Defining the Case of Savita Halappanavar Stasis Theory as a Tool for Achieving Meaningful Definition in

Journalistic Discourse

1

Abstract

Savita Halappanavar died in Galway Hospital, Ireland, after being denied an abortion. The interpretation

of her story by various news outlets demonstrates the ways in which popular media extrapolate from

thinly established fact to elaborate social justice causes. Savita’s case represents this common foible in

journalistic practice; while supporting social causes is important, media outlets will often take such

angles on stories at the expense of investigating and conveying the truth of the events at hand.

This paper analyzes this process of distorting/overlooking the truth in favour of trumpeting a cause. It

uses the lens of classical rhetoric and philosophy. Hermagoras’ four-question stasis theory is combined

with Kansas University professor of journalism Charles Marsh’s comparison of the Aristotelian syllogism

to stasis theory; these frameworks are applied to three news articles covering Savita’s case. These

articles draw from the Irish Times, the Toronto Star and the National Post. Stasis theory is used to

identify what the central concerns of a debate are: each article discussing Savita’s case supposes the

‘debate’ to center on different issues.

Through unpacking each of these debates, this paper demonstrates that the Irish Times and Toronto Star

articles fail to appropriately define the facts of Savita’s case before moving on to address questions of

social justice. Only the National Post article establishes a firm definition of the case; it does so by

keeping its focus tied to the medical sphere in which the events first unfolded.

A stasis theory analysis of three accounts demonstrates the importance of establishing a definition

rooted in fact before moving onto to discuss other facets of the situation. News media can best convey

the truth through a micro-level focus on the initial situation, instead of a macro-level focus on the legal

and social events surrounding the issue.

2

Introduction and Methodology

Savita Halappanavar was a thirty-one year old Indian immigrant to Ireland and had been living

with her husband in the country for four years. On October 21st, 2012, she entered Galway University

Hospital reporting severe back pain. She was seventeen weeks pregnant. A week later, Savita died

(Holland & Cullen).

The events that transpired in those seven days have spawned “medical, legal and ethical…

debate” worldwide (Hough para 5), debate that has its roots in Savita’s unheeded request for an

abortion. Each of these facets of the situation – ethical, legal and medical – will be examined as iterated

in three newspaper articles chronicling Savita’s story. An editorial entitled “Senseless death of Irish

woman exposes grim reality for women” by Irish-born Toronto Star journalist Jennifer Hough will

represent the ethical sphere. From a legal standpoint, an Irish Times article by Kitty Holland called

“Husband of Savita to take case to Europe” will showcase the legal action taken by Savita’s husband,

Praveen. And representing a medical stance is National Post article “No proof an abortion would have

saved Savita Halappanavar’s life” by Andrea Mrozek1.

These articles will be analysed through the lens of stasis theory. More specifically, this paper will

use the four-question system of Hermagoras’ stasis theory, as identified by theorists Craig Smith and

Michael Carter, augmented with the syllogistic analysis of stasis provided by scholar Charles Marsh. This

analysis will demonstrate the degree to which writing about Savita’s death represents problems of the

synechon of definition: the fact remains that Savita died, but whether her death constitutes homicide,

negligent act or social injustice remains to be seen. Therefore, the nature of the actions that took place,

the very essence of the potential “crime” (to maintain stasis’ initial roots in judicial rhetoric) is yet

unidentified. Hough and Holland’s articles each provide a macro-level explanation for the event whereas

1 The three articles are appended at the end of the essay. For clarity, Savita Halappanavar and her husband

Praveen Halappanavar are referred to throughout as “Savita” or “Praveen”, instead of by last name.

3

Mrozek’s article relegates itself to a micro-level analysis based on the bare facts of the situation. Of the

three articles, her method best establishes a foundation for generative discussion of the issue. Through

examining Savita’s case as represented in the three articles, it becomes apparent that an honest and

effective stasis of definition must be asserted from a consideration of the micro-level, not macro-level,

aspects of a situation.

Carter explains that Hermagoras’ stasis system begins with “the conflict between the kataphasis,

the charge of the prosecutor, and the apophasis, the denial of the defendant” (99). In each of the three

articles, the kataphasis is evident while the apophasis is absent, at least overtly. As the University of

Galway has not issued a public statement nor has any media outlet acted to articulately defend the

doctors attending Savita, their perspective of events is thus far unvoiced. However, each article

engineers and tackles an implied apophasis. But before those implied enemies are established, a

diagnosis of the current synechon, the “matter under judgement… classified as either fact, definition,

quality or appropriateness of jurisdiction” is necessary (Carter 99).

“Questions of Conjecture” form the first stage of hierarchical stasis system questioning (Smith

86). This is the only question on which all three articles reach a consensus: each describes how Savita

entered the hospital in pain, was identified as miscarrying, and requested and was refused an abortion

on the grounds that the foetal heart was still beating within her. Days later, the articles indicate, the

foetus died and was removed; Saivta at some point in her stay contracted septicemia, a bacterial

infection of the blood, and died. Holland and Hough go as far as to include in their articles Praveen’s

sound byte that the abortion was refused by doctors who insisted “this is a Catholic country” (Holland

para 7, Hough para 6). Mrozek, although not including Praveen’s implied condemnation of theocratic

practices, identifies herself as one “of us who call ourselves pro-life” (para 2), evoking the contentious

4

realm of pro-life versus pro-choice. In addition to the known facts regarding Savita’s case, each author

includes, either directly or indirectly, some discussion of the pro-choice sentiments of Praveen.

Having agreed, explicitly or not, on the initial facts of Savita’s situation, each article then

proceeds to present an entirely different “definition” of the issue. Each supposes that Savita’s death can

“be defined as a crime” but each holds a different party accountable for that crime (Smith 86). Hough

blames society, Holland blames the state and Mrozek blames the hospital. The three definitions of

Savita’s case that spring from conflict with these opponents will be elaborated on in the subsequent

sections, using both Hermagoras’ concepts of kataphasios and apophasis and Marsh’s comparison of

Hermagoras’ stasis system to Aristotle’s syllogism.

(1) Senseless death of Irish woman exposes grim reality for woman, Hough, Nov 16 2012

Unlike much of the activist writing that emerged as a result of Savita’s case, Hough’s article

does not ally itself solely with the pro-choice cause. Hough in fact somewhat trivializes that cause by

positing that “Savita’s story should transcend the emotive abortion debate and stand as an

acknowledgement of all the women who regularly are not listened to when it comes to decisions about

their own bodies” (para 11). The abortion cause is one among many victims of a “culture of medical

paternalism” (para 18) that cripples what Hough believes are fundamental rights for all women. “Young

girls are forced into marriages, to have babies they don’t want; women die due to a lack of basic

healthcare” (para 12). Each image contributes another vividly imagined Aristotelian paradigm to her

argument, each reinforcing Hough’s ultimate kataphasis: that Savita’s choice about her own body should

have been heeded.

Hough has intentionally established her article as being about more than the abortion question:

she conveys, as her title suggests, a “grim reality for women” that encompasses all decisions they wish

to make about their bodies. In supplementing her article with World Health Organization statistics

5

regarding maternal mortality in the developing world (para 13) and commentary on United Nations

reports that address universal women’s rights (para 15), Hough escalates her account of Savita’s case to

the form of macro-level social commentary. Ironically, in decrying the “interest groups” who “have

seized on [Savita’s] story to twist it in their favour”, Hough does just that, emblemizing Savita as her

prime example, a more detailed paradigm that exposes the patriarchal “politics of health” that govern

women’s decisions over their bodies (para 20). Hough creates the implied apophasis of patriarchal social

institutions: they are to blame for Savita’s death. They are the ones who, in Ireland, even in the face of

opinion polls favouring more liberal abortion laws, wield the “ power” and “consistently refused to

legislate” (para 19).

In Hough’s article stasis definition occurs on a macro-scale. Her conflict is pitted between the

kataphasis of women who have a right to control their bodies versus an apophasis of social institutions

(predominantly patriarchal ones) that systematically limit such female empowerment. The synechon

becomes an issue of definition: is Savita’s death another oppression of female choice by proponents of a

“culture of medical paternialism” (Hough para 18) or was her death somehow justifiable?

Charles Marsh’s analysis of the potential roots of stasis theory proves helpful in identifying the

assumptions and scale of Hough’s emphatic article. Marsh holds that Hermagoras “based stasis on the

perfect first-figure syllogism that Aristotle introduced” (12), and Marsh furthers this argument by

drawing comparisons between Aristotle’s scientific questions (“what is it, has it any attributes, why has

it those attributes?” (Marsh 13)) and the fact, definition and quality stages of stasis theory. He concludes

by explicitly connecting syllogisms to stasis: the “minor premise that makes a specific charge” and is

attached to “stochasmos” or fact. A “major premise (coming into play only if the defendant cannot

contest the minor premise)” is attached to “horos” or definition. “A conclusion” of the syllogism

attaches to “poiotes” or quality (26). The minor premise is asserted first, as it is the first stage of stasis

6

theory – fact. Should fact be mutually agreed upon, the major premise or definition stage is put in place.

If the definition is valid, a conclusion can be forwarded for assessment.

Applying Marsh’s model to Hough’s article, the syllogism begins with the minor premise:

- Minor: Savita died after her choices were ignored

This minor premise is undisputed; every retelling of the event features her abortion request and

its refusal. Therefore, a definition or major premise is introduced:

- Major: Social institutions should heed women who make choices about their own bodies - Minor: Savita died after her choices were ignored

Any conclusion from these statements would be illogical as the major premise cannot rightfully subsume

the minor as supporting it. When an issue arises after the addition of the major premise, Marsh suggests

the stasis point is one of definition. Thus, the concluding quality section of this syllogism need not apply.

Although seemingly simplistic, Marsh’s model of syllogistic comparison further elucidates the

aspects of Savita’s case on which Hough is basing her definition. The identification of a major premise,

when considered alongside the kataphasis and apophasis, reveals the ultimate “zetema” or underlying

question of the article (Marsh 16): should social institutions have the right to dictate what women can

do with their bodies? Hough answers ‘no’, and in framing her argument alongside Savita’s case, she

provides compelling evidence to support her answer. But what her article fails to consider is all of the

other forms that such societal intervention might take place: what right do institutions have in suicide

prevention for teen girls or in so-called “liberation” from cultural practices of female self-mutilation? In

presenting a firm answer that deliberately transcends beyond Savita’s case, Hough takes an ethical

stance that is not factually supported in every possible permutation; her rhetorical position is a weak

one precisely because she has put it on so large a scale, commenting on the role of social institutions

7

everywhere through the specific example of the medical institution in Ireland. Her broad scope has

prevented her from reaching a defensible definition in terms of Savita’s particular case.

(2) Husband of Savita to take case to Europe, Holland, Nov 30 2012

Holland’s piece depicting the “legal actions” of Savita’s husband Praveen contains a macro-level

focus similar to that of Hough’s (Holland para 1). Thus her article faces similar consequences as Hough’s:

the macro-level scale serves to undermine the precision of the definition that is reached.

Holland’s piece overtly appears to deal with stasis stage four: jurisdiction. The headline

immediately conveys a change of legal venue – “to take case to Europe” hints at Praveen’s decision to

plead Savita’s case in front of the “European Court of Human Rights” (ECHR) (para 1). He deliberately

chose this venue over participation in the two private inquiries instigated by the Irish government (the

Health Service Executive inquiry and the Health Information and Quality Authority inquiry (para 13)) and

has expressed disillusionment, claiming “to have no faith in” the inquiries (CNN Wire Staff para 4).

Understanding Hermagoras’ stasis system to be a hierarchical “set of questions, asked in a

particular order” (Carter 98), the fact that Holland’s article focuses on jurisdiction implies that the

previous three questions are satisfactorily met. But this is not entirely the case; although the facts

gained through conjecture remain the same throughout each studied article, Praveen’s definition of the

nature of his wife’s death is contestable.

What exactly does he label the death of his wife? Praveen’s response, judging from Holland’s

article, seems to be “a failure of the law to protect its citizens”. Holland states that Praveen is appealing

the ECHR under “Article 2” which “states: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” (para 3).

Because he is presenting under Article 2, Praveen implies that he believes Savita’s life was not protected

8

by the law. Broken down in terms of Marsh’s syllogisms, Praveen’s appeal to the ECHR is founded as

follows:

- Major: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law - Minor: Savita died because the structure of the law could not provide her with protection

Once again, the premises cannot reach a logical conclusion: Holland conveys the argument that

the law was not structured in a way that could save Savita’s life. The syllogism illustrates Praveen’s

kataphasis, that Savita had the legal right to live, and counters it against the implied apophasis of the

Irish government who, through conservative abortion laws, denied her that right. The zetema emerges:

does Irish law effectively protect the lives of its citizens?

Although Praveen is inclined to argue “no”, countless newspapers and Ireland’s medical code of

conduct contradict him. Hough and Mrozek each describe how Ireland officially bans abortions but

makes legal allowances when the mother’s life is in danger (para 6, para 7); even Ireland’s bishops

confirm this in a statement released shortly after Savita’s death: “a seriously ill pregnant woman needs

medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk” (Patheos para 4). The Medical Council, a

group “that regulates medical doctors in the Republic of Ireland”, supports this in their Guide to

Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners which reads: “abortion is illegal

except when there is real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother” (22).

On fronts both popular and professional, it appears that Praveen’s claim that his wife could not receive

protection under Irish laws could not be validated. Told that Ireland “is a Catholic country” and that his

wife could not receive an abortion (Holland para 7), Praveen mistakenly conflated notions of

conservative, implacable anti-abortion laws with the personal belief-set of the doctors he conversed

with.

Praveen’s definition of his wife’s death is a legal one, grounded in his conviction that Ireland’s

restrictive laws enabled her death. He cannot support this assertion to any extent beyond the

9

conversation with the unidentified doctor who insisted that Ireland is a “Catholic country” (para 7). All

other iterations of Irish law indicate that his wife was entitled to appropriate care. And yet, instead of

assigning blame to the doctors, Praveen, through his appeal to another jurisdiction, has assigned it to

the Irish state as a whole, progressing to the final stage of the stasis system without fully achieving an

accurate definition of the events. His actions, as conveyed through Holland’s article, are yet another

example of a misplaced emphasis on a macro-scale when dealing with the stasis stage of definition.

(3) No proof an abortion would have saved Savita Halappanavar’s life, Mrozek, Nov 21 2012

Of the three articles, Mrozek’s is alone in framing her argument on a micro-level, dealing

primarily in the facts ascertained at the conjecture stage. Unlike Hough and Holland, she unabashedly

recites the numerous ambiguities that plague Savita’s story as it is currently understood: “we don’t

know whether she received antibiotics, how much or when” and this uncertainty leads to further

speculation about the effectiveness of an abortion as a cure for Savita’s pain (para 10). Mrozek goes on

to expose the fallacious connection most journalists, including Hough and Holland, have made between

the refusal of Savita’s abortion request and her death: “an abortion might just as likely have resulted in

sepsis and death” (para 10). In saying as much, she points out the unknowable nature of the facts most

writers are taking for granted: readers can never be certain that Savita would have lived, had she

received an abortion.

As a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” (para 2) who, as the article’s boiler text notates, “is the founder

of www.ProWomanProLife.org” (para 15), Mrozek uses a frank approach to Savita’s situation to candidly

insert instances of pro-life rhetoric: she describes Savita’s seventeen week foetus as an entity with “ears,

eyes and eyelashes” who is not a “faceless mass”, but a genuine life whose “dismembered body parts”

would have been removed with “forceps”, if abortion was permitted (para 9). But like Hough, Mrozek

attempts to transcend the pro-choice/pro-life debate – a task made more difficult by her own pro-life

10

sentiment that carries throughout the article, from its title which insists that there is “no proof” abortion

would help Savita to the use of Statistics Canada data to demonstrate that legalizing abortion has had

little effect on maternal mortality rates (para 5). However, although her inability to overlook the

abortion issue exposes internal ironies in her purpose, Mrozek does succeed where Hough and Holland

have failed in stasis definition-creation. Instead of broadening her scope to address questions of social

justice, she refines it to elucidate the issue at hand: Savita’s death.

“Abortion does not save women’s lives, but good medical care does” (para 6), writes Mrozek,

demonstrating her strategy of simultaneously slandering abortion and refining her definition of the

issue. “Good medical care” becomes the focus of her stasis point: “why did [Savita] not receive good

medical care?” she asks, directing her audience from the poor treatment implied in paragraph 6 to a

firm statement that Savita did not receive adequate care (para 8). Her major premise goes unstated here

but it is inferred, giving her argument a foundation not of a syllogism but of an enthymeme. The

enthymeme, differing only in its lack of stated major premise, can also be analysed using Marsh’s model:

- (Unstated) Major: Hospitals are places where patients receive good medical care. - Minor: Savita, a patient, did not receive good medical care at a hospital

The disjunction between major and minor presence throw into relief what Mrozek believes to

be the underlying cause for Savita’s death: poor medical practice, or, even more strongly, malpractice.

Savita’s death is the result of medical malpractice: this is Mrozek’s kataphasis. Her implied apophasis is

less clear: as Mrozek writes “speculation and accusations abound”, and understanding the doctors’

motivations with the known facts is impossible (para 8). Perhaps the doctors feared for their careers, or

perhaps they did not believe Savita’s life to be in danger when the refusal was made. Regardless, in

parsing down her argument to a basic level that is debateable, Mrozek demonstrates what an effective

definition through stasis theory questioning can achieve. She has engineered a straightforward, provable

charge against Savita’s doctors. It is a charge they, as the defendants, can choose to respond to in

11

numerous ways. With such a definition, the “generative” aspect of stasis theory is achieved and an

“impetus for rhetorical argument” is clearly created (Carter 97). It is this type of argumentation that is

needed to bring Savita’s case closer to justice.

Conclusion

Its offhand pro-life rhetoric aside, Mrozek’s article demonstrates the sort of assertion of

definition that must be agreed upon before questions of state or society can be addressed. The concerns

of Hough and Holland serve better as entailments, introduced at the quality stage of the stasis system.

Adopting Hough’s definition of societal institutions embodying female oppression, the doctors could

plead a case akin to not guilty by reason of cultural conditioning: they simply have been trained to assert

their professional, medical opinions over those of their vulnerable patients. Or adopting Holland and

Praveen’s legal interpretation, the doctors could plead not guilty by ignorance of the law: they were

uncertain of the precedent set with X-Case, in which Ireland’s supreme court ruled that abortion was

allowed in cases when the mother’s life was in danger (Humpheries & Turner para 18). These are what

Hermagoras identifies as questions of “poiotes, or quality…. To what extent do circumstances excuse

this punishable act?” (Marsh 14-5). In framing these ethical and legal assertions in the place of

definition, or in the absence of a clear definition, both Hough and Holland overlook the fundamental

medical, micro-level of details of what is, after all, initially a medical situation. Thus, they fail where

Mrozek succeeds in crafting an effective definition.

Stasis theory exposes the power of journalistic discourse to doctor events to the causes of their

authors. Both Hough and Holland framed Savita’s case against larger questions of social justice, and in

doing so both clouded the definition of the event they were allegedly reporting on. The stage of

definition is essential in the stasis theory progression for the framing of further interpretations of issues

and is especially vital when the issue is as multifaceted as Savita’s. Through emphasizing hard and fast

12

truths that further discussion of the nature of an issue, stasis theory purports what cynics today claim

journalists have long forgotten: that the truth is what the news is intended to convey.

Works Cited:

"About Us." Medical Council. Government of Ireland, n.d. Web. 3 Dec 2012. <http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/About-Us/>.

Carter, Michael. "Rhetoric Review." Rhetoric Review. 7.1 (1988): 97-112. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-0198(198823)7:1<97:SAKPOS>2.0.CO;2-4>.

CNN Wire Staff, . "HUsband refuses to cooperate in Ireland abortion case inquiry." CNN [Atlanta] 30 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/europe/ireland- abortion-controversy/>.

“Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners." Medical Council. Government of Ireland, n.d. Web. 3 Dec 2012. <http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Information-for- Doctors/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for- Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf>.

Holland, Kitty. "Husband of Savita to take case to Europe." Irish Times [Dublin] 30 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1130/1224327302996.html>.

Holland, Kitty, and Paul Cullen. "Women 'denied a termination' dies in hospital." Irish Times [Dublin] 14 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Hough, Jennifer. "Senseless death of Irish woman exposes grim reality for women." Toronto Star [Toronto] 16 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1288624--senseless-death-in- ireland-exposes-grim-reality-fo>.

Humpheries, Conor, and Lorraine Turner. "Ireland to clarify abortion rules after woman's death." Toronto Star [Toronto] 16 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1288746--ireland-to-clarify-abortion-rules-after- woman-s-dea>.

Marsh, Charles. "International Journal of Semiotic Law." International Journal of Semiotic Law. 25. (2012): 11-29. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735- 0198(198823)7:1<97:SAKPOS>2.0.CO;2-4>.

Mrozek, Andrea. "No proof an abortion would have saved Savita Halappanvar's life." National Post [Don Mills] 21 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/11/21/no- proof-an-abortion-would-have-saved-savita-halappanavars-life/>.

Smith, Craig R.. "The Roman Rhetorical System." Trans. Array Rhetoric and Human Consciousness. Robert E Denton Jr. Long Grove: Waveland, 1998. 120-125. Print.

13

Appendix A: National Post Article

No proof an abortion would have saved Savita Halappanavar’s life

Andrea Mrozek, Special to National Post | Nov 21, 2012 2:25 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 21, 2012 4:35 PM ET The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, the Indian woman living in Ireland who miscarried at 17 weeks and then subsequently died herself, has brought with it a storm of protest. People across the globe are clamouring for the relaxation of Ireland’s strict abortion laws. “Are you willing to force a woman to endure days of agony, simply because her fetus is technically alive?” asked National Post columnist Chris Selley. The question is whether pro-lifers who desire strict abortion laws have blood on their hands. For those of us who call ourselves pro-life, responding to this question is both reasonable and necessary. A young, vibrant woman is dead and the claim is that restrictive anti-abortion laws put her in the grave. Indian newspapers go so far as to accuse Ireland of murdering Savita. The pro-choice movement now has a face – Savita’s – to put on their legalization campaign. They claim women in jurisdictions where abortion is largely illegal face increased risks of unnecessary suffering and death. This is not a light charge. But is it true?

According to data from Statistics Canada, maternal mortality for Canadian women was at an all-time high in 1930; 5.8 women died per 1000 live births. By the 1950s, that number had declined to below one. In 1974, we were at 0.1 maternal mortalities per 1000 live births and the number has declined since then. Pro-choicers have long held that maternal mortality rises without abortion. Yet the record shows that Canadian maternal mortality declined precipitously prior to the legalization of abortion in Canada. Canadian abortion laws began to open up in 1969 and abortion became available on demand without any restriction after the 1988 R. v. Morgentaler decision.

Irish Times/HandoutSavita Halappanavar

14

This shows abortion does not save women’s lives, but good medical care does. Ireland’s own statistics reflect this truth. The United Nation’s 2005 report on maternal mortality found Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, despite largely banning abortion procedures. However, neither does Ireland ban abortion outright. Irish law allows for exemptions for the life of the mother. So what actually happened in Savita’s case? Why did she not receive good medical care? Few details are provided, surely stemming in part due to patient confidentiality requirements and in consideration of the lawsuit that will follow. Regardless, speculation and accusations abound. We do know that Savita was 17 weeks pregnant. Had she had an abortion, it would have been a more complicated one. Abortions get more dangerous as the number of weeks progress. Second trimester abortions may involve the use of forceps to remove dismembered body parts. This is not a faceless mass-precisely because by this point ears, eyes and eyelashes are developing, as are major body systems. A truly interested person might ask questions around the nature of Savita’s sickness, and whether the miscarriage was the prime culprit in her death. We don’t know whether she received antibiotics, how much or when. Without the right dosage of antibiotics, an abortion might just as likely have resulted in sepsis and death. Indeed, women do die from abortions of the legal variety, it’s just we don’t hear about it in the mainstream media. Take the recent case of Tonya Reaves in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago in July 2012 or Laura Hope Smith who died in Massachusetts in 2007.

Placing the blame squarely on pro-lifers and pro-life legislation for Savita’s death cannot be done with the facts we have

Savita’s family seems to desire that Ireland adopt laws that reflect India’s. Often the newspaper articles will cite Ireland’s Catholicism as the reason given for the abortion denied. But a quick read of Unnatural Selection by the pro-choice Mara Hvistendahl reveals a callous attitude in India toward life in the womb, particularly where the unborn are female. India is currently grappling with the problem of missing women and the increased rates of human trafficking for those women who aren’t. To change Irish law to meet Indian standards might not be an elevation. If there is only one thing clear in this tragedy, it is that Savita’s death is now being used for political goals. Savita’s death is tragic, but to claim abortion would have in and of itself changed the outcome is not necessarily true. To place the blame squarely on pro-lifers and pro-life legislation for Savita’s death cannot be done with the facts we have – and furthermore denies what we know about good maternal care. Andrea Mrozek is the founder of www.ProWomanProLife.org and works at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

15

Appendix B: Toronto Star Article

Senseless death of Irish woman exposes grim reality for

women

Woman’s plea to terminate troubled pregnancy was ignored by doctors.

CATHAL MCNAUGHTON

A woman outside University Hospital in Galway protests the treatment of Savita Halappanavar. (Nov. 15, 2012)

By: Jennifer Hough Published on Fri Nov 16 2012

For three days, Savita Halappanavar suffered agonizing pain, asking repeatedly that a 17-week-old dying fetus be removed from her body.

For three days she lay in a hospital bed getting sicker and sicker, until eventually she succumbed to septicemia.

While it sounds like a scene from the Dark Ages, this is what happened to Savita, a 31-year-old Indian immigrant living in Ireland, last month.

16

Everyone wants to know how could such a thing happen in a modern 21st-century nation. In a society much like Canada’s, with the same values, language, health and social structures.

That’s the question medical, legal and ethical experts will debate. They, the media and general public, will dissect the intricate details of this complex case, and package an answer to suit their own agenda.

Savita was reportedly told by doctors that they could not carry out the termination until the fetal heart had stopped because “this is a Catholic country.” This sound bite has been beamed around the world, and it’s a good one, but it doesn’t ring true.

Because the perception that Ireland is still firmly tied to the robes of Catholicism is a fallacy. The mass abuse of children by pedophile priests cut those attachments, and the decaying church, once all powerful, now holds little sway with the people or politicians.

Really, there’s a very simple reason why Savita died. It’s because she wasn’t listened to. She knew how sick she was, and begged doctors to remove the unviable fetus. They didn’t listen to her clearly expressed wishes, didn’t respect, what in hindsight, was her plea for life.

The real tragedy here is that, actually, doctors could have acted legally to abort the fetus. Within what is admittedly a very limited legal framework, obstetricians in Ireland can and do perform terminations in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.

By way of background: Ireland’s constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling (known as the X case) found the procedure could be carried out in situations when the woman’s life is at risk.

So, the doctors could have acted. They chose not to, they didn’t listen, instead carrying on their paternalistic pursuit of what they believed was best, or perhaps so as not to put their own necks on the line. This is not a new narrative, and it’s why Savita’s story should transcend the emotive abortion debate and stand as an acknowledgment of all the women who regularly are not listened to when it comes to decisions about their own bodies.

Every day women are not treated, consulted, or taken seriously. Young girls are forced into marriages, to have babies they don’t want; women die due to a lack of basic health care.

According to the World Health Organization, every year, 99 per cent of the planet’s approximately half a million maternal deaths occur in developing countries.

Pregnancy-related complications are a leading cause of death among girls aged 15-19 years in developing countries; unsafe abortion — provided by unskilled people in unhygienic conditions — contributes substantially to these deaths.

17

Ironically, on the same day that news of Savita’s death surfaced, the UN published a report declaring that legal and financial barriers to accessing contraception and other family planning measures are an infringement of women’s rights. A very fine idea, but with no legal standing the push and pull over what are, and should be treated as, very personal choices carries on.

In Ireland, the push to legislate for life-saving abortion has been growing slowly but surely. In Canada, there is a pull in the opposite direction; the pro-life campaign is alive and well, and simmering beneath the liberal surface, protesting the current laws, the way pro-choicers protest it in Ireland. But what law has the right to tell a woman what she is feeling, what her body is telling her, what she wants for her life? Her health? Her unborn child?

What’s really becoming clear in this modern age is that women are sick and tired of the power that legislators, lobby groups, religious zealots, and indeed the culture of medical paternalism, exercise over their bodies.

In recent years, polls taken in Ireland have found that public opinion supports legislating for abortion in cases where the mother is at risk. But those in power have consistently refused to legislate. Like Savita’s doctors, the politicians aren’t listening.

So while interest groups have seized on this story to twist it in their favour, it’s really a tale about the politics of health.

Countless charities and NGOs work hard to reform health policies in the developing world. Plan International’s Because I am Girl movement uses the optimistic marketing slogan “It only takes one girl to change the world.”

This week, that tagline took on real meaning in the developed world, where clearly there is work to do too.

Over the past few days, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Ireland. It’s heartening to see, but unless some real change comes from this senseless death, Savita will be just another girl who didn’t change the world.

Jennifer Hough is an award-winning Irish journalist, recently relocated to Canada and working with the Toronto Star. @jenniferhros, jehough@thestar

18

Appendix C: Irish Times Article

Husband of Savita to take case to Europe

Praveen and Savita Halappanavar on their wedding day. photograph: reuters/ courtesy yalagi family KITTY HOLLAND Legal action: The husband of the late Savita Halappanavar is to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights in relation to her death. Praveen Halappanavar has instructed his solicitor, Gerard O’Donnell, to draw up the papers to take the case under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life. He hopes it will result in a full and proper inquiry into his wife’s death. Article 2 states: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” Article 6 says everyone is entitled to a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” in the determination of their civil rights. He had set close of business yesterday as the deadline for the Government to institute a sworn, public inquiry into his 31-year-old wife’s death at Galway University Hospital on October 28th. She had presented a week earlier on October 21st with back pain at the hospital’s maternity unit. She had been 17 weeks pregnant and was found to be miscarrying. Mr Halappanavar has said she asked repeatedly for the pregnancy to be terminated given she was miscarrying but was refused, he says, as the foetal heartbeat was still present and was told “this is a Catholic country”. An autopsy carried out by Dr Grace Callagy found she died of septicaemia “documented ante-mortem” and E.coli ESBL. Mr O’Donnell said yesterday he and his client had had offers of support from women’s and human rights groups across the world in his move to take the case to the European court. “I am identifying a team of junior and senior counsel. I expect to sit down with them and my client early next week to draw up papers to submit to the European court. We have had a lot of offers from international organisations, women’s and human rights, to support us in this.” He had had an acknowledgment from the office of the Minister for Health, James Reilly, to his letter sent on Monday calling for a public inquiry. “They said they were ‘looking at’ the request.” Mr Halappanavar has said the two inquiries established into his wife’s death did not satisfy him or her family. The first was established by the HSE while a second has been established by the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa). Both will be held in private.