The X-Case, nearly 20 years on . . . . abortions for nobody

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 01:07PM #1

Brief history of the case here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

Repercussions discussed here:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/whelehan-regrets-hurt-caused-in-x-case-2072723.html

The case involved a fourteen year old girl (named only as "X" in the courts and the media to protect her identity) who had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant. X told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy, and as abortion was illegal in Ireland (in both Northern Ireland and the Republic), the family travelled to England for an abortion. Before the abortion was carried out, the family asked the Garda Síochána if DNA from the aborted foetus would be admissible as evidence in the courts, as the neighbour was denying responsibility.

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 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.

X had a miscarriage shortly after the judgement, before an abortion could be carried out. Her rapist was sentenced to 14 years in prison, which was reduced on appeal to 4 years.

I had originally posted this in Irish Economy by mistake, carry on.

This political & legal hot potato has still not been dealt with 2 decades later.
We compliment ourselves on our progress as a society but this hurdle has still to be faced.
I believe a referendum should be called for granting the right of abortion when the mothers life is at risk.
People will say how do you define "at risk", is it medically or psychologically, will the word of the mother be enough.
A debate needs to be had & politicians need to loose the fear of the headscarves & the rosary beads.

On the case itself I find it astonishing that the family came home once the injunction had been granted.
Had I been the parent I would have been visiting the clinic before getting back on the boat.

mikom · 25-05-2011 01:13PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I had originally posted this in Irish Economy by mistake,

Well now, that really is abortion.

The King of Moo · 25-05-2011 01:14PM

I'd love to see abortion legislation introduced but I think it'll be a long time before it will.
It's still too much of a hot potato for any government to want to touch it, and as long as it's relatively easy to travel to the U.K to get an abortion they know there won't be a huge amount of pressure on them to legalise it, so the situation will stay as it is for a while unfortunately.

ilovelamp2000 · 25-05-2011 01:16PM

The family's actions were remarkable in that case.

I don't see any government for the foreseeable future having the conkers to organise a referendum on abortion.

FWIW I agree with the decision reached.

prinz · 25-05-2011 01:17PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I believe a referendum should be called for granting the right of abortion when the mothers life is at risk..

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, (as distinct from the health) of the mother.

Perhaps you should brush up on the actual position, and then return? The X case gave the right to an abortion where the mother's life is at risk and a subsequent constitutional amendment in 1992 to remove that right was defeated.

Seriously man, wikipedia abortion in Ireland and the very first line makes is exactly what you claim a referendum should be carried out to do.

Abortion in Ireland is illegal unless the pregnancy is in threat of endangering the life of the woman (as differential to her health) through continuance of the pregnancy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

The only question that remains is where have you been for the last 20 years? The problem lies with the practicalities of defining and implementing it.

orourkeda · 25-05-2011 01:18PM

Here's a question.

How many unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsibility of the parents compared to cases similar to the one outlined in the original post?

Nodin · 25-05-2011 01:23PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Here's a question.

How many unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsibility of the parents compared to cases similar to the one outlined in the original post?

Here's a question.

whats that to do with the x case?

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 01:25PM

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you should brush up on the actual position, and then return? The X case gave the right to an abortion where the mother's life is at risk and a subsequent constitutional amendment in 1992 to remove that right was defeated.

The term "at risk" is left sufficiently vague as to deny the right in most cases or at least allow the medical professionals to play football long enough that abortion is no longer an option.
No specialist or consultant would make the call for fear of violent reprisal.

NothingMan · 25-05-2011 01:25PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Here's a question.

How many unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsibility of the parents compared to cases similar to the one outlined in the original post?

7? No. 8! It's 8 isn't it. I bet it's 8.

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 01:32PM

prinz wrote: »

The only question that remains is where have you been for the last 20 years?

There may be people on this forum who were too young to vote in the referendums & do not remember the particulars of this case.
This thread will prove informative to them & a refresher to others as it's returned to the news.

Have you any objection to the debate proceeding ?.

prinz · 25-05-2011 01:33PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The term "at risk" is left sufficiently vague as to deny the right in most cases or at least allow the medical professionals to play football long enough that abortion is no longer an option. No specialist or consultant would make the call for fear of violent reprisal.

So you aren't calling for a referendum for "granting the right of abortion when the mothers life is at risk." You are calling for a debate on how we define a risk to life, legally, medically, ethically etc. Should be simple enough.

Well subsequent to the ECtHR ruling in favour of C's case in A B & C v Ireland your wish will be granted, or possible expulsion from the Council of Europe could follow.

orourkeda · 25-05-2011 01:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

Here's a question.

whats that to do with the x case?

Nothing. Here's another question Did I say it had?

Nodin · 25-05-2011 01:47PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Nothing. Here's another question Did I say it had?

Why are you bringing it up then? This isn't about 'Abortion as contraception'/Abortion on demand or whatever, yet your question is aimed at heading down that route.

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 01:50PM

prinz wrote: »

So you aren't calling for a referendum for "granting the right of abortion when the mothers life is at risk." You are calling for a debate on how we define a risk to life, legally, medically, ethically etc. Should be simple enough.

Well subsequent to the ECtHR ruling in favour of C's case in A B & C v Ireland your wish will be granted, or possible expulsion from the Council of Europe could follow.

Good, now we're talking.
Don't the government need to make a submission soon about how we'll address this anomaly.
I believe they need to respect the public enough & invite a debate without dragging it into an ethical or religious swamp.
Simple questions:
Who makes the call & what are the criteria ?.
Who carries out the procedure ?.
Where will it be carried out ?.

prinz · 25-05-2011 01:52PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Good, now we're talking.
Don't the government need to make a submission soon about how we'll address this anomaly..

They should be.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I believe they need to respect the public enough & invite a debate without dragging it into an ethical or religious swamp...

Whatever about religion you cannot remove ethics from it. Just like you remove ethics from other procedures or dealings with the medical profession and healthcare. Ethics have a massive part to play.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Simple questions:
Who makes the call & what are the criteria ?.
Who carries out the procedure ?.
Where will it be carried out ?.

Good questions. Perhaps we should leave that to the experts in the area however. There's not much point in speculating.. but as a quick guide; personally if they go down this route I would favour a panel of people, a doctor, a social worker, a pyschologist, possibly a counsellor/positive options type rep. Procedure to be carried out by doctors who volunteer to carry them out in hospitals or clinics which volunteer to carry them out.

jimcoolding · 25-05-2011 02:01PM

He only got 4 years for raping a 14 year old girl.

jesus christ.

25-05-2011 02:03PM

prinz wrote: »

Well subsequent to the ECtHR ruling in favour of C's case in A B & C v Ireland your wish will be granted, or possible expulsion from the Council of Europe could follow.

Doubt it. The X case established the right to an abortion in certain circumstances. Nearly 20 years later, a woman in those circumstances can still not get an abortion. All the ABC case established was that they haven't implemented the legislation. There hasn't been any discussion from the government on how they're going to resolve this, and I see no measure that will prevent the establishment from hemming and hawing over it for the next 20 years

Colibri · 25-05-2011 02:05PM

ABORTIONS FOR ALL

prinz · 25-05-2011 02:05PM

28064212 wrote: »

... I see no measure that will prevent the establishment from hemming and hawing over it for the next 20 years

They can hem and haw all they want, but it can be referred back to the court and the Council of Europe can expel a country which fails to abide by a ruling. No immediate danger, but I can't see the country risking that tbh. I am sure they will be pressured with more test cases, and the ECtHR isn't going to gladly keep considering the same issue over and over.

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 02:12PM

The should have got FF to enact legislation before the end of the last Dail.
They couldn't have suffered much worse politically.

wild_cat · 25-05-2011 02:15PM

We discussed this in school during religion class one time.

The teacher never mentioned that she ended up having a miscarriage and one girl whom was keen to start a family straight after finishing school said the following sentence and it was said in the most ernest manner.

"I bet she's delighted she kept it now".

I think that is the biggest face palm moment I have ever had.

I was too young to remember it happening but the government/Gardai at the time handled the whole thing so badly I hope they hang their heads in shame to this day.

25-05-2011 02:17PM

prinz wrote: »

They can hem and haw all they want, but it can be referred back to the court and the Council of Europe can expel a country which fails to abide by a ruling. No immediate danger, but I can't see the country risking that tbh.

Which requires someone to take another case to the court. It took 5 years for a judgement on the ABC case.

What ruling did the court actually deliver? Damages were awarded to C, and.... nothing else. The judgement:

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s objection as to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies as regards the first and second applicants and joins this objection to the merits of the third applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention;

2. Declares unanimously the applicants’ complaints concerning abortion laws in Ireland under Articles 8, 13 and 14 admissible;

3. Declares by a majority the remainder of the application inadmissible;

4. Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, or of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8, as regards the first and second applicants;

5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, and that no separate issue arises under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8, as regards the third applicant;

6. Holds unanimously that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 as regards all applicants;

7. Holds unanimously
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the third applicant, within three months, EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

8. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

I assume Ireland paid the damages. There is no other ruling they need to abide by. There is nothing in there that puts any onus on Ireland to resolve the contradiction between its laws and constitution.

Jesus Wept · 25-05-2011 02:18PM

According to an RTE news report yesterday, we are in breach of the European convention of Human Rights because abortion is not available here, also on a number of other points too.

Tis a great country eh.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html

ilovelamp2000 · 25-05-2011 02:19PM

Colibri wrote: »

ABORTIONS FOR ALL

Based on the research produced by Freakonomics authors, there is an argument for that

prinz · 25-05-2011 02:25PM

28064212 wrote: »

There is nothing in there that puts any onus on Ireland to resolve the contradiction between its laws and constitution.

It found that Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by bestowing a legal right to a person, but effectively having no actual system by which that right can be exercised. There was no where for C to basically be judged elligible to come under the Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. People from the Council of Europe will monitor the situation to see that Ireland stops violating Article 8 in that manner, and like I have said, ultimately a country can be expelled from the Council of Europe for refusing to abide by findings of the Court, when they have already signed up to do just that.

It might be put on the long finger but it's not like the status quo can continue indefinitely.

Rabidlamb · 25-05-2011 02:27PM

Colibri wrote: »

ABORTIONS FOR ALL

Good thing, we used up all our miniature American flags earlier in the week.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 25-05-2011 03:25PM

AFAIK its legal if the mother's life is in danger,but many doctors are afraid to carry out here due to facing a life sentence if they get the diagnosis wrong-

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/women_s_health/abortion_information_the_law.html

RachaelVO · 25-05-2011 04:13PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Based on the research produced by Freakonomics authors, there is an argument for that

Now that was an interesting read, particularly the stats on the reduction in crime etc;

prinz · 25-05-2011 04:22PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

Now that was an interesting read, particularly the stats on the reduction in crime etc;

We could all reduce crime rates if we had a free reign to kill undesirables.

25-05-2011 04:35PM

prinz wrote: »

It found that Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by bestowing a legal right to a person, but effectively having no actual system by which that right can be exercised. There was no where for C to basically be judged elligible to come under the Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. People from the Council of Europe will monitor the situation to see that Ireland stops violating Article 8 in that manner, and like I have said, ultimately a country can be expelled from the Council of Europe for refusing to abide by findings of the Court, when they have already signed up to do just that.

It might be put on the long finger but it's not like the status quo can continue indefinitely.

Why not? It's exactly what has been happening for 19 years. The Irish Supreme Court, the highest arbiter in the country, made a ruling. By comparison, the ECHR's and Committee of Ministers' opinion is a light slap on the wrist. It makes a complete mockery of the entire legal system, as well as our constitution

PrincessLola · 25-05-2011 04:41PM

The government don't have the balls to even touch this topic. Meanwhile thousands flock to the UK for abortions each year, if a woman wants an abortion she will find a way to get one.

The X-Case, nearly 20 years on . . . . abortions for nobody

Comments