Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

The_Minister

This won't get much notice with the Budget, but the abortion hearing is on in Europe now.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1209/abortion.html

A challenge by three women to Ireland's abortion laws is under way at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The three women claim that their human rights were violated because they had to travel from Ireland to Britain to terminate their pregnancies.

Both sides this morning outlined their arguments before a panel of 17 judges in the Grand Chamber.

AdvertisementIt emerged at the beginning of the hearing that one of the women is a Lithuanian national who is resident in Ireland.

Chamber president Jean-Paul Costa indicated that the Lithuanian government had sought information on the case.

Addressing the court, Attorney General Paul Gallagher SC said the protection of the right to life of the unborn was based on moral values deeply embedded in Irish society and democratically endorsed over three separate referenda.

He said that in 1992 it was recognised by the EU in a protocol attached to the Maastricht Treaty, and later in 2008 and 2009 by 26 EU member states as part of the guarantees offered Ireland in order to re-run the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

He said that the European Convention on Human Rights recognised over 60 years the diversity of traditions and values of the contracting states, and that Article 2 of the Convention also extended protections to foetal life.

The application by the three women, he said, was an attempt to undermine these two fundamental principles, and to adapt Ireland's laws to other signatory countries.

Mr Gallagher said that since the X Case in 1992, the Government had not let matters rest. There had been a constitutional review, an Oireachtas Committee and a referendum, all charged with trying to identify the issues raised by the X Case and to look at the options.

He said the suggestion that the women's health and human rights under Article 8 of the Convention were denied was 'a significant attack' on the Irish health system and its treatment, advice and support.

He said the claims made by the individual women over how they were treated when they became pregnant were not substantiated by evidence from doctors.

Applicants' argument

Addressing the court on behalf of the applicants, Julie Kay SC described the individual cases of the three women.

Applicant A was unemployed, single, living in poverty, had been suffering from substance abuse and suffered severe post natal depression. She had other children in care and was concerned that if she gave birth again she may not get her other children back from the State.

Applicant B had taken a morning after abortion pill and was worried that it could lead to an ectopic pregnancy.

Applicant C was in remission from cancer but could not find a doctor to give her any advice on whether the chemotherapy treatment she had undergone would damage the foetus.

The only option for the three women, she said, was to go outside the State for a 'clandestine' abortion.

They had to borrow money from friends or a money lender to travel.

This conflicted with the minimum protection afforded under Article 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, she said.

Ms Kay said none of the committees and green papers had changed the legal status of abortion in Ireland since the X Case.

She said the Government's claim that abortion was technically available in Ireland in extreme life-saving cases was bogus when it was realised that a doctor would lose his licence or face potential life imprisonment if a termination was later found to be unnecessary.

Nor were there any statistics provided on how many of these 'legal' abortions in Ireland had taken place.

She said there was no effective remedy in the Irish courts since the requirement for a losing party to pay the State's costs was prohibitive.

Ms Kay said the Government's reference to the Lisbon Treaty was irrelevant.

She said the three women had faced indignity, stigmatisation and ill-health as a result of having to travel abroad for their abortions.


The European Court of Human Rights is separate from the EU, but because Ireland is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights it is obliged to implement its decisions.

It is the first time an Irish case has been heard in the Grand Chamber since the David Norris case in 1988.

Time Magazine

The_Minister wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights is separate from the EU, but because Ireland is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights it is obliged to implement its decisions.

Don't think so?

PomBear

Time Magazine wrote: »

Don't think so?

the ECHR is seperate from the EU, but the charter is now legally binding under the Lisbon Treaty. The status of Irelands 'legal' gurantees is yet to be seen really.

Applicant C was in remission from cancer but could not find a doctor to give her any advice on whether the chemotherapy treatment she had undergone would damage the foetus.

If she was having an abortion, why would she care?

If they're deadly serious about having an abortion, paying the extra medical expense for consultation shouldn't be an issue to them really.

MissFlitworth

PomBear wrote: »

If she was having an abortion, why would she care?

If they're deadly serious about having an abortion, paying the extra medical expense for consultation shouldn't be an issue to them really.

Because whether or not the foetus was damaged was probably a major factor in deciding whether to abort it or not

PomBear

MissFlitworth wrote: »

Because whether or not the foetus was damaged was probably a major factor in deciding whether to abort it or not

She could have found that out without going and having the abortion

MissFlitworth

PomBear wrote: »

She could have found that out without going and having the abortion

'Applicant C was in remission from cancer but could not find a doctor to give her any advice on whether the chemotherapy treatment she had undergone would damage the foetus.'

If she couldn't find a doctor who could let her know what the damage was then how could she have found out? Joe Coleman? Consult some angel cards? Somehow or another I don't think it was a case that her GP couldn't let her know so she decided 'F*ckit, I'll have an abortion'

PomBear

MissFlitworth wrote: »

'Applicant C was in remission from cancer but could not find a doctor to give her any advice on whether the chemotherapy treatment she had undergone would damage the foetus.'

If she couldn't find a doctor who could let her know what the damage was then how could she have found out? Joe Coleman? Consult some angel cards? Somehow or another I don't think it was a case that her GP couldn't let her know so she decided 'F*ckit, I'll have an abortion'

No but with such an important decision you find out, you try every single option. If damage to the foetus was such the deciding factor, then you find out, you don't leave something like that to chance. Abortion should never be an easy decision

seamus

PomBear wrote: »

the ECHR is seperate from the EU, but the charter is now legally binding under the Lisbon Treaty. The status of Irelands 'legal' gurantees is yet to be seen really.

Actually the ECHR isn't binding under Lisbon. The ECFR is, almost the same document, but not.

Gauge

PomBear wrote: »

No but with such an important decision you find out, you try every single option. If damage to the foetus was such the deciding factor, then you find out, you don't leave something like that to chance. Abortion should never be an easy decision

What gives you the authority to decide what should be an easy decision or not? And how do you know whether or not the woman exhausted all of her options?

PomBear

Gauge wrote: »

What gives you the authority to decide what should be an easy decision or not? And how do you know whether or not the woman exhausted all of her options?

Because it's killing a living human, stupid question. If you thinks it's an easy decision for anyone, you are incredibly naive.


I just don't buy the fact that Appelant did explore all her options

MissFlitworth

PomBear wrote: »

No but with such an important decision you find out, you try every single option. If damage to the foetus was such the deciding factor, then you find out, you don't leave something like that to chance. Abortion should never be an easy decision

What is the 'every single option' she should have tried after doctors told her they couldn't tell if the foetus was damaged or not? She was in the process of having chemo when she got pregnant, the doctors she had access to would have been cancer specialists and they couldn't tell her, what would you have her do?

What if they only way to find out if the foetus was damaged or not was to wait until it was developed to a point where it was outside the legal age limits for aborting it? Chemo is really hard on your body, carrying a baby to term when you are completely healthy is also really hard on your body. Combine the 2 and you have a situation that could kill you. What if she didn't want to risk that. Why should she offer up her life on the chance that maybe the chemo didn't damage the foetus?

I'm completely pro-choice but this to me seems like a total no brainer, even from a pro life point of view.

Gauge

PomBear wrote: »

Because it's killing a living human, stupid question. If you thinks it's an easy decision for anyone, you are incredibly naive.


I just don't buy the fact that Appelant did explore all her options

I don't think it's an easy decision for anyone. That doesn't mean it has to be a difficult decision for everyone.

I don't buy into the opinion that in order for an abortion to be justified it must be a heart wrenching decision that the woman has to feel terrible about and may never forgive herself for. As if she has to justify her actions by feeling shame and guilt. Reeks of woman-hating to me and I can't stand it. If it was the right decision the woman should feel comfortable to make it- not feel obliged to suffer through it because of what other people will think of her if she doesn't.

I don't believe everything is that black and white. The decision is affected by limitless factors. Financial situations, health, religion, family are just a few. My own beliefs relating to abortion are affected by many factors that include my own experiences and the experiences of people I know. I am in no way naive when it comes to the issue.

The fact that you were so quick to resort to judgement of my character based on a question I asked certainly colours my opinion of you though (as well as the fact you were so quick to judge an anonymous woman based on one paragraph in an article). The way you describe abortion as "killing a living human being" suggests that you hold very different views from me and I respect that, so I'm not going to engage any further in a discussion with you about this.

Not all people see abortion as "killing a human being." I don't. Interesting way of describing it- certainly a good way to make it an emotional issue, which is another reason I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.

Either way, when it comes to reproductive rights and my views on them- I am far from naive.

PomBear

MissFlitworth wrote: »

What is the 'every single option' she should have tried after doctors told her they couldn't tell if the foetus was damaged or not? She was in the process of having chemo when she got pregnant, the doctors she had access to would have been cancer specialists and they couldn't tell her, what would you have her do?

What if they only way to find out if the foetus was damaged or not was to wait until it was developed to a point where it was outside the legal age limits for aborting it? Chemo is really hard on your body, carrying a baby to term when you are completely healthy is also really hard on your body. Combine the 2 and you have a situation that could kill you. What if she didn't want to risk that. Why should she offer up her life on the chance that maybe the chemo didn't damage the foetus?

I'm completely pro-choice but this to me seems like a total no brainer, even from a pro life point of view.

Yeah I understand where you're coming from but as pro-life, I don't believe it is right to abort a child anyways if he/she does get damaged in the womb. If it a risk to her life, I don't believe it's right to kill another life if a chance of bad health is possible. Why would she kill a living child on the chance that it might be damaged?

I believe the maximum age of a foetus has to 22 weeks, not sure. They can find out brain damage at time, why can't they find out other health defects?

PomBear

Gauge wrote: »

I don't think it's an easy decision for anyone. That doesn't mean it has to be a difficult decision for everyone.

I don't buy into the opinion that in order for an abortion to be justified it must be a heart wrenching decision that the woman has to feel terrible about and may never forgive herself for. As if she has to justify her actions by feeling shame and guilt. Reeks of woman-hating to me and I can't stand it. If it was the right decision the woman should feel comfortable to make it- not feel obliged to suffer through it because of what other people will think of her if she doesn't.

I don't believe everything is that black and white. The decision is affected by limitless factors. Financial situations, health, religion, family are just a few. My own beliefs relating to abortion are affected by many factors that include my own experiences and the experiences of people I know. I am in no way naive when it comes to the issue.

The fact that you were so quick to resort to judgement of my character based on a question I asked certainly colours my opinion of you though (as well as the fact you were so quick to judge an anonymous woman based on one paragraph in an article). The way you describe abortion as "killing a living human being" suggests that you hold very different views from me and I respect that, so I'm not going to engage any further in a discussion with you about this.

Not all people see abortion as "killing a human being." I don't. Interesting way of describing it- certainly a good way to make it an emotional issue, which is another reason I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.

Either way, when it comes to reproductive rights and my views on them- I am far from naive.

Abortion is a huge decision for anyone to make. I can't understand how it would be an easy decision to make.

Woman Hating? i'm member of a political party which is extremely feminist and promotes equality regularly, very poor assumption on someone if you ask me. I'm not saying she should feel scorned by society but as the big decision it is, it would be expected that women feel extreme distress after. That's why there are support groups and the extremely high suicide rate post-abortion, every doctor knows this, if you felt completely fine about it, then i'd worry.

Yes, they are limitless factors to this and it can be a very tough decision but at the end of the day I see anything financial or religious irrelevant as it's killing a living child.

killing- a person takes the choice to end the life of another
living- If you want to tell me how a foetus isn't living, i'd be interested in your views.

pookie82

PomBear wrote: »

I can't understand how it would be an easy decision to make.

Jesus, judgmental much? Who are you to decide how a woman SHOULD and SHOULDN'T feel after an abortion?

If you can't understand something then that's your problem, but kindly refrain from letting it lead you to condemning them. That's called persecution as a result of ignorance.

Nevyn

PomBear wrote: »

They can find out brain damage at time, why can't they find out other health defects?

The amount and extent of diagnostics which can be done inutero are pretty limited.

WindSock

Is there any way to discuss the topic of the thread without having a good ol' fashion abortion-right or wrong debate?

Genuine question, because I hope there is. Probably isn't going to happen though.

PomBear

pookie82 wrote: »

Jesus, judgmental much? Who are you to decide how a woman SHOULD and SHOULDN'T feel after an abortion?

If you can't understand something then that's your problem, but kindly refrain from letting it lead you to condemning them. That's called persecution as a result of ignorance.

Well from my own experiences with abortion and the people I know unable to conceive and seeing how abortion has affected people, I can express my views about this on an internet forum, is that ok?

Khannie

In the history of the internet there has never been a successful debate on abortion IMO. I'd just asking people to try to be calm, rational, respectful of other peoples views and above all polite (not as a mod, since I'm not a mod of this forum).

My 2c: I can't see the government here ever implementing abortion because a foreign power has dictated it.

pookie82

PomBear wrote: »

Well from my own experiences with abortion and the people I know unable to conceive and seeing how abortion has affected people, I can express my views about this on an internet forum, is that ok?

Absolutely. Just don't assume that it can't be an easy decision for anyone or assume that you had any idea of what others went through when deciding on it, good, bad or indifferent.

PomBear

Thaedydal wrote: »

The amount and extent of diagnostics which can be done inutero are pretty limited.

I'll admit I don't know if there was zero possibility of diagnosis but if brain damage can be diagnosed why can't other damage be diagnosed. From what appears there was zero diagnosis given in the article, I find that hard to believe but I hope to see in the case

WindSock

seamus wrote: »

The ECFR is, almost the same document, but not.

Pardon me, what does this stand for?

Edit: Fundamenal Rights?

pookie82

Khannie wrote: »

My 2c: I can't see the government here ever implementing abortion because a foreign power has dictated it.

I'd like to see them do so but I would imagine there would be a furore of immense proportions around "this is what Lisbon led to" (true or untrue) and the older generations being appalled by it etc.

fatmammycat

That's why there are support groups and the extremely high suicide rate post-abortion, every doctor knows this, if you felt completely fine about it, then i'd worry.

I'm not sure there ARE extremely high suicide rates post abortion, what are the stats? I personally know three women who have had abortions and it did not cost them a hugh anxiety, they did what was right for them at the time. I probably know a lot more women who have had an abortion and never mentioned it either.

PomBear

WindSock wrote: »

Is there any way to discuss the topic of the thread without having a good ol' fashion abortion-right or wrong debate?

Genuine question, because I hope there is. Probably isn't going to happen though.

Simple answer, no. It is too easily offendable being such a touchy subject

Khannie

pookie82 wrote: »

I'd like to see them do so

Do what? Implement abortion against the will of the people like?

pookie82

Yes.

PomBear

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm not sure there ARE extremely high suicide rates post abortion, what are the stats? I personally know three women who have had abortions and it did not cost them a hugh anxiety, they did what was right for them at the time. I probably know a lot more women who have had an abortion and never mentioned it either.

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&source=hp&q=abortion+suicide&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=abortion+suicide&fp=85aebc0b4565fc28
take your pick

While they might be ok, they might be hiding depression about this. Just a suggestion, not criticism:)

Khannie

pookie82 wrote: »

Yes.

Not a firm believer in democracy then, eh? :rolleyes:

WindSock

When was the last time we had a referendum on abortion in Ireland?

Not regarding allowing to travel, but actual abortion here?

Because I presume Irish society and values have changed a lot since then.

fatmammycat

They're not hiding anything, they're mature adults who made a choice and have no regrets about it, something pro-life or 'enforced pregnancy' folk don't seem to understand.