Skip to main content

Should Secretary Clinton talk about abortion in Ireland?

Irish expatriates living in the United States want Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to talk abut abortion when she meets with Irish government officials and gives a scheduled speech in Ireland today.

I'm not sure what they think is to be gained. Generally speaking, I think it is bad strategy for someone to attempt to get involved in producing an outcome-- here, first-step liberalization of abortion laws-- when that change is already in process, albeit in fits and starts. There is little potential upside and lots of potential downside.

Despite being very personally popular in Ireland, Secretary Clinton is an outsider. She is also, like a majority of Americans, much more liberal on abortion laws and rights than Irish lawmakers. If she attempts to use her public platform to push the Irish government forward, it could give ammunition to liberalization opponents, who could argue that any attempt to open up Irish abortion law is really setting the country on a slippery slope to an American style 'abortion on demand' system. It would also put hesitant pro-liberalization government officials in the position of looking like they are responding to Clinton, which may actually impel them to distance themselves from whatever comments she might make. In short, a public American push could actually stall the process or cause a backlash.

The only upside is if Irish public opinion is actually more open to wider liberalization than reported. Then Clinton, as someone working outside of the constraints of the Irish party system (and Catholic Church pressure), would be the rare elite figure who could speak truth to power on behalf of the population. But I'm not sure that's where Ireland is as a country-- yet.

As it is, the sad death of Dr. Savita Halappanavar seems to have been a sufficient catalyst for the Irish government to do what is long overdue. A group of medical and legal experts has already issued a draft report suggesting various ways to incorporate a life exception into Irish laws, including guidelines for medical practitioners (which I will analyze in a later post). Secretary Clinton should let the process play out.

UPDATE: It seems that Secretary Clinton talked about other things. The Irish Times reports that Clinton "said ensuring the human rights of women and girls were respected was the 'unfinished business of the 21st century.'" Pretty safe and appropriate.

Links:

Article in The Hill (December 6, 2012): Clinton faces pressure to address abortion law on Ireland trip

A copy of the open letter can be found at this web site (December 5, 2012)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...