Pro Life Campaign News

ABORTION BREAKTHROUGH COALITION PARTIES AGREE THAT NOTHING IS AGREED AS LONG AS NOTHING IS AGREED

2013-04-25T00:32:00.000-07:00

It is strange that we have to read between the lines to learn what the news actually is. Despite the so-called decision made by the Government on 18th December 2012 to bring in abortion legislation based on the X case ruling, the news reports seem to suggest that the two Parties are not working together on it and do not even know what each other’s views on it are.

The abortion legislation is turning into a Titanic facing an increasingly dodgy maiden voyage.

But while Labour and Fine Gael continue their carefully choreographed dance of disagreement about the arrangement of the numbers on the abortion panels on the deck of the Titanic, the iceberg of the evidence presented by the psychiatrists at the Oireachtas Hearings held by this Government lies in wait for them, made all the more dangerous by their shared refusal to look at any more than the tip of it.

But there is it, in reality – the real problem with abortion panels is that abortion is not a psychiatric treatment for suicidality. That is why the proposed legislation has to be dropped. Bad medicine makes bad law.

Shilly-shallying about how many should decide a nonsense is a nonsense squared. No panel is small enough or large enough to turn abortion into a legitimate psychiatric treatment for suicidality.

The problem is that the thinking underpinning the X case ruling was wrong and the Government has to snap out of its denial.

The solution is to face that fact and drop that approach.

Joe McCarroll

New data: 330 million abortions carried out in China since 1971

2013-03-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

Nearly 330 million abortions have been performed in China in the past 40 years, official data shows.

Data posted on the health ministry website shows that from 1971 through 2010 a total of 328.9 million abortions were carried out in the country.

A quarter of Chinese women of reproductive age have had at least one abortion.

China says that its One Child Policy introduced in the early 1980s has prevented overpopulation, but the policy has led to horrifying practices of forced abortion. Women are forcibly removed from their homes and their babies aborted against their will. Some of these cases have involved women as far along as 9 months in their pregnancies.

In 2009, there were 35,000 forced abortions performed on Chinese women every day.

Human rights groups have criticised these harsh enforcement methods. Groups like Women's Rights Without Frontiers and activists like Reggie Littlejohn and Chen Guangcheng are attempting to attract international attention on these human and civil rights abuses.

Reggie Littlejohn

The One Child Policy has also contributed to the practice of gendercide. With a cultural preference for boys, and the freedom to only have one child, many parents abort female children, or commit infanticide shortly after birth. This has led to a great imbalance, with 120 males born for every 100 girls.

Despite increasing international outrage, the Chinese Government is resistant to abolishing the One Child Policy. Women's Rights Without Frontiers and other groups are extremely concerned that no significant changes appear to be on the horizon for the One Child Policy. Recent statements by Wang Xia, the Chairman of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, the China "must unwaveringly adhere to the One Child Policy as a national policy" indicate that the current system of coerced and violence enforcement and forced abortions will continue for some time.

See more: Infographic on the One Child Policy

PLC calls Government’s decision on abortion “highly objectionable” for ignoring the evidence from the Oireachtas hearings

2013-03-08T02:37:00.000-08:00

Responding to reports that the Government has told the Council of Europe that it will enact legislation for the X case before the end of July, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“It is also unacceptable the way the Government is acting as though it is obliged to introduce abortion on foot of the European court decision in A, B and C v. Ireland. The ECHR called on Ireland to clarify its position regarding treatment of women in pregnancy. It did not compel us to introduce abortion as members of government continue to imply."

“The Pro Life Campaign will intensify its campaign in the coming weeks to present to the public the true reality of what X case legislation would mean in practice.”

“The Government’s plan to press ahead with legislation for the X case is highly objectionable since the argument that abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation was completely undermined by the expert psychiatric evidence at the recent Oireachtas hearings on the issue. Far from helping women, abortion increases the risk of future mental health problems for a significant number of women. It is a disgrace how senior members of the Government are choosing to ignore this reality."

Your TDs and Senators need to hear from you. Order postcards here - http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/postcard-campaign.htm - to tell them that you don't want abortion legalised along the grounds of the X Case.

The recent pro-life vigil in January.

New 60-year review of Irish maternal deaths show no suicides because of pregnancy

2013-03-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

No evidence that suicide is a treatment for pregnant suicidal women - Government must not mislead women that abortion prevents suicide

A new and groundbreaking study of every maternal death that occurred in Dublin's three maternity hospitals between 1950 and 2011 has found that no woman died by suicide because she was pregnant.

The study, on suicide in pregnancy, examined the Mater's Reports relating to over 1 million pregnant women linked to the three Dublin maternity hospitals.

It shows that in total there were 394 maternal deaths. Of these, 5 died by suicide - one died during pregnancy (at 30 weeks gestation), while four died shortly after giving birth.

Vitally and crucially, the data, obtained from these reports, shows that the five women who died by suicide did NOT do so because of their pregnancy but because of problems external to it such as mental illness.

Importantly in the context of the present debate, the records cover a period that begins almost 20 years before the liberalisation of the British abortion laws in 1967.

This makes it much harder to claim that suicidal pregnant women in the first part of the period under examination were going to Britain for abortions.

The study was carried out by Professor Patricia Casey, of UCD and the Mater Misericoradiae University hospital. She is an internationally recognised researcher and clinical practitioner in the area of suicide and self-harm.

Prof Casey said: "It demonstrates that suicide in pregnancy is extremely rare and suicide as a result of the pregnancy itself, as distinct from some other social or health problem that preceded the pregnancy or developed during the pregnancy, is unheard of."

"It is thus misleading to suggest that abortion is necessary to prevent suicide in pregnancy, a view that was confirmed by the perinatal psychiatrists at the Heath Committee hearings on abortion in January. They confirmed that they had never seen a case where abortion was the only intervention to treat a pregnant suicidal woman,” Prof Casey said.

She also pointed to the written submission of St. Patrick's Hospital to the Committee, which also stated that there is no evidence supporting the view that abortion is a treatment for any mental health problem or behaviour.

Professor Casey also drew attention to the written submission of Professor Kevin Malone, Professor of Psychiatry at UCD and St. Vincent's Hospital, and a leading international researcher in the field of suicide risk and prediction, who wrote that suicide cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy that would satisfy a legislative test.

He also expressed concern that legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicide risk “inexplicably legitimizes and normalizes "suicidality" under certain conditions - for women only”. This, he said, would have the unintended consequence of exacerbating the risk of suicide among men.

Professor Casey said that the Government, by its laws, must not ask psychiatry to mislead women in believing that abortion prevents suicide.

“It is imperative that any decision on the resolution of the Government’s issue in relation to the X case must be based on medical research and evidence. The clinical facts and international experience clearly show that legislation, no matter how limited, actually promotes widespread abortion.

“As a doctor with many years of experience of health services in Ireland and the UK, I know that, for any given service, the volume of any treatment provided is most closely correlated with its availability. Once the service is available, it will be used,” she said.

Read a report about the study in today's Irish Independent here

Media coverage of Millward Brown opinion poll launch

2013-02-28T02:31:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the links below to see coverage of last week's launch of the Millward Brown opinion poll on abortion.

The RTÉ Six One News
Irish Independent
Irish Examiner
Irish Times
also in the Irish Times, by Arthur Beesley "Group disputes wide backing for abortion"
Belfast Telegraph
Yahoo News
BreakingNews.ie
LifeNews.com
National Right To Life News
RTÉ Radio One Drivetime
Limerick Leader
Carlow Nationalist

Sizeable majority support legal protection of unborn, according to new research

2013-02-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

Today, the Pro Life Campaign launched a recently commissioned Millward Brown opinion poll, which was carried out on various pro-life issues including current medical practice on the treatment of women in pregnancy.

Áine Ascough, Wendy Grace, Maria Ó hAodha, and Claire Moore at the launch.

Research was carried out between 16-25 January 2013 on a nationally representative sample of 970 people aged 18+ by face-to-face interviews. The findings show a high level of support for current medical practice in Ireland.

Q1. In current medical practice in Ireland, the doctor treats the expectant mother and her baby as two patients and does his/her best to safeguard both in a crisis situation. Do you consider that this practice should be protected and safeguarded by law or not?

Result:

66% answered YES

15% NO

19% gave no opinion

Of those who expressed an opinion 81% answered YES.

Q2. Are you in favour of, or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother's life in accordance with Irish medical ethics?

Result:

63% answered YES

19% NO

18% gave no opinion

Of those who expressed an opinion: 77% answered YES.

What marks these findings out from other research is the way important ethical distinctions are clarified for the benefit of respondents.

A number of polls published recently citing support for abortion used the word “abortion” in the question without defining just what it meant. These questions could only lead to uninformed answers. Polls using lists of emotive circumstances also tend to distort results.

In the Millward Brown polls published today an attempt was made to differentiate between life-saving medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion (where the sole aim is to terminate the pregnancy). It is clear from the results that a sizeable majority supports legal protection for the unborn child, while ensuring that women receive all necessary medical treatments when pregnant.

The findings published today challenge the notion that there is broad middle ground support for abortion in Ireland.

Separate from the survey results, but very relevant to the debate on abortion, Caroline Simons (legal adviser to the Pro Life Campaign) made the following remarks at the press launch today:

· As the latest World Health Organisation report on Trends in Maternal Mortality shows, out of 171 countries, Ireland is consistently in the top five in safety for women in pregnancy over the past 25 years. This is a remarkable statistic showing Ireland to be a world leader in maternal healthcare and safer for women in pregnancy than places like Britain and the US, where abortion is available on demand.

· Rather than introducing an abortion regime that blurs crucial ethical distinctions, the Government should set about reassuring the public on Ireland's outstanding record of care in protecting women during pregnancy.

· The European Court of Human Rights judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland does not oblige the Government to introduce abortion legislation. Instead, Guidelines could be drawn up in consultation with the appropriate bodies of expertise within the medical profession based on best medical practice, addressing the requirement of clarity for women in pregnancy.

· Any legislation based on the X case would mean that for the first time members of the Oireachtas would be sanctioning the taking of innocent human life. Once that principle is conceded, there is no going back. Not only would legislation based on the X case put the right to life of the unborn at risk, it would also potentially put women's lives at risk based on the independent expert evidence presented to the recent Oireachtas hearings. This evidence highlighted the link between induced abortion and adverse mental health consequences for women. If we are genuinely concerned about women's health, the Government simply cannot ignore this peer-reviewed evidence.

You can see the full results from Millward Brown by following this link.

Please share this post on facebook and twitter.

Fianna Fáil leader opposed to abortion being legalised on basis of suicidality

2013-02-18T03:42:00.000-08:00

In an interview with TheJournal.ie, Fianna Fáil leader Mícheál Martin has expressed his opposition to abortion being legalised on the grounds of suicidality, as well as opposing widening grounds for cases of rape and poor pre-natal diagnoses.

In July, Mícheál Martin wrote an opinion piece in the Irish Examiner that set out his opposition to legislation based on X. You can see our blog from July by clicking here.

Mícheál Martin, leader of Fianna Fáil

The Cork Deputy is one of an increasing number of politicians, doctors, and commentators who are concerned by the prospect of abortion being legalised on the flawed basis of treating suicidality - a claim that was completely demolished at the recent Oireachtas Health Committee Hearings, when all the consultant psychiatrists that went before it testified that abortion is not a treatment for a pregnant woman who is suicidal.

John Bruton says Government abortion legislation contrary to Constitution

2013-02-15T03:03:00.000-08:00

John Bruton - former Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader

In today's Irish Times, former Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader, John Bruton says that Government plans to legalise abortion are contrary to the Constitutional protection of the unborn, and that there can be "no equal right to life if law embraces suicide risk".

He says that "a provision allowing a suicide threat to be a basis for ending the life of an unborn child" would not be consistent with the wording of the Constitution, which states that the State has a responsibility to "defend and vindicate” the right to life of the unborn child.

He points out that the 8th amendment in 1983 was "put there with the explicit approval of the people", and that inclusion of a suicide risk as grounds for an abortion was decided, "to the surprise of many", in a court, and was not introduced by the will of the people in a referendum.
[When the question of abortion based on perceived risk of suicide was put to referendum in 1992 and 2002, all pro-life people opposed the proposed amendment the first time and some pro-life groups opposed the proposed amendment the second time.]

We have human rights because we are human beings, not because other people or a legislature deems us "worthy" of rights. Bruton recalls Judge Hederman's words from the Supreme Court judgement in 1992: “The right of life is guaranteed to every life, born or unborn. One cannot make distinctions between individual phases of the unborn life before birth, or between unborn and born.” Mr. Bruton makes the important point that human rights are not stripped from specific groups of persons based on taste or opinion at a particular point in time. He says "The underlying idea behind putting human rights in the Constitution is to ensure that they cannot be easily reduced".

Bruton concludes "to introduce a law providing that an expression of a threat of suicide by one person would be sufficient ground for the taking away of the life of another, would not be in accord with the actual words in the Constitution. There would be no “equal” right to life in such a law, and an equal right to life is what the Constitution requires. ... It would institute a rule of convenience, at the expense of a rule of rights."

See John Bruton's full article on the Irish Times website by clicking here.
See related piece by Stephen Collins, Irish Times Political Editor, by clicking here.

Click here to see the Pro Life Campaign's briefing document, which outlines how guidelines - not legislation - are the way forward.

Cora Sherlock says reporting of latest Irish Times poll "gross distortion" in letter to the paper

2013-02-14T08:29:00.000-08:00

Cora Sherlock with Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers and
Joe McCarroll of the Pro Life Campaign at an event in 2012.

In a letter in today's Irish Times, Cora Sherlock, the Deputy Chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign says that the Irish Times' presentation of the recent poll "was a gross distortion of the true picture".

Reporting on the poll at the time of its release, Stephen Collins, the Political Editor of the Irish Times, claimed that public support on abortion has increased from 23% in 1997 to 71% today. As Cora points out, in reality the poll in 1977 found that 77% of people supported abortion (given the question made no distinction between abortion and necessary medical treatments during pregnancy). In responding to Cora's letter in today's paper, Stephen Collins dismisses her point, claiming that his comparison still stands.

Below is Cora's letter in full.

Sir, – The presentation by The Irish Times of the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll on abortion was a gross distortion of the true picture.
In his analysis, Political Editor, Stephen Collins (February 11th) states that public support for Oireachtas legislation on abortion has risen from 23 per cent in 1997 to 71 per cent today.
The 1997 MRBI poll he cites actually found 77 per cent of people supported abortion in a variety of circumstances, depending on how the question was asked. The 23 per cent mentioned by Mr Collins was just one of the findings in a multiple choice question that included other options.
Five years later, in 2002, when the electorate had an actual choice to make in a referendum, 49 per cent voted Yes to row back on the X case ruling. An IMS poll conducted just afterwards found an additional 5 per cent voted No on pro-life grounds.
In other words, despite findings like the one cited by Mr Collins from 1997 and the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll, when the people have an actual democratic choice, a clear majority rejects abortion.
Polls showing high levels of support for abortion are nothing new. Whenever the question suppresses the distinction between induced abortion (that targets the life of the baby) and necessary medical treatments to preserve the life of the mother (where every reasonable effort is made to save the life of the baby), the results show high support for abortion.
Such polls, however, significantly under-represent the opposition among the electorate and create an inflated perception of the extent of public support for abortion.
– Yours, etc,
CORA SHERLOCK,
Deputy Chairperson,
Pro Life Campaign,
Lower Baggot Street,
Dublin 2.

Stephen Collins writes: The Irish Times poll in December 1997 found that 23 per cent of people felt the government should legislate for abortion in line with decisions made in the courts. Other findings in the same poll or other polls about the complex issue do not alter that fact. The finding in the latest poll that 71 per cent of people favour legislation is directly comparable.

Guidelines urgently needed regarding treatment of mothers in pregnancy, following reports on Savita Halappanavar case

2013-02-13T11:36:00.000-08:00

Responding to today’s leaked extracts of the draft HSE inquiry into the Savita Halappanavar case, the Pro Life Campaign called for the “urgent introduction of Guidelines regarding treatment of mothers in pregnancy.”

Commenting on the leaked extracts of the report, Dr Berry Kiely of the Pro Life Campaign said: “Assuming the media reports are accurate and reliable, a picture is emerging of a tragic series of missed warning signs that should have alerted doctors to the fact that Ms Halappanavar was suffering from an infection posing a substantial risk to her life, a condition that was treatable, but necessitated urgent intervention.”

Dr Kiely said: “The story is made all the sadder in the light of the unanimous evidence from the obstetricians speaking at the recent Oireachtas Hearings that they always intervene to expedite the delivery of the baby where they see a risk to the life of the mother.

“It is striking that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK issued a new set of Guidelines on sepsis in pregnancy last year, following a 2008 report showing sepsis was the single largest cause of death for women in pregnancy.

“Rather than proceeding with legislation for abortion, the Government should ensure that Guidelines are drawn up, for example, by the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, on the recognition and management of sepsis in pregnancy, which seems to have been the key issue in this sad case.

Dr Kiely said that “those pushing for abortion legislation based on the X case ruling are ignoring the crucial ethical distinction between necessary life saving interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion, where the sole purpose of the intervention is to end the life of the baby. The obstetricians who gave evidence at the recent Oireacthas Hearings made it clear that they always intervene to save the life of the mother but in doing so do not target the life of the baby. It is shameful the way some people, including some senior members of Government, are using the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar to open the door to an abortion regime in Ireland.”

Download our new briefing document by clicking here. This document is brand new, and gives an excellent overview of the current situation, and outlines why guidelines - not legislation - are the way forward.

Prof. Ray Kinsella: 'Best practice' guidelines would be better informed than legislation based on the flawed X Case

2013-02-10T05:26:00.000-08:00

In today's Sunday Independent, Prof. Ray Kinsella writes that there is no need to legalise abortion to protect life of the mother. 'Best practice' guidelines would be better informed than legislation based on the flawed X Case.

Click here to go to the Sunday Independent's website.

The recent three-day hearings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children on abortion, established by the Government and including representation from across the Dail, heard expert evidence from witnesses with authoritative clinical experience in obstetrics and psychiatry.

The key point for Government, political parties and for individual TDs is this: the weight of the evidence from the Joint Committee indicates that it is not now tenable for the Government to base its response to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgement in Applicant 'C' in the ABC judgement, on the 1992 Supreme Court decision in the X Case.

More positively, the hearings also identify an alternative, and far less risky, way forward, based not on legislation on the X Case but on guidelines which were directly aligned to 'best practice' maternal healthcare in Ireland.

The outcomes of the hearings have wholly altered the debate on abortion. The Government and political parties are now in a position to say, in effect, "we established the Joint Committee to establish the truth and the facts. It did. We will now proceed to respond to the ECHR judgement by way of guidelines based on 'best practice' of those who actually deliver care and support, day in and day out, for mothers and babies."

There is a narrow 'window of opportunity' to get things right before the Cabinet announces its decision, and the tone and substance of the debate then become set.

Governments sometimes believe foolishly that to change a decision is necessarily to lose face. The great economist John Maynard Keynes was once criticised for changing his mind on a matter of high policy. He responded: "When circumstances change, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, Sir?" No truer words could be spoken in the present circumstances.

A body of evidence presented to the Joint Committee from psychiatrists specialised in the whole field of suicide, in particular as it relates to women expecting a baby, is compelling. It undermines, beyond retrieval, any claim that the X Case decision is in line with good medical practice in regard to the proper medical treatment of a threat of suicide.

This is perhaps not surprising. No specialised psychiatric evidence of the nature delivered to the hearings was heard by the Supreme Court in the X Case.

There are some that may still regard abortion as a 'treatment' for an unwanted pregnancy. They may assert, on this basis, that abortion may sometimes be appropriate for a woman who presents with suicidal intent on account of an unwanted pregnancy. The evidence of three perinatal psychiatrists – Dr Joanne Fenton, Dr Antony McCarthy and Dr John Sheehan – to the hearings on this point is compelling.

Dr Sheehan, for example, noted that: "I refer to (the) question on whether we, as perinatal psychiatrists, have ever seen a situation in which termination of pregnancy has been the treatment for a suicidal woman. To reiterate our statement, with more than 40 years of clinical experience between us, we have not seen one clinical situation in which this is the case." (Page 74.)

Turning specifically to the X Case on which the Government – prior to the hearings – proposed to address the ECHR judgement, Professor Patricia Casey, who runs the attempted suicide service in the Mater Hospital which sees and assesses more than 400 attempted suicides in women every year, made the point that: "X Case legislation would expect doctors to recommend an intervention – an abortion – that has not been shown to be of benefit to mental health, in order to prevent a rare outcome – suicide – that cannot be predicted. In my view, legislation for the X Case that includes suicide risk is not supported by any scientific evidence.

"The two tests envisaged in the X Case – that suicide will occur, on the balance of probability, and can only be averted by abortion – cannot be met."

Turning to the views of experts who provide obstetric care, the evidence is no less compelling. Presentations given by some of the leading obstetricians to the committee confirm that there is no need to legalise abortion to ensure that women in pregnancy receive the medical care needed to safeguard their lives.

This is what the Medical Council's guidelines say (S.21.4): "In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby."

And this is what Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital, had to say as part of her presentation to the Joint Committee: "Occasionally it is required that we deliver a pregnancy before the baby is viable or capable of surviving in our neonatal intensive care unit. When there is any possibility at all that we can preserve the life of the baby we will do so. We are able to do so from very low gestations, from 23 weeks on, and in those cases members can be very certain that we will make every effort to preserve life.

"In other cases, we are required to terminate a pregnancy as part of a treatment of a medical condition because we feel a woman will die. That is not killing the baby. That is simply delivering the baby before it is viable. There is a difference. It is always our wish to preserve life and society should be very reassured about that." (Hearings, January 8, 2013, page 42.)

The evidence given by consultant obstetricians to the hearings make clear that current 'best practice' in Irish maternal care offers an alternative basis for the Government to proceed on in responding to the C Case in the ECHR judgement. How so? Because obstetricians confirmed that they already give women in pregnancy all essential medical care to safeguard their lives, even in the few rare situations where the treatment results unavoidably in the death of the baby.

Guidelines based on 'best practice' in Irish medical care Ireland are a better – more informed, less risky – alternative to legislation based on the flawed X Case. Such an approach would be consistent with the ECHR judgement, which does not require that Ireland respond by primary legislation. It would seem clear from the hearings that the best, and most responsible, way forward is by way of guidelines that would be fully in line with the commitment that Fine Gael gave, prior to the last election, not to legislate for abortion – and would of course vindicate all of the protocols and assurances given over the years since the Maastricht treaty, regarding Ireland's position on abortion.
The Government will have to deal with the reality that, because the X Case is not in line with 'best practice' for mothers, it must be put to rights. It would be unsafe to leave uncorrected a situation where doctors were being advised to have regard to a judgement now recognised as contrary to medical 'best practice'. This need not be contentious.

The key 'building blocks' of an evidence-based alternative approach to the Government's present stance – which in fairness was formulated prior to the Joint Committee hearings – are as follows.
Firstly, an undertaking to the ECHR that the X Case will be addressed. Ireland can now also provide an undertaking that the necessary clarity to which women are rightly entitled will be provided by way of 'best practice' guidelines.

Crucially, this means the Irish maternal medical professions can continue to provide evidence-based care to mothers and babies that are exceptional in terms of outcomes, by international standards.
Secondly, the Irish Government is now in a position to invite the relevant bodies of medical expertise to draw up these procedures in the form of guidelines. The objective, which is certain to be widely shared across the medical and midwifery professions, will be directed towards providing the necessary certainty whereby mothers, in the course of their pregnancy, may have clarity about the medical treatment to which they are entitled, in their specific condition.

The advantages of guidelines rather than primary legislation are that the medical professions are used to working with them.

Guidelines are more quickly and easily updated. By contrast, legislation changes societal norms and standards in relation to, for example, cherishing all individuals equally, irrespective of physical or intellectual disabilities or syndromes with which such individuals may be born.

Guidelines, based on 'best practice', and vindicated by the data and which go with the grain of medical and midwifery protocols, uphold these norms and values – which encompass Ireland's present outstanding record in delivering 'best practice' maternal healthcare.

Reassurance about the lawfulness of medical treatments in the rare situations where the death of the baby may result can be provided by amending, rather than repealing, sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.

This would also meet the concern expressed by a number of obstetricians at the hearings for legal reassurance that their actions were lawful – while maintaining the present national law on abortion which is consistent with the provisions of the Convention and with recent rulings of the ECHR.

The substantive threat to the public interest now arises from a momentum to legislate generated when the facts elicited from the hearings were simply not known to Government, individual TDs or to the general public.

They are now.

Economist Ray Kinsella is editor of 'Acute Healthcare in Ireland'

Media coverage of Vigil For Life

2013-01-26T05:06:00.000-08:00

Picture of the vigil are on our pinterest profile here.
See our video of the vigil on youtube:

RTÉ (article and two video clips): "Gardaí estimate 25,000 attend 'Vigil For Life' event in Dublin"
Irish Times: "Thousands attend Dublin vigil"
TheJournal.ie: "Thousands attend pro-life vigil in Dublin"
fecktv: "Over 25,000 attend 'Vigil For Life' in Dublin"
Irish Examiner: "'Over 25,000' attend Pro-Life rally in Dublin"

Massive crowd attend Vigil For Life

2013-01-19T05:04:00.000-08:00

We are absolutely thrilled with the turnout for today's Vigil For Life which drew a crowd of well over 20,000.

The crowd gathered at Merrion Square

"On a bitterly cold January afternoon when it was predicted that the weather would keep people away, Irish people turned out in many thousands to register their opposition to abortion legislation," PLC Legal Advisor Caroline Simons said.

Ms Simons told the crowd that claims by the Government that abortion was needed to treat threatened suicide in pregnancy had been "completely demolished at last week’s Oireachtas hearings on abortion".

She said: "The psychiatrists who addressed the hearings were unanimous that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation."

"There is no evidence whatever that suggests that abortion reduces the mental health risks of unwanted or mistimed pregnancy. But there is evidence that abortion increases the risk of future mental health problems for a significant number of women."

"If the Government legislates for abortion on the basis of the X case, this legislation would cure no woman of suicidal ideation, but it would put some women's lives at risk."

The international pro-choice movement, she said, viewed Ireland as a ‘jewel in the crown’ of the pro-life movement.

"We are a beacon for the pro-life movement everywhere. Let’s fight to keep that light shining," she said.

Speaking at the Vigil, Tyrone football manager Mickey Harte said that "Quite frankly I am most concerned that this Government proposes to legislate for abortion".

"Ireland is almost unique in the Western world in looking out for, and fully protecting, two patients during a pregnancy – a mother and her unborn child," he said. "We are here to oppose the unjust targeting of even one unborn child's life in circumstances that have nothing to do with genuine life-saving medical interventions".

Referring to the high standard of medical care in pregnancy, he said this high standard needs to "remain enshrined in our laws not undermined or diluted in any way".

He continued: "No individual or nation is perfect – we all have our faults and failings but when it comes to life before birth, we have a value system, an ethos which we should proudly share with the rest of the world."

And he urged those at the vigil to "keep in touch with Mr Kenny and Mr Gilmore and let them know repeatedly that the middle ground of Irish opinion opposes what they are proposing."

You can see photos of the Vigil For Life here.

Nothing in ethics or law prevented an intervention in the case of Savita Halappanavar

2013-01-17T04:54:00.000-08:00

Responding to reports that the medical notes by a consultant who treated Ms Savita Halappanavar indicate she requested a termination of her pregnancy, Dr. Berry Kiely of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“While we await the full outcome of the coroner’s inquest, it is worth stating that there is nothing in ethics or law that prevents doctors from intervening in such a situation to induce delivery in order to complete a miscarriage.”

An Taoiseach totally misrepresents Fine Gael's pre-election pro-life commitment

2013-01-13T04:49:00.000-08:00

Referring to remarks made by An Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny on today’s This Week programme on RTÉ, Cora Sherlock of the Pro Life Campaign said the Taoiseach totally misrepresented the Fine Gael Party’s pre-election promise on abortion.

An Taoiseach Enda Kenny

In the interview, the Taoiseach described the commitment as no more than “a letter in some cases” sent to people.

“In reality,” Ms Sherlock said “it was a written commitment formally sent to the Pro Life Campaign on the 17th February 2011. The commitment said that the Fine Gael Party would not introduce legislation for abortion and that both mothers and babies would be protected in pregnancy.”

Meanwhile, the Pro Life Campaign has welcomed the comments of former Taoiseach, John Bruton, on today’s Marian Finucane Show, that abortion in cases of threatened suicide should not be included in any proposals brought forward by the Government. Mr. Bruton pointed out that in the Oireachtas Hearings on Abortion in 2000, the then Government was presented with evidence showing the prediction of suicide was wrong 97% of the time.

Ms Sherlock added, “At last week’s Oireachtas Hearings, the argument for abortion in cases of threatened suicide effectively collapsed. Abortion in such cases, far from helping women, has the potential to put their lives at risk. This is what the peer-reviewed evidence actually shows. The only reason abortion in the case of threatened suicide is being mentioned in the debate is because it is part of the flawed X case ruling. It would be reckless disregard for the lives of women in pregnancy and their babies to introduce a law that lacks an evidence-based foundation.”

Help promote the Vigil For Life

2012-12-29T04:44:00.000-08:00

The Vigil For Life is taking place on Saturday, 19th of January 2013. Can you help us promote this event?

Share the Vigil For Life facebook page with your friends on facebook
Let your friends and family know about the event
Organise a bus from your area (call Denise on 087 266 8702 to make arrangements)
Volunteer to join a team in your area distributing leaflets to promote the event. (call Denise on 087 266 8702)
Tweet about the event (in the run-up and on the day) using the hashtag #Vigil4Life on twitter.
Set your facebook cover or profile photo to promote the event.

Unite For Life pro-life vigil - 19th January 2013 - save the date!

2012-12-21T03:04:00.000-08:00

Ireland is on the brink of legalising abortion. The Government says it plans to legislate early in 2013, and abortions will then be carried out in Ireland for the first time. This is a truly chilling prospect. Unborn babies and their mothers need us to speak up for them at this critical time.

That's why we're asking YOU to join with thousands of others at the Unite For Life Vigil on January 19th, at Merrion Square in Dublin.

We all agree that pregnant women should receive all treatments necessary to safeguard their lives. However, those pushing for abortion are dishonestly blurring the distinction between necessary medical treatments and abortion.

Ireland, without abortion, is a world leader in safety for pregnant women. Yet, right now, we are closer to abortion here than ever before.

It is a defining moment for our country. Will YOU stand united to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves? Can we count on you being there on the day? Your presence is vital. The situation could not be more grave.

Transport to the vigil is being organised locally. For further information, please visit the Vigil for Life facebook page, the Vigil for Life website, contact Denise by telephone on 087 266 8702 or by email denise@prolifecampaign.ie

Posters will be provided on the day. We look forward to seeing you there!

Government's proposal on abortion won't be and can't be restrictive - we will vigorously oppose it

2012-12-18T02:50:00.000-08:00

Responding to the Government’s decision today to introduce abortion legislation based on the X case ruling, Cora Sherlock, spokesperson for the Pro Life Campaign, said:

“The Government was always going to present any proposals to introduce abortion as “very restrictive”. But the reality is they simply won’t be and can’t be. The X case decision heard no medical evidence and contains no duty of care towards the baby so any such legislation proposed by the Government would for the first time introduce an abortion regime into this country in which the life of the baby could be directly and intentionally targeted for destruction. This is a chilling prospect – once the principle of protecting human life is conceded, it leads inevitably to wide-ranging abortion.

Everyone agrees women in pregnancy should receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives, and as our world-class record in maternal safety shows, women already receive such outstanding care."

Pro Life Campaign supporters Áine and Stephanie at Dáil Éireann today

"The Pro Life Campaign will vigorously oppose the Government’s decision to introduce an abortion regime based on the X case ruling. While treating politicians with respect, we will mount a robust and sustained challenge to each and every element of the proposed legislation."

Legislation for X case would not be “restrictive” as members of the Government claim

2012-12-17T02:45:00.000-08:00

The Government is expected to approve tomorrow its proposal to bring forward legislation for the X case judgment. It has been reported in recent days that the legislation to allow for abortion will be very restrictive and tightly controlled.

Commenting on the likely decision by the Cabinet tomorrow, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“Claims that legislation for the X case is a compromise between pro-choice and pro-life sides is nothing more than a political ploy to make any legislation appear restrictive. The reality is, however, that any legislation for the X case would blur the distinction between life saving medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion, the sole aim of which is to intentionally end the life of the baby.

Once it is conceded that some human lives may be directly targeted there is no going back. Inevitably over time the grounds for abortion would be widened. Pro-choice advocates get this point. Sadly some senior members of Fine Gael don’t appear to.

Abortion advocates are correct in viewing legislation for the X case as a first step in achieving abortion on demand. They understand that once the principle of defending human life is conceded, the State forfeits any moral or ethical authority to put limits on the grounds for abortion in the future. In the coming weeks, the Pro Life Campaign will ensure that the public is made fully aware of what legislation for the X case would actually entail.”

PLC responds to Council of Europe Committee of Ministers calls for Ireland to ‘expedite’ abortion legislation

2012-12-10T02:04:00.000-08:00

Today the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issued a statement calling on Ireland to ‘expedite’ bringing in abortion legislation.

Responding to the Council's statement, Caroline Simons (Legal Advisor to the Pro Life Campaign) said:
"The Council of Europe statement suggests a lack of understanding by the Committee of Ministers as to the legal significance of the European Court ruling in ABC v Ireland. The decision does not oblige Ireland to introduce abortion. It calls on us to clarify our position which is an entirely different matter. It is misleading for any person or group to suggest that abortion legislation is required."

"Despite the impression created in recent times, Ireland has an outstanding record in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than most, if not all of the countries calling on us to introduce abortion."

Coverage of the Council's statement:

in TheJournal.ie

in The Irish Times

Enda, Keep Your Pro-Life Promise

2012-12-07T05:26:00.000-08:00

by Dr. Joseph McCarroll
Chairman, Pro Life Campaign

The Unite for Life Vigil outside the Dáil in freezing, windy, rainy midwinter darkness on Tuesday evening had several political messages, messages so strong that the thousands who packed Molesworth Street and Kildare Street outside the Dáil left with hearts warmer than when they’d arrived, and sending a chill through the hearts of watching it from inside the Dáil.

The crowds packed Molesworth St. and flowed out onto Kildare St.

First, it was what it said on the can – a formal collaboration among all the pro-life groups – who at something under a week’s notice organised it. The political message of this is that the Government and the political parties have awakened a sense of urgency among the pro-life majority that has washed away past differences on tactics and brought to birth in their place a strong unity on strategy.

The pro-life response to abortion plans is going to be more coherent and organised. The politicians pushing for abortion have awakened the sleeping giant of the pro-life community. The big problem that the politicians pushing abortion face just got bigger.

Second, when you consider the short space of time there was to get the word out, and for people who wanted to come to make the practical arrangements so they could come, the fact that the streets were crowded shows the passion, the seriousness of intent, the commitment that drove so many people to make sure they were there. That pro-life political commitment is now trained on each politician who votes to bring in abortion. Pro-life electors have elephantine memories. Politicians considering voting for abortion in the Oireachtas saw that their votes in there are going to cost them votes back home in the own constituency. The vote-cost of support for abortion in Leinster House just went up.

Third, like an icon made radiant by goldleaf, the vigil was rendered radiant by the extraordinary experiences shared by the two young mothers, Cliona and Liz, who spoke about their children. Cliona spoke about John Paul and how his short life had enriched the life of her family – he had anencephaly. And Liz spoke about the how her son John, born with no limbs, had enriched the life of her family. The warmth of these mothers speaking about their children and the love they brought into their lives was the heart of the Vigil. The only shadow was the willingness of some doctors to help them have their babies aborted.

The fourth message was the political message, as clear and sharp as a rapier - Enda Kenny, Keep your pro-life promise. The video shows it - the banner with the words, “Enda Kenny Keep your pro-life promise”, while the crowd are chanting, “Enda Kenny, Keep your promise”, and the placards read, “Fine Gael, Keep your Promise”. The stuff of which democracy is made is the trust among the people that the politicians will keep the promises on the basis of which the people elected them. Enda Kenny, show us what stuff you are made of, keep your pro-life promise.

Ireland is safe, despite the propaganda

2012-11-16T05:44:00.000-08:00

David Quinn, in the Irish Independent. On the Independent's site here.

IN the debate about abortion we are constantly dealing with what can only be described as 'asymmetrical hysteria', that is we are only ever outraged by anti-abortion laws and their consequences and never by the consequences of pro-abortion laws.

The result of this 'asymmetrical hysteria' is that public opinion is constantly being pushed to favour more liberal abortion laws rather than more restrictive ones.

Indeed, we are conditioned to believe that laws against abortion are the result of irrational dogmas that are placing women's lives at risk.

Thus we now think that if only we were more like our more 'rational' next-door neighbour, Britain, Savita Halappanavar would be alive today.

In fact, it is impossible to know that, and certainly not before the completion of the investigation into her death.

In the meantime, what we do know is that the Irish maternal death rate is one of the very lowest in the world at roughly three women per 100,000. The British figure is four times higher at 12 per 100,000 and the US figure is eight times higher at 24 per 100,000.

How is it that Ireland without abortion is so much safer for pregnant women than Britain and America, which both have highly liberal abortion laws?

The above data has been obtained from 'Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008', which has been developed by the World Health Organisation, the UN and the World Bank.

However, thanks to the highly tendentious coverage of the tragic case of Mrs Halappanavar, particularly by RTE, most Irish people probably believe that Ireland is a particularly dangerous place for women to have a baby.

This notion, now commonplace and gaining worldwide traction, is actually a gross calumny against our country.

Our politicians ought to defend the medical record of this country and point out that our maternal healthcare system is superb at bringing babies to full term without compromising the lives or health of their mothers.

We would also do well to point out how the dogmas behind the abortion laws of other countries cost lives.

For example, in Britain, how many babies are unnecessarily aborted because a doctor erroneously imagines that the only way to save the mother is to abort the baby?

What kind of dogma makes some of us think that 190,000 abortions in England and Wales each year is 'normal', meaning that one pregnancy in every four ends in a termination?

What dogma leads abortion clinics to think 'gendercide' is okay, namely the killing of an unborn child simply because it is the 'wrong' sex, usually a girl?

The 'Daily Telegraph' discovered in a sting operation earlier this year that sex-selective abortions take place in UK abortion clinics.

What kind of dogma thinks it is okay to abort a child simply because the child has Down's Syndrome or cystic fibrosis?

In Ireland, a service is now on offer which allows couples to have their embryos screened to ensure they are in no way 'defective'. This is eugenics and it is common practice today.

None of the scandals just listed ever causes anything like the outrage generated by the hard cases an anti-abortion law will cause from time to time.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that they do not attract anything like the same publicity and so most of us are completely unaware of them.

The second reason is a dogmatic attachment to the ideology of 'choice', which causes many of us to simply turn a blind eye to the innumerable scandals caused by abortion laws.

We must not allow ourselves to be conditioned by ceaseless one-sided propaganda into thinking our law on abortion is inhumane and unjust.

The truth is that our law with respect both to mother and child is far more humane than in other Western countries, including Britain, and we should be very proud of that.

Rotunda head: No confusion

2012-11-15T05:54:00.000-08:00

A report in the Irish Examiner.

A senior consultant has said he sees no evidence of confusion in medical ranks in Ireland over whether or not a woman can have an abortion if her life is at risk.

Dr Sam Coulter-Smith, master of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin and consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, said it would be preferable to have legislation to bring clarity.

But he said that in his experience he has not seen confusion among doctors on whether a woman is entitled to an abortion on clinical grounds.

“No. Not in relation to where a mother’s health is at risk,” he said.

“I think most of us who work in obstetrics and gynaecology, there may be individual differences, but the majority would be of the view that if the health is such a risk that there is a risk of death and we are dealing with a foetus that is not viable, there is only one answer to that question, we bring the pregnancy to an end.”

Dr Coulter-Smith is also clinical professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin and has headed the Rotunda for the last three and a half years.

“It’s a complex area. There are a whole series of issues that need to be resolved,” he said.

Dr Coulter-Smith said he could not discuss Mrs Halappanavar’s death directly but that introducing laws would offer further clarity.

“This case probably does not have a lot to do with abortion laws,” he said.

“It is a clinical scenario – someone in the process of miscarriage and had infective complications as a result of that process, whether or not if the situation had been actively managed in the 24-36 hours proceeding the tragedy of the baby’s death, would that have changed anything? No-one can answer that.

“But from the medical point of view it would be nice to have clarity – what is and isn’t possible and feasible.

“What is reasonably clear is that in a position where senior clinicians feel a woman’s health and life is at risk then it is permissible in this country to end the pregnancy.

“There isn’t legislation but the issues that have been judged on have set a precedent. It would be nice if there was legislation.”

Ireland’s Medical Council regulations on abortion state that the procedure is illegal unless there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother.

The Rotunda is one of the three main maternity hospitals in Dublin alongside Holles Street and the Coombe.

The Medical Council's Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners, states:

“Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

“It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, subject to strict conditions. It is not lawful to encourage or advocate an abortion in individual cases.

“You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services for women who have an abortion abroad.

“In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.”

Ireland's abortion laws: we need to get the facts straight

2012-11-15T05:52:00.000-08:00

Dr. Tim Stanley writing in the Telegraph. Click here for the article on the Telegraph's site.

This post is neither for nor against legalised abortion – it’s simply about laying out the facts of a very tragic story.

On October 21, Savita Halappanavar visited Galway University Hospital, Ireland. The 31-year-old dentist was 17 weeks pregnant and suffering terrible back pain. Savita was told that she was having a miscarriage, so she requested an abortion. The doctors denied her request because they said that they detected a foetal heartbeat and that Irish law ruled out a termination. Savita’s pain continued for three days and she eventually died of septicaemia.

Inevitably, this awful story has prompted demands for a rethink of Ireland’s abortion laws. That’s understandable and will almost certainly happen. Ireland has been liberalising for decades; Irishness and Catholic conservatism are no longer as synonymous as they once were. The European Court of Human Rights 2010 ruling on abortion gives Taoiseach Enda Kenny good legal grounds for a review of the law, and Kenny has branded himself as a critic of the privileged status of Catholicism in Ireland. Change will probably come.

But some would dispute whether or not Savita’s death is an appropriate catalyst for that change. In Ireland, it actually is legal to induce a birth when a mother’s life is at risk. Eilís Mulroy notes the following:

The decision to induce labour early would be fully in compliance with the law and the current guidelines set out for doctors by the Irish Medical Council. Those guidelines allow interventions to treat women where necessary, even if that treatment indirectly results in the death to the baby. If they aren't being followed, laws about abortion won't change that. The issue then becomes about medical protocols being followed in hospitals and not about the absence of legal abortion in Ireland.

Because Savita's case is under investigation, Mulroy asks questions but, wisely, avoids inferring answers: why, in this instance, did the hospital not induce (as it could and should) and is its decision not to induce reflective of a wider institutional failure?

It is possible that new legislation is necessary to clarify the existing medical consensus. But it does not logically follow that Ireland needs a total rethink of its entire approach to abortion that brings it in line with Europe’s essentially pro-choice culture. Aside from the specific medical case for abortion in Savita’s situation, inducing labour to save her life would not necessarily have conflicted with Catholic moral teaching, either. In 1951, Pope Pius XII explicitly ruled that such a procedure “can be lawful.” If it is true, as the Halappanavar family claims, that the Galway doctors said they would not provide a termination because "this is a Catholic country", then they got their theology unforgivably wrong.

Savita Halappanavar’s death demands investigation and answers. Aside from giving justice to her family, the implications of any investigation for the wider abortion debate are so wide-ranging that it is crucial that we get the facts unbiased and 100 per cent accurate. Alas, such objectivity is not always applied when it comes to media reporting of the Irish and/or Catholic approach to abortion. Indeed, much of it is misleading and unhelpful.

Media rushes to judge but we don't know facts

2012-11-15T05:44:00.000-08:00

The British media, in tandem with the Irish, is running with the 'woman dies because she was denied abortion' story headline.

It's not surprising that the likes of 'The Guardian' would give the story prominence because 'The Guardian' is fiercely pro-abortion.

In Britain it fits in with a certain stereotype of this country to believe that women are dying here because of our lingering adherence to Catholic medical ethics.

However, even the more pro-life 'Daily Telegraph' and 'Daily Mail' have given the story prominence.That would be justified if we knew that Savita Halappanavar did indeed die because she was denied an abortion, but that is not why she died.

We know this because if there was a need to end her pregnancy in order to save her life, then the hospital was free to do that. Nothing in law was preventing the hospital from doing so.

And to be absolutely clear, ending a woman's pregnancy prematurely is not necessarily the same thing as abortion.

For example, inducing labour where it is necessary to save the life of the mother is not the same as abortion and Irish hospitals induce labour in these circumstances on a regular basis.

From the available facts, we know that Mrs Halappanavar was miscarrying and that she died within days of being admitted to hospital from septicemia and E Coli ESBL.

We do not know for certain whether ending the pregnancy upon her arrival in the hospital would have saved her life, but to repeat, if medical staff needed to do that they could have done it.

Therefore the 'woman dies because she was denied abortion' storyline is simply not true. The 'woman dies because of Catholic opposition to abortion' is also not true.

We simply do not know for certain at this stage whether Mrs Halappanavar would have died no matter what was done. This is what the investigation into her death will ascertain.

And we must also repeat for the umpteenth time that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world. It is lower than the British rate where abortion is available on demand.

In addition, it is necessary to remind ourselves that sometimes women die because of botched abortions in legal settings. Indeed, last year a doctor – Phanuel Dartey – was struck off in Britain because he nearly killed an Irish woman while performing an abortion on her in a Marie Stopes Clinic in the UK.

This story received remarkably little publicity here in Ireland. RTE did not cover it at all, whereas it has given the Savita Halappanavar story wall-to-wall coverage. Why this discrepancy?

And by what journalistic calculus did RTE decide to give so little coverage to the revelation by this newspaper that some staff at pregnancy crisis agencies in Ireland are giving women dangerous and illegal advice? It would be good to know.

There has been a tremendous and unseemly rush to judgment in this case.

It is being used to advance the argument that Ireland must change its law on abortion before we know the full facts.

It is also being used to falsely and unjustly give the impression that Ireland is an unsafe place for pregnant women when the opposite is true.

The bottom line is that we cannot draw any decisive conclusions about what happened in this tragic case until we do know all the facts.