussion’ document rather than a policy document, the Green Paper aims to set out the issues surrounding abortion, provide a brief analysis and to consider possible options available.
2000: An All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Brian Lenihan, publishes its Fifth Progress Report and fails to reach consensus. The 700 page document is a political assessment of the issues raised in the Green Paper on Abortion, submissions received and hearings conducted. The views of women who have had abortions were not heard. The Committee fails to reach a political consensus on the substantive legal issues of abortion but agrees on a strategy to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies. The report further recommends the establishment of a dedicated agency under the Department of Health and Children to implement the strategy.
2001: Plans are formed for a referendum to allow abortion where a woman's life is at risk from pregnancy, but not suicide.
2002: The referendum is held. Irish voters reject the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2002 which would remove threat of suicide as a ground for abortion and increase the penalties for helping a woman have an abortion. Voter turn out is 42.89% of total electorate. 50.42% vote against. 49.58% vote in favour.
2004: A study by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency finds that nearly one in three woman had experienced a crisis pregnancy.
2005: Pro-Life Campaign says it intends to lobby for another referendum 'to restore legal protection to the unborn' while the Irish Family Planning Association launches campaign to demand legal abortion services in Ireland.
2006: European Court of Human Rights rules D v Ireland inadmissible because the case did not go through the Irish Courts. The Irish Government relies on the argument that in the Applicant's particular circumstances, she could have been legally entitled to an abortion in Ireland should she have gone through the Irish courts system. The Applicant, known as D, argued that Ireland's ban on abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities violated Articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, the largest survey on sexual health in Ireland finds that 64% of people see abortion as acceptable in certain circumstances.
2007: A 17-year-old woman known as Miss ‘D’ with an anencephalic pregnancy(Invariably fatal, an anencephalic pregnancy means the foetus has virtually no brain and most of the skull is missing) goes to High Court to force the Health Service Executive to allow her to travel to obtain an abortion. The High Court rules that she has a right to travel.
More Information
Choice Ireland, a non-funded pro-choice activist organisation has written to all the Irish political parties to ask under what circumstances, if any, they would allow legal abortion in Ireland. The replies are available here.
The IFPA's report on rogue pregnancy counselling agencies can be accessed here.
The Irish anti-abortion/pro-life campaign can be accessed here.
LINK: http://www.politico.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6060:historic-challenge-to-irelands-abortion-laws-brought-to-europe&catid=40:politics&Itemid=877
Irish Times: Irish abortion laws defended
by CARL O'BRIEN, in Strasbourg
Wed, Dec 09, 2009
The Government has issued a robust defence of Ireland’s restrictions on abortion at the European Court of Human Rights today.
The case involves three women, known as A, B and C, who say abortion restrictions in this country have jeopardised their health and violated their human rights.
In a hearing which could have implications for Irish abortion law, the Attorney General Paul Gallagher insisted that the country’s abortion laws were based on “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society”.
Mr Gallagher said the country’s legal position on abortion had been endorsed in three referendums, as well as being safe-guarded in protocols attached to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
He said that the European Convention on Human Rights has recognised over 60 years the diversity of traditions and values of the member states, as well as extending protection to unborn children.
However, the case being taken by the three women sought to undermine these fundamental principles and align Ireland with other countries with more liberal abortion laws.
The Attorney General was part of an eight-strong legal team, including senior counsel Dónal O’Donnell and Brian Murray, as well as four female legal advisors.
Criticising the nature of the case taken by the three women – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association – Mr Gallagher said their case was based on “legal and factual propositions which, when analysed, cannot be supported”.
He said the fact that the cases involving the three women had not been before a domestic court meant the facts of case had not been established.
In addition, he said, many these facts were of an assumed and conditional nature, such as a woman not going to a doctor because she feared treatment would not be available.
“Many of these facts are of an assumed nature… if these issues are to comet before this court, it should be on the basis of established facts.”
The court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights – now incorporated into Irish law – the Government is obliged to seek to implement whatever decisions are made by the courts.
If successful, the court’s ruling could lead to the liberalisation of the State’s abortion laws. At present, abortion is only permitted in the circumstances of the “X” case, where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.
The three women at the centre of the case include a woman at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a pregnant woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The women, who have sought to have their anonymity protection, were not in court. They were represented by counsel Jule Kay and senior counsel Carmel Stewart
Addressing the court, Ms Kay said said the lack of any effective remedy in Ireland meant the women had been forced to have their cases heard before the European Court of Human Rights. She said taking a case domestically would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity.
Ms Kay contested the Government's claim that abortion was legal in Ireland in the case where a mother's life was at risk. While this was provided for following the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1992 "X" case, she said the Government has failed to produce any legislation for doctors or medical practitioners on this issue.
As a result, doctors were not prepared to intervene for fear of losing their medical licences or facing potential life imprisonment is the termination was later found to be unlawful or unnecessary.
She said it was highly significant that the State had no statistics to show how many, if any, of these lawful abortions have taken place in Ireland.
© 2009 irishtimes.com
LINK: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1209/breaking38.htm
Wed, Dec 09, 2009
The Government has issued a robust defence of Ireland’s restrictions on abortion at the European Court of Human Rights today.
The case involves three women, known as A, B and C, who say abortion restrictions in this country have jeopardised their health and violated their human rights.
In a hearing which could have implications for Irish abortion law, the Attorney General Paul Gallagher insisted that the country’s abortion laws were based on “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society”.
Mr Gallagher said the country’s legal position on abortion had been endorsed in three referendums, as well as being safe-guarded in protocols attached to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
He said that the European Convention on Human Rights has recognised over 60 years the diversity of traditions and values of the member states, as well as extending protection to unborn children.
However, the case being taken by the three women sought to undermine these fundamental principles and align Ireland with other countries with more liberal abortion laws.
The Attorney General was part of an eight-strong legal team, including senior counsel Dónal O’Donnell and Brian Murray, as well as four female legal advisors.
Criticising the nature of the case taken by the three women – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association – Mr Gallagher said their case was based on “legal and factual propositions which, when analysed, cannot be supported”.
He said the fact that the cases involving the three women had not been before a domestic court meant the facts of case had not been established.
In addition, he said, many these facts were of an assumed and conditional nature, such as a woman not going to a doctor because she feared treatment would not be available.
“Many of these facts are of an assumed nature… if these issues are to comet before this court, it should be on the basis of established facts.”
The court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights – now incorporated into Irish law – the Government is obliged to seek to implement whatever decisions are made by the courts.
If successful, the court’s ruling could lead to the liberalisation of the State’s abortion laws. At present, abortion is only permitted in the circumstances of the “X” case, where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.
The three women at the centre of the case include a woman at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a pregnant woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The women, who have sought to have their anonymity protection, were not in court. They were represented by counsel Jule Kay and senior counsel Carmel Stewart
Addressing the court, Ms Kay said said the lack of any effective remedy in Ireland meant the women had been forced to have their cases heard before the European Court of Human Rights. She said taking a case domestically would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity.
Ms Kay contested the Government's claim that abortion was legal in Ireland in the case where a mother's life was at risk. While this was provided for following the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1992 "X" case, she said the Government has failed to produce any legislation for doctors or medical practitioners on this issue.
As a result, doctors were not prepared to intervene for fear of losing their medical licences or facing potential life imprisonment is the termination was later found to be unlawful or unnecessary.
She said it was highly significant that the State had no statistics to show how many, if any, of these lawful abortions have taken place in Ireland.
© 2009 irishtimes.com
LINK: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1209/breaking38.htm
Cork Councillor Mick Barry Supports ABC
Socialist Party councillor Mick Barry this morning voiced support
for the three Irish women challenging Ireland's abortion laws at the
European Court of Human Rights.
The three women - A,B and C - say that their health was put
at risk by being forced to go abroad for abortions. One of the women
ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, one received chemotherapy for
cancer and one had had her children placed in care as she was unable
to cope.
They argue that the current restrictions on abortion, as well as
a lack of post-abortion care and counselling, amounts to a violation
of their human rights.
Cllr Barry said today: "I think that these are three brave
women. I do not think that they should have to discuss the intimate
details of their lives in a foreign courtroom in order to win access
to abortion facilities in their own country when those facilities are
needed to protect their health. The failure of successive Governments
to legislate for abortion facilities to protect the health of Irish
women is simply not acceptable."
He added: "Abortion is an Irish reality and the State's decision
to force Irish women to go abroad for abortions endangers women's
health and discriminates against working class women. It endangers
women's health insofar as it increases the likelihood of late
abortions and puts women under further stress at a time of crisis. It
discriminates against working class women in the sense that it puts
women on lower incomes under massive financial pressure to go abroad
and spend more than a thousand euro."
for the three Irish women challenging Ireland's abortion laws at the
European Court of Human Rights.
The three women - A,B and C - say that their health was put
at risk by being forced to go abroad for abortions. One of the women
ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, one received chemotherapy for
cancer and one had had her children placed in care as she was unable
to cope.
They argue that the current restrictions on abortion, as well as
a lack of post-abortion care and counselling, amounts to a violation
of their human rights.
Cllr Barry said today: "I think that these are three brave
women. I do not think that they should have to discuss the intimate
details of their lives in a foreign courtroom in order to win access
to abortion facilities in their own country when those facilities are
needed to protect their health. The failure of successive Governments
to legislate for abortion facilities to protect the health of Irish
women is simply not acceptable."
He added: "Abortion is an Irish reality and the State's decision
to force Irish women to go abroad for abortions endangers women's
health and discriminates against working class women. It endangers
women's health insofar as it increases the likelihood of late
abortions and puts women under further stress at a time of crisis. It
discriminates against working class women in the sense that it puts
women on lower incomes under massive financial pressure to go abroad
and spend more than a thousand euro."
RESS RELEASE BY THE IRISH FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Wednesday, 9th December 2009
IRELAND’S DRACONIAN ABORTION LAWS PUT UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT AT HUMAN RIGHTS COURT
The European Court of Human Rights, today (9/12/09), heard a challenge to Ireland’s restrictive laws on abortion.
Three women living in Ireland challenged Ireland’s ban on abortion on the grounds that the law jeopardised their health and their wellbeing in violation of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) which is providing support to the three applicants, welcomes the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to hear their case in the its most important forum, the Grand Chamber.
The IFPA wishes to commend the bravery of three applicants in taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, particularly given the unhelpful nature of abortion discourse in Ireland. The three applicants have waited over five years to have their voices heard at this important forum for the protection of human rights and are looking forward to having their human rights vindicated.
According to the IFPA, today is a hugely significant day for reproductive rights in Ireland. The fact that Ireland’s draconian laws on abortion have been put under the spotlight at this important human rights arena is a landmark for women living in Ireland.
Ireland's restrictions on abortion violate international human rights norms because they inflict such grievous harm to women's health and well-being. The IFPA believes that women and girls’ rights are disproportionately infringed upon by the inaccessibility and criminalisation of safe and legal abortion services in Ireland.
The IFPA is confident that when the Court issues its judgment it will establish a minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion to protect her health and well-being would be entitled.
Ireland’s restrictive laws on abortion are totally out of step with those of its European neighbours. Forty four out of 47 European countries provide for abortion to protect women’s health. The overwhelming consensus throughout Europe allows for some access to legal abortion to protect a woman’s health and well-being, applying a more effective, less punitive approach than that which is in force in Ireland. The IFPA believes that women and girls do not give up their human rights when they become pregnant nor should the State take these human rights away with impunity.
The experiences of the women, known as A, B and C, are illustrative of the reality faced by thousands of women in Ireland. Since 1980, at least 138,000 women have been forced to travel abroad to access safe abortion services, enduring unnecessary and unjustifiable physical, emotional and financial hardship.
The IFPA believes that abortion is an intimate aspect of private life, intricately linked with human rights values and principles that protect a woman's sexual and reproductive rights.
Complex court cases where women and girls are cruelly compelled to disclose the most intimate aspects of their life in the public arena in order to receive appropriate health care, albeit in another country, are deplorable avenues for the delivery of medical services.
This case has highlighted in an international forum the Irish Government’s unwillingness to address the reality of women’s lives and health in Irish law and policy.
ENDS
Notes to Editor:
Three applicants lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in August. The women, known as A, B & C to protect their confidentiality, contend that Ireland has breached their human rights under Articles 2 (Right to Life), 3 (Prohibition of Torture), 8 (Right to Respect for Family and Private Life) and 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Ireland, abortion is criminalised under the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, which threatens women who ‘unlawfully procure a miscarriage’ with life imprisonment.
Abortion is legal in Ireland when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman this includes the risk of suicide. The current legal provisions do not allow for lawful termination of pregnancy when the woman’s health is at risk, where the pregnancy is a result of rape or/and incest, where the foetus will not survive outside the womb or where the pregnant woman decides that continuation of the pregnancy is not in her or her family’s best interests.
It is not against the law for women to travel abroad to access abortion services or access information on safe and legal abortion services in other countries from an Irish service provider.
Opinion polls and research consistently show increased support for access to abortion. A 2004 Crisis Pregnancy Agency study found that 90% of 18-45 year olds support abortion in certain circumstances, with 51% stating that women should always have to right to choose an abortion. In 2007, an Irish Times Behaviour and Attitudes Poll found that 54% of women believe the Government should act to permit abortion.
IRELAND’S DRACONIAN ABORTION LAWS PUT UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT AT HUMAN RIGHTS COURT
The European Court of Human Rights, today (9/12/09), heard a challenge to Ireland’s restrictive laws on abortion.
Three women living in Ireland challenged Ireland’s ban on abortion on the grounds that the law jeopardised their health and their wellbeing in violation of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) which is providing support to the three applicants, welcomes the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to hear their case in the its most important forum, the Grand Chamber.
The IFPA wishes to commend the bravery of three applicants in taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, particularly given the unhelpful nature of abortion discourse in Ireland. The three applicants have waited over five years to have their voices heard at this important forum for the protection of human rights and are looking forward to having their human rights vindicated.
According to the IFPA, today is a hugely significant day for reproductive rights in Ireland. The fact that Ireland’s draconian laws on abortion have been put under the spotlight at this important human rights arena is a landmark for women living in Ireland.
Ireland's restrictions on abortion violate international human rights norms because they inflict such grievous harm to women's health and well-being. The IFPA believes that women and girls’ rights are disproportionately infringed upon by the inaccessibility and criminalisation of safe and legal abortion services in Ireland.
The IFPA is confident that when the Court issues its judgment it will establish a minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion to protect her health and well-being would be entitled.
Ireland’s restrictive laws on abortion are totally out of step with those of its European neighbours. Forty four out of 47 European countries provide for abortion to protect women’s health. The overwhelming consensus throughout Europe allows for some access to legal abortion to protect a woman’s health and well-being, applying a more effective, less punitive approach than that which is in force in Ireland. The IFPA believes that women and girls do not give up their human rights when they become pregnant nor should the State take these human rights away with impunity.
The experiences of the women, known as A, B and C, are illustrative of the reality faced by thousands of women in Ireland. Since 1980, at least 138,000 women have been forced to travel abroad to access safe abortion services, enduring unnecessary and unjustifiable physical, emotional and financial hardship.
The IFPA believes that abortion is an intimate aspect of private life, intricately linked with human rights values and principles that protect a woman's sexual and reproductive rights.
Complex court cases where women and girls are cruelly compelled to disclose the most intimate aspects of their life in the public arena in order to receive appropriate health care, albeit in another country, are deplorable avenues for the delivery of medical services.
This case has highlighted in an international forum the Irish Government’s unwillingness to address the reality of women’s lives and health in Irish law and policy.
ENDS
Notes to Editor:
Three applicants lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in August. The women, known as A, B & C to protect their confidentiality, contend that Ireland has breached their human rights under Articles 2 (Right to Life), 3 (Prohibition of Torture), 8 (Right to Respect for Family and Private Life) and 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Ireland, abortion is criminalised under the Offences against the Person Act of 1861, which threatens women who ‘unlawfully procure a miscarriage’ with life imprisonment.
Abortion is legal in Ireland when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman this includes the risk of suicide. The current legal provisions do not allow for lawful termination of pregnancy when the woman’s health is at risk, where the pregnancy is a result of rape or/and incest, where the foetus will not survive outside the womb or where the pregnant woman decides that continuation of the pregnancy is not in her or her family’s best interests.
It is not against the law for women to travel abroad to access abortion services or access information on safe and legal abortion services in other countries from an Irish service provider.
Opinion polls and research consistently show increased support for access to abortion. A 2004 Crisis Pregnancy Agency study found that 90% of 18-45 year olds support abortion in certain circumstances, with 51% stating that women should always have to right to choose an abortion. In 2007, an Irish Times Behaviour and Attitudes Poll found that 54% of women believe the Government should act to permit abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)