PR: Reasons to Vote No

Some of the grievous concerns we have concerning the Government's proposal on abortion

Date: 23 February 2002

These are some of the grievous concerns we have concerning the Government's proposal on abortion. None of these concerns have been properly addressed or refuted by any of the proponents of this amendment. All invitations to engage us in public debate have been refused. Logical debate has been replaced with personal attacks on our speakers. It should be noted that our stance is both reasonable and rational: our objections are not merely because the proposal is less than we had worked for, but because it a backward step, furthering the agenda of the pro-abortion lobby. It is the difference between accepting half a loaf in the hope of more in the future, and eating poisoned bread.

1. It clearly and explicitly allows for the direct and intentional killingof the unborn child in certain circumstances. There is no obligation to ensure that the loss of unborn life, resulting from medical interventions in pregnancy, occurs solely as a side effect of standard medical procedures. See Section 1; 2 of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act which states "abortion does not include the carrying out of a medical procedure by a medical practitioner at an approved place in the course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended

2. It clearly and explicitly establishes a right to have an abortion abroad, by establishing a right to travel for the specific purpose of an abortion. (See Section 4; 2) This is a considerable advance for the pro-abortion lobby and will be interpreted as approval of abortion in principal.

3. It de-criminalises the 'morning after pill' and all abortafacients which act before implantation by limiting criminal penalties to post–implantation abortions. In addition it creates a 'legal limbo' for the unborn already in the womb who have not yet implanted, which is the very time that the 'morning after pill' is designed to work. This was done by specifying that the unborn in the womb be 'protected in accordance with' the new act, whereas the act itself only covers the time period from implantation on.

4. It undermines the constitutional protection of the pre-implanted unborn by defining the word 'abortion' as referring only to the post-implanted unborn child. This can be interpreted in the future as a definition of the word 'unborn,' since no other proper legal definition exists. Removal of the relevant sections of the 1861 act, which dealt with unborn life at all stages, expounds this problem. Also the new definition of abortion will clearly re-define the meaning of the word 'abortafacient' as used in other laws.

5. It removes the legislative protection of the pre-implanted unborn by removing section 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act. It should be noted that the1861 Act survived for nearly one and a half centuries without limiting its protections to the post-implanted unborn child. To suggest that such limits are now required is incorrect. The removal of both legislative and constitutional protection can be exploited to pave the way for embryo research and other abuses.

6. There is no requirement to impose a prison sentence on a person who is convicted of carrying out an illegal abortion and there is no minimum fine, which permits the courts to give a mere 'slap on the wrist'.

7. Only the Director of Public Prosecutions may bring about, or give consent to prosecutions for offences under the act. This is designed to limit future legal interventions by pro-life groups. The Suicide issue: Current implications of the 'X' Case There has been an attempt to blackmail the Irish people into endorsing this proposal by threatening legislation for abortion on the grounds of threat of suicide. However on the 19th of October 2001, the Taoiseach, in his answers to questions from Michael Noonan stated that; 'In 1992, the voters reversed the basis of the Supreme Court's decision by deciding that travel injunctions could not be granted on the basis of a threat to the life of the unborn'. He was referring to the fact that the legal situation with regard to the X case changed with the 1992 travel amendment.

The 'X' case ruling specified that it must be 'established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life as distinct to the health of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy'. The court concluded that she fulfilled these conditions on the basis of the particular circumstances of the case (bear in mind that she was at that point confined here by an injunction). Following the travel amendment, however, how could it be established as a matter of probability that someone was so desperate for an abortion that they would definitely kill themselves, if they had not attempted to seek one abroad. Any court that could defy reason and honesty to that extent would easily drive a 'horse and four' through the gaping loopholes in the Government's proposal.

Medical Interventions: The 'X' Case and the new proposal compared

The 'X' Case ruling referred to where there is a real and substantial risk to the life'. This risk must already exist and be 'established as a matter of probability'. The Government proposal allows a medical practitioner to intervene 'to prevent a real and substantial risk' before such risk occurs. The perceived risk need only exist in 'the reasonable opinion of the 'termination of pregnancy' under the conditions mentioned. It does not explicitly state that the child's life may be ended. It should be remembered that most pregnancies terminate naturally at birth and many are terminated early by caesarean section etc.

The Government proposal permits procedures in the course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended'. This explicitly allows for the direct ending or termination of the child's life without regard to the principal of double effect.

In Conclusion

It would be wrong to think that we approve of the status quo or of the remaining medical implications of the' X case' judgement. But comparing the two side by side, it is patently clear that the Government's proposal is drastically worse and far more open to negative interpretation by the Courts and future Governments. We cannot allow ourselves to be blackmailed into endorsing all the things we have opposed in the past, neither can we be deceived by empty threats designed to break our resolve, confuse and divide us.

ENDS