Lies, Damn lies and Broken Promises

For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world ...?

So the Irish government is to legalise abortion. Enda Kenny, the Irish Prime Minister, has turned out to be just another gutless politician who would sooner go back on the promise he made to the Irish electorate than stand-up to the bullying of the international abortion lobby. It will not come as a surprise to many that Kenny has caved-in to the pressure from abortion advocates in the Council of Europe, the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Health and International Planned Parenthood Federation, but it is still a disappointment. 

Ireland has long been a thorn in the side of the international abortion lobby because it proved that it was possible to have an excellent maternal mortality record without legalised abortion. Efforts to introduce abortion in 1992 and in 2002 failed because the Irish people rejected flawed and fraudulent amendments to their Constitution. But the protection for children before birth has been gradually eroded by the anti-life initiatives of successive governments (such as the the State-run Crisis Pregnancy Agency) and anti-life rulings of the Irish Courts.

There have been a number of stages in the Republic's descent into the culture of death and each milestone has been marked by lies and falsehoods. The first and most damaging, however, was the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court in the X-case. It has taken 20 years but it seems that, unless the people rise up in opposition, this decision will finally lead to the legalised killing of children in Ireland.

The X-case

In a politically-motivated ruling, Irish judges said a 14 year-old girl, pregnant through rape, could have an abortion because her life was threatened. Not threatened in the way that it would be if, for example, she had had an ectopic pregnancy, she was allegedly suicidal so the threat was one of self-harm. The Court's first mistake was to confuse actual life-threatening conditions which arise during pregnancy with a threat of suicide. 

The Court’s second mistake was to pretend that abortion was a treatment for suicidal ideation. Even when there is no doubt that a threat of suicide is genuine, it signifies a psychiatric problem and can only be addressed by psychiatric means. There is no evidence that abortion can alleviate suicidal tendencies. In fact, there is a mountain of research showing the negative effect abortion has on mental health.* Women who undergo abortion are far more likely to take their own lives than those who carry their babies to term. 

The Irish Constitution

The nature of the psychiatric evidence presented to the Supreme Court in 1992 has since been called into question. But there is a more fundamental problem with the X-case which is seldom pointed out. And this is the judges’ interpretation of Article 40.3.3° itself.

The Irish Constitution cannot confer the right to life, it merely recognises it. The right to life is shared by all members of the human family by virtue of their common humanity. No State, no government, no authority can take this right away.

By the adoption of the Eighth Amendment (Article 40.3.3) the Constitution enshrined the position which was already codified in Irish law in the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). Section 58 of this Act makes it a crime to procure an abortion and section 59 makes it a crime even to help to procure one.

Article 40.3.3° states:

The State 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.

By equating the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother, the Constitution is in fact saying that the right to life of the child before birth is equal to the right to life of everyone already born. It did not change the right to life of  mothers. How could it since every human being shares the same right to life? The right to life of women remained the same after the passage of the Eighth Amendment as it had been before it. It is entirely false to claim, as the Court did, that the adoption of Article 40.3.3° somehow introduced a Constitutional right for mothers to take the lives of their unborn children. Abortion remains a criminal offence in Irish law and there can be no Constitutional right to commit this offence. 

There is no more right to kill a child in the womb in order to protect the life of another human being than there is to kill a child already born.

Medical treatments during pregnancy can have life-threatening consequences for an unborn child and sometimes result in their death. But it is never justifiable to end the life of any child, even with the sincere intention of protecting the life of another person.  

The Irish Supreme Court reached a perverse and unnatural judgement in the X-case. Enda Kenny claims that he must legislate in line with this judgement but this claim is entirely false. Contrary to what the expert group suggests, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity, not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the ECtHR recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws.

Kenny intends to repeal the Offences Against the Person Act and designate which hospitals are to carry out abortions. Both these proposals were rejected by the people in the 2002 referendum. This plan must be resisted - completely. It is important that pro-life groups, the Church and the people themselves are united in this resistance. There can be no negotiation over the right to life. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and there is no acceptable level of evil. 

* In the records based UK study, Morgan CM, Evans M, Peter JR, Currie C. Suicides after pregnancy: mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion. (British Medical Journal 1997; 314: 902) comparing suicide attempts before and after abortion indicated the increase in suicide rates after abortion was not related to prior suicidal behaviour but was most likely related to adverse reactions to the abortion. The rate of attempted suicide remained level or decreased before and after pregnancies that resulted in giving birth. But following abortion, the suicide rate increased from a normal baseline to a significantly higher rate. 

Teenagers are at much higher risk of a suicide attempt after abortion. Researchers at University of Minnesota found suicide attempts increased ten-fold for teenagers who were post-abortive in the preceding 6  months. (Garfinkel B, Hoberman H., Parsons, J., and Walker, J. “Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota,” Responding to High Risk Youth (University of Minnesota: Minnesota  Extension Service, 1986) 

Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ & Ridder EM Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health (Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry) found that 50 percent of post-abortive teenagers (15-18 years) had suicidal thoughts and  behaviours, double the rate for those pregnant but never aborted, and double the rate of girls who were never pregnant. 

The medicalisation of abortion in Ireland

Pro-lifers outside the ECtHR, 9 Dec 2009

I will try to sum-up the situation briefly. 

Contrary to what the expert group appears to claim, the ruling of ECtHR in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the Court recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws. 

Fundamentally the problem is that while the law in Ireland still recognises abortion as a criminal offence, discussion of the issue has become 'medicalised.' The guidance of the Irish Medical Counsel still reflects the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) which prohibits abortion. However, it understands that a doctor may have a defence against a charge of procuring a miscarriage if he or she can show there were grounds for the reasonable belief that such an intervention was the only way in which the life of a pregnant woman could be saved.

The common perception among politicians, the media and the general public (including sections of the pro-life movement) is, however, that the Irish Constitution confers a right to abortion. It doesn't because abortion remains presumptively illegal and the Constitution can't recognise a right to commit a criminal offence. In spite of this fact the result of the deeply flawed and highly political judgement of the Irish Supreme Court in the X-case, as been that abortion is only ever discussed in terms of healthcare. 

To be fair to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) this current situation is the fault of the Supreme Court and successive Irish governments which pretended to oppose abortion while refusing to defend the right to life of the unborn. The ECtHR therefore only had to accept the judgement in the X-case because the problems it created were never addressed by the Irish Government in its submissions. The Court had already ruled in Tysiac v Poland (2007) that if a right to abortion exists in a State, then there is a duty on the government to ensure that that right can be exercised. From this point of view the procedures for clinical assessment carried out by Irish doctors on a case by case basis, does not provide the predictability which the ECtHR expects members of the public to have in weighing decisions effecting their private lives. Quite naturally, because abortion was presumptively illegal, there was no statutory framework setting out when abortion was lawful and no mechanism for resolving disputes. But the Court was able to cite the Irish Government’s 1996 Review Group Report which “recommended the adoption of legislation regulating the application of Article 40.3.3 (the article recognising the right to life of the unborn), by including a certification process by medical specialists and a time-limit for any certified termination in the case of an abortion considered lawful under Article 40.3.3.” As well as a Government Green Paper from 1999 which advocated much the same thing.

Finally, turning reality on its head, the Grand Chamber declared the Offences Against the Person Act, the primary legislation prohibiting abortion, an obstacle to the provision of 'lawful' abortion and called for its repeal. 

The media firestorm surrounding the death of Mrs Halapannavar has confirmed the widespread misperception of abortion as legitimate healthcare and the abortion advocates in the Government can now set about its legalisation with minimal opposition. 

Every pro-life person in the Republic needs to contact his or her elected representatives and let them know that if they as politicians support the legalised killing of unborn children then they cannot expect to receive the votes of pro-life people at the next election.

Human rights, hysteria and media witch-hunts

"Not the Stormont Justice Committee"
Examination of a Witch, by T.H. Matteson 1853. Courtesy of the Peabody Essex Museum

In a diatribe against everyone who opposes the opening of the Marie Stopes International (MSI) abortion facility in Belfast, columnist, Brian Feeney, (Witchfinder should drop idea of 'clinic inquisition'  Irish News 24 October 2012) seems oblivious to the irony of condemning the use of "inflammatory language" whilst speaking himself in almost hysterical terms about witch-trials, inquisitions and "policing women's bodies." 

He calls Northern Ireland's Minister of Health, Edwin Poots, a flat-earther, but if such labels are to be used in the abortion debate they would more accurately apply to those who deny the scientific fact that life begins at fertilisation and that the child in the womb is fully human with a unique genetic code. Such a child is not part of a woman's body and not the property of his or her parents to be discarded. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises that: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all members of the human family must be recognised as persons before the law, regardless of birth or any other status. Northern Ireland’s laws attempt to defend these rights.

Irish News columnist
(and contestant on the
BBC's Round Britain Quiz)

Mr Feeney (pictured) is also mistaken in his belief that the publication of DHSSPS guidelines on abortion has anything to do with the legality of the MSI centre. Abortion in Northern Ireland is not "regulated" as he suggests, it remains a criminal offence. 

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has twice taken legal action to have misleading and illegal guidance withdrawn before Mr Poots took office. Since then he has ordered a review of abortion figures and proposals for auditing data on abortions. Far from dodging the issue as Mr Feeney claims, the current health minister has done more to try to shed light on abortions in Northern Ireland than any of his predecessors. However, this is beside the point. Guidelines are merely guidelines and do not change the law. And it is the law not health service guidance which MSI has challenged by its offer of routinely providing abortions for money. 

Abortion kills children and hurts women. While Mr Feeney may welcome the arrival of a multi-national abortion business, the legislative and legal authorities in Northern Ireland have a duty to act when the law is challenged.

It is almost redundant to point this out but for the sake of those who aren't aware of the on-going media attacks on John Larkin since he suggested the Justice Committee look into the legality of the MSI abortion centre... if anyone can complain about a witch-hunt it is the Attorney General himself. Presumably, advocates of abortion in the media see Mr Larkin as a real threat to the continued presence of MSI in Northern Ireland.

Maries Stopes International, One week on

Outside the MSI abortion facility,  Great Victoria Street, Belfast.
Thursday 18 October 2012

One week ago, Thursday 18 October, the pro-life movement welcomed the news that the Justice Committee in Northern Ireland's devolved government was to launch an investigation into the operations of the Marie Stopes International (MSI) abortion facility which opened amid protests (pictured). The arrival of MSI has caused such widespread public concern that our laws protecting children before birth will be overturned that the Northern Ireland Assembly had no choice but to act against this direct challenge to the law.

If anything good could result from MSI parachuting in from London it is that in his letter to the chairman of the Justice Committee, John Larkin QC, the Attorney General, has spelt out the law in a clear, concise and easily understood summary.

Mr Larkin states: "As you know, abortion in Northern Ireland is a matter regulated by the criminal law primarily by two statutes; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945. The subject falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the [Justice] Committee. Abortion in Northern Ireland is a criminal offence which is punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 

"An abortion carried out in Northern Ireland may [emphasis added] not result in a criminal liability if, on a trial for that offence, a jury considers that the person who procured it was a suitably qualified person1 who believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing2, that the continuation of the pregnancy would have created a risk to the life of the mother or would have probably caused serious and long-term harm to her physical or mental health. 

"It must be stressed that termination of a pregnancy based solely on the abnormality of an unborn child is always unlawful."3 

Abortion is not health care and in Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence. The Parliament of Northern Ireland rejected the British Abortion Act in 1967 and for the last 45 years the majority of the people and politicians have continued to oppose the liberalisation of our abortion laws. Through the long years of direct rule from London only the force of public opinion stopped successive British governments from imposing the Abortion Act on the Province. The last attempt to introduce it, in 2008 came only months before criminal justice powers were returned to local politicians. It failed because of the pressure brought to bear on the Prime Minister in London. 
It is vitally important that everyone in Northern Ireland lobbies their elected representatives to urge them to take all the necessary steps to ensure that Marie Stopes is unable to maintain its abortion centre in Belfast. 

Public opinion must demand action to shut this centre down. There is too much evidence of Marie Stopes's involvement in illegal abortions in other countries for claims that the Belfast centre will operate inside the law to hold any credibility.

This is probably the greatest threat against the right to life of Northern Ireland's unborn children. We need everyone to raise this issue with their politicians, in their churches and among their families and friends. The financial resources available to MSI are enormous; but the pro-life people of Northern Ireland have fought long against the threat of liberal abortion. They have worked too hard for the return of accountable democracy to see our laws and our devolved institutions swept aside by the abortion industry. I believe Marie Stopes have underestimated the level of opposition it faces from the people of Northern Ireland.

1 It appears therefore that, where the potential long term harm relied upon consists of harm to the mother’s mental health the opinion of a qualified specialist in psychiatry would be required to have been obtained and considered. 
2 In the case of R v Bourne (1939) 1KB 687, McNaughton J said, “If the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuation of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are quite entitled to take the view that the doctor, who under those circumstances and in that honest belief, operates, is operating for the purpose of saving thelife of the 
mother.” 
3 See judgement of Sheil J at paragraph (9) and Nicholson LJ at paragraph (73) in the Family Planning Association v The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2004) NICA and (2004) NICA 39

Marie Stopes International moves in for the kill

The thought that a giant of the global abortion industry is intending to open a centre in Belfast to perform abortion will alarm many people. Especially as businesses like Marie Stopes International (MSI) have in the past shown as much contempt for laws protecting unborn children as they have for the children themselves.

If MSI is serious about the offering abortion as a service, it is difficult to imagine how this can be done without breaking the law. Despite the claims of abortion advocates, the law in the North is perfectly clear. Abortion is not healthcare, it is not a service, it is a criminal offence. Even helping to procure an abortion by making a referral to a centre in England is unlawful. Only when a woman’s life is seriously threatened can it even be considered. The idea that MSI can simply open a centre, get  doctors willing to approve abortions and can then start performing them, has no foundation in law. Unlike Britain doctors here cannot simply rubberstamp approval for an abortion. The decision must be based on a genuine clinical need and with modern medicine such cases are extremely rare. If challenged by legal authorities a doctors must be able to demonstrate that an abortion was necessary, that is, that the unborn child had to die and could not be saved. If this cannot be shown in Court then the doctor and all those who helped procure the abortion could face jail.

Abortionists may be used to breaking the law in Britain by performing sex-selection abortions on baby girls and falsifying paperwork but this is Northern Ireland. The pro-life people of the North will not standby and allow abortionists to change our law by breaking it. They need to know that the law will be enforced.

A Day for Life

The Catholic Bishops of Ireland have designated Sunday 7 October 2012 as the annual Day for Life. The theme for this year is “Choose Life” and while I think it’s a bad idea for the pro-life movement to adopt the buzz-words of the abortion industry, the printed material distributed to Catholic churches across Ireland and the resources available on the website are pretty good. 

South of the border, pro-lifers are of course fighting to prevent the overthrow of the Constitutional protection of the Republic’s unborn children. This has undoubtedly helped to focus the thoughts of those behind the Day for Life this year. Previous themes have taken such a general approach that they have provided little, if anything, of value. The Olympic theme of the 2012 Day for Life in England & Wales is a good example of this. Anyone looking at the material produced for that campaign could be forgiven for thinking that 189,931abortions hadn’t actually taken place in the previous 12 months.

Naturally, distributing flyers to churches doesn’t guarantee that anyone will read them. The effectiveness of the campaign relies heavily on individual priests. At one church I attended over the weekend the Day for Life received only a glancing reference. This was a pity since a pro-abortion former politician was attending the Mass. Who can say what a forthright defence of the right to life may have achieved? If even abortion doctors can be converted to the pro-life cause then there must surely be hope for politicians. At a different parish, a different priest did an outstanding job in setting the absolute nature of the right to life, no apologies, no exceptions. 

Belfast pro-choice rally, 6 October 2012-
Thousands chose not to support it.

By an uncanny coincidence Saturday was the day for choice in Belfast. A rally began at 4 pm at the City Hall. By 4.35 pm when this photograph was taken, it was, in the words of one pro-choice demonstrator “just about over.” The turn out he told me was “pretty much what you see now.” He agreed that it was less than 100.

Rally for Life, Custom House Square, Belfast 7 July 2012.

A number of the protesters, (probably those with the drums) appear to have flown in from London for the event. 

It presented a stark contrast with the Rally for Life (pictured below) which Belfast hosted in July. With such a tiny turn-out for the pro-choice event, is it any wonder abortion advocates in Northern Ireland are always so bad tempered.

Marriage: A pro-life issue

On Monday 1 October the Assembly debated a motion calling for the legalisation of marriage between people of the same sex. The Democratic Unionist Party had invoked a Petition of Concern so the motion required a majority of both Nationalists and Unionist, counted separately, before it could be adopted. In the end it was defeated by 50 votes to 45. 

The debate revealed the extent to which radical notions of equality have become dominant in political thought. Even to the point that the opinions of the electorate no longer count. It also made clear that many politicians have only a superficial understanding that the family based on marriage is the fundamental unit of society. 

Speaker after speaker claimed the proposal would end discrimination and grant equal rights to homosexual couples. When asked to specify exactly which rights marriage provided that civil partnership did not, Stephen Agnew (Green Party) could only mention the right to adopt children.  

Earlier in the debate Roy Beggs (Ulster Unionist Party, pictured) reminded the Assembly that the  conflict between religious liberty and the homosexual agenda resulted in the closure of the Catholic adoption services in England & Wales. That would undoubtedly happen in Northern Ireland if homosexual marriage was legalised. It was, therefore, extraordinary that not one Catholic member of the Assembly spoke against the motion.   

In English law discrimination is not considered illegal unless it is unjust. Nor does true equality mean treating everyone and everything as the same. These principles have been upheld by  the European Court of Human Rights which has ruled that is not unjust discrimination to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 

The role of marriage in society

The family, based on marriage, is the basic unit of society and is recognised as such in international law* and is entitled to protection.

Social science has shown that children do better when raised by their biological parents in a permanent marriage than in any other type of home life.  Marriage (that is real marriage) demands particular support from the State because it is both the natural unit on which society is founded, and the institution in which children do best. The redefinition of marriage therefore puts the interests of some adults before the right of children to be raised by a father and mother. 

It would also break the natural link between marriage and parenthood and reduce children the status of an optional extra rather than central to marriage. While not all marriages can generate children, all children are conceived by a father and mother. 

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the issue of same-sex unions is not really about equality since civil partnerships already grant virtually all the benefits and rights of marriage. It is about changing the way people think about marriage. If marriage is redefined it will effect how all marriages are treated, in government bureaucracy, in teaching in schools and threatens to fundamentally change the idea of marriage in society. The legalisation of same-sex marriage has led in some jurisdictions to unions involving more than two people. 

The evidence that marriage is the safest relationship in which children can be conceived and born is overwhelming. While children conceived outside marriage have the same human rights they are much more likely to have their lives ended by abortion. 

In our society marriage is already seriously undermined by a damaging culture of birth control, promiscuity, co-habitation and divorce. It this culture which is antithetical to family life which has made abortion the norm across much of the globe. We cannot, therefore, afford to stand by while the very nature of marriage is redefined. That is why SPUC has prepared a paper setting out the its position on this issue. It is available at the Society’s website together with a detail briefing demonstrating how the defence of marriage is fundamentally a pro-life concern.

*Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.... (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

FPA gets the go-ahead for a Judicial Review

Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast

The FPA has been given the green light to proceed with an application for a judicial review of the health department’s progress on the publication of guidance to the medical profession on Northern Ireland’s abortion law and clinical practice since the SPUC’s legal action forced the withdrawal of dangerously flawed guidelines in 2010.

In Court this morning Mr Tony McGleenan, the FPA’s legal council, tried to minimise the seriousness of the problems highlighted by the SPUC action. There were two main areas of concern, i) counselling for women considering abortion, and ii) the rights of medical personnel not to take part in abortion procedures. But the judge in SPUC’s case took the view that these were cross-cutting issues which held implications for the guidance as a whole and, therefore, ordered the entire document to be withdrawn. 

Since then there has been a change in the post of Minister for Health. Edwin Poots, the new Minister, has taken a more considered approach to how the guidance should reflect the laws which prohibit abortion in Northern Ireland. In a written response to a parliamentary question on the matter from to Anna Lo, a pro-abortion MLA from the Alliance Party, he stated: 

"This is a complex issue and one that requires careful consideration. I must ensure that any guidance produced for health professionals is robust and compatible with criminal law. I will only produce guidance when I am satisfied that this has been achieved."  (AQW 13733/11-15, Hansard  Written Answers, WA 30 14:09:2012)

Also in contrast to his predecessor, Mr Poots has listened to the concerns of pro-life doctors and parliamentarians who had for years been calling for more accurate and detailed records to be collected regarding the circumstances surrounding the abortions carried out in the Province. Supposedly these are lawful abortions but while no detailed records are kept it is simply impossible to say for certain. Strangely, (but predictably) the FPA who are now stamping their feet and demanding the publication of guidance is simultaneously opposed to the collection of data on abortions here. How can any group demand the immediate publication of guidance yet oppose mechanisms needed to ensure compliance with that guidance? The answer of course is that the FPA don’t want guidance that reflects the criminal law but something which medicalises it. Abortion, however, is not healthcare. It remains a criminal offence.  

The FPA application is scheduled to be heard over Monday 21st and Tuesday 22nd January, 2013. The pro-life movement has a dog in this fight but so far hasn’t seen a need to intervene in a case that shouldn’t have any bearing on the contents of the guidance. Nevertheless, we will be keeping a careful eye on developments. 

The role of conscience in medicine

The presentations delivered at the International Symposium on Maternal Health (Dublin, 8th September 2012) have just been made available on the internet. Of the many excellent presentations given at the event one of the most powerful came from Dr John Monaghan, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Portiuncula Hospital in Ballinasloe, Co Galway.

Dr Monaghan began by outlining Ireland’s outstanding record on maternal health. This may be due in part to the pioneering work of Bartholemew Mosse who, in 1757, established the world’s first purpose built maternity hospital, The Rotunda, in Dublin. Since then Ireland has continued to be a leading light in obstetrics and maternal health. United Nations agencies have consistently ranked Ireland as one of the safest places in the world for expectant mothers. It is significantly safer than the US or the UK. 

And the differences between the records of Ireland and the UK was something Dr Monaghan wanted to look at specifically. One possible factor he identified could be the problem of recruitment. In 2007 a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain claimed that, over recent decades, the number of medical graduates choosing to specialise in this branch of medicine had fallen to dangerously low levels. 

“If you look at career choices of medical graduates in the UK” said Dr Monaghan “...the medical school with the most graduates coming into obstetrics and gynaecology is Queens University, Belfast. We take a look at maternal mortality. The figures for 2003-2007 in the different countries in the UK ...Northern Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality, for this five year period. So they seem to get more graduates and more live mothers.”  

He continued, “With its high recruitment and its low maternal mortality, I ask myself what else is different between the North of Ireland and the rest of the UK. There is only one difference that I’m aware of, the Abortion Act doesn’t apply there. And maybe this is why [more] graduates are attracted to work in obstetrics.”

“There have been several stories, especially in the UK, about more young doctors opposing abortion on ethical grounds. ...I’m suggesting that it’s nothing to do with religion or ethics it’s just that the prospect of abortion is sufficient to put many good graduates off practising obstetrics.

“...So we have evidence of increasing conscientious refusal among young doctors for abortion, so what do we think we can do about that? Well,” said Dr Monaghan, “one suggestion is that we should get rid of conscientious objection.” 

He went on to outline the growing threat to freedom of conscience within the medical profession. Anyone unsure of just how serious this threat is needs only to look at the Technical Guidance Document for the Reduction of Maternal Mortality just issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council. But as Dr Monaghan demonstrated, when doctors are no longer guided by the their code of conscience but by political decrees, then the consequences are grave. 

The legislation which prohibits abortion in Northern Ireland and the Republic is the Offences Against the Person Act. It was passed in 1861 but the origins of our law date back to the fifth century before the birth of Christ when the western tradition of medical ethics was founded on the Hippocratic Oath. This oath prohibited doctors from killing their patients through abortion and euthanasia.

These principles were reaffirmed in 1948 by the World Medical Association in the Declaration of Geneva which bound doctors to “maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat,” and not to use their medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. 

The publication on the internet of Dr Monaghan’s presentation could not be more timely. Hopefully, the success of the International Symposium on Maternal Health will remind the medical profession, in Ireland and farther afield, that as the judges at Nuremberg warned, doctors cannot deviate from their ethical obligations even if legislation demands it. 

The battle continues Update: FPA’s judicial review

The Family Planning Association (FPA) was originally scheduled to be in Court today, but the leave hearing has now been listed for Monday 24th September 2012. The FPA’s aim in seeking a judicial review could only be to force the Department of Health to issue its guidance on abortion without any further consideration. Ten years after the FPA first went to court over the matter, it's clear that things haven’t gone according to plan and the abortion industry is growing impatient.  

It might seem something of a contradiction that while the FPA is so keen on abortion guidance for doctors in Northern Ireland, it has been so vehemently opposed to the imminent introduction of new requirements on the collection of data on abortions in hospitals here. After all, without accurately recorded figures, how is anyone to say if guidance is even being applied? The answer is, of course, that the abortion industry's idea of guidance is an official document that streamlines access to abortion without actually seeking to ensure that the law is upheld. Whether or not the FPA is granted leave to seek a review and whether or not such a review would be successful, it is extremely unlikely that the FPA will ever get the kind of guidance it would like. The devolution of criminal justice powers and political stability in Northern Ireland has proven to be a big set back for the FPA and its friends in the abortion industry.

"Abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman"

Last Saturday, 8th September 2012, an International Symposium on Maternal Health took place in Dublin. It was a truly remarkable event. Around 150 people crowded into the Great Hall in King’s Inn (off Henrietta Street) to listen to experts from Europe, Africa and the US speak about maternal health and foetal medicine. 

The organisers of the conference deserve to be congratulated for bringing together such an impressive array of speakers at a single event. Their breadth of research and combined level of experience must surely mean that this conference was unparalleled in recent decades in either Ireland or the UK. 

According to the World Health Organisation, the Irish Republic has consistently been one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women. And, while each of the speakers was an expert in his or her field, many of them expressed how honoured they were to have the opportunity to address the Irish medical profession which has such an outstanding record on maternal healthcare. 

At its conclusion, the Symposium issued the DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE which states:

• “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

• “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

• “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

As the pressure on Ireland to liberalise its abortion legislation is growing, the timing of this event could hardly have been better. Its influence on the abortion debate is likely to be felt for many years to come. 

It would be difficult to report on the full line up of speakers or on the wealth of information they provided. Over the coming days, however, I will try to summarise some of the highlights of the Symposium.

The battle continues

Northern Ireland's new Secretary of State

The Unconditional Right to Life

Life is Worth Living