THE IRISH REFERENDUM

IRISH REFERENDUM
Why pro-life
Irish men and women
will vote YES

by Phyllis Bowman

The situation in Ireland on the matter of abortion is akin to that in Britain following the Bourne Judgement in 1937 which in effect allowed abortion on the grounds of mental health on a girl who had been raped. At that time, the practice of abortion was completely governed by the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861 which allowed a pregnancy to be terminated only to save the life of the mother. When the judgement was first made nobody dreamed that it would lead ultimately to abortion on demand and it took decades for it to effect the medical profession. By the 1950s, however, if women knew 'where to go', had enough money and were prepared to tell a psychiatrist that they would commit suicide unless the pregnancy was ended, it was pretty easy to get an abortion.

Irish law is also governed by the principle of the 1861 Act. However, by the 'seventies it became obvious from experience throughout the world that the pro-abortion lobby would seek to bulldoze the law (as had happened in England and elsewhere) particularly as the unborn child was not classified as a citizen under the Irish Constitution (formulated after the Free State was established). In 1983 pro-lifers succeeded in having a Constitutional Amendment passed which protected the unborn child, excepting where there is a 'real and substantial risk' to the life of the mother. Almost ten years later in 1992 the pro-abortion lobby succeeded in breaching this with a court case regarding a fourteen year-old girl (Miss X). She was pregnant as a result of a relationship which had been consensual and lasted a period of time. However, it was declared that she would commit suicide (thus meaning her life was at risk) unless her pregnancy was ended. The judgement in the case supported the abortion lobby's claims with the result that 'real and substantial risk to the life of the mother' now includes threatened suicide,

Almost immediately after the case the Irish Medical Council (which governs medical ethics in the Republic, like the General Medical Council in Britain) passed a ruling which decreed that any doctor carrying out an abortion in conformity with the X case ruling would risk being struck off the medical register. It has been that consensus which has so far stopped the introduction of social abortions in Ireland under the guise of terminating pregnancies to safeguard women from suicide - just as happened in Britain.

Sadly Irish medical ethics have not stood firm. The pro-abortionists have gradually taken over the Irish Medical Council. This has a membership of 25 (only eight of whom now support the original ruling opposing the X case judgement); there are about four others who, while not in favour of 'social abortion' (as such), would still support abortion on some 'mental grounds'. The result is that in the last year there has been a tremendous battle on the issue within the Council making it obvious that change is inevitable unless pro-lifers succeed in reversing the X case judgement by a change in the Constitution.

So, the Irish stand at very much the same juncture as did Britain in the 'fifties and 'sixties - a period I witnessed (unlike most of those in this country now opposing the Irish constitutional amendment).

We also have to recognise that the contraceptive pill and the IUD (both of which can be abortifacients) have been in use in Ireland for over thirty years. In addition, 'the morning after pill' (which is also an abortifacient) has been in use there for almost as long as in this country.

The Irish Catholic Hierarchy and the most experienced pro-life political campaigners recognise that they have no hope whatsoever of getting a Bill passed which would outlaw these. Their aim has been to curtail the damage and place themselves in a position to fight on.

A further complication has been the tragic lack of support for pro-life candidates running for the Dail (the Irish Parliament). Irish Pro-lifers have less support in their Parliament than we have at Westminster. There are virtually no pro-life TDs (MPs) representing the main parties. Finna Fail; Fine Gael; the Greens and Labour are all pro-abortion to a lesser or (more usually) greater degree. The result is that pro-life candidates have to run as Independents of whom there are now four in the Dail. Together they have fought valiantly to force the Government to hold a Referendum before the next General Election.

The most outstanding among them is Mildred Fox - who for some years stood almost alone - and it says a great deal for her tenacity, courage and intelligence that they now have a Constitutional Amendment which is drawn as tightly as it is. Whatever critics may claim, it definitely reverses the X case judgement, making it quite clear that threatened suicide is not a ground for abortion. Legal intervention of pregnancy may be carried out to save the life of the mother but it is written into the amendment that the doctors are duty bound to do everything possible to safeguard also the life of the baby.

However, great confusion has resulted from the fact that the Amendment concentrates on introducing legislation defining the criminal act of 'abortion' which carries with it a penalty of 12 years. In the view of the Irish government it is neither possible nor practical to define a statutory criminal offence carrying a heavy sentence unless it is possible to prove that an offence exists.

For example, it is not possible by ordinary means to prove that a woman is pregnant until implantation in the womb has occurred. The crime of abortion, therefore, is defined as the 'intentional destruction' of 'unborn human life after implantation in the womb of a woman'.

The Irish Government has stressed that this does not redefine the term 'the right to life of the unborn' (a right protected under Article 40.3.3). The amendment does not define when life begins, and it is quite wrong to claim that the amendment deems that human life begins at implantation. It is also wrong to claim that the amendment legalises 'the morning-after' pill (see below) or the use of the human embryo for experiments.

This same view is taken by lawyers advising the Catholic Hierarchy and those advising the most experienced pro-life political groups. These have gathered under the banner of the Pro-Life Campaign and include, among others, Doctors for Life; Nurses for Life; SPUC (Ireland); and the Irish Catholic Nurses Guild.

The statement from the Catholic Hierarchy stresses that 'human life is sacred from the moment of conception' and 'the basic right to life is a natural and moral right'. In welcoming the new proposal they make it clear that, 'on any reasonable interpretation, the specific and particular protection offered to the unborn by the new proposal does not dilute or weaken the general protection already afforded by Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution.'

They make it clear that 'the existing rights of the unborn from the moment of conception under Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution need to be reinforced by precise legislative measures'.

At present Finna Fail holds power only through a coalition with the Progressive Democrats (who are pro-abortion). Unfortunately, at one stage Government spin doctors - seeking to appease them - put out a statement declaring that the new amendment would legalise the 'morning after pill'.

Emergency consultations with lawyers by the Bishops and - quite independently - the pro-life groups agreed that this was wrong, a view confirmed by Mildred Fox through her Dail contacts. In fact, the wording does 'not change the status of the morning-after pill'.

In other words the Bishops and experienced pro-life campaigners recognise that if they gain a 'yes' vote in the referendum there is still much to be done. While the Amendment will take them as far as they can hope to go at present, they know that they need to secure protection for the unborn baby from conception onwards against abortifacients which prevent the implantation of the infant in the womb (e.g. the morning-after pill). The Catholic Bishops and pro-life groups have made comprehensive submissions to the Irish Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction and know that they will have to press for a law banning the intentional destruction of human life in IVF or other assisted human reproductive procedures or in embryo research.

Wisely, they recognise that both the above are separate battles; separate from each other, and separate from the present issue relating to the rights of the unborn child from fertilisation onwards. On the other hand, the English critics of the Amendment are asking the Irish to do what no other country of the world has been able to achieve and which every pro-life group in the world would recognise as sheer lunacy if they were called on to take such a stand in their own countries. They are asking the Irish to fight against the morning-after pill (which inevitably would mean fighting against the contraceptive pill and the intra-uterine device); against the use of the human embryo in experiments; against cloning and against abortion - all in one campaign. They are asking them to take on the anti-life movement on every possible front against the backdrop of a continuing decline in medical ethics - because in asking the Irish to defeat the Referendum the critics must recognise that there is every chance the Irish Medical Council will use it to change its ruling on abortion. Moreover, it is very unlikely that any subsequent Irish Government would allow another Referendum for many years to come.

However, the English critics scrupulosity is somewhat limited. In promoting their campaign (and raising money) in this country they are making a number of misinformed statements (at best) and some misrepresentations (at worst). One document I have seen, states that 'last November' Cardinal Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Academy For The Family in Rome, 'hoped' that the Irish Bishops would not support the amendment.

In the following paragraph we are regaled with the news that Fine Gael, the Greens, Labour and Sinn Fein are all opposed to the Amendment - as though they all shared Cardinal Trujillo's pro-life views, whereas they are all pro-abortion to one degree or another. In addition, Cardinal Trujillo has changed his mind and is now standing with the Holy See which has examined the whole question and supports the Irish Bishops. (Nobody knows what Cardinal Trujillo was told in the first place causing him to make a statement opposing the amendment!).

The critics have made scant reference to his change of mind as they have made scant reference to the fact that every pro-abortion group in Ireland (from so-called family planning agencies to out and out pro-abortion campaigners) is opposing the Referendum. Neither have they made any reference as to how they intend to stop the erosion in the Irish Medical Council or hold back the Irish political parties which in the main are united in wanting (at the very least) to see a law implementing the X judgement.

Whatever happens we all have to maintain our principles. In so doing, however, we all have to recognise that in the majority of cases these can only be achieved in law one step at a time. We have to beg our Irish friends to turn out and vote for our neighbour, the unborn baby, by saying 'Yes' in the Referendum.

To allow themselves totally to abandon the baby on the grounds of misdirected propaganda, is to my mind a sin against humanity. For, in defeating the amendment to outlaw abortion from the time of fertilisation, there is little doubt that they will also defeat any hope Ireland has of obtaining protection for the pre-implantation unborn human.

RIGHT TO LIFE
PO Box 26264
London
W3 9WF
Tel: 020 8992 7657
Fax: 020 8896 1859