Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious wrote: »

Can some-one show me where the right to travel is guaranteed.......

EU treaties.

OK, found the answer: 13 and 14th amendments......
Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992
[Provided that Article 40.3.3° (the right to life of the unborn) would not limit freedom to travel between Ireland and another state] 23 December, 1992

That's not a general right to travel, however. It's not even quite a "right to travel to get an abortion" -- though that was pretty much the public's intent, so the SC might chose to read it in that manner, depending on their mood that particular afternoon. Narrowly read, it's just a prohibition on inferring a travel ban from the 8th itself.

I don't think we'll be testing the question of what would happen if we abrogated the EU freedom to travel, and passed a law restricting access to the UK (Netherlands, etc) for abortions any time soon, though. Not unless there's an unexpected Christian Solidarity/Norsefire landslide next election, at least...

robindch

alaimacerc wrote: »

[...] Norsefire [...]

A new one to me, but an appropriate one, even if it sounds a little bit like arsefire.

drkpower

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wider abortion access doesn't magically become legal overnight, simply from repeal of the 8th. And the Dáil is massively conservative on this whole area, as compared to the population as a whole.

My fear is that the population is actually still very conservative on this issue too (maybe not as conservative as TDs ill grant you).

I just dont think the population are ready for repealing the 8th unless it comes with a solid plan for a legislative ban on 'abortion on demand'/'easy access abortion'/whatever you like to call it, even with very tight tightframes. And even though the population are nominally in support of abortion in the case of rape and incest, when the debate actually occurs and the inevitable difficulty in coming up with a practical system of verification in those cases is debated ad nauseum, i have my doubts whether that would garner majority support either.

FFA is a no brainer, but that could easily be dealt with by amendment of the 8th, rather than repeal of it.

In a country where some 35% of the population voted against gay marriage, i have serious doubts that >50% will vote for abortion except in the most extreme of cases.

oscarBravo

drkpower wrote: »

FFA is a no brainer, but that could easily be dealt with by amendment of the 8th, rather than repeal of it.

I'd vote against that. 40.3.3 is bad enough as it is, without wedging ever more legislation into it.

robdonn wrote: »

Well first off, it's robdonn, not Robdonn.

. I know and sincere apologies, I blame my autocorrect capitalising names, but it's no excuse. I will do better

robdonn wrote: »

As for my previous posts with polls, I can't find it. Boards.ie search is awful!
I think that one of the polls I linked to was the RedC / Amnesty International one (Feb 2016), as that poll has a good breakdown of reasons why people would allow or not allow abortion.

This is the one I was thinking of... It seems quite similar to what Delirium just posted.

Unfortunately the Red C one doesn't separate FFA form rape either... So whether there is a signficant difference between support for the two would seem to be pretty much speculative for now, though aloyisious's poll has them at 55% and 68% respectively; a significant difference but opposite to what I would have expected.

Looking at Article 40.3.1 and 40.3.2, I can see now why some-one thought 40.3.3 was a good idea at the time. The first two sections only offer to respect, defend and vindicate the personal rights of the CITIZEN AND protect from unjust attack, and vindicate the life of every CITIZEN. The 8th amendment seemed to copper-fasten the feotus position as a citizen. I went looking for info on the status of the feotus in Irish Law and came across TWO links.

The first link from 2005 has this in Para 1, (Although the purpose of the Amendment is to ‘balance’ the rights to life of the pregnant woman and the foetus, women who are carrying foetuses which are not medically viable are habitually denied abortions in Ireland, even though the state itself argued in D v. Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights that such a foetus does not necessarily enjoy Eighth Amendment rights.) The case brought to the ECHR was declared inadmissable in 2006 because the woman had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. She wanted an abortion because one of the twin feotus in her womb had died and the other had developed a fatal anomaly.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjewsreoeTNAhUoAcAKHVVtDbkQFgg9MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanrights.ie%2Fgender-sexuality-and-the-law%2Fabortion-unease-and-citizenship-in-ireland%2F&usg=AFQjCNGtnZnAKFtHPncHPmF_jQHTuQrP3Q

The second link relates how the world media reported on a high Court case here on 27 Dec 2014, the Daily Express claiming "a foetus is regarded as a citizen".......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjewsreoeTNAhUoAcAKHVVtDbkQFgg9MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanrights.ie%2Fgender-sexuality-and-the-law%2Fabortion-unease-and-citizenship-in-ireland%2F&usg=AFQjCNGtnZnAKFtHPncHPmF_jQHTuQrP3Q

alaimacerc wrote: »

EU treaties.

That's not a general right to travel, however. It's not even quite a "right to travel to get an abortion" -- though that was pretty much the public's intent, so the SC might chose to read it in that manner, depending on their mood that particular afternoon. Narrowly read, it's just a prohibition on inferring a travel ban from the 8th itself.

I don't think we'll be testing the question of what would happen if we abrogated the EU freedom to travel, and passed a law restricting access to the UK (Netherlands, etc) for abortions any time soon, though. Not unless there's an unexpected Christian Solidarity/Norsefire landslide next election, at least...

I like to think of it being an SC shot across the bows of the AG for being over-zealous in his duties. God forbid Micheál Martin and David Quinn got together on a Sunday afternoon to concoct a devilish plot.

It's nice to think that in 1992, the 13 and 14 amendments got a yes from enough citizens to be signed into law by Mary Robinson via an FF/PD Govt.

aloyisious wrote: »

I like to think of it being an SC shot across the bows of the AG for being over-zealous in his duties.

I don't follow how it's a shot on the part of the SC. Constitutional amendments are necessarily authored by the Dáil (and approved by the citizenry, obviously). If anything, given the circumstances of the X case, and the preliminary orders made in that case, it's a shot across their bows.

Clearly the twelfth amendment was an attempt at a shot amidships at the SC... and failed. (I think I'll now retire from the high seas rather than try to stretch naval metaphors any further.)

alaimacerc wrote: »

EU treaties.

AFAIK the EU is only concerned with the right of a member state citizen to enter another member state (and this is a qualified right.) They don't give a damn about your right to leave your own member state. The ECHR probably would be, but that's not the EU.

Also, aloysius could you please post proper links not Eye of Sauron / Google Track Me Everywhere On T'Internet links. Ta.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

AFAIK the EU is only concerned with the right of a member state citizen to enter another member state (and this is a qualified right.) They don't give a damn about your right to leave your own member state. The ECHR probably would be, but that's not the EU.

The Attorney General v. X, John Rogers S.C. wrote:

We assert that X. has a right under the Constitution to have the abortion. As a matter of Community law and particularly under Article 29 of the Constitution, the Constitution must defer to those established principles of Community law, viz. the right to travel and receive a service in another Member State albeit that the principle is subject to higher interests under the concept of public policy."

HTH.

Thanks. Is there a citation available of what community law they were referring to?

ETA:

"albeit that the principle is subject to higher interests under the concept of public policy."

Without the right to travel amendment, I can see how the defenders of the 'higher interests' would attack that right, and perhaps win?

We have had at least one situation where a potential booker of tickets to Dignitas was threatened with prosecution (which is, as far as I'm concerned, the Garda making up laws on the hoof) but unfortunately and understandably they chose not to risk their liberty and all their assets in challenging the power of the state just so we could have a test case :rolleyes:

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't follow how it's a shot on the part of the SC. Constitutional amendments are necessarily authored by the Dáil (and approved by the citizenry, obviously). If anything, given the circumstances of the X case, and the preliminary orders made in that case, it's a shot across their bows.

Clearly the twelfth amendment was an attempt at a shot amidships at the SC... and failed. (I think I'll now retire from the high seas rather than try to stretch naval metaphors any further.)

The AG himself ran into severe criticism at the time for attempting to abrogate the right of the girl and her parents to travel abroad after he went to the high court and got an injunction to prevent the girl and her parents from travelling to the UK. The injunction was overturned by the SC. It ruled that the girl, given the circumstances, was entitled to have an abortion under 40.3.3 as not to let her was putting her life, as distinct from her health, at risk. No abortion being allowed here meant she had to travel abroad for it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

AFAIK the EU is only concerned with the right of a member state citizen to enter another member state (and this is a qualified right.) They don't give a damn about your right to leave your own member state. The ECHR probably would be, but that's not the EU.

Also, aloysius could you please post proper links not Eye of Sauron / Google Track Me Everywhere On T'Internet links. Ta.

Late in the day, scratches head???

Meantime David Quinn in the Indo gives his opinion about the term FFA, which contradicts the opinions of the doctors who's letter on the matter was posted here a few days ago, declaring it to be am actual term used by medical people here to describe an actual medical condition here. From robdonn's post on page 204.... http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-eighth-amendment-1.2710201

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/fatal-foetal-abnormality-is-a-loaded-and-misleading-term-34866520.html

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Thanks. Is there a citation available of what community law they were referring to?

My assumption is he's referring to the Treaty of Rome right of freedom of movement, then effected in directive 1968/360/EEC, and now by the Citizens Rights Directive.

Without the right to travel amendment, I can see how the defenders of the 'higher interests' would attack that right, and perhaps win?

But as already noted, it's not a "right to travel amendment"...

Without the 13th amendment there's a more obvious "clash of rights", certainly. Hence the motivation for introducing it. But the SC did in fact overturn the HC injunction, so in that case ("peculiar to its own particular facts" or otherwise...) the right to travel in fact prevailed.

aloyisious wrote: »

The AG himself ran into severe criticism at the time for attempting to abrogate the right of the girl and her parents to travel abroad after he went to the high court and got an injunction to prevent the girl and her parents from travelling to the UK. The injunction was overturned by the SC. It ruled that the girl, given the circumstances, was entitled to have an abortion under 40.3.3 as not to let her was putting her life, as distinct from her health, at risk. No abortion being allowed here meant she had to travel abroad for it.

I think you're conflating the SC ruling, and the subsequent constitutional referenda. In the first instance, you were commenting on the latter.

aloyisious wrote: »

Meantime David Quinn in the Indo gives his opinion about the term FFA, which contradicts the opinions of the doctors who's letter on the matter was posted here a few days ago, declaring it to be am actual term used by medical people here to describe an actual medical condition here.

"'Fatal foetal abnormality' is a loaded and misleading term" says David Quinn, before adding, "and not loaded and misleading in the way I like, and indeed make my stock-in-trade."

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you're conflating the SC ruling, and the subsequent constitutional referenda. In the first instance, you were commenting on the latter.

Umm, that wasn't my intention. However, I did post a lot on the issue from different angles. The following is from an article on the X case. Hearing that X planned to have an abortion, the Attorney General, Harry Whelehan, sought an injunction under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland (which outlaws abortion) preventing her from having the procedure carried out. The injunction was granted by Mr Justice Declan Costello in the High Court.

The High Court injunction was appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned it by a majority of four to one (Hederman J. dissenting). The majority opinion (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, Egan and O'Flaherty J.J.) held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

Due to the fact that there were no legal facilities here for an abortion, the girl would have had to travel abroad for one.

My reference to the other amendments was that they bolstered the right to travel abroad of citizens, and of abortion information and advice. That's why, IMO, what they permit is listed immediately below 40.3.3 in the constitution in order to define and provide a link with it, even though they were brought in a decade AFTER the 8th. Both rulings from the different courts show how much 40.3.3 could be read in different ways, depending on the circumstances of individual cases.

aloyisious wrote: »

The AG himself ran into severe criticism at the time for attempting to abrogate the right of the girl and her parents to travel abroad after he went to the high court and got an injunction to prevent the girl and her parents from travelling to the UK.

Whilst they allowed the appeal and did overturn the injunctions, I don't think the SC were critical of the AGs actions;
Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, O'Flaherty and Egan JJ.: Hederman J. dissenting) in allowing the appeal and discharging the injunctions, 1, (Hederman J. concurring) that the Attorney General had properly exercised his duties in the performance of his office in bringing the matter before the High Court.

There is an interesting article in today's Irish Times from a Carmelite friar, Fr Seán Mac Giollarnáth, in Dublin.... http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opposition-to-abortion-is-not-due-to-a-lack-of-trust-in-women-1.2718224

Among his arguments against the introduction of abortion here in what is a rebuttal to Dr Robert Grant's recent article on abortion in the Irish Times (which is in the link at the end of my post) Fr Mac Giollarnáth includes the below...

Quote; The preference of Dr Grant is for what he calls “free, safe and legal abortion”. There are strong commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry, but that is another matter.

The objection to it in the legal order is not that it is chosen without consideration, or its marketing programmes. It is that it establishes, as a systemic feature of the legal order, a structure of oppression and injustice.

Safe, legal and free abortion permits unequal protection under the law, allowing deliberate action against innocent human beings....... unquote:

IMO, Fr Mac Giollarnáth's mention of commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry bring a new slant into the argument between the two sides of the national debate, that of foreign interests of a kind that has no legal standing here (as there are no abortion operations of the kind that the Fr is referring-to permitted here and any that might be agreed-to by Irish law and courts have to be obtained abroad) unless it's a reference to, maybe, funding of advice groups here.

........................................................................................................................................................................

He argues that Dr Grant argues this as well: Quote; Where there is free, legal and safe abortion, two major social institutions, law and medicine, may disregard the most defenceless and vulnerable people among us...... unquote:

IMO, it seem's to me that the two institutions Fr Mac Giollarnáth mentions already do so, in order to save a woman's life, presumably on some form of regarding the pregnant woman's life as being vulnerable. EDIT.... I doubt if Dr Grant would agree with Fr Mac Giollarnáth's statement above on what he think's.....

.........................................................................................................................................................................

Fr Mac Giollarnáth argues that --- Quote; Dr Grant removes from sight the effect that “free, safe and legal abortion” will have on the baby. His [Dr Grant] arguments overlook the reality that there are two lives, mother and child, both needing support.

From a juridical view, this is the purpose of article 40.3.3. It is broadly drawn, with protection offered to two parties, both of whom may be vulnerable and fragile, in different ways.

The principal objection to abortion is that it permits action against an innocent and defenceless human being. This objection is not an end in itself; its purpose is solidarity with the mother and with her baby.

It’s a case of both/and rather than either/or. Love them both rather than allow arbitrary preference between them.......... unquote:

IMO, this avoid's the fact that from a judicial point of view, judges in both our High And Supreme Courts do have (and have done so in the past) to decide on a One Or The Other basis on 40.3.3 cases, knowing that there is often NO having both/and but rather an either/or in cases where abortion decisions are made.

.......................................................................................................................................................................

Dr Grant's article link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiS5-78t-3NAhXEaxQKHe3TDgUQFggnMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fphrase-abortion-on-demand-has-dishonest-edge-1.2702041&usg=AFQjCNEl2dNT-jixPqZBbwg7LWbTQNC_2Q......

Edit.... I thought the last word used in the link to Fr Mac Giollarnáth's article most peculiar.......

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, Fr Mac Giollarnáth's mention of commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry bring a new slant into the argument between the two sides of the national debate, that of foreign interests of a kind that has no legal standing here (as there are no abortion operations of the kind that the Fr is referring-to permitted here and any that might be agreed-to by Irish law and courts have to obtained abroad) unless it's a reference to, maybe, funding of advice groups here.

Since he said "in the abortion industry" I'd suspect he was referring to other countries, for instance the US where accusations of organizations profiting from abortions aren't unusual.

aloyisious wrote: »

He argues that Dr Grant argues this as well: Where there is free, legal and safe abortion, two major social institutions, law and medicine, may disregard the most defenceless and vulnerable people among us......
IMO, it seem's to me that the two institutions Fr Mac Giollarnáth mentions already do so, in order to save a woman's life, presumably on some form of regarding the pregnant woman's life as being vulnerable.

I think it would be difficult to argue that they disregard pregnant women; arguably pregnant women are entitled to substantial medical care and evidently have plentiful legal recourses, albeit not in one Constitutionally protected area. Whereas the unborn child, where there is free, legal and safe abortion, doesn't have even the most basic right, that of life, and no entitlement to medical care as a result.

aloyisious wrote: »

From a juridical view, this is the purpose of article 40.3.3. It is broadly drawn, with protection offered to two parties, both of whom may be vulnerable and fragile, in different ways. The principal objection to abortion is that it permits action against an innocent and defenceless human being. This objection is not an end in itself; its purpose is solidarity with the mother and with her baby.
It’s a case of both/and rather than either/or. Love them both rather than allow arbitrary preference between them..........
IMO, this avoid's the fact that from a judicial point of view, judges in both our High And Supreme Courts do have (and have done so in the past) to decide on a One Or The Other basis on 40.3.3 cases, knowing that there is often NO having both/and but rather an either/or in cases where abortion decisions are made.

I don't think that's true; can you point to a case where the High or Supreme Court has made a decision on a one or the other basis? My understanding is that where the life of the foetus threatens that of the mother it is a matter of one or both; should the mother die the foetus will also.

aloyisious wrote: »

There is an interesting article in today's Irish Times from a Carmelite friar, Fr Seán Mac Giollarnáth, in Dublin.... http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opposition-to-abortion-is-not-due-to-a-lack-of-trust-in-women-1.2718224

Paywalled, so I guess I'll never know!

Just from the intro, it's clearly majoring on the whole "foetal personhood" nonsense on stilts, however. Or given his title, doubtless personhood from conception. Gee, isn't that a surprise? It's not true in law, it's not supported by public opinion, it's philosophical nonsense, and it has no basis in the biological facts. But let's just assume it to be true, and breezily proceed from there, right?

There are strong commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry, but that is another matter.

No, it's a standard lazy snarl, not "another matter". I fail to see how this line of argument in any way "rebuts" Grant's point about linguistic dishonesty: it's just doubling down with more of the same.

IMO, Fr Mac Giollarnáth's mention of commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry bring a new slant [...]

You. Have. To. Be. Having. A. Laugh.

Perhaps by "new" you mean "another routine day's work for PLC's press releases"?

It’s a case of both/and rather than either/or. Love them both rather than allow arbitrary preference between them..........

Arbitrary preference? Give me strength.

Edit.... I thought the last word used in the link to Fr Mac Giollarnáth's article most peculiar.......

"Women"? OK, not quite sure why that's peculiar... Perhaps because the entire debate is predate

And yes, what's with the links via google? Unless you're on commission, surely better to link directly to the target, please.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Paywalled, so I guess I'll never know!

Private browsing mode.

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Private browsing mode.

Or, if you're using Google Chrome, search for "Cookies" in the Settings menu, and delete any marked "irishtimes.com".

Text of the article, for those that feel like torturing themselves;

Opposition to abortion is not due to a lack of trust in women
Movement against terminations is based on respect for the life of all human beings
Sean MacGiollarnath

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us.

Has Robert Burns’s wish been fulfilled for the pro-life constituency? Perhaps.
Dr Robert Grant’s recent article on “abortion on demand” did prompt some hard questions. Morally obtuse and insensitive? Guilty of linguistic tricks and sleight of hand? Failing to respect women? Yes, to all of these, according to Dr Grant.

Is this generally true of those who oppose abortion? I do not think so, and Dr Grant’s narrative serves to obscure the central issues. His arguments are best described as ad hominem arguments, essentially fallacies that serve to attack an opponent and undermine the credibility of his position.
Dr Grant writes as follows: “One can only assume abortion on demand is to be avoided because one does not trust women to make the decision with the requisite thought and consideration it deserves.”

Lack of respect

This comes, he says, from a lack of respect for Irish women. Opposition to abortion, however, is based on respect for the life of all human beings. It is not based on either a lack of trust in, or a lack of respect for, women.
As to the charge of moral obtuseness, listening to women speak about their experiences of difficulties in pregnancy, including abortion, has awoken Irish people to the deep anxiety, loneliness and insecurity often experienced.

A compassionate concern, made visible by groups such as Cura, is to reach out to and support a woman and her unborn child.

Rather than allowing anxieties or fear determine how to act, an encounter with friends can help mothers face the future with their child and with some confidence.

Dr Grant removes from sight the effect that “free, safe and legal abortion” will have on the baby. His arguments overlook the reality that there are two lives, mother and child, both needing support.

From a juridical view, this is the purpose of article 40.3.3. It is broadly drawn, with protection offered to two parties, both of whom may be vulnerable and fragile, in different ways.

The principal objection to abortion is that it permits action against an innocent and defenceless human being. This objection is not an end in itself; its purpose is solidarity with the mother and with her baby.
It’s a case of both/and rather than either/or. Love them both rather than allow arbitrary preference between them.

The preference of Dr Grant is for what he calls “free, safe and legal abortion”. There are strong commercial interests and forces in the abortion industry, but that is another matter.

The objection to it in the legal order is not that it is chosen without consideration, or its marketing programmes. It is that it establishes, as a systemic feature of the legal order, a structure of oppression and injustice.
Safe, legal and free abortion permits unequal protection under the law, allowing deliberate action against innocent human beings.

All of us have been embryo, foetus, infant, child and so on. This is our human identity as dependent rational animals; there is no escaping this reality. All of us have been an embryo, and a foetus who could have his or her life ended under such a regime.

The self-directing process of the human organism is a good that deserves full legal protection at every point of its life. It is the most fundamental human good in the sense that it is necessary for all other human activity.
Where there is free, legal and safe abortion, two major social institutions, law and medicine, may disregard the most defenceless and vulnerable people among us.

All human life before birth is in potential jeopardy, leaving its protection at the mercy of individual preference. The reality of this is enough to wake us up to the gift of life, which would be under threat.

Fr Seán Mac Giollarnáth is a Carmelite friar in Dublin city

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

All of us have been embryo, foetus, infant, child and so on. This is our human identity as dependent rational animals; there is no escaping this reality. All of us have been an embryo, and a foetus who could have his or her life ended under such a regime.

All of us have come from dust and will return to dust. I call on my fellow upstanding Irish men and women to ban the hoover from this point forward and acknowledge it as the heinous and murderous instrument of the Devil that it is!!

alaimacerc wrote: »

Paywalled, so I guess I'll never know!

Just from the intro, it's clearly majoring on the whole "foetal personhood" nonsense on stilts, however. Or given his title, doubtless personhood from conception. Gee, isn't that a surprise? It's not true in law, it's not supported by public opinion, it's philosophical nonsense, and it has no basis in the biological facts. But let's just assume it to be true, and breezily proceed from there, right?

No, it's a standard lazy snarl, not "another matter". I fail to see how this line of argument in any way "rebuts" Grant's point about linguistic dishonesty: it's just doubling down with more of the same.

You. Have. To. Be. Having. A. Laugh.

Perhaps by "new" you mean "another routine day's work for PLC's press releases"?

Arbitrary preference? Give me strength.

"Women"? OK, not quite sure why that's peculiar... Perhaps because the entire debate is predate

And yes, what's with the links via google? Unless you're on commission, surely better to link directly to the target, please.

I've gone back to my post and edited it slightly with Quote - Unquote either end of Fr Mac Giollarnáth's writings, so people don't think they are mine. The "women" bit sailed over me head, all I saw when I pasted the link was "omen-1". Re links via google, I do be going through the papers online & grab the item then & there, and post the link (rattles spare change in pocket).

Should anyone wish to read it, there is a letter/article by Tracy Harkin in the "most discussed" section of the Irish Times concerning perinatal hospice care. The heading of the letter-article is "Abortion Is Not The Only Answer To Life-limiting Conditions". Tracy is a member of Every Life Counts.

However, that membership doesn't take away from her letter as it appear's to list perinatal hospice care or perinatal palliative care as an alternative choice for pregnant women carrying feotus with FFA's, and not an absolutist statement of "abortion is out, you must go to a full-term birth".

If, however, Tracy is of an absolutist attitude that women cannot have the right to choose an abortion to deal with the medical situation they and their feotus are faced with, then (IMO) she is doing pregnant women no service at all. If you can have PHC/PLC, then you should be able to have better after-care for women all round, inclusive of women who choose to have abortions.

There is also the cost of such services of PHC or PLC to be kept in mind. Should one opt to use PHC/PLC, then the cost in mental stress, finance, time and ultimately the loss of the born baby, must be taken into account. The mental stress applies equally to women who opt for abortions.