Sinn Fein, voted in FAVOUR of the abortion Bill. In total 20 members of the Dail voted in favour of this extreme abortion legislation, wherein abortion would be allowed to full term.

Although a majority of 109 voted against this Bill, a number of the people voting agaisnt the Bill clearly stated that they were not doing so because abortion was murder and wrong, but because of technical and legal wrangling. The Minister for Health actually thanked Daly for tabling the Bill saying:

I will begin by thanking the Members opposite for raising this important issue. I acknowledge they do so from the best of motivations and for the right reasons. (Deputy James Reilly)

So presumably the Catholic legislators of Ireland either don’t know, or don’t care, about the canonical penalties for supporting abortions? Excommunication and being barred from recieving Hoy Communion.

I would anticipate that the Committee set up by the Government to discuss the ABC case will provide the framework for some kind of watered down abortion bill later in the year. The ground work has been done by Daly and the warm reception which the Bill received in some quarters means that the abortion fanatics will not waste much time.

A search of the Oireachtas website shows that the words murder and killing were not used at all during the debate.  ( However the Members have in the past dealt with the killing of badgers, pilot whales, seals and songbirds, which presumably would put the minds of the Irish people at rest, lest their representatives be thought to have lost their moral bearings).

The Dail debate could not have been more different that the debate in Stormont, on the same issue , in 2007. During this debate a clear message was sent out to the world that :

Life commences at conception, and it is at that point that the child becomes a real person Thomas Buchanan DUP

Mr Buchana also stated:

During the course of this one-and-a-half-hour debate, 70 to 80 unborn children will have been murdered through abortion. The methods of abortion are often horrific, with up to 80% carried out by suction curettage, which virtually pulls the baby apart limb by limb.

This was just one of a number of bold assertions in favour of the inviolable right to life of the Unborn Child.

However legislation to allow for abortion is phrased, abortion is always the deliberate killing of an Unborn Child.

In a candid statement regarding her bill she says:

Those opposing the right to abortion argue that it is not ”medically necessary”. This is nonsense. Contraception is not medically necessary but it allowed women to regulate reproduction and plan their families. This is an issue of women’s rights to control their own bodies. Forcing women to continue with pregnancies arising from rape, or carrying to full term a foetus that will die upon birth is an abuse. Investing in life skills and proper family planning, to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ensuring that parents have adequate financial resources to enable them to bring up children with dignity and support is the only solution to ensure that women are able to choose what is best for them.

She implies that the “Medical” cover of her Bill is just a pathway to abortion on demand. Obviously she cant actually argue that there is a medical necessity for abortion, there is no condition which requires to be cured by the death of the child.

The statement is typical of the arrogant and irrational mind of the average abortion maniac.

Daly’s Bill contains NO time limits. Under the Bill a child in utero could be dismembered until the point of birth if a woman was diagnosed , by two GPs, with even a  mental health condition which caused a “real and substantial risk to the life of a woman”. Given that no one can deny that someone is suicidal if they say they are,  this leaves the door pretty wide open.

Daly’s Bill seeks to allow doctors to abort the babies of pregnant women whose life they consider to be at risk, even where the woman has not consented  to the abortion of her child

By calling her bill The Medical Treatment (termination of pregnancy in case of risk to life of pregnant woman) Bill 2012, Clare Daley TD, abortion stalwart, obviously seeks to indicate that what has hitherto been a serious criminal offence in Ireland should now be seen as lifegiving  treatment available to pregnant women.

However the Irish public should be made aware of the following observations that a preliminary legal reading of the proposed abortion/medical treatment bill reveal:

1) Daly seeks to effectively repeal the criminal law prohibiting abortion in relation to those abortions which fall within her Bill. Given the wide reaching provisions in her Bill, this would make the criminal law against abortion in the Republic a dead letter. (Part 1Section 3 (1))

This is a bold move, as even the Abortion Act in Britain only presents  a defence to the criminal law, where as Daly seeks to obliterate the criminal legislation.

2) Daly’s Bill uses the tried and tested phrase  “substantial risk” also found other abortion legislation such as the Abortion Act 1967 etc. A phrase that can be widely interpreted and expanded.

3) Daly’s Bill seeks to force conscientious objectors to carry out abortions. Section 5 of the Bill (Obligation to provide medical treatment) is dressed up as a get out clause for medical practitioners who dont want to take part in the vivisevtion of unborn infants. It reads very like the conscious objection clause which was cunninlgly inserted into the Termination on Pregnancy Guidelines in the North of  Ireland. This clause was attacked by a High Court Judge in Belfast and was one of the reasons SPUC won a case against the Department of Health overturning the Guidelines.

4) Section 6 of Daly’s Bill seeks to allow doctors to abort the babies of pregnant women whose life they consider to be at risk, even where the woman has not consented  to the abortion of her child. For clarity the Bill states in its Explanatory Memorandum:

“Subsection 2 provides that  in the absence of a means to detrmine whether a woman consents to such treatment as is provided for under this Bill and in a situation whereby her life is at immediate risk, a medical practitioner maybe pressumed to have obtained consent from the woman”.

It’s worth reading Section 6 and the above explanation a couple of times as most people, including abortion supporters, will not believe this is actualy in the Bill. However it is nothing new and it is also copied from the failed Northern Irish guidance.

5) Section 6 automaticaly overrules parental consent for underage girls.

6) The icing on the abortionist cake has to be Section 7, which makes Pro Life activity an offence. This Bill provides that “harrassment, intimidation or otherwise obstructing” abortion providers is to be a criminal offence attracting imprisonment and fines.

The Bill is due to be voted on in the Dail on the 19th April 2012. God willing it will fail. However it is a sad indictment of the present state of affairs in Irish politics that such a Bill even exists.

What of the great debate in the democratic freespeaking Irish political circles and media? Silence prevails………..

A senior Garda in Cork has confirmed in writing to the ACLI  that a file will be sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the exhibition of material which is insulting and offensive to Catholics hosted by University College Cork.

Both the Constitution and the statute law prohibit “publication and utterance” of material which outrages members of a religious organisation.

Following the police investigation the DPP will decide whether or not the case should be prosecuted in the criminal courts.

Bishop Buckley

The Chief Superintendent of the Gardai in Cork has confirmed to the ACLI that there is an ongoing investigation into allegations that a proposed art exhibition at University College Cork will contain a blasphemous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and that a book will be promoted which also contains blasphemous matter. The artist will also give a talk which is likely to contravene the law given it will be about her work and book.

Under the Defamation Act 2009 section 36 (2) “publication or utterence of blasphemous matter” is a criminal offence. Numerous complaints have been made to the police following the announcement by UCC that a controversial lesbian artist, Lopez, has been invited to display her work and her book.

Bishop Buckley has spoken out in protest at the proposed exhibition saying:

“Respect for Mary, the Mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives. Irish Poets and culture held Mary in the highest esteem. It is regretable and unacceptable that this exhibition seeks to portray the Mother of God in such an offensive way.”

This exhibition was closed down in Santa Fe due to public outrage. Catholics are aware of the gravity of  blasphemies against Our Lady, which, as Our Lord revealed to Sister Lucy, fall into five kinds:

There are five types of offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary :

1 – Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception;

2 – Blasphemies against Her Virginity;

3 – Blasphemies  against  Her  Divine  Maternity,  in refusing at the same time to recognise Her as the Mother of men;

4 – The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children, indifference or scorn or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother;

5 – The offences of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images. Here, my daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little act of reparation . .  (May 29,1930)

Lopez also promotes a blasphemous book entitled, “Our Lady of Controversy .”Irreverent” Apparitions”, making her intentions clear.

The ACLI is awaiting the decision of the Garda regarding pursuing the University and the artist in question for breaching the blasphemy laws. Given the outrage caused, evidenced by the number of complaints and protests made, and the intention of the artist and the University in promoting this work, it is unlikely that the exhibition will go ahead.

On the other hand it will make an ideal case for a prosecution, private or public, if it does.

What no one has really reckoned on yet is the reaction of the Irish people who will resist this insult to their integrity and who, as a nation, surely have a love of their children born and unborn, sometimes equalled but never surpassed.

Grand Chamber Judgment A. B. and C. v. Ireland 16.12.10

The ECrtHR announced its decision on the ABC abortion case earlier today. Click above for the full press release from the court office.

The court rejected two of the appelant cases and accepted the third case , C, on one ground only. Bizarely the court found that Ireland had a “constitutional” right to abortion. And that C had had her Article 8 convention rights violated by the Irish Government’s failure to provide her with a pathway to effecting that alleged constitutional right.

The ECrtHR was acting well beyond its remit in interpreting the Irish Constitution. Further the ECrtHR has actualy interpreted the pro life clause in the Irish Constitution as a “right for women to access abortion”. This is due to the unecessary addition of the “equal rights of the mother” phrase which was inserted into the pro life clause against the wishes of Dr Eamon O’Dwyer and other leading promoters of the original pro life constitutional clause. Unfortunately the Pro Life Campaign at the time agreed with the clause being added to the basic acknowledgement of the right to life of the unborn child.

Article 40.3.3 reads:

” 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. (BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN)

The article 8 right in the European Human Rights Convention, on which the ECrtHR ruled in favour of the applelant C, is the right to “Family and Private Life” provision. Read carefully the judgement reveals that the ECrtHR actually did not find that Article 8 gave a right to abortion. It found for C on the spurious ascertion that the State had not provided her with the means to obtain her alledged “constitutional rights” to an abortion.

Uncannily this is akin to the basis for the Roe v Wade decision all those years ago in America.

Also of note is the involvement of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The Irish Family Planning Association took the case on behalf of the three women, they in turn are full members of the IPPF. The IPPF recieves funding from, amongst others, the British Government for SAAF (safe abortion activism fund). A truly international effort for sure.

Clearly there was no chance of actually changing the law in Ireland by democratic means and therefore a more cunning plan had to be arranged.

The Judgement is ambiguous and it is hard to call the next move. There is no appeal from the Grand Chamber (the rather ostentatious name the ECrtHR higher court gives itself).

The Judgement, contrary to some reports such as the Washington Post, does not attack the Irish Constitution, but rather more suscinctly misinterprets the pro life clause. Therefore effectively insisting on the Constitution. (No wonder the pro abortionists didn’t flinch at the so called “abortion guarantees” attached to the Lisbon Treaty).

It seems that the ECrtHR is too smart to tackle the Irish Constitution head on, this would create a backlash, so it has insisted upon a perverse interpretation.

The 1992 X case has also been commented upon, and the alleged failure of the Irish Governement to legislate to allow for abortion in the circustances outlined by the X case. This was a perverse decision by the Irish Supreme court which effectively flew in the face of the Criminal Statute law and the Constitutional Pro Life provision.

What the ECcrtHR has not commented on is how exactly the Irish Government can allow abortions without changing the Criminal Law. Of course it has to change the Criminal Statute in someway if the demands of the court are to be met.

Pre Lisbon Treaty there would have been no power of either the ECrtHR or the EU to effect this, post Lisbon Treaty the mechanism is provided, should it become necessary and the Irish refuse to play ball. (see previous discussions here and here).

The present guess of this writer is that the weak Irish Government will plum for Abortion Guidelines which “clarify” and misinterpret the Criminal Law on abortion to the taste of the pro abortion lobby. This will proclude the necessity to put a referendum to the Irish people on  new legislation affecting the Statute Law, a referendum the Government would surely lose. The Irish Family Planning Association will be hovering in the background, like the spectre at the feast, “assisting” the Department of Health in drafting the guidance. The IPPF will feel like the cat that got the cream, after all it’s a dab hand at “guidance” on abortion. This would also prevent the EU from flexing its Lisbon Treaty muscles too soon.

What the Irish Government should really do is snub this ruling and treat it with the disdain it deserves. It should call the bluff of the ECrtHR and see what the Paper Tiger does next.

What no one has really reckoned on yet is the reaction of the Irish people who will resist this insult to their integrity and who, as a nation, surely have a love of their children born and unborn, sometimes equalled but never surpassed.

Please see also Religion Law Blog by Neil Addison Barrister for more comment on this case.

“What the ABC abortion case really amounts to is a power grab be the EU over the legal systems of member states.” (ACLI)

During the season of advent, whislt we await the birth of our Divine Infant, Jesus Christ, the anti Christian forces of the pro abortion lobby attempt to inflict Ireland with its child destruction agenda by attacking the laws which protect our unborn.

Judgement in the case of three women backed by the Irish Family planning Association (a member of the International Planned Parenthood Association, partly funded by the British Government) is due at about 11am today.

The case is based on alleged contraventions of the womens’ human rights under the EU Convention, and was heard last year by the ECrtHR.

It is being widely touted that this court case could make Ireland “change its laws on abortion”.

How so?

The law prohibiting abortion in Ireland is a Criminal Statute, therefore if the ECrtHR can enforce the “right ” to abortion in Ireland it can effectively attack the domestic criminla law of EU state members.

The ECrtHR is not actualy a part of the EU, and before the Lisbon Treaty, this outrageous claim would not be in anyway substantiated as the court itself cannot force Ireland to allow abortion, it can only find Ireland in breach of Convention rights.

There are many cases in which the ECrtHR has found against member states, including the UK on many occassions, but there has been no way for the court to insist on changes in Criminal Law in any member state.

How does the Lisbon Treaty change this?

The Lisbon Treaty contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 52 and 53 of the Charter states that where the Charter is equivalent to ECrtHR decisions, then the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with such decisions. Thus such ECrtHR decisions become EU law, despite the fact that the ECrtHR is not an organ of the EU.

The ABC case concerns human rights from the Convention of Human Rights which have equivalent provisions in the Charter contained in the Lisbon Treaty. Articles 2, 3, 7 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are engaged.

Therefore, by stealth, the Lisbon Treaty allows the court at Strasbourg to make rulings which challenge the domestic criminal laws in member states.

The decision in the ABC case will not jus affect Ireland, but all member states. Not just in the area of abortion, but in any area which the ECrtHR feels it may involve itself.

Lisbon Treaty and the Criminal Law in member states.

Compounding the above the Lisbon Treaty also contains a provision at article 67.3 which reqires “…the aproximation of criminal laws”.

The machinery for supranationalising the criminal legal systems of Europe is contained within the Lisbon Treaty. All Europeans should be very concerned if a precedent is set by the ABC case which results in the capitulation of the Irish Government on abortion.

The Irish state could still call the bluff of the European Paper Tiger, if it were a strong country it would do just that. However given Ireland’s weakened ecconomic position and the recent bail out by the EU and IMF, will Ireland really stand up to its European masters on anything? The Irish government is floundering in a moral abys. It pushed through the Lisbon Treaty last year by corralling its citizens into voting YES by promising  jobs and money, all of which promises have proved false to date.

Power Grab By EU: Beware all member states.

What the ABC case really amounts to is a power grab be the EU over the legal systems of member states. Using the idiologicaly driven agenda of pro abortionists and feminists (plentiful in the EU and global structures and NGOs) the EU will attempt effect a precedent via the ABC abortion case, to allow it to interfere with member states criminal legislation. This is a power far above any powers originaly envisaged by EU members, and something over which the EU citizans as a whole have has no control.

But what of the guarantees given to the Irish State regarding abortion during the Lisbon Treaty negotiation?

Unfortunately these guarantees are now shown to be worthless. The Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland warned in 2009 that the guarantees did not protect the Criminal Laws prohibiting abortion. Every TD was contacted regarding this and the legal minefield explained.

(See previous post for full explanation of failure of Guarantees to protect Irelands unborn children.)

Ireland and abortion. The future?

In natural terms the pro abortionists may have effected a coup, in supernatiural terms however they are dead in the water.

Be reminded of the preamble to the Irish Constitution which puts the Irish State under the Holy Trinity and states

“….we humbly acknowledge all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ” and we need have little fear as to the final outcome of this struggle.

The reasoning for this coming from the DHSSPSNI is that there is still some risk of Swine Flu infection and pregnant women are more at risk of any infection than most of the population.

However the actual vaccine being offered to pregnant women is the same as that offered for last years Swine Flu outbreak. Surely if there is a new outbreak, the strain of Swine Flu will be different this year, and therefore the present vaccine will not be effective in any case?

There seems to be plenty of conflicting medical advice on the issue and pregnant women are understandably confused. For instance 20 % of  pregnant women in Australia have been advised by their doctors NOT to take the vaccine due to safety concerns, and the latest statistics show a take up rate of only 6 %.

The clearest way to make sure you are getting the BEST advice for you and your baby is to ask your own obstetrician what he thinks you should do. Ask him or her what are the safety concerns and whether this vaccine will be effective for a new strain of Swine Flu this year. Ask for the advice to be in writing. This way if anything happens to you or your baby as an adverse side effect of taking the vaccine you will have a clearer course of legal action against your obstetrician than you would against the Department of Health. Dont just get the vaccine because the Department of Health send you a leaflet saying you should!

Suggested questions you could ask:

1) The risk of miscarriage. Have any mothers who have had the Swine Flu vaccination miscarried? Can you be certain that you will not miscarry as a result of this vaccine?

2) The risk to the baby. How can it be safe for the unborn child to have a full dose of vaccine and not for children under five?

3) Is this vaccine going to protect me against a new outbreak of Swine Flu this year?

4) Are there any known neurological disorder side effects to this vaccine?  Have there been any cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome or Narcolepsy from this vaccine?

Research the topic yourself and get the medical advice from the person who is overseeing your pregnancy and has your health and your childs health interests at heart. This is the person with knowledge of your personal requirements as a patient and who has responsiblilty for you and your baby.

(This comment is a general view. Each medical case is differenct and advice on a particular case should be sought from a solicitor.)

The letter, dated the 9th July,  briefly explains that the decision was made following an approach by the Attorney General for N Ireland.

It seems that the consultation process will now begin anew.

The matter has not been covered by any mainstream media.