December 20, 2010

Please send me your comments!

Editor's note. Good evening and thanks for taking time to read TN&V and National Right to Life News Today. Part Two asks if there will be any difference in "Obama 2.0"? Not on our issues. Part Three reminds us that it is always the pro-abortionists who are the real extremists. Over at National Right to Life News Today (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org), we write about a powerfully poignant post-abortion essay and celebrate how popular President Bush's new book has become. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Last week the International Pro-Abortion Movement ran into a roadblock when the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously reaffirmed that there is no "right" to abortion in the European Convention on Human Rights. Unfortunately, however, at the same time in "A, B, and C v. Ireland," the 17-judge court did uphold the challenge of one of three unnamed women to Ireland's protective abortion laws.

The European Court of Human Rights

International law experts who had followed the case, begun in 2005, stressed how pivotal the case was. They dubbed it the "Roe v. Wade of Europe," because the lawsuit was decided in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, supposedly meaning the judgment is binding on all lower chambers and member states.

But A, B, and C v. Ireland should not be binding for Ireland. According to Patrick Buckley, of European Life Network, Ireland and of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), "The Irish Supreme Court has already ruled that the Irish Constitution trumps the European Convention on Human Rights, because the Convention is not part of Irish law and therefore not directly applicable in Irish cases," he said.

BACKGROUND

The Irish law of 1861 banned all abortions. In 1983, it was amended by Article 40.3.3 when the people of Ireland overwhelmingly voted to protect the life of the unborn children of Ireland. The amendment "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

Three women, whose names remained confidential, brought the challenge, backed by the pro-abortion Irish Family Planning Association. The Court ruled against two of the women--identified only as "A" and "B"--but in favor of "C." All had traveled to Britain to have their abortions.

"A" and "B" were identified as Irish women--"C" as a Lithuanian national residing in Ireland. All alleged that their health was put at risk by having to go abroad for their abortion.

According to the Irish Times, the women argued "that they were subject to indignity, stigma and ill-health as a result of being forced to travel abroad for their abortions." In response to the suit the Irish Government "robustly defended the laws and said Ireland's abortion laws were based on 'profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society,'" Carl O'Brien wrote.

The government "argued that European Court on Human Rights has consistently recognised the traditions of different countries regarding the rights of unborn children," O'Brien reported. "However, it maintained that the women's challenge sought to undermine these principles and align Ireland with countries with more liberal abortion laws."

Woman "C" had a rare form of cancer that was in remission. When she became pregnant she said she feared a relapse.

"However, the woman was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term," the Irish Times reported. The court unanimously ruled that her rights "were breached because she had no 'effective or accessible procedure' to establish her right to a lawful abortion," the newspaper reported.

"Irish law as do other laws against abortion should and does allow for those medical procedures that prevent the death of the mother while at the same time striving to save the baby's life," said Jeanne Head, NRLC's Vice President for International Affairs and United Nations Representative. "The term 'mother's life at risk' could be so broadly interpreted that it could mean most anything and ignores the protection of the life of the unborn child."

Head concluded, "As an experienced obstetric nurse, I can say that it is never necessary to directly attack the unborn child to protect the health of the mother in non- life threatening cases."

In upholding the suit brought by the Lithuanian national, "the court found that Ireland should provide a more clear procedure to determine risk to the life of the mother and therefore access to abortion rather than requiring a person in her situation to file a legal action with regard to the country's constitution," according to Stephanie Samuel. "She was awarded 15,000 euros in monetary damages" (roughly $20,000).

John Smeaton, executive director of SPUC, said, "The court has misinterpreted the Irish Constitution and confused abortion with healthcare." He noted pointedly, "This case was never about helping women faced with a crisis pregnancy. It was instigated by the international abortion lobby, which has with the ultimate aim of forcing governments across the globe to recognize access to abortion as a legal right."

Smeaton added, "This warped decision lacks all legitimacy. It is vitally important that the people of Ireland continue to stand-up for the rights of unborn children who are the youngest and most vulnerable members of society. Abortion not only kills children: it is deeply damaging to women."

The decision "can only be described as another transparent attempt to expand on the Irish abortion law by misinterpreting the Irish Constitution and attempting to impose its will on a sovereign nation, which it should be noted, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world," said Head.

Nonetheless, as Head pointed out, the decision "does confirm what we have been saying all along-- that there is no international right to abortion." A, B, and C v. Ireland "is contrary to and exposes the inaccuracy of the claims by such pro-abortion groups as the Center for Reproductive Rights, the UNFPA, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and others, that countries must legalize abortion to comply with international law, even though they know better."

She concluded, "This case represents another of their attempts to chip away at the laws of pro-life countries through the back door by stealthily methods."

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was a key player in assisting the Irish Government to defend its laws.

"No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless, and no one should force any sovereign nation to give up its right to protect life in its constitution if it so chooses," said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. "In this case, the court wisely upheld that right as it has done in the past. The stakes were clearly high for all of Europe, but also for other Western nations, such as the U.S., because their courts often closely watch how European courts are ruling."

What's next is uncertain, although no doubt pro-abortion forces will attempt to ratchet up the pressure on the Irish Government.

"The ECHR cannot enforce its ruling, however," said David Manly of Family & Life in Ireland "and the Irish Government could decide to ignore or reject it. Many other member states of the Council of Europe have, in the past, disregarded decisions of this court which they found to be unacceptable."

Part Two
Part Three