Irish abortion ban 'violated' woman's rights

[maddezmom]

Source: BBC

Irish abortion ban 'violated' woman's rights The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Irish abortion laws violated the rights of one of three women who sought terminations in Britain.

The woman, who was in remission for cancer and unaware of her pregnancy, argued her health was put at risk.

While abortion in the Irish Republic is technically allowed if a woman's life is at risk, the women's lawyers argued this was not the case in reality.

Thursday's ruling could require a change to Irish law.



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11342247

[Agent William]

1. People often forget how conservative the Republic is.

I've noticed that many people in the both the UK and US think Eire is some sort of liberal bastion of freedom and openness, and the UK (often incorrectly refereed to as England) is a conservative hell hole. I think divorce was legalized only a few years ago. The constitution revolved (or did) around Catholic doctrine. I remember hearing stories about people going into Northern Ireland to get a legal divorce. I wish the same where true of abortion laws in Northern Ireland, but being anti-choice is one area where Catholics and Protestants seem to agree.

[pampango]

3. I imagine those conservatives aren't happy about the ECHR ruling that individual rights trumps

national sovereignty. The right there may be sorry that Ireland signed on to the European Convention on Human Rights. As a signatory they are obligated to implement the court's ruling. This could get interesting. It would seem unlikely that conservatives will comply willingly.

Could lead to a showdown? Perhaps they will lead a push to have Ireland withdraw from the ECHR?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The ruling isn't that revolutionary

What it's really doing is telling Ireland to actually implement the very limited "if life is at risk" exception it has in the constitution, rather than ignoring it in practice. From the BBC commentary:

Ireland is now under pressure to do what successive Irish governments have avoided doing for almost 20 years - alter its abortion laws.

In theory, it would not be a major change. It would simply reflect the judgement of the Irish Supreme Court in 1992 which ruled that a woman whose life was in danger should be allowed an abortion.

In practice, defining what constitutes a threat to life for the mother will be a legal minefield.

Changing the law would also be a political minefield. Ireland is bitterly divided over abortion, and the Irish government has plenty of other priorities at present with the financial crisis and a general election early next year.

From the Irish Times:

However, the woman was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term.

This morning, the court concluded that neither the “medical consultation nor litigation options” relied on by the Government constituted an effective or accessible procedures.

“Moreover, there was no explanation why the existing constitution right had no been implemented to date,” the court ruled.

“Consequently, the court concluded that Ireland had breached the third applicant’s – "C" – right to respect for her private life given the failure to implement the existing constitutional right to a lawful abortion in Ireland.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html?via=mr

[pampango]

5. Understood, but I still imagine that conservatives will want to resist doing this which could

potentially bring them into conflict with the ECHR.

[Agent William]

6. To me that's what is paradoxical about Eire

We've heard so much about there 800 year struggle against us, but they seem to have no problem running towards the EU and more or less giving up many of their sovereign rights. They should have stuck with the pound and autonomy. They were making progress, albeit slowly, in the second half of the 20th century, but it was real progress, not false stock derivatives which evaporated at the first hint of market uncertainty.

[Warpy]

7. Yes, the years of Protestant English abuse only strengthened

the chains the Rome had put around that country. Those chains are finally being smashed, though. They have divorce now and other things have been liberalized, as well.

I would love to see Rome's stranglehold broken completely regarding civil law, but I realize that will take some time, even with the loss of trust caused by their behavior toward people who were sexually abused by clergy.

[Agent William]

8. Right, but in the future lets say

Protestant ''British'' The Scots were quite renown for there distaste of anything ''papist'' through there Presbyterian indoctrination.


Always remember than English and British are not synonymous, well unless you're talking about anything before 1603 or the World Cup.

[Warpy]

9. True, that, the English used Scots to colonize northern Ireland

and intended them to colonize the whole island eventually to remove the nest of papists on at least one of their shores.

Gotta love that old time religion.

I'm glad to see its chains being smashed, though, however slowly.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[alp227]

10. Ireland's got a blasphemy law too PASSED IN 2009!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Ireland

Wow, so this looks like the Irish Roe v. Wade? I clicked the link and discovered that the Irish Supreme Court ruled for abortion rights in 1992 (but that ruling didn't enter law unlike the American Supreme Court).

Also: "Under Irish law, abortion is a criminal act although a referendum in 1983 amended the constitution acknowledging the mother's right to life was equal to that of the child." So I guess that depends depending on fetal personhood? And given that Ireland doesn't have abortion on demand and has that blasphemy law religion still has a lotta influence in that country.