Pro Life Group Launch Campaign of Support For Pro Life MLAs

AMDG+

Newspaper Ads urge Assembly members to support motion opposing abortion

Pro-life group Precious Life have taken the unprecedented move of placing advertisements in Northern Ireland’s daily newspapers to publicise their Petition Campaign to Assembly members urging them to support a motion opposing abortion. The ads will appear on Wednesday 26^th September. The group is also distributing thousands of Petition Postcards across the province. The Assembly motion has been tabled by Jeffrey Donaldson MP and Iris Robinson MP in opposition to draft guidelines on abortion which were issued by the Department of Health in January. Precious Life says the guidelines will change how the law on abortion is interpreted and legalise abortion in Northern Ireland “through the back door.”

Director of Precious Life Bernadette Smyth said, “This motion against abortion is currently a ‘No Day Named Motion’ so it could be debated anytime within the next few weeks. We have already distributed over 30,000 postcards across Northern Ireland for the public to sign and send to their Assembly members urging them to support the motion. To ensure as many people as possible have the opportunity to sign the petition we have printed it as an advertisement in Northern Ireland’s three daily newspapers – the Belfast Telegraph, The Irish News, and News Letter – with a combined readership of almost half a million people.  This is unprecedented. Never before has there been such a major pro-life campaign with advertisements running simultaneously in our daily papers.”

She explained “Our legal advisors have informed us that although the Department of Health guidelines cannot change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, they will change how the law is interpreted. In effect this will legalise abortion in Northern Ireland ‘through the back door’.  After Precious Life met and lobbied with various MPs and Assembly members to explain the dangers contained in these guidelines, MPs Jeffrey Donaldson and Iris Robinson agreed to table this motion in the Assembly to oppose the guidelines.”

The last time abortion was debated in the Assembly was in June 2000. The terms of this latest motion are: That this Assembly opposes the introduction of the proposed guidelines on the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland; believes that the guidelines are flawed; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to abandon any attempt to make abortion more widely available in Northern Ireland.

News of the latest Assembly motion comes as some MPs in Westminster are calling for the 1967 Abortion Act to be extended to Northern Ireland. The MPs are planning to mark the 40th anniversary of the Act by making changes to the law during the next session of parliament in October.

Mrs Smyth concluded “It is vitally important that there is a strong pro-life vote when this motion comes before the Assembly. This will send out a clear message to both the Department of Health and Westminster that the people of Northern Ireland want protection for unborn babies and their mothers from abortion.”

Submission To the Medical Council Of Ireland Ethics Review.

Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland

Professional Standards Section
Medical Council
Lynn House
Portobello Court
Lower Rathmines Road
Dublin 6.

Dear Sirs,

SUBMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL COUNCILS ETHICAL GUIDELINES.

The following is submitted in relation to section 24.6 of the IMC Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour;This section should be revised to read, as it formerly read, “The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct. Should a child in utero lose its life as a side-effect of standard medical treatment of the mother, then this is not unethical. Refusal by a doctor to treat a woman with a serious illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and could be considered to be professional misconduct”

The reason for this submission is that the present phrase contained in section 24.6 which reads;

“real and substantive risk to the life of the mother.” (s.24.6 IMC Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour)

allows direct, intentional abortion.

Direct abortion is in contravention of the Constitution and is also contrary to the Criminal Legal position in the Republic of Ireland.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence to deliberately kill an unborn child throughout a pregnancy. Therefore the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus required to commit this criminal act would be satisfied by the DIRECT abortion of any child in utero.

There would be no crime committed in the instance of an unintentional abortion which occurred as a side effect of standard medical treatment. This would be because the Mens Rea would never be present in those circumstances. This is clearly supported in the original phrasing of section 24.6, to which it is submitted the Council should return.

Therefore the current phrase in the IMC guidelines is manifestly ILLEGAL, in that is supports the direct and delberate abortion of a child. The current phrasing of section 24.6 is therefore vulnerable to:

1. Judicial Review for illegality.

2. A doctor suing the IMC for defective guidance.

3. The IMC being complicit in the criminal act of abortion contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1961.

(these points are not exhaustive).

Further it is clear that the phrase

“real and substantive risk to the life of the mother.” (s.24.6 IMC Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour)

is in fact borrowed from the interpretation of the English Bourne case. (R v Bourne 1938). Whilst this case may be binding in Northern Ireland it has no bearing whatsoever on the Criminal Law in the Republic of Ireland.

Why would the Irish Medical Council refer itself to a position on abortion which is in line with the UK but which is not in keeping with their own laws?

In fact the phrase currently used by the IMC at section 24.6 is fraught with potential difficulties.

The words “real” and “substantive” and “risk” and “life” are all relative and undefined.

It is anticipated by these writers that there will be attempts to introduce the following concepts: That the word “life” should include “health”.

That the word “health” should include “mental state”.

These interpretations are already being attempted in the North of Ireland with the introduction of Draft Guidelines for Doctors on abortion. I have enclosed a copy of the “Briefing Paper” compiled by Mrs J Higgins LLB for the information of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members on the matter. Many of the concerns therein will be relevant to the defective phrase used in the IMC guidelines.

It is also important to note that the words “risk” and “life” appear in the Abortion Act 1967 (in place in England, Scotland and Wales). And that if those who seek to widen the interpretation of abortion laws in Ireland wished to widen the interpretation of these words where else would they look but the Abortion Act itself?

Abortion Act 1967

1. Section 1 (1) of the Abortion Act 1967 states that a registered medical

practitioner may lawfully terminate a pregnancy, in a NHS hospital or

on premises approved for this purpose, if two registered medical

practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith:

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and

that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater

than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical

or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children

of her family; or

(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent the grave

permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant

woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the

life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy wereterminated; or

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would

suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be

seriously handicapped.”

This submission outlines some of the serious legal and moral difficulties inherent in the current phrase at section 24.6. These are not exhaustive.The writers would be pleased to give an oral submission to the Council to more fully develop these arguments.

Yours faithfully, Mrs Johanna Higgins LLB, of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, the Kings Inns, Dublin and the Inner Temple, London, Barrister.

Ms Geraldine Foley LLB, of the Kings Inns, Dublin and the Inner Temple, London, Barrister.

On behalf of:

The Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland