Skip to main content

Change to Ireland's abortion law

The Irish government is finally set to act. The New York Times and many other media outlets report that  Irish government officials are proposing to move from a total ban on abortion to one in which women can have an abortion "in cases where there is a real and substantial risk to a woman's life-- as distinct from her health" (New York Times).

I have written several times about what's going on in Ireland; to read, click on one or more of the 'labels' at the bottom of this post.

Ireland's debate over abortion demonstrates three things:

First, it demonstrates the power of the individual story to affect opinion and spur action. The move to (slightly) liberalize Ireland's total ban on abortion has been mandated since 1992 by the Irish Supreme Court and since 2010 by the European Court of Human Rights. The Irish government only got moving, however, after the tragic 2012 death of Dr. Savita Halappanaver, who died after suffering a miscarriage. Doctors in an Irish hospital refused to hasten the end of the miscarriage because the fetus was still alive (though inevitably dying). As a result of the delay in action, Dr. Halappanavar died from septicemia.

Second, it demonstrates the power of the Catholic Church and Catholic culture to resist change on abortion. For people who are pro-choice, the proposed legal change is a victory, considering the political and cultural conditions in Ireland, but only a victory of sorts, given how narrow the exception to a total ban is.  In the United States, pro-life activists can only dream of a time when American law would allow abortions only in cases of serious physical risks to a pregnant woman's life.

Third, it demonstrates that, regardless of time, place, or culture, many women want to have abortions. Ireland is often held up as a model pro-life country by activists. I can't recall where I saw it, but I watched a video of an American giving a speech in Ireland and telling his audience how wonderful Ireland was, given that no abortions take place there.

That speaker got it wrong. Abortions are likely taking place in Ireland, illegally, some safely (in the doctor's offices of the wealthy) and many more unsafely. Furthermore, there may be no abortions openly taking place in Ireland, but many Irish women are having abortions, in the United Kingdom, where they travel to have them, if they can afford it. The option for women (especially women of means) to escape the island and have a safe abortion in the UK serves as a kind of political pressure valve that allows the Irish government to keep an extremely restrictive ban on abortion in place with fewer political consequences, and preserve the fiction of Ireland as abortion free.

Links:

Article in The New York Times (December 18, 2012): Irish Government Set to Allow Abortion in Rare Cases


Article in The Christian Science Monitor (December 18, 2012): Ireland announces abortion law reforms, leaving no one satisfied

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...

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...