Girl seeking abortion challenges HSE

by C Murray Mon Apr 30, 2007 20:56

We do not accord our young girls the right to privacy in relation to the issue of
medical abortion in Ireland.

No matter how you examine this issue the U.N rights of the child must
be transposed into Irish law. The right to medical abortion which was accorded
by the judgement on 'X' fifteen years ago should be examined.

There are no protections for young pre-consent and 17/18 year olds
in relation to the human right to Privacy and bodily integrity in our legislation
due to the co-equality clause.

Women and girls deserve the right to privacy and to Free, Safe and LegaL
Abortion In Ireland.

[if we did accord women and girls those rights this case would not
now be all over the media including the Irish Times, but we wait fifteen
years to deal with a situation that indicates a lack of courage in dealing
with human right's for women and girls to arrive at human tragedy
once again]

by Gaz B -(A)- - wsm pers cap Mon Apr 30, 2007 21:20

ALLIANCE FOR CHOICE CALLS ‘D’ CASE A TRAGEDY WAITING TO HAPPEN

It was only a matter of time before another distressed young woman was forced to remind the Irish people of the disgraceful situation facing women in crisis pregnancies in this country. The HSE’s refusal to permit a young woman in their custody to terminate her non-viable pregnancy is consistent with the hypocrisy exhibited by successive Irish governments who have refused to deal with the issue. It is truly outrageous that this vulnerable young woman should be further traumatised by having to ask the courts for the right to terminate a pregnancy that can, at best, result in the birth of a child with no possibility of life.

Dr. Mary Muldowney, spokesperson for Alliance for Choice said:
“The HSE must retract their callous approach to D’s tragic case and facilitate her choice for a termination. She cannot afford any further delay and the Irish people will not thank the HSE or the government for again brutalising a young woman in their name.”

Following on from the X and C cases in the 1990s, legislation dealing with the issue of abortion was promised, but even after the people rejected the Government’s 2002 attempt to roll back the X judgement even that minimal protection has not been underpinned by law. While the near total ban on abortion in Ireland does not prevent most women from seeking abortions it does result in increased delay, expense, unnecessary hardship and stigma for those women who face particular barriers to accessing services abroad, such as women living in poverty, young women, migrant and asylum-seeking women, and all those in the direct care or control of the State.

by woods Mon Apr 30, 2007 21:57

The timing of this event is incredibel with the elction coming up.
If somebody in the HSE is minipulating this child for political ends then it is
very shameful thing to do

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 10:40

The child will survive for a few days outside of her womb if it is born.
Does that give anyone the right to kill it?
What about children who are born with mental or physical handicap or disorders that will lead to an early death or poor quality of life into adulthood? Are they not worthy of life either?
What about gay or lesbians who are born with a genetic predisposition to their sexual orientation?
The poor girl is in a terrible position and I sympathise with her but ultimately the life of her child is not her property and she should have no right to bring it to an end.
Her life is not in danger - there is no justification for having an abortion if the life of the mother is not danger by either medical complications or the threat of suicide.

by Dorothy Gale Tue May 01, 2007 10:42

How would you stop her? Would you have her arrested and imprisoned? Are you going to imprison 10,000 Irish women every year?

by Goblin Tue May 01, 2007 10:54

It is an act of barbaric inhumane cruelty to force this girl to carry this pregnancy to term, experience it grow and develope a motherly attachment only for her to watch her child die. And all the while inflicting mental anguish on this young girl as she will be aware of what lays in store for every second of every day she is pregnant.

Shame on the HSE

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 12:53

Is the life of the unborn baby worthless because he/she will only survive for a short time?

What very cold unfeeling utilitarian view of an innocent child.

Suppose you fall ill with a terminal illness but you want to live as long as you possible can regardless, should your parents, spouse, partner or other relatives and loved oens who will experience the agony of watching you die from in terrible pain and agony have the right to have put you to kill you for their own comfort?

The health system provides care for patients who are terminally ill and have no hope of survival. Should the state be allowed to deny those patients that treatment and kill them instead against their wishes and the wishes of their families?

Will the pain and misery that this poor girl is going to go through be made any less by terminating her pregnancy? Either way her child is dead and she will be a grieving mother.

But the child is alive now and will remain a human person with rights up until the moment it is doomed to die outside of the womb.

We cannot and should not decide that life is worthless.

I don't believe that women should be jailed for having abortions - that would be absolutely ludicrous.

However abortion cannot be justified in any case.

(1) If a woman is doomed to die due to her pregnancy it does not mean that the baby must be killed to save her.

If a woman has been raped the baby should not pay the price for the crime of the father. It is unjust that baby gets the death penalty while the father if he is convicted gets a few years in jail. I don't believe in hanging rapists. Do you? I certainly don't believe in killing innocent children who committed no crime.

(2) If a child results from either involuntary incest or voluntary incest - the child should not pay for the crimes or otherwise of either parent.

(3) A woman should have no right to kill her child because it is the inconvenient result of a relationship, a failed marriage or a one night stand or an affair or it interferes with her career or because she does not have the economic resources to look after it or it will destroy her figure or because she feels she is not emotionally ready or any other reason you could mention - heartbreaking or frivolous.

The fact is that abortion is the intentional killing of a defenceless baby.

Abortion may be made legal but that does not make it moral.

by Dorothy Gale Tue May 01, 2007 13:38

Its quit clear, you dont care if women die. Even if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother you still oppose abortion. This puts you in the outer fringes of the looney right. The Catholic Church even allows exceptions in the case of Ectopic Pregnancies or where a medical treatment is necessary to save a mothers life but will result in the death of the fetus.

Anyway, you are irrelevant. Ms D is going to have her abortion.

by Gaz B -(A)- Tue May 01, 2007 13:43

"The State has no power to stop a teenage girl travelling to Britain for an abortion, the High Court was told today."
full story at http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=21794...41548

by Elisa O'Donovan Tue May 01, 2007 13:48

"Is the life of the unborn baby worthless because he/she will only survive for a short time?Suppose you fall ill with a terminal illness but you want to live as long as you possible can regardless, should your parents, spouse, partner or other relatives and loved oens who will experience the agony of watching you die from in terrible pain and agony have the right to have put you to kill you for their own comfort?"

No of course not but can you imagine how traumatic It must be for a 17year old girl to go through labour knowing that there will be just a dead baby at the end of it. If you have seen pictures of a baby with anencephaly you will see it not a very pretty sight.
There is no cure from Anencephaly.The baby will probably be dead at birth or will only survive a couple of hours if even. Can you imagine the agony of being in labour for 7hours and giving birth to a dead child. I dont think anyone in particular a 17 year old child should be subjected to this.

"Should the state be allowed to deny those patients that treatment and kill them instead against their wishes and the wishes of their families? "
They are denying the specific wishes of the families at the moment. The girl has made her wish known and she is being denied it.

"Will the pain and misery that this poor girl is going to go through be made any less by terminating her pregnancy? Either way her child is dead and she will be a grieving mother."

I can only imagine that carrying the baby for 9month will make the pain even more unbearable when it dies. Having a termiantion seems to be the most humane option for mother and child.

Just wondering If any groups have decided on any action to help this poor women. Protest outside the dail/hse etc?

by MacNo Tue May 01, 2007 13:55

Choice Ireland have called for a protest this saturday
http://indymedia.ie/article/82268

by Dorothy Gale Tue May 01, 2007 14:02

Today she only won the right to take the case. The full hearing is on Thursday. Its obvious though that the State (through the Attoroney General) will not be supporting the position of the HSE.

by J Tue May 01, 2007 14:09

I just want to pick up on something Dorothy wrote.

Gilbert
by Dorothy Gale Tue May 01, 2007 13:38
Its quit clear, you dont care if women die.

- Maybe Gilbert doesn't care, he can answer for himself, but would you be offended or persuaded if someone summed up your position as 'it's quite clear you don't care if babies die"?
One thing is clear, neither a court room nor a parliament is the correct place to have this debate. If we consider ourselves civilised, we should be able to have a national debate, not narrowly confined, so that more people have a clearer understanding of pregnancy and abortion, without people being called baby killers or being on the far right of religious nutbags etc. I disagree with some of Gilberts points, but at least he is making debate, not hate. While I disagree with him, I think I can see where he is coming from.

"Anyway, you are irrelevant. Ms D is going to have her abortion."

- We'll know more on Thursday. Perhaps she will have an abortion, and no one should condemn her for it if she does it's not an easy decision. Likewise, it's not appropriate to gloat about it if she does. It's not a victory, it's a tragedy, and she won't walk away from it afterwards unaffected. If her baby dies after being born, or after an abortion it's something that will have a huge impact on her.
On another point, she should have solidarity either way. If she were to change her mind, and decide that difficult as it is, she would give the baby every chance for life, even a short one, then that decision should also be respected.
I imagine that very few commentators on this site can really imagine what she is going through, being told hard news by the doctors, restrained by the HSE and having to talk to solicitors and go through the courts would rattle anybody.

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 14:15

There is a world of a difference between medical intervention in an ectopic pregnancy and deliberately killing the baby.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy it is certain that both the baby and the mother will die and it would be lunacy not to intervene - the same happened to my wife. Myself and wife grieved for that child as much as we would grieve if one of our other children died in a car crash or a house fire.

However if a child has a good chance of living then the mother has a moral duty to give up her life for her child if it means she will die.

My wife has told me that she would do precisely that if it ever came down to it and I respect her decision.

I am not in favour of letting mothers die but I am not in favour of letting babies die either.

When the Titanic was sinking the men stood back and let the women and children go first to the lifeboats.

I'm sure if there were only places for the children, the mothers would certainly have stood back too.

A woman even when enduring a normal pregnancy is risking her life for her child.
A mother gives up her life to raise her child once it is born too.
A father can never even imagine what it is like to be a mother.
I'm pretty sure the majority of mothers would die first rather than let their innocent children be killed.

If it was a situation where it was my life or the life of my children I would gladly lose my own life to save them.

And if my one of my girls or boys were deformed and would only survive for a short time after death I would not kill him to save myself from distress.

The child has a right to sacred right to live.
An innocent child has more right to life than an adult.
A woman has more right to live than a man.

by Goblin Tue May 01, 2007 14:23

That is some off the wall hypothosising there. You cannot compare Miss D to the Titanic. There is absolutely no chance of this child surviving outside the womb, the dilemma of choice between either life does not exist.

The problem for you as a Pro-lifer is that you believe sentient life begins at conception. You must therefore rationalise this madness to yourself otherwise a massive contradiction in your belief system will exist and perhaps spark off a crisis in conscience. Now, I'm sorry Gilbert, but I will not support this barbarity be thrown onto this young girl so you can sleep better at night.

Its none of your business, your opinion and ultimately my own are irrelevant.

by J Tue May 01, 2007 14:38

"There is no cure from Anencephaly.The baby will probably be dead at birth or will only survive a couple of hours if even. Can you imagine the agony of being in labour for 7hours and giving birth to a dead child. I dont think anyone in particular a 17 year old child should be subjected to this."

And yet, amazingly some people choose to do it. If you do a quick search on google, you will find loads of message boards of parents posting support to each other, after losing a child like this. many of them write how glad they were to see their child even briefly rather than not at all. And thankfully there are also some groups that provide support for women who have had an abortion (not the same as supporting abortion, but realising that the woman needs support afterwards)
This issue should not be clouded too much with ideology. The utter irony and cruelty of people firebombing abortion clinics disgusts me as did a pro-abortion site selling T-shirts, and with a pretty young woman posing in a proud "attitude" modelling a T-shirt saying "I had an abortion" as if to be provacative about it.
It's not something to be proud of. It's not a political football. It's a tragedy for any woman/ family when they are faced with this choice. It's a very tough situation, and this young woman deserves our compassion rather than our judgement, because we are not fit to judge her. Does Irish society provide a safe space for these women to talk about what they went through if they chose to have an abortion or not, and why? I don't think it does, and until it does, it will only add more unneccessary hurt to a bad situation.

"I can only imagine that carrying the baby for 9month will make the pain even more unbearable when it dies. Having a termiantion seems to be the most humane option for mother and child."

That really depends on how the mother and those around her can deal with it. For some people, it's kinder to let nature take the baby, rather than make its life even shorter through medical intervention. It's very personal, life changing and very hard to legislate for.
Remember also, that this happens the whole time in poorer countries, where mothers know that their children will probably die from preventable diseases, or starvation, and be glad that most uf us have it so easy here, and lets not take it for granted, as we obviously do in the way we drink and drive, shoot each other, screw each other over and act like we don't have to take care of one another as equals.

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 14:45

A little baby is going to be killed for committing no crime except being inconvenient.

I despise an ideology that declares that only babies with perfect little fingers and toes like on those cute Pampers ads are worthy of life - but only if he/she is economically or social convenient for the mother or father or anyone else.

What could be more relevant?

Am I mad that I believe that no other human being has the right to kill another without justification especially a child?

This is not a case of putting down a few puppies who nobody wants or putting a race horse to sleep when it breaks its leg.

Human beings are not pieces of garbage that we can just get rid of and forget about.

Sentient life DOES begin at conception.
When a sperm cell and an egg unite a human life exists.
That human life may be microscopic it may exist of a mere ball of cells but it is a human life.

by Gaz B -(A)- - wsm per cap Tue May 01, 2007 14:47

"It's not something to be proud of."
It is not something that should be stigmatized. At least 123,258 women travelled from Ireland to the UK for abortions between January 1980 and December 2005. The stigmatiztion of their stiuation is caused by the conservative elements of society which only views women in a mother/whore dichotomy. The situation doesn't cease to exist once its kept swept under the carpet.

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 14:58

I cannot in conscience support someone who would rather see her child dead by her own hand even though she is a girl in no doubt in severe emotional agony.

The child is indeed going to die anyway but that few days that child will live after it is born is not the mother's to take away.

What if abortion is completely legalised even by referendum in Ireland?

I will continue to completely and vehemently oppose abortion and I will not be afraid to say so.

However in no way does that excuse the evil extremists who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate abortion doctors - they are as misguided as their victims are.

Likewise Pro-choice activists who rejoice at the abortions of children and spread their vile propaganda taking advantage of vulnerable young women are utterly beneath contempt.

For too long the abortion debate on both sides has been controlled by bigots and extremists without an ounce of human decency or mercy toward either mothers or children.

by Q Tue May 01, 2007 14:59

Gilbert, I sympathise with you. I'm not quite sure that a child has more right to live than an adult or a woman has more right to live than a man however. I agree that generally speaking parents would give up their lives for their kids.

Goblin : If the child might live 3 hours or 3 days outside the womb, then there is a dilemma, because who is to say the child is not entitled to those 3 hours or 3 days?

"The problem for you as a Pro-lifer is that you believe sentient life begins at conception. "

And Goblin, you belive it starts when? My son, probably like most kids, was completely gobsmacked at being pushed into the outside world. Who knows if he really knew where, what he was, that he was alive and separate from me? Was he really sentient? When did that start 3 months? 4 months? Birth?
Would there be a difference if a doctor had killed him at 8 months when nobody could see him, rather than a day after birth when he was out of the womb? Nobody knows for sure what goes on.

"Now, I'm sorry Gilbert, but I will not support this barbarity be thrown onto this young girl so you can sleep better at night."

Life is full of hard decisions. It's not the continuation of the college debating society that indymedia seems to be at times. It's tough, it's personal, and the hardest decisions affect people for the rest of their lives, and everyone needs to be considered. Gilbert may be wrong on some points, (like women having more right to live than men) but he's not wrong to point out that the child will be killed in an abortion and that's not to be dismissed lightly.

by Goblin Tue May 01, 2007 15:04

A lot of what ifs in your responce. Each and every circimstance is different and your musing over a multitiude of scenarios wont change that. I see you ignored my last point which has now become more poignant, namely that it is none of your business. Your opinion and ultimately my own are irrelevant.

by Q Tue May 01, 2007 15:15

Hmmm
by Goblin Tue May 01, 2007 15:04

Was that reply to me?

A lot of what ifs in your responce. Each and every circimstance is different and your musing over a multitiude of scenarios wont change that. I see you ignored my last point which has now become more poignant, namely that it is none of your business. Your opinion and ultimately my own are irrelevant.

It's no bad thing that there are a lot of what ifs. Questions make us smarter. If I ask you something you haven't thought about, you learn. If you can provide good answers, I learn something. I 100% agree that there are a multidure of scenarios, and I 100% DISagree that musing over them won't change it, or that your opinion and mine are irrelevant.
Who will be asked to vote in a referendum to change the law? You, me, and a lot of other people. So why not discuss it in a civilised way? Otherwise we leave it up to the soundbytes of politicians who won't do anything radical for fear of alienating their support base.
A more informed and compassionate society is no bad thing. I for one, would like to offer my solidarity to this woman regardless of what happens to her and her baby. Sounds like she needs it.

by Gilbert Tue May 01, 2007 15:18

I am not a holy joe and I am not a perfect person but I do believe in Jesus and I do pray to Him.I think what we as a society need more than recognise that Jesus suffered and died for us and pray for his guidance.He suffered more than practically any human being has every suffered - flayed alive with whips and nailed to a cross to die.If we want to know how to overcome suffering we ask Jesus.

There is going to be no good outcome from this case.

Only a bad one and a worse one.

The bad one: the girl will carry this baby to full term, she will give birth and she will see her child die.

The worse one: She aborts her baby and regrets till the day she dies that she never held it in her arms and kissed it goodbye.

I truly believe that bad option is by far the best one.

Either way this case goes I will pray for the poor girl and repose of the child's soul.

I pray for the judge, the lawyers and I pray for all of you don't agree with me.

God is rich in mercy but on the Last Day unless you change our ways before you die then you will surely face eternal damnation.

Remember King Herod.

by J Tue May 01, 2007 15:25

by Gaz B -(A)- - wsm per cap Tue May 01, 2007 14:47
"
"It's not something to be proud of."
It is not something that should be stigmatized... The situation doesn't cease to exist once its kept swept under the carpet. "

I think I was making that point as well, without the figures. I just don't equate provacative slogans as being the solution to problems being under the carpet. A woman who has had an abortion is not really inclined to talk about it in this country, but a knee jerk swing in the oppostie direction isn't going to achieve anything except more right wing foaming from those same conservative elements you mention. It's an issue that the country has to face up to, as adults, and inform ourselves about. We need to dispel myths on both sides. Abortion is not a quick fix without problems, young girls in desparate situations are not the epitome of evil, and there are different moral medical and legal situations that arise from one case to another.

by Gaz B -(A)- - wsm per scap Tue May 01, 2007 15:36

The concept behind the "I've had an abortion" t-shirts is to make the issue and the experiences of women who have had abortions visible. The idea that women should remain silent about their experiences only adds to the sense of guilt and shame which elements of society want to project onto women who chose to have an abortion. All the t-shirts are doing is lifting up the carpet to show people that the issue still exists.

by redjade Tue May 01, 2007 15:44

the following is written for an american audience, but the ideas and principles are the same, even if the particular legal and social situations are different for ireland.

The following is an ongoing written debate between writers, Katha Pollitt and William Saletan from Slate Magazine. Katha writes....

quote:I asked myself: What exactly are Will and I arguing about? We both agree, after all, that it's better not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place than to have an abortion, we both agree that America needs lots more birth control and lots more realistic sex education. We both want emergency contraception to be widely available over the counter. We both want men to take more responsibility—to use condoms, for example. If you and I were actually designing policy, I'm guessing we'd see the practical piece much the same way: Ramp up that funding! Build those clinics! Make health insurance companies pay for birth control like they pay for Viagra. We'd ask stern questions about how that male pill is coming along and about when we might see some new options for women. We'd look at the experience of countries with lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, teen births, and abortion (every other Western industrialized nation); we'd interview experts and study the literature, we'd set up a bunch of pilot programs to see what worked best with what sub-populations.

[....]

Morality has to do with rights and duties and obligations between people. So, no: I do not think terminating a pregnancy is wrong. A potential person is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. I don't think women should have to give birth just because a sperm met an egg. I think women have the right to consult their own wishes, needs, and capacities and produce only loved, wanted children they can care for—or even no children at all. I think we would all be better off as a society if we respected women's ability to make these decisions for themselves and concentrated on caring well for the born..../end quote

read it all at
http://www.slate.com/id/2135209/entry/2135404/

by Goblin Tue May 01, 2007 15:55

Nobody rejoices in Abortion. You are a religious zealot who wishes to impose your will and your interpretation of morals onto everyone else. They have a name for that.

by C Murray Tue May 01, 2007 16:19

The Sc acting in the case is Ger Hogan, an experienced counsel who
worked on many cases.
The issue of medical abortion and abortion as human rights will continue
there are three cases pending in Europe.

The issues are for us as society to deal with and the decisions are political
ethical and social.
in the meantime the kid at the centre of this needs support and not an ethical debate
founded in a divisiv e theoretical argument which is the direct result of Irish people's fear
to confront the issue of the 10,000 women P/A who travel thats 150,000 women.

thats a lot of ignoring the facts and shameful,
cos its the people who can afford to go who will and not the kids, the immigrant
women and those in state care.

so talk about it- its pertinent.
suggest talkig to women and rights workers at a consultancy level at this point.

by Emma Tue May 01, 2007 20:32

"Myself and wife grieved for that child [ectopic pregnancy] as much as we would grieve if one of our other children died in a car crash or a house fire."

how do you know that?

by traveller Tue May 01, 2007 20:43

Do I not recall a referendum in 1992 that was passed saying that the state would not stop anyone from leaving to go to another state where a service is legal?

Can some legal head look it up please...

by legal head Tue May 01, 2007 22:36

1. The european cases referred to do not concern abortion 'rights' as such. It has long been estabilshed that the legal availability of abortion within a country is a matter for domestic law. The issue in these cases is whether citizens of E.U. states can be prevented from traveling from their own country to obtain an abortion in another E.U. state where abortion is available - or where the abortion laws are more liberal than at home.

2. The issue before the Irish Court is solely and entirely confined to the extent of the authority of the health board over a 17 year old in its care, and the entitlement of a health board to fund that 17 year old to travel abroad to have an abortion in a country where abortion for a woman in her circumstances is legal.

The issues of the availability of abortion in Ireland and the right of Irish persons generally to travel abroad has been decided by the people by way of constitutional referendum.

It should be noted by those persons wishing to make a 'cause-celebre' of this sad case that every week there are cases in our courts where the health boards seek the directions of the courts in all sorts of matters affecting minors in their care. The over-riding principle applied by the courts in these cases is the welfare of the minor. This case is no different.

Perhaps we can now get on with our lives and allow the court decide whether or not it is in the best interests of this unfortunate 17 year old to be brought by her carers to the UK for an abortion. It will of course hear all necessary evidence from relevant psychological experts in coming to its decision.

by curious Wed May 02, 2007 10:08

: ---Do I not recall a referendum in 1992 that was passed saying that the state would not stop anyone from leaving to go to another state where a service is legal?

Actually, what implication would that have for a pregnant woman in prison in Ireland? Would she be able to apply to be released to leave the state to travel to the UK for an abortion, seeing as it's not available here?

by C Murray Wed May 02, 2007 11:26

There is a right to travel for abortion, but there is also a co-equality clause which was
inserted by FF (if memory serves), thus a girl (because girls get pregnant too) or woman
is considered within our legislation to be co-equal with the foetus.

This means that their lives are considered to be of equal value and it has tied up
the human rights of the girl/woman into an incredibly difficult situation.

It means , in effect that the lack of courage to face the issue has created a
human rights abuse which is challengeable. The rights of the 12-17 year
old born child are set against the use of that child's body as a reproductive
entity. This does away with the issue of her privacy in relation to her bodily
integrity and her relation to her medical practioner. It violates her right to
medical advice based in medical knowledge and places her equally to
the foetus she is carrying.

Add to that the legislation of june 2nd last year which criminalises
pre-consent kids for sexual activity but does not ensure their rights
to deal with matters of rape/abuse/suicide/cancer foetal anomaly
in a private and dignified manner- one can see the extent of government inabilty
to grasp the issue of human rights issues.

a 12-17 year old pre-consent child is in Irish law defined as a woman
and in the Irish Constitution within a family role and context.

The referendum On rights and protection (section 5) would have reversed
the section 5 of the Sexual offences bill but not given our 12-17 year olds
their basic human rights to dignity and medical care because of the
refusal of the state to transpose those guaranteed rights into law, the refusal
of the state to insure specific protections under the sex laws for 12-17
year olds and the let down in the infrastructure relating to trauma treatment and
rape counselling.

Upcoming legislation and referenda on the issues coming from this and the
three ECHR cases have to address the issues of protection of the 12-17
girl, the issues of dignity and right to privacy in relation to medical abortion rights
and the co-equality clause. The State has also to look at the emergency legisaltion
and issues arising from that which include:-

Criminalising boys for early sexual activity.
Criminalising girls for early sexual activity except full penetrative sex.

There has been too much juggling of interests and too little abiltiy to face the issues.
The State should be looking at legislating for 'X'
(this does not involve an expensive referendum)
and repealing section 5 of the Criminal Law (sexual offenses) bill 2006.
a referendum on protection should guarantee rights of privacy to 12-17 year old girls.

Because a 12-17 year old girl has the inalienable right to her childhood and
privacy.

by C Murray Wed May 02, 2007 14:05

A lawyer has been appointed to act on the behalf of the unborn child in the hearing of
the abortion case which is set for Thursday. The AG has appointed Mr James Connolly
SC to that position.

This will be press-released by AFC later.

(i.e -personal opinion)

As an Irish woman , with a daughter this is not good enough. My daughter is entitled
to her short childhood, to her privacy in the case of need for medical assistance
(including abortion) and to her human right to be considered an individual person
of intelligence and equal to any other citizen.

She is entitled to education, health care, sex education and safety.

This state through its cowardly and obscene approach to women's rights
has quite clearly shown that a 12-17 year old girl if pregnant is not entitled
to her childhood and is viewed as a woman and a second class citizen.

The opposition seek to instill the ideology in us that this is acceptable by
refusing to take on the issue of human and abortion rights and effectively
gagging their health and justice spokespersons on the issues.

The opposition facilitated the vote on the criminal law sexual offences bill.
They stopped the reversal of section 5 through stopping the referendum
on protection.
They have quite clearly through their actions refused to take on health issues
nor have they supported the nurses strike.

There is an entitlement under international law for young women and girls to
have their rights protected and the refusal to countenance this issue is indicative
of many years of cowardice and obfuscation. The human rights of women and
girls , as exhibited by the shameful dealing with the sexual abuse issue in this country
last year, is secondary to the protection and sheltering of those who have committed crimes
against kids. They have criminalised and debased women whilst protecting perpetrators
of paedophilia.
well done- don't come looking for my vote.

by Fine Gael Wed May 02, 2007 17:12

Enda Kenny has ruled out legislating on the x-case, and Labour have backed him.

by C Murray Wed May 09, 2007 16:53

High Court grants Ms 'D' right to travel.

The High Court today granted a pregnant 17 year old ,in care the right to travel
to the UK for an abortion. The girl known as Miss'D', is almost 18 weeks pregnant
with a baby with a major brain defect.

In a ruling issued this afternoon the court ruled that Miss 'd' can travel outside of the
country for an abortion.

Mr Justice Liam Mc Kenchie ruled there is no statutory or constitutional impediment
against allowing her to leave the country for an abortion.

The HSE had insisted she required a court order to do so, but District Court Judge
Flann Brennan refused its application last Saturday to make that order on the grounds
that this would be a failure to vindicate the rights of the unborn.

Miss 'd 'wished to have her baby until she learned on April 23rd last that it has
anencephaly , a condition where a major part of the brain is missing and where
it has a prognosis of three days survival after birth.

In her proceedings miss d wanted the court to rule that the HSE cannot restrain
from travelling. The HSE got leave from the high court on Sunday to bring the second
set of proceeding challenging the District Court's refusal to make an order that
it is in her best interests to allow her to travel.

On Monday , Mr Justice Mc Kenchie said he could not give an immeadiate
decision, as requested by the HSE, on whether Miss D could travel or not as the case
had implications but he would give his decision at 2pm today.

Gerard Durcan S.C ,, for the HSE , said that the constitutional provision protecting
the right to life of the unborn had to read together with the right to travel amendment
to the constitution approved by the people. The people had decided that:
'whatever other way you vindicate the rights of the unborn, you do not do it
by restricting the freedom to travel'

Lawyers for the state argued the case is not about the right to life of the unborn but
about the right to travel. 'Children had constitutional rights from day one and those
rights were not delivered to them by courier on their eighteenth birthday'. Donal Donnell
SC said while agreeing there was no law under which Miss D could be restrained from
travelling for an abortion , James Connolly SC , for the unborn, said no state agency
should facilitate or fund such travel and the courts should not be
'some form of liscensing body for abortions'

Miss D's baby is a live foetus entitled to constitutional protection for the unborn
and the fact that it could not survive the birth is 'irrelevant', he said.

Today Justice mc Kenchie ruled that the girl was now free to travel to the Uk
for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy.

[ends]

by Man in Laois Wed May 09, 2007 18:36

Having been following the recent case about the sad pregnancy of Miss D v The HSE.

I ask two questions :-

If Miss D were a relation of theirs e.g. a daughter or niece would they have put them through such a trial?

Whether the members of the executive are sufficiently qualified to efficiently perform the task for which they are employed?