We've been working hard to ensure pro-life voices are heard following the pro-abortion ruling from the European Court. You may have seen and heard our responses on RTÉ, SKY and BBC and here's a sample of press releases and letters printed in the media:
Ide Nic Mhathuna speaking on the ECHR ruling to Sky News on the day of the ruling
Maria Mhic Meanmain spells out why the X case (and the ABC case) doesn't allow for abortion
Madam, – I fail to see what all the fuss over the European Court of Human Rights' ruling is about, especially on the part of pro-abortion campaigners. While it does indeed call for legislation on abortion on the basis of the 1992 X-case, in the real world the X case does not allow for abortion.
The ruling in X determined that a pregnant woman, (or child) was entitled to an abortion if there was an imminent threat to her life and that could only be avoided by abortion. As medical and psychiatric evidence points out, there is never any medical necessity for abortion.
There may be cases where pregnancies need to terminated early, (as in my case when I suffered from severe pre-eclampsia) but in those instances when a very pre-mature baby is delivered, every effort should be made to save the baby's life, even if in the end it proves fruitless. Similarly, no pregnant woman is denied life-saving treatment, even if as a consequence, the baby dies.
Pro-abortion campaigners are being dangerously disingenuous by trying to convince us that abortion is a cure for cancer, depression or any other ill. – Yours, etc,
Maria Mhic Meanmain, Elizabeth Street, Dublin 3.
The letter was also printed in the Irish Independent http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/x-case-does-not-allow-for-abortion-2467320.html
Niamh Uí Bhriain points out that the ECHR ruling confuses medical treatment with abortion
Madam, - Adam Mc Auley (Irish Times, 20th Dec) writes that legislation allowing for abortion is the optimal course available to the Irish government in the wake of the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the ABC case. That's not the case, and, with all due respect, Mr McAuley is missing the point. There is no 'right' to abortion, and, more importantly there is no need for abortion - and the optimal course available to this, or any future, government is to recognise that the Irish people are sovereign and must decide on issues of crucial importance, such as upholding the right to life of every Irish citizen before and after birth.
The Irish Family Planning Association (which is the Irish branch of a major player in the multi-million dollar abortion industry) used the ABC case in an effort to reclassify legitimate medical treatment as abortion. Regardless of what the European Court of Human Rights found, it's simply untrue to say that life-saving medical treatment for cancer which may cause the death of an unborn child is the same thing as an abortion. That's mostly because the intent is not the same: the intent of an abortion is simply to kill the baby, the intent of chemotherapy (which may cause a baby to die) is to save a mother. But it's not just intent that matters, method is also important.
Where early delivery of a baby is necessitated by medical treatment everything is done to save both mother and child. In sharp contrast, where an abortion is performed, cruel and inhumane methods are used to deliberately end a baby's life.
Irish medical experts agree that such life-saving treatments are not abortion: As the then Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told a Dáil Committee in 2000:"It would never cross an obstetrician's mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother."
Almost twenty years after the X case, we are more educated and informed about life in the womb, about the real nature of abortion, and about the harm it causes to women. We also know that, according to the UN, Ireland is the safest country in the world for a woman to have a baby. As the mother of four young girls I particularly deplore the scaremongering which untruthfully claims that abortion is medically necessary to protect women's lives. .
It should come as no surprise that the IFPA and their allies oppose a referendum on abortion - they've sought to use a foreign court to impose abortion on Ireland. With the country reeling from the shock of an EU bailout however, they may have picked the wrong time to seek support for such unwarranted interference.
Niamh Uí Bhriain, The Life Institute,60a Capel Street, Dublin 1 to the Irish Times
Well-known pro-life activist Dónal Ó Driscoll also questioned the IFPA's motives in a letter printed in the Irish Independent
IFPA should show us greater clarity
THE Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) is claiming that it is tackling a dishonesty in Irish law. It is referring to the decision in the X case.
As became clear from the public hearing of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, in mid-2000, this decision was itself lacking in honesty. The concern was with a "right to choose", rather than saving the life of the mother.
In addition, it is clear from the report, 'Women and Crisis Pregnancy', 1998, by Evelyn Mahon, that 99pc of abortions are carried out for social reasons. The report does not clearly say that even one of the 4,400 abortions inthe year chosen was necessary to save the life of the mother.
It is dishonest, therefore, to claim that the taking of human life is necessary in these circumstances, when other purposes are, in fact, envisaged.
IFPA might also be more honest and open about their own operations. It is evident from their own accounts that, in an annual income of almost €3m, 44pc (€1.25m) comes from the taxpayer.
Is it not true to say, then, that the Irish taxpayer is a major funder of the action against Ireland at Strasbourg?
Dónal Ó Driscoll, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Other news reports on the ABC Case
- Niamh Uí Bhriain and William Binchy on Primetime
- Brady: Law on access not required
- Intrusive, unwelcome and a violation of our law
- Europe's human rights court slams Ireland's abortion law
- Pro-Life Groups Respond to European Court Ruling on Abortion
- Pro-life leaders react to European Court ruling on Irish abortion law
- Pro-life groups hit out at European Court Ruling on Ireland's abortion laws
- Pro-life groups hit out at European court ruling on Ireland's abortion law
- European Court violates Ireland's pro-life laws
- Court rejects Europe's Roe v. Wade
- EU court rules against Irish anti-abortion law
- Abortion: Ireland stands firm
Category | Abortion : Ireland
Published By | Life House
Comments on this post:
Comments(7)
John B on Dec 23, 2010 9:12pm
Heard Ide on BBC 4, she came across very well. Great to see young women speaking out on this issue.
Angela on Dec 25, 2010 10:19am
Youth Defence are always on the frontline. Well said. The European court is very hostile to our pro-life ban on abortion. We need to work together to stop them breaking through.
anonymous on Jan 7, 2011 5:01pm
Don't you now wish you would have voted Yes to the 2002 Referendum, when so many other pro-lifers did the same, you handed the win to the No side, and now look at the situation!
Marian Twomey on Jan 7, 2011 6:14pm
But the ECHR ruling is the same as the 2002 referendum so we would be in the same place just 9 years earlier and the people would have voted it in themselves. Thank God, we didn't fall for that sham. Time itself has proven that. Please be gracious and happy that a lot of people saw the error of that amendment
anonymous on Jan 7, 2011 6:21pm
That amendment would have removed suicide as a reason for abortion, it should have passed, you lot plus those on the pro-abortion side stopped it, you put ideology before common sense, stupid.
Maria on Jan 7, 2011 10:02pm
@anonymous, the 2002 wording would have made it beyond doubt that the human embryo before birth was NOT protected under article 40.3.3. So we would not now have a leg to stand on in the fight to protect our fellow citizens lives from the moment of conception. As for removing threatened suicide as a grounds for abortion, don't worry your little head. The test in X is that the threat of suicide can ONLY be mitigated by abortion. The statement issued by Drs. Anthony Clare (RIP) and Patricia Casey States quite clearly that there are NEVER any circumstances where abortion is the ONLY solution. BTW don't be a coward give your name if you post again.
Youth Defence on Jan 8, 2011 8:37pm
@ anonymous
With respect, that's very far from the truth.
The 2002 abortion referendum was designed to allow for the destruction of the human embryo outside of the womb - and the wording offering protection to the child in the womb was ambiguous. In 1983 a wording with ambiguity was accepted - and that led to the Supreme Court decision in X. Another impaired amendment would have made matters worse.
The wording of the proposed amendment was written to remove barriers to embryonic stem cell research, to add further ambiguity to the difference between legitimate medical treatment and abortion, and thereby allowing for abortion in limited circumstances. As pro-life activists we cannot and should not compromise the life of any unborn children - its not a matter of protecting some of the children, some of the time.
Moreover if the 2002 amendment had been approved the government, IFPA et al would now argue that the people had approved abortion and embryo research in a referendum. Since 2002 the actions of the government have proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that they have been working since at least 1999 to introduce embryo research to Ireland.
(See http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/Life-Institute-launches-new-expose-on-the-push-for-embryo-research-in-Ireland for more).
The ABC case was all about confusing life-saving medical treatment with abortion, the 2002 amendment was more of the same.
In 1983 pro-life campaigners were advised by experts such as Prof Eamon O Dwyer that the ambiguous wording in the 1983 amendment might leave to difficulties. Their advice was rejected - but it was proved correct. In 2002 the former High Court judge, Rory O'Hanlon, advised that pro-life people should reject the amendment. He was correct, as a reading of the proposed wording would make clear to anyone. The people were told at the time that it was flawed but that it was 'as good as we could get'. It wasn't good enough, and unborn children's lives are not ours to barter with.
In any case, you would do well to examine the X case ruling carefully. There are reasons why, in the real world, the X case hasn't ushered in abortion.
One of course is the work done by Youth Defence and others in maintaining a pro-life majority, another is the importance of Irish medical ethics (though they have been massively under attack since 1992).
But the other is the actual test laid down in X and the relief provided by the Court.
The judges (with one exception) determined that a pregnant woman (or child) was entitled to an abortion if there was an imminent threat to her life that could only be averted by termination. No medical evidence was offered in the court, but the medical and psychiatric evidence which points out there is never any medical necessity for abortion has grown stronger since 1992. The judges did decide that a risk of self-harm amounted to an imminent threat to life - but the relief they gave was to lift the injunction against X and to allow her to travel to the UK for an abortion.
Right now, as always, we're involved in preventing abortion legislation. Perhaps you can join the campaign rather than nursing unwarranted grudges.