DHSSPSNI Waste More Public Money Defending Flawed Abortion Guidelines.

In a suprising move the Department of Health made an application in the High Court, Belfast today, before the Judge who had found against them two weeks ago. Departmental lawyers made an attempt to persuade Judge Girvan to change his mind and reverse his order that the Abortion Guidelines should be withdrawn in their enitrity until legal problems had been resolved.

The application failed and the Abortion Guidelines must be completely withdrawn as they stand. The Department also tried to have the Judge reverse his order for costs to be paid by the Department to SPUC for the  judicial review case.  Of course this leaves the Department having to pay out even more taxpayers money to fund their extravagant defence of the flawed guidelines. Judge Girvan had previously called the errors in the guidance a “trap for the unwary”. Incredible then that the Department thought to refer the  matter back in a bold and desperate attempt to save these guidelines from having to go through proper proceedure before being reissued.

The ACLI has sought information under the Freedom of Information Act as to the amount of money the Department has spent on issuing and defending these guidelines.

The ACLI addressed the Department five time in relation specifically to the issue of “conscientious objection”, twice in person when meeting with the Department in 2007 and 2008, and three times in written submissions. It was made clear to them that they could not “order” doctors to carry out abortions. The ACLI cited legal, medical and religious grounds in objection to the erroneous “conscientious objection” clause in the guidelines. The same issues were raised by Judge Girvan in his judgement after the original hearing.

Catholic Lawyers Express Grave Concerns About ECHR Influence Over Irish Domestic Law.

“If I were in any country and this were to go against Ireland, I would be very concerned that the Europeans feel they can step into domestic law.”

Today in the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights a case, backed by the Irish Family Planning Association and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, attempted to challenge the laws criminalising abortion in Ireland.

The Association of Catholic lawyers of Ireland warned during the run upto the Lisbon Treaty referrendum that, even with the guarantees that the Irish Government had put in place to assure the Irish people of the safely of the Unborn Child, the criminal laws could still be attacked. The ACLI contacted all TDs with their opinion, without the law criminalising abortion, pro life sentiments are nothing.

Today Mrs Higgins of the ACLI was interviewed by the BBC World Service and BBC Five Live where she stated that this case would have ramifications for all member states if the ECHR decided to interfere with domestic criminal law.

The ACLI sees the true purpose of the case in the ECHR as an attack on Old Catholic Europe by New Secular Europe. The recent decision of the ECHR to call for crucifixes to be removed from schools in Italy shows the sectarian nature of the modern EU philosophy.

The case put by the pro abortion lobby based on womens health is completely flawed. Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rates in Europe and no woman has ever died for want of an abortion.

The Irish domestic law is being attacked along with the Constitution. When one recalls the Preable of the Irish Constitution, which reads: “we humbly acknowledge all our obliations to Our Devine Lord Jesus Christ” it is clear that we should have confidence in the eventual outcome of this struggle.

FROM BBC NEWS:

“The Irish Republic’s strict abortion law is being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The legal action has been brought by three Irish women who say the effective ban on abortion in Ireland violates the European Convention on Human Rights.

All three have travelled to Britain to have abortions.

The Irish government has engaged two leading lawyers to argue its case that the country has a sovereign right to protect the life of the unborn.

The three Irish women will be identified only as A, B, and C during the Strasbourg court hearings.

If I were in any country and this were to go against Ireland, I would be very concerned that the Europeans feel they can step into domestic law Johanna Higgins Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland

They argue that being forced to travel abroad for abortions endangered their “health and well-being” as safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The two constitutional lawyers representing the government of Ireland argue that the convention’s safeguards cannot be interpreted as endorsing the right to abortion.

‘Draconian’

Abortion is illegal in Ireland, a deeply Catholic country, unless the life of the woman is in danger.

The Irish constitution was amended in 1983 to include the “Pro-Life Amendment”, which asserted that the unborn child had an explicit right to life from conception.

The case is the first challenge to Ireland’s abortion laws in more than 15 years, the BBC’s Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond says.

Almost 140,000 Irish women have travelled to Britain over the past 30 years to have abortions, our correspondent adds.

The Irish Family Planning Association welcomed the challenge to the laws, which it described as “draconian”.

It said they violated international human rights norms “because they inflict such grievous harm to women’s health and well-being”.

But Johanna Higgins, co-founder of the Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland, told the BBC’s World Today programme that a ruling against Ireland would be an infringement of its ability to decide its own laws.

“Whatever the human rights aspects are of this, abortion is illegal in Ireland because it is a criminal offence,” she said.

“If I were in any country and this were to go against Ireland, I would be very concerned that the Europeans feel they can step into domestic law.”"

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Full quote of part of interview with BBC World Service :

Johanna Higgins, co-founder of the Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland, told the BBC’s World Today programme that a ruling against Ireland would be an infringement of its ability to decide its own laws.

“Whatever the human rights aspects are of this, abortion is illegal in Ireland because it is a criminal offence,” she said.

“So if the ruling goes against Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights would be flexing its muscles in such a way as to be asking a European member state to change its criminal law,” she told the BBC’s World Today programme.

“That would have ramifications for the whole of Europe. If I were in any country and this were to go against Ireland, I would be very concerned that the Europeans feel they can step into domestic law.”

Catholic Lawyers Welcome High Court Judgement in Favour of SPUC

Catholic Lawyers Welcome High Court Judgement in Favour of SPUC: Judge Says Unclear Guidance is a “Trap to the Unwary”

In the High Court in Belfast judgement was handed down today by Lord Justice Girvan in favour of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), who had taken a case against the Department of Health in N Ireland for issuing flawed guidance on abortion. James Dingemans QC had acted on behalf of SPUC.

Ordering that the guidance be withdrawn by the Department, the Judge pointed to two areas which he found to be legally wrong. Firstly, that it was misleading to suggest that medical practitioners had no legal basis for refusing to carry out abortions where the mothers life may be considered at risk, and secondly that it was open to possible illegality to suggest that a women should receive non directional counselling before a clinical decision was made as to the necessity of abortion to save her life. Given that abortion is illegal in N Ireland it was not possible to give a woman “non directional” counselling on the matter.

Girvan LJ stated in his judgement refering to one of the ambigous sections of the guidelines; “Hence it (guidance) should be absolutely clear.  Otherwise it is not guidance but a trap to the unwary.”

The ACLI has repeatedly told the Department of Health that its guidance contained flaws. This judgement confirms that analysis.

Mrs Higgins stated “We are delighted to see that the Department has been told to take this guidance out of circulation and go back and get it right, however, we were disappointed that the Judge did not go further and take the point that the Unborn Child, which enjoys special protection from our laws, should be considered in any guidance issued.”

Mrs Higgins further stated “During consultations with the Department of Health in 2007 and 2008 the ACLI repeatedly warded of the irregularity of the Conscientious Objection clause, that it had in fact the effect of forcing doctors to commit abortions, even if they felt that they may be illegal. Further that a Catholic doctor could never in conscience commit a deliberate and intended abortion, and yet this guidance would attempt to force then to do just that.”

The abortion guidelines are no longer in force and will have to be returned to the drawing board for redrafting. The process of consultation and executive approval will than have to be repeated.

Mrs Higgins states; “Today our insistence that the guidance was erroneous has been vindicated, moreover the safety of the Unborn Child has been secured for the moment.”

The ACLI considers that the Judges ruling concerning non directive counselling on abortion before a woman has been given a clinical opinion that here life is in danger, will pose great problems for the fpa(NI), an agency which supports the legalisation of abortion.

Mrs Higgins states: “The fpa(NI) routinely offer what they term “non directional” counselling on abortion before a clinical judgement has been made on the woman’s health. Today’s judgement calls into question the legality of such counselling .”

“ Referring for abortion, or coaching a person on how to obtain an abortion, is illegal in this jurisdiction. Any advice, dressed up as counselling, which attempts to do this is wrong. The fact that the Department of Health tried, by these guidelines to create a pathway for women to be counselled by the fpa(NI) and forwarded on to health professionals is a cause for serious concern.”

The ACLI intend to call for the funding currently handed out to the fpa(NI) by the Department of Health, from taxpayers money, to be halted whilst a proper investigation is carried out into the activities of the fpa(NI), an organisation which seems to operate very much on the edges of the law.

SPUC lodged work done by the ACLI and Dr John Keown with the court. The ACLI will pursue other issues which the court and the Judge did not address in this case, which also need to be resolved before these guidelines are redrafted.

The ACLI would also like to add that the laws of this country could not possibly have been sustained against all the attempts to introduce abortion without the Divine assistance of Our Lady to whom Catholics consistantly pray and always with reward

Catholic Lawyers Seek Information From DHSSPSNI on Safety of Flu Vaccine for Pregnant Women and Children.

Last week, before the roll out of the Swine Flu vaccination programme in N Ireland, the ACLI sent the following Freedom of Information Request to the Department of Health NI.

It is a great concern that the Stormont Government chose to vaccinate pregnant women and children with an untested vaccine, Pandemrix, containing mercury and squaline.

The German Medical Association are of the view that the Pandemrix vaccine, and its alternative Baxter produced vaccine, should not be given to pregnant women or children.

Questions have also been raised in the Republic of Ireland, Greece, France, Sweden and the USA regarding the safety of Swine Flu vaccines.

Letter below:

Dear Mr McGimpsey,

Under the Freedon of Information Act I request the following information regarding swine flu injections in N Ireland:

The Irish Times reported on the 21st October 2009 the following:

“THE GERMAN Medical Association (BAK) has advised against giving young children and pregnant women the new swine flu vaccine Pandemrix, containing an immune system-stimulating compound.”

(full article at: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1021/1224257146987.html)

The DHSSPSNI are rolling out the vaccine Pandemrix for Special Needs children and Pregnant women.
I request sight of all documents and reports outlining why the Department has chosen Pandemrix.

1. Was any evidence presented to the DHSSPSNI that Pandemrix was not suitable for pregnant women and young children?
2. Are you aware of the effects of the combined ingredients in adjuvant vaccines on pregnant women and young children?
3. Is there any experience of the combined ingredients in Pandemrix being given to pregnant women or young children?
4. Given the DHSSPSNI directive to dentists that pregnant women should avoid having mercury fillings replaced during pregnancy, why is a vaccine containg mercury considered safe for pregnant women and their babies?
5. Do you intend to let the public know of the differing medical opinions regarding this vaccine?
6. Has the Department made a policy decision to recommend a vaccine, Pandemrix, which they would not normaly consider suitable, due to the predictions of a possible pandemic?

I await your reply.

NI Abortion Guidelines Still Legally Flawed.

The abortion guidelines issed by the Department of Health are erroneous and do not reflect the recommendations issued by the Health Committee last November.

The Guidelines still omit any reference to the Unborn Child, the victim who the law was intended to protect.

The Guidelines still do not clearly distinguish between the two offences of Illegal Abortion and Child Destruction and their different defences. The Defence for Illegal Abortion has been grossly overstated and the defence for Child Destruction, which is narrower that Illegal Abortion, has been completely mistated.

These errors lead to a very liberal interpretation and misunderstanding of the law.

The Health Committee endorsed the view of Dr John Keown which was presented to them by the ACLI last October in evidence. The above matters were clearly covered by Dr Keown, why then were the Department, who altered some legal mistakes pointed out by the ACLI, not made to alter the most serious errors and ommissions?

Dr John Keowns’ Statement which was endorsed by the Health Committee:

Statement on the Department of Health NI Guidance on Termination of Pregnancy from Professor John Keown.

“The opening paragraph of the Guidance states, in bold:

Within the scope of this Guidance and the law in Northern Ireland, each Health & Social Services Trust must ensure that its patients have access to termination of pregnancy services

This is seriously misleading, not least as it invites the exception to swallow the rule.

The starting point of the Guidance should have been a clear statement of the illegality of abortion in Northern Ireland: that it is a crime punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment to use any means with intent to procure miscarriage, and an offence to supply means knowing that they are to be used with that intent. The Guidance should then have recalled the central if not sole purpose of this prohibition: the protection of the unborn child, a purpose which has informed the law against abortion for over 700 years. Only when the rule had been clearly stated should the scope of the exception have been considered. Similarly, the Guidance should accurately have stated the law against child destruction and its central purpose, the protection of a child “capable of being born alive”, and then have noted the narrowness of the exception to this prohibition: such a child may be intentionally destroyed for the purpose only of saving the life of the mother. (It is remarkable that paragraph 2.6 of the Guidance, which purports to quote the statute, misstates this exception by omitting the important word “only”.)

Would one begin Guidance on the law of theft, which recognises that in exceptional circumstances A may lawfully appropriate B’s property, by saying that “within the scope of law of theft, the government should ensure that everyone has access to everyone else’s property”? Further, just because there may be a defence to abortion in exceptional circumstances does not mean that anyone (doctor or government) is under a duty to provide abortion in those circumstances, any more than anyone is under a duty to provide citizens with weapons for use in self-defence. Moreover, the government has a discretion as to how to allocate its healthcare resources: it is perfectly entitled to prioritise medical procedures which do not involve the destruction of life.”

Professor John Keown MA DPhil PhD
Kennedy Institute of Ethics
Georgetown University

About Professor John Keown

John Keown is the Rose F Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics at Georgetown University, Washington DC. He graduated in law from Cambridge in 1984 and obtained a DPhil from Oxford in 1986 for a thesis on the historical development of the law on abortion. After being called to the Bar of England and Wales (Middle Temple) in 1986 he was appointed to a lectureship in medical law at the University of Leicester. In 1993 he was appointed to a lectureship in the law and ethics of medicine at Cambridge, where he was a Fellow of Queens’ College and Churchill College. In 2003 he assumed the Rose F Kennedy Chair at Georgetown.

His many publications include three books, all published by Cambridge University Press: Abortion, Doctors and the Law (1988); Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives (1995) and Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation (2002)

ACLI Give Evidence to the Health Committee on Erroneous Abortion Guidelines.

The Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland were invited to give evidence to the Health Committee at Stormont on the 17th October. Hansard has now published the official report of that session.

The full report can be seen on the Hansard website :

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/health/2007mandate/moe/2008/081017.htm

Mrs Johanna Higgins (Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland):
I am co-founder of the Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland, and all of our work is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I am a barrister at the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, the King’s Inns in Dublin and the Inner Temple in London. I have been in practice at the bar for 17 years. My experience includes five years as a senior public prosecution lawyer and two years specialising in judicial review as a community care lawyer. In 2000, I acted for a pro-life intervener in the High Court judicial review that instigated the issue of these guidelines. I also published briefing papers on the draft guidelines in 2007 and on the consultation paper in 2008.

The issue before the Department is to explain the criminal law on abortion. Abortion is a matter of justice and criminal law and it should not be regarded as a medical issue per se. In this case, it is a matter of justice for the unborn child that the law should be stated correctly. The criminal law on abortion exists entirely to protect the unborn child; that is its one purpose. However, the departmental guidelines do not include a single mention of the victim, which, in this area of law, is the unborn child. That is a gross omission, to say the least.

If an attempt were made to define the criminal law on murder or domestic violence without mentioning the victim, there would, rightly, be a massive outcry. Therefore, we find it extremely disturbing that an attempt has been made to define the law on abortion without any reference to the victim. It is ludicrous: the unborn child must be treated as a proper person and be placed at the centre of the guidelines.

The law on abortion comes from the Criminal Justice Act ( Northern Ireland) 1945, which is a fairly recent piece of legislation. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in which illegal abortion is enshrined, also deals with murder, manslaughter, infanticide, assault, battery and all other offences against the person. To treat the law on abortion, which is part of that statute, with contempt by not properly outlining it and giving it due consideration undermines not only the law on abortion but the entire statute. It also makes a mockery of the criminal law and courts of this country.

If we do not ensure that the matter is dealt with properly, it will be only a matter of time before other laws are being undermined, and those who are currently protected under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, such as the young and vulnerable and you and I, will also become victims of the liberalisation and undermining of the law.

I examined the numerous problems with the guidelines in my lengthy briefing paper to the Committee. However, they all stem from the initial problem that there has been a fundamental misstatement of the criminal law. The law has been presented wrongly; it has been presented upside down and back to front. It has not been dealt with in the way that a normal illustration of a criminal legal situation would be presented.

With that in mind, and to back up my submission, I contacted Professor John Keown, who is an international lawyer with expertise in the law of medical ethics. He was awarded a doctorate from the University of Oxford where, as a senior lecturer, he lectured on medical ethics. In fact, his book ‘Abortion, Doctors and the Law’ is one of the leading books, if not the leading book, on the history of abortion law in England. I asked him to study the Department’s guidelines and to provide a statement on his view of the way that the law had been addressed. He states:

“The opening paragraph of the Guidance … is seriously misleading”.

I will not read out his entire statement, because members have been given copies. However, he continues:

“The starting point of the Guidance should have been a clear statement of the illegality of abortion in Northern Ireland: that it is a crime punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment to use any means with intent to procure miscarriage, and an offence to supply means knowing that they are to be used with that intent. The Guidance should then have recalled the central if not sole purpose of this prohibition: the protection of the unborn child, a purpose which has informed the law against abortion for over 700 years. Only when the rule had been clearly stated should the scope of the exception have been considered. Similarly, the Guidance should accurately have stated the law against child destruction and its central purpose, the protection of a child ‘capable of being born alive’, and then have noted the narrowness of the exception to this prohibition: such a child may be intentionally destroyed for the purpose only of saving the life of the mother. (It is remarkable that paragraph 2.6 of the Guidance, which purports to quote the statute, misstates this exception by omitting the important word ‘only’.)”

Professor Keown continues on that topic, and members should have a copy of his letter in their information packs.

The Department has overstated the defence by putting it first in the guidance. Indeed, the Department has put the body of the law in a footnote, which is incredible, because to do so completely undermines the law and suggests to people that they should treat it as inconsequential — who reads footnotes? The Department has placed the exception — the defence — in bold at the top of the guidance, and has actually misstated it. That is advertising the defence, and will, inevitably, lead to more people committing the crime that the law intends to prevent from happening.

Another important legal error has been made in the guidelines in that they do not distinguish between the different defences to illegal abortion and child destruction. Illegal abortion is regulated by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. That offence covers any child from conception to full term. The law on child destruction has a doubling-over effect and covers a child from when it is capable of being born alive to its birth. Those are two separate offences, and the defence to illegal abortion is wider than the defence to child destruction. However, the guidelines state:

“In other words the legal justification for carrying out a termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland is exactly the same both before and after the time at which a child is capable of being born alive. This follows from the Bourne decision and its application to the Northern Ireland legislation.”

That is not true: it is legally incorrect; and Professor Keown agrees. If that statement is sent to doctors, it will lead to the direct, illegal abortion in Northern Ireland of children who are capable of being born alive. The exception provided in the statutory prohibition of child destruction — a child that is capable of being born alive — is strict and is applicable only when the mother’s life is at risk. The Bourne case does not apply to child destruction directly — a myth that is being perpetuated. A judge may take it into account, but it does not apply to that offence. It must be interpreted strictly.

The offence of illegal abortion is not as strict. A future court may follow the Bourne case, which extended defences to include therapeutic health reasons. However, that future court may choose not do so. However, the guidelines state, as a fact, that that will be a defence in all cases. That is erroneous — it should say “may” be a defence. The Department has stated the defences too widely, and, in the case of a child capable of being born alive, the guidelines are wrong. They quote directly from Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr’s initial High Court judgement. However, that judgement was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Therefore, it a mystery to me and to other lawyers why the Department insists on using a High Court case that is not legally binding and that has been overturned by a subsequent Court of Appeal ruling, especially given that the judge in the Court of Appeal case disagreed specifically with the statement of law made in the High Court. I have pointed that fact out to the Department on at least two occasions, and it does not have an explanation. However, Lord Lester, who represented the Family Planning Association (FPA) in the High Court, stated in court that Sir Brian Kerr’s acceptance of the law would be a good foundation for guidelines. The Health Promotion Agency — a body funded by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — subsequently issued a fact sheet that was written by the FPA, which was supposed to illustrate the law in Northern Ireland. However, that document contains the same errors, and offers the same explanation of the law, as the departmental guidance.

It appears that the departmental guidance follows the explanation of the law provided in the FPA document rather than an explanation based on independent legal advice. That is a worrying matter, of which I ask the Committee to take serious account.

Since last year, the Department has changed four points in the guidance document according to issues that I had raised about the previous document. During a meeting on 29 September 2008 with me, the Department also agreed to change a further point. The document had misstated the law on criminal child destruction, and the Department agreed that a full statement should be provided.

I also asked the senior medical officer, who was present at that meeting, whether it is ever necessary, on medical grounds, to inject potassium chloride into the heart of an unborn baby and deliver that child dead: the answer was no. Therefore, neither in legal terms, nor in medical terms can it be said that it is appropriate, necessary or legal to directly abort a viable child in this jurisdiction. It can never be said to be correct practice to directly abort a viable child in this country unless it is a medical necessity. The legal defence to child destruction is very narrow and applies only when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

There is growing evidence that illegal abortion and child destruction have been happening in Northern Ireland. We have collected a number of pieces of information and material about that, especially on the issue of foetal abnormality. I have asked the Department to provide information on where the bodies of the unborn children who were aborted in this country over the last number of years have been disposed. The Department said that it will assist me with that.

It is important to note that the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is now in place in Northern Ireland. Under that legislation, any Department or employer can be said to be involved in the unlawful death of any person who is protected by the criminal law. As a result of their action, inaction or negligence, they can also be held criminally liable for any such death. I also made that point clear to the Department on 29 September.

The guidelines must be rewritten with reference to criminal lawyers and the unborn child. The guidelines must also make a clear statement about the two very serious offences, and that in both cases the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. In the past year, a woman who lived in England was convicted of the destruction of her unborn child and was successfully prosecuted in a court in Manchester. That was a very serious situation, and such things will happen if the guidelines go ahead.

The Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland is examining a judicial review based on the opening lines of the guidance, which I have already said are completely erroneous. We intend to pursue that option if the guidelines proceed in their present format. That is an overview of the main points included in my briefing paper.

Catholic Bishops support call for opposition to introduction of 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland

PRESS RELEASE from the Communications Office of the Catholic Bishops.

17 October 2008

Bishops call for prayers to coincide with historic Pro-Life Rally tomorrow at Parliament Buildings, Stormont.

The Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland today [Friday 17th October] expressed their opposition to efforts by some British MPs to have the 1967 Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland. The Bishops’ statement comes as Westminster MPs prepare to debate an amendment tabled by Labour MP Ms Diane Abbot and others to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill. In a joint statement the Bishops said:

“In the coming weeks Members of Parliament in Westminster will be debating the final stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. This Bill has far reaching ethical implications. As part of this debate a number of MPs, not from Northern Ireland and acting contrary to the express wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, intend to use the debate to introduce an amendment which would extend the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

“We appeal to every person of goodwill to reject this attempt to set aside the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. After years of intensive negotiation for a political settlement here it would be most regrettable should the Westminster Parliament now fail to uphold a fundamental value which has consistently united the main traditions on the island of Ireland.

“Last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Shaun Woodward MP, stated that the Northern Ireland Assembly is the ‘best forum for discussion of these questions.’ We wholeheartedly agree with this position and ask that Members of Parliament work to ensure that any future debate on the law on abortion in Northern Ireland is solely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

“All the main political parties in Northern Ireland have expressed their opposition to the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act. We ask all Westminster MPs to take account of the clear position of the Northern Ireland political parties who represent the strongly held conviction of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, by voting against the amendment. We ask Westminster MPs to respect the particular cultural, historical and political circumstances of Northern Ireland and to avoid any action which may be seen as intruding on the carefully negotiated settlement of political aspiration, representative participation and human rights here.”

The Bishops’ concluded, “As the historic Pro-Life Rally takes place tomorrow at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, we also ask people to pray that greater recognition will be given to the life of the unborn child and to the inherent dignity of every person from conception to natural death within the HFE Bill.”

ENDS

The Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland are: Cardinal Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland; Bishop Joseph Duffy, Bishop of Clogher; Bishop Séamus Hegarty, Bishop of Derry; Bishop John McAreavey, Bishop of Dromore; Bishop Noel Treanor, Bishop of Down and Connor; Bishop Anthony Farquhar, Auxilliary Bishop of Down and Connor; Bishop Francis Lagan, Auxiliary Bishop of Derry; Bishop Donal McKeown, Auxiliary Bishop of Down and Connor; and, Bishop Gerard Clifford, Auxiliary Bishop of Armagh.

MP Frank Field Tables Amendment to Prevent Extension of Abortion Act to N Ireland.

An English MP in Westminster has tabled an amendment which seeks to make the extension of the Abortion Act to N Ireland impossible without the approval of the N Irish Assembly. The amendment would alter the proposal by pro abortion MPs to such an extent that it would totally de-claw the pro abortion amendment.

This is listed as part of the pro abortion amendment tabled by Diane Abbot and others. This would mean that if these amendments are actually put before Westminster the MPs would have to actually vote AGAINST the authority of the Ireland Assembly to force the Abortion Act on N Ireland. This would surely make Westminster look very foolish and extremely draconian.

It is hoped that the pro abortion amendment fails to be selected to be voted on by the Speaker, given that it really has nothing to do with the ambit of the HFE Bill. However, Mr Fields’ amendment is welcome as a counter amendment to the blatantly anti N Irish amendment tabled by the pro abortion MPs.

See previous post: CLICK HERE

Protect Irish Children

Move to force notorious British Abortion Act on North of Ireland condemned as callous and unconstitutional by Catholic Lawyers.

27th June 2008

In a shocking, though not surprising move last week a group of English Members of Parliament launched an attempt to impose the 1967 Abortion Act on the North of Ireland against the political and democratic will of the people.

Consistently members of the legislative assembly in the North of Ireland have stood against abortion being liberalised in any way. As the law stands abortion is illegal unless it is done as an indirect act in a attempt to save the life of the mother. As recently as October 2007 the Assembly at Stormont voted with a large majority to reject any liberalisation of the criminal law on abortion.

The Abortion Act was introduced in the UK in 1967 and was not extended to N. Ireland due to the huge opposition from both the Catholic and protestant peoples and their representatives there. Successive English governments have respected this position, until now.

The pro abortion politicians who have laid down an amendment to be voted on next October are Diane Abbott (Labour); Jacqui Lait (Conservative); Evan Harris (Lib Dem); Katy Clark (Labour); John Bercow (Conservative); and John McDonnell (Labour). Abbott has repeatedly talked about the “equality” of women in the North of Ireland who have been deprived of the opportunity to legally murder their own infants in utero. Abbott omits to mention the fact that UK babies are deprived of the protection which their Irish brothers are afforded. Over six million British babies have been aborted since the introduction of the Abortion Act. These abortions are legal to full term for disabled babies, and 24 weeks for other babies.

Johanna Higgins of the ACLI has stated that “every effort will be made to resist this monstrous act being invoked on Irish land”.  She goes on to say that “the actions of the English MPs are akin to those of a dictatorship and prove that democracy is failing as extreme atheistic and liberal agendas are being enforced.”

The DUP and the SDLP have stated their intention to fight the proposed enforcement of this act. There is a combined catholic and protestant revulsion for abortion and it is one issue on which the good people of the North of Ireland have always stood firm.

“Can one million people stand firm against the guns of the international abortion machine?” asks Mrs Higgins. “We pray to Christ and Mary for assistance and ask for the prayers of the faithful to save Ireland from this terrible plight”.

“Whilst countries like Ireland stand against abortion and have criminal laws to punish this atrocity the abortionists fail worldwide. This is why the abortionist politicians and media want to crush Ireland, because our position shames them.”

Geraldine Foley of the ACLI states “We must also remember that the Irish Constitution extends to ALL the citizens of Ireland, North and South, born and unborn. This constitution was invoked under the Holy Trinity and Christ.”

The ACLI asks that people from all countries support our resistance to this terrible threat.

STATEMENT REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE UNBORN CHILD IN IRISH LAW AND THE LISBON TREATY.

In 1605 there was published in Dublin a proclamation by the then King of England, James 1 , which read:

“It hath seemed proper for us to proclaim, and we hereby make known to our subjects in Ireland, that no toleration shall ever be granted by us. This we do for the purpose of cutting off all hope that any other religion shall be allowed, save that which is consonant to the laws and statutes of this realm”.

In 2008 the Irish Government has put before its people a referendum which seeks to have the subjects of Ireland enslave themselves to a foreign and Godless power. Beneath the yoke of the Lisbon Treaty, which is, in all but name, a European Constitution, enabling a State of Europe, the Catholic culture, and indeed any remnant of Christianity is unlikely to be tolerated.

Those who say that the laws on abortion and other ethical matters will not change are either misinformed or being deceitful.

The Unborn Child

Regarding abortion, the present protection afforded to the Unborn Child in this country rests in the Irish Constitution at article 40.3.3. This cannot be changed without a referendum put to the Irish people. Further protection exists in the Criminal Law which makes Illegal Abortion a criminal offence under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, punishable by life imprisonment.

Those who want us to say yes to the Lisbon Treaty want us to accept an unclear position with regards to the protection of our Unborn Children.

They want us to accept that the European Union will never change its mind with regard to the assurances it has given Ireland in the past, forgetting that those assurances were given to a Sovereign Nation with its own unshakeable Constitution and a complete hold over its criminal laws. They want us to accept that something called “Protocol 35” will afford the Irish Unborn Child as much protection as it currently enjoys.

What is forgotten by all those who are satisfied by this is that without the Criminal Law protecting the Unborn Child, that is, The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.58 and 59, the Constitutional Protection alone may be rendered practically useless.

The Irish Constitution reads:

“Article 40.3.3 The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

Given that the Lisbon Treaty allows the newly formed Union many powers regarding the criminal laws of the member states, what stops the Union from abolishing our criminalisation of those who seek to destroy or attack the Unborn Child? The onus in article 40.3.3 is on the Irish state, not the EU “state”. So, in recognising article 40.3.3, the EU does not assume responsibility for the protection of the Unborn Child. It may no longer be “practicable” for the Irish state to “defend and vindicate that right” when it has handed over criminal legal powers to the EU.

Put simply, the Irish Government have only sought to protect half of the protection which our Unborn Children rely on. It has neglected the protection of our Criminal Law which in practice prevents abortion.

Regarding Criminal Laws in member states, the Lisbon Treaty states:

“Article 67. 3. The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of
security through measures to prevent and combat
crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures
for coordination and cooperation between police
and judicial authorities and other competent
authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition
of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary,
through the approximation of criminal laws.”

In April 2008 there was passed by the Council of Europe a resolution that abortion was a woman’s right and should be unrestricted. It will only be one further move to call for the decriminalisation of abortion in all member states, for abortion on demand to become a reality in Ireland. It could be argued that the decriminalisation of the anti abortion law in Ireland may be affected without touching the constitutional acknowledgement that the Unborn Child has a right to life.

The fact is that the Lisbon Treaty is uncharted legal territory. It is impossible to say that there will be no effect on the status of the Unborn Child in Ireland, especially given that the majority of our EU neighbours have allowed the abortion of their Unborn Children.

The Lisbon Treaty is riddled with problems on many issues, not least abortion, regarding which the above point is just one example. Further, what think those who would vote “Yes” of their brothers in the North of Ireland? If you regard the EU dangerous enough to require at least the partial protection you have sought for the Unborn Child in the Republic, do you intend then to throw the children of the North to the wolves and expect that this will not affect the whole country?

The Citizens of the North of Ireland, along with the Citizens of the rest of Europe have been denied a vote on this matter. Irish people must consider this, and realise that if they vote “yes” they will be speaking for millions of people without voices, and ironically, if they vote “yes” and undermine the Irish Constitution, which gave them this sole opportunity, they may never vote again on their own future.

Johanna Higgins LLB, Barrister
Geraldine Foley LLB, Barrister
Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland
Co Derry

All the actions and work of the ACLI are consecrated to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary.