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The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has twice taken legal action to have misleading and illegal guidance withdrawn before Mr Poots took office.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

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.