plc briefing document feb 2013

7/29/2019 PLC Briefing Document Feb 2013

1/8

LEGISLATION FOR THE X CASE IS ABOUT ABORTION,

NOT ABOUT MEDICAL TREATMENTS NEEDED TO

SAFEGUARD WOMENS LIVES


2/8

THE GOVERNMENTS ARGUMENT THAT ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO TREAT THREATENED

SUICIDE IN PREGNANCY WAS DEMOLISHED AT THE RECENT OIREACHTAS HEARINGS ON

ABORTION.

THE PSYCHIATRISTS WHO ADDRESSED THE HEARINGS WERE UNANIMOUS THAT ABORTION

IS NOT A TREATMENT FOR SUICIDAL IDEATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER

THAT ABORTION REDUCES THE MENTAL HEALTH RISKS OF UNPLANNED 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, IT

WOULD CURE NO WOMAN OF SUICIDAL IDEATION, BUT IT WOULD PUT SOME WOMEN'S

LIVES AT RISK.

IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTING THE LIVES OF WOMEN AND BABIES IN

PREGNANCY, WE CANNOT INTRODUCE A LAW THAT DIRECTLY TARGETS THE LIFE OF THE

UNBORN CHILD AND PUTS WOMENS LIVES AT RISK.

VIOLATING THE MOST BASIC

HUMAN RIGHT

WHY LEGISLATING FOR THE X CASE

WOULD LEAD TO WIDE-RANGING

ABORTION

Claims by senior Government Ministers that legislation

based on the X case would be extremely restrictive do not

stand up. It cannot be and would not be.Any legislation based on the X case ruling would mean

that Members o the Oireachtas would be sanctioning

and legitimising the taking o innocent human lie. Once

the principle is conceded that some human lives can be

directly targeted, there is no going back. Inevitably over

time the grounds or abortion would be widened.

The reality is that the X case ruling does not impose

any duty o care to preserve the lie o the baby in the

course o medical interventions to saeguard the lie o

the mother. No medical evidence whatsoever was heard

in the case. And in the twenty years since the X ruling,

medical research, ar rom conrming that abortion helpswomen with mental health problems, has ailed to nd

any benet to women rom abortion. Many peer-reviewed

studies, however, indicate that abortion exposes women

to signicant negative ater-eects.

Despite hundreds o thousands o abortions annually on

mental health grounds in Britain, there is no evidence that

abortion improves the mental health o women.

As Proessor David Fergusson comments in the

conclusion to his 2008 study, published in the British

Journal of Psychiatry: In general, there is no evidence in

the literature on abortion and mental health that suggeststhat abortion reduces the mental health risks o unwanted

or mistimed pregnancy. Although some studies have

concluded that abortion has neutral eects on mental

health, no study has reported that exposure to abortion

reduces mental health risks.1

Legislation based on the X case would mean that or

the rst time, psychiatrists would be asked to propose a

procedure or which there is no psychiatric justication.For the rst time, obstetricians would be asked to

terminate the lives o babies in physically-healthy women.

Likewise, or the rst time, legislators would be violating

the most basic human right o an innocent unborn child.

Laws shape public values. I X legislation were passed,

society would see the right to lie o the unborn as not that

important ater all, we would not be really serious about

protecting it - the lives o unborn babies would be ended

on an entirely irrational and unjustiable basis. Soon this

would become the general view, replacing our culture o

lie with a culture o abortion.

02


3/8

EXPERTS EXPOSE INHERENT FLAWS IN X CASE RULING

The hard truth is the Supreme Court got it wrong in the X

case ruling. The judges mistakenly took it or granted thatthe threat o suicide is a medical emergency in which the

appropriate medical intervention is abortion to protect the

mothers lie.

In his evidence to the recent Oireachtas hearings,

perinatal psychiatrist Dr John Sheehan corrected this

mistaken view: The notion o carrying out an emergency

termination is completely obsolete in respect o a person

who is extremely suicidal. In such situations, one can

see clearly the intervention usually is to admit such people

into hospital, day hospital or home care but the intention

is to support and help them through the crisis they are

in. It is not to make a decision that is permanent andirrevocable.

2

We know rom the expert evidence at the hearings that

abortion is not medically indicated as a treatment in thecase o threatened suicide in pregnancy. We know too

that some peer-reviewed studies conrm the testimony o

many post-abortive women that abortion itsel heightens

the risk o uture mental health problems. An example

is the comprehensive Finnish study3

which shows that

women who have abortions are more likely to commit

suicide than women who continue with their pregnancies.

The Government has no peer-reviewed evidence to

support its decision to legalise abortion on grounds o

threatened suicide. It would be putting women's lives at

risk, not saeguarding them, i it legislated on the basis o

the X case ruling. These are the acts and they cannot beignored.

FAILINGS OF GOVERNMENTS WORKING GROUP

ON ABORTION

It is hard to see why the Government made its decision to legislate or abortion

beore the Oireachtas hearings on the issue were held. Equally hard to athom

is how the Governments Expert Group on abortion issued its report beore thehearings happened.

The result was that both the Government and the Expert Group made up their

minds beore they had an opportunity to hear the expert evidence.

The most glaring example o this is the way the Expert Group proposed

abortion where the mother is eeling suicidal even though there is no evidence

that abortion is a medical treatment or suicidality.

Equally disturbing is its proposal, pretending some duty o care to the baby is

being retained, that where the mother presents at the ringes o viability, the

baby should be delivered early and rushed to an intensive care neonatal unit.

This would be a monstrous injustice to the baby - to induce the pregnancy atthe ringes o viability, exposing the baby to brain damage, blindness or loss o

lie itsel, when the consensus o psychiatric evidence is that the termination

would coner no benet on the mother. This one example highlights the scant

regard and thought that was given to vindicating the right to lie o the baby

throughout the entire process to date.

03


4/8

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

Lord David Steel, the architect o the 1967 law that

brought wide-ranging abortion into Britain recently said

it would be a mistake or Ireland to introduce abortion

on the ground o threatened suicide, adding he never

envisaged there would be so many abortions in Britain

resulting rom the law he introduced.5

British abortion statistics have a truly chilling lesson toteach us in Ireland, a lesson that should give us pause

beore we ollow their example. In 2011, a staggering

97% o the 189,931 abortions in England and Wales were

perormed on mental health grounds.6

No responsible

legislator can ignore these statistics.

The late Proessor Anthony Clare stated in evidence to

the previous Oireachtas hearings on abortion in 2000,

that when he worked as a locum in Bermuda, the threat

o suicide grounds or abortion was widely exploited,

placing psychiatrists in an impossible position.7

In Caliornia, the Therapeutic Abortion Act 1967allowedabortion where the woman is dangerous to hersel

or to the person or property o others or is in need o

supervision or restraint. Only three years later, 98.2% o

all abortions (61,572) in Caliornia were on this ground.

Britains biggest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy

Advisory Service, openly admits it is not the case that

the majority o women seeking abortion are necessarily at

risk o damaging their mental health i they continue their

pregnancy. But it is signicant that, because o the law,

women and their doctors have to indicate that this is the

case.8

Members o the Oireachtas have a responsibility

to be practical and realistic and to learn rom theexperiences o other countries and not be taken in by

the restrictive abortion argument.

It is absolutely clear that those pushing or abortion

want wide-ranging abortion, not lie saving treatments

or women in pregnancy. But they know well rom

experience in other jurisdictions, that the hardest

step in their ght is the rst step, to get the door to

legalised abortion unlocked and opened, no matter

how slightly. Once they achieve that, the rest is just a

matter o ridiculing the restrictions and attacking them

in the courts.

Our legislators have a duty not to be duped. It is

entirely predictable what is going to happen i the

Government proceeds with its decision to legislate or

abortion on the basis o the X ruling. The legislation

will include restrictions, committees o medics,

psychiatrists, whatever. The pro-abortion voices will

eign horror at the restrictions and some members o

the Labour Party will even wonder aloud whether or

not the legislation is worthy o support. But surprise,

surprise, they will manage to vote or it on the day.

And beore the ink is dry on the legislation, theyll be

picking holes in it and calling or changes.

Indeed, already, Labour Party Minister o State,

Kathleen Lynch is on record attacking the approach

the Government is proposing to adopt on the grounds

that those who want abortion but are not suicidal will

have to pretend.

Make no mistake what they want is social abortion,

abortion on request. There is no such thing as a

little bit o abortion. Once the principle has been

dislodged, then it is only a matter o time beore the

grounds are widened.

As the recent newspaper undercover investigation

brought to light 9, women attending HSE-unded

agencies like the IFPA have been advised that i they

suered physical complications rom their abortions,

they should lie to their doctors and pretend they had

a miscarriage. Not surprisingly, the Master o a Dublin

Maternity Hospital described this advice as lie

endangering or women.

The Minister or Health has done nothing whatsoever

to date to address these abuses in HSE-unded

agencies. What reason has anyone to believe that

rules on abortion would be any more rigorously

upheld?

THE DUTY NOT TO BE DUPED

04


5/8

IRELAND A WORLD LEADER IN PROTECTING

WOMEN DURING PREGNANCY

Based on recent media coverage, one could be orgiven or thinking thatIreland, without abortion, is among the most dangerous countries in the

world or pregnant women. The act and truth is, that out o 171 countries

Ireland is consistently in the top ve or women's saety in pregnancy over

the last 25 years. That's a stunning statistic. And that world class care is

delivered today by the medical proessionals in this country under existing

principles and guidelines.

Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990 to 2010, WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the

World Bank: Estimates, (2012)10

is a study that allows us to compare the

rates around the world according to the same criteria and using the same

method over a twenty year period.

It nds that over the ten year period, Ireland is in the joint th group osaest countries in the world or women in pregnancy with an average

maternal mortality rate o 6 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Over

this period, our maternal mortality rate was hal that in Britain and under

a third that in the US. Over the same period, urthermore, our maternal

mortality rate ell by 12% while the rate in Britain rose by 23% and in the

US rose by 65%.

This is an outstanding achievement or Irish medical practice, making

Irelands maternal mortality rate a striking testament to the appropriateness

o the principle underlying the practice o Irish medicine in relation to

women in pregnancy, in stark contrast to the dramatically poorer records o

Britain and the US both o which have wide-ranging abortion regimes.11

Recent attempts to cast doubts on Irelands high ranking among the worlds

saest countries or women in pregnancy by comparing the above report

with a report drawn up using dierent parameters ail, in the rst place,

because they are not comparing like with like; in the second place, because

they still show Ireland, with no abortion regime, ranking higher than Britain

with its wide-ranging abortion availability; and in the third place, because

until a table or all states is compiled using the new parameters, we wont

know what dierence it will make to the overall ranking.12 13

IMPORTANT ETHICAL

DISTINCTIONS

It is important to be clear what we

mean by phrases like termination opregnancy or the need or abortion

where there is a real and substantial

risk to the lie o the mother.

Those campaigning or abortion

purposely use emotive language,

blurring the key ethical distinctions to

push the case or legalised abortion.

Words like abortion and phrases

like termination o pregnancy are

routinely used in quite dierent ways

in dierent contexts.

Regarding the phrase termination

o pregnancy, it is important to

remember that all pregnancies are

terminated. Most o them terminate

with the birth o a normal healthy

baby. Some unborn babies die as an

unavoidable and unintended result

o some lie saving treatment o the

mother.

Furthermore some babies die, in spite

o the best eorts o all involved, as

a result o being born too early: suchbirths may occur spontaneously or

may be induced in cases where it

represents the only, albeit very low,

chance o survival.

Clearly, then, there is a huge ethical

distinction between necessary

medical interventions in pregnancy

where the baby may be exposed to

some risks and induced abortion

where the lie o the baby is directly

and intentionally targeted.

05


6/8

PUBLIC BACKING FOR

LEGAL PROTECTION OF

THE UNBORN CHILD

WHY THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHERREFERENDUM SHOULD NOT BE RULED OUT

As the Report o the Governments Expert Group on abortion says, two

reerendums seeking to address the problems posed by the X case ruling were

deeated. Why then, should the possibility o another reerendum be ruled out?

First, it is actually incorrect to interpret the majority NO votes in the

reerendums o 1992 and 2002 as an endorsement o the X case decision.

In the 1992 reerendum, voting patterns clearly show that the measure was

deeated by a resounding rural vote because o the absence o any duty o

care or the baby in the proposal. The 2002 reerendum to overturn the X casedecision narrowly lost with 49% o the electorate voting YES. The YES vote

was clearly a pro-lie vote. In the immediate atermath o the reerendum an

IMS (now Millward Brown Lansdowne) poll identied that over 5% o those

who voted NO did so or pro-lie reasons as they were dissatised with the

reerendum wording. When you add the two votes together, the pro-lie vote

clearly exceeded 50%.

The second reason or not ruling

out another reerendum is the

act that regardless o where

one stands on the issue, it is

indisputably a dening issue or

society. The act that previous

attempts to overturn the X case

ruling ailed is no reason not

to try again. Ater all, we aretalking about protecting the most

precious right o all, namely the

right to lie, without which all other

rights are meaningless.

It is true that there is a lot o public conusion at present

on the issue. But, contrary to what some people claim, no

broad middle ground consensus has emerged in avour o

abortion.

Media commissioned polls on abortion invariably ail

to distinguish between necessary medical treatments

in pregnancy and induced abortion, thereby alsely

creating the impression that a large majority o the public

backs legalised abortion. However, polls that make the

distinction clear consistently show a sizeable majority

opposed to abortion being available in Ireland. Recent

Millward Brown Lansdowne research ound that over

60% o those who expressed an opinion support legal

protection or the unborn child, while at the same time

ensuring that women receive all necessary medical

interventions in pregnancy.

06


7/8

CONCLUSION

Any legislation based on the fawed X case ruling

would corrupt the practice o psychiatry and the

practice o obstetrics.

It would also corrupt the law because despite all the

hal-truths and worse being told by those touting the

proposal, it would legalise abortion, the deliberate

taking o innocent human lie, and once that principle

is gone, its gone.

And when those seeking wide-ranging abortion arrive

at the door o the Court and start pushing, they would

nd that the door against abortion has been openedand there is no legal principle to prevent them getting

the wider level o abortion that they wanted all along.

Once the principle has been conceded, once it is

legally permissible to deliberately destroy an innocent

lie, rom that point on, no innocent human lie can be

sure o the protection o the law.

GUIDELINES NOT LEGISLATION

The European Court o Human Rights judgment inA,

B and C v. Irelanddoes not oblige Ireland to introduce

abortion by way o X case legislation, regulation or any

other way. It simply requires that we have accessible

procedures by which people can know the law and where

they stand.

The Government should respond to the judgment in two

steps:

First, it should give a commitment to the Committee

o Ministers o the Council o Europe that Guidelines

will be drawn up in consultation with the appropriate

bodies o expertise within the medical proession based

on best medical practice, addressing the requirement

o clarity or women in pregnancy.

Second, the Government should give a commitment

that the diculties associated with the X case will be

examined and the options or clariying them identied,

and that the Government will revert to the Committee

o Ministers on the progress o this at a later stage.

It is not unusual or disrespectul to take time in

responding to judgments o the European Court. Inact, the Committee o Ministers 3rd Annual Report

2009, Supervision of the Execution of Judgments of the

European Court of Human Rights, reported that rom 1996

to 2009, 8,661 cases were still incompletely implemented,

and they explain the reason or the delay: The last ew

years have seen a signicant increase in the number o

cases relating to complex and sensitive issues, which

need more time to resolve.

07


8/8

104 Lower Baggot StreetDublin 2, Ireland

01 [email protected]

FOOTNOTES

Pro Lie Campaign - 10-02-13

1David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood and Joseph M. Boden, Abortion and

mental health disorders: evidence rom a 30-year longitudinal study,British Journalof Psychiatry(2008), 193, pp. 444-451.

2Oireachtas Hearings on Abortion, 8th January 2013, pp 74-75

3Gissler, M, et al., Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with

pregnancy, Finland 19872000, European Journal o Public Health, Volume 15,

Issue 5, 2005, pp. 459-463.

4

Report o the Expert Group on the judgment in A, B and C v Ireland, p 37

5Irish Independent, 21st December 2012

6Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2011, National Statistics, Department o

Health, May 2012, pp 8-9. https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/les/2012/05/

Commentary1.pd

7 Fith Progress Report: Abortion, The All Party Oireachtas Committee on the

Constitution, November 2000, page A 130

8Abortion Review, 2nd May 2012, http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/

article/963

9Irish Independent, 27th October 2012

10Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990 to 2010, WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA

and The World Bank: Estimates, (2012) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/

publications/2012/789241503631_eng.pd

11Using only inormation rom death certicates, the Inant Mortality, Stillbirths

and Maternal Mortality, CSO Report on Vital Statistics 2010, (2012) gives Irelands

maternal mortality rate as 4 deaths per 100,000 or 2009, 1 death per 100,000

or 2010. This method gives the gure or one year rather than an average over

a number o years. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/

documents/vitalstats/2010/chapter42010.pd

12In addition to death certicates, the Condential Maternal Death Enquiry in

Ireland, Report or the Triennium 2009 2011, August 2012, also draws inormation

rom coroners, pathologists, maternity units, general hospitals, public health

nurses and GPs, and give Irelands maternal mortality rate as 8 deaths per 100,000

or the combined years 2009 and 2010. http://www.mdeireland.com/pub/MDE_

report_w_2012.pd

13Notwithstanding attempts to make political capital out o the new way o

calculating the rate, the idea o drawing new sources o relevant inormation into the

analysis could well prove to be a valuable addition to understanding all the actors

relevant to maternal saety, though the higher the level o data required, the ewer

countries will be able to reach it and the greater the role o estimates in drawing up

the comparative table.

plc briefing document feb 2013

Documents