Catholic Lawyers Blog

New Abortion Guidance for Northern Ireland Contain Serious Legal Errors.

Posted in Uncategorized by admin on July 25, 2013

The analysis of the law ….. is at variance with the statement of the law on abortion given by the Attorney General

Such a basic error in the criminal law at this level of the consultation into the correct application of the criminal law on this important, and life determining matter, is incredible and should be of great concern. It seriously calls into the question the capability of the Department of Health regarding the task of producing legal guidance on this matter.

The consultation on the new draft guidance on abortion is ongoing. Below is the submission forwarded by  the ACLI to the DHSSPSNI.

Regarding the consultation on the abortion guidance entitled :


Comments submitted on the legal analysis contained in section 2 are as follows:

The Guidance Document is at odds with the Attorney Generals statement on the law.

1)      The analysis of the law contained in the above document (hereinafter referred to as “The Guidance Document”) is at variance with the statement of the law on abortion given by the Attorney General, Mr John Larkin  QC, in a letter to the Justice Committee dated 16th October 2012.

Whereas Mr Larkin framed the law in its proper criminal context, the purpose of The Guidance Document seems to be to promote the loopholes in the law. That is, whereas in reality the law is a criminal statute prohibiting abortion, The Guidance Document is a permissive and perverse interpretation of the criminal law. The law prohibits the act of abortion; The Guidance Document permits the act of abortion “in limited circumstances.”

It is notable that the statement made by the Attorney General makes clear that the “limited circumstances” referred to in The Guidance Document are actually defences to a serious criminal charge. That, further, a doctor who had carried out an abortion would be, in the scenario drawn by the Attorney General, the defendant in a criminal trial, and a jury would decide whether or not it was satisfied of his innocence or otherwise at a trial of the offence.  Following this logic, and in reality, it would be for the Department of Public Prosecutions to consider whether or on a criminal charge should be brought, not a doctor in a clinical setting.

The question arises, how will the Department of Health defend a challenge to this Guidance Document when it clearly is at odds with the proper interpretation of the criminal law?[1]

The Guidance Document contains a serious legal error.

2. The paragraph at section 2.12 is a nonsense. It reads:

“Termination of pregnancy beyond the time at which a child is „capable of

being born alive is governed by the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1945, which

provides a statutory defence against the offence of child destruction where the

act which caused the death of the child was done “in good faith only for the

purpose of preserving the life of the mother”. This follows from the Bourne

decision and its application to the Northern Ireland legislation. Section 25 (2)

  • of the Act states that a fetus with a gestational age of 28 weeks is prima facie

capable of being born alive. Whether a child is „capable of being born alive

would be a matter of evidence in the event of a prosecution in Northern

Ireland. A child may be considered capable of being born alive if he or she

has a real chance of being born and existing as a live child, breathing through

its own lungs, whether unaided or with the assistance of a ventilator and

whether for a short time or for a longer time”


The statutory defence contained in Section 25 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1945 does not follow from the” Bourne decision and its application to the Northern Ireland legislation”. In fact the proviso contained in s. 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 is copied from a virtually identical proviso at section 1 (1) of the English Infant Life (Preservation ) Act 1929. In the  Bourne Case Machnaghten J imported the proviso in the 1929 Act into s.58 of the 1861 Act (with which Bourne had been charged) as there was no equivalent  defence in the 1861 Act. In other words the Bourne Case could not have existed without the proviso in the 1929 Act, not the other way around.

The purpose of s. 25 (1) and (2) is to make Child Destruction an offence, not to make a statute of the Bourne decision.

In fact the Bourne case has never even been approved by higher courts, but to state, as The Guidance  Document does, that it lead to the enactment of legislation is bizarre.[2]

Such a basic error in the criminal law at this level of the consultation into the correct application of the criminal law on this important, and life determining matter, is incredible and should be of great concern. It seriously calls into the question the capability of the Department of Health regarding the task of producing legal guidance on this matter.

The part of this paragraph dealing with the child “capable of being born alive” is inadequate. It should be made clear that if the prosecution can adduce evidence that a woman had been pregnant for 28 weeks it can automatically invoke this presumption.  But, that even if the woman had not been pregnant for 28 weeks,  the prosecution may also be able to show that the child was capable of breathing and therefore, following the important cases of R v McDonald[3] and C v S[4], “capable of being born alive” and fully protected by the statutory prohibition of Child Destruction. The Department fails to properly explain the application of McDonald,

and fails to even mention C v S, a leading case in this area. In C v S it was found that a child of between 19 and 22 weeks could be considered “capable of being born alive”.

Further, the difference between the defence to the crime of Illegal Abortion (1861 Act) and Child Destruction (1945 Act)  has not been discussed. The Bourne case related to a charge under the 1861 Act. It has never been applied in a Child Destruction case. Therefore the proviso at section 25 (2) should be given its ordinary and natural meaning when dealing with a case of Child Destruction, not the wider interpretation of the Bourne Case (which is a dubious judgement in any case) . This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is the difference between the deliberate destruction of a child in utero (feticide) in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, for mental health conditions, suicidal threats and  long term health reasons as opposed to the natural meaning of the words “only of preserving the life of the mother.”

This section also fails to add that any child delivered early for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother, should be delivered in a manner consistent with its survival and should be immediately placed in an incubator. Given the common practice of caesarean section, it is no longer conceivable that a child would have to be destroyed in utero (feticide) and delivered dead (abortion) to save a mothers life. The law requires, in my opinion, that the child is protected in this way, for the very core purpose of the law is the protection of the child. I have previously argued that if the prosecution could show that the death of the child (deliberate destruction in utero) was not required to save the life of the mother ( ie it was only required that the child was delivered, or that there was another option which involved prolonging the pregnancy) then the doctor should not be able to rely on the proviso , whether as a defence to a charge of child destruction or abortion.[5]

The Department of Health must be required to explain what legal advise and what authorities were used  in  the drafting of this paragraph?

I have restricted my submission to these two core issues. There are other matters which are problematic, but they tend to stem from the misinterpretation of the criminal law as discussed above.

[1] See also:“Statement of Law Against Abortion and Child Destruction in Northern Ireland”  J Higgins BL

[2] On a more minor point, the wording of the quotation from the legislation is not quite correct either. It should read: “ in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.”

[3] Crown court (1999) NI 150

[4] (1988) QB 135 (CA) (Civ Div)

[5] As 1 above.

Irish Abortion Bill will change the law. Kenny’s definition of “unborn” is attacked by leading Catholic Professor. The suicide clause is a red herring. The Devil is in the detail. (part 5)

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Law, Embryology by admin on May 4, 2013

The formal definitions used in this new Irish abortion bill are scientifically false.

Dr Dianne Nutwell Irving MA Phd

Dr D I Irving MA Phd has added her support to the criticisms of the Irish Abortion Bill made by the Association of Catholic Lawyers Ireland. Dr Irving writes as follows regarding the definition of “unborn”  in the new Abortion Bill produced by the Irish Government;

“The formal definitions used in this new Irish abortion bill are scientifically false. It defines “unborn life” as beginning when a “fertilized egg” implants into a woman’s uterus. The justification for this legal “definition” stems from a case involving frozen embryos — that is, embryos that were fertilized in vitro in a petri dish in an IVF clinic, that are usually allowed to develop to the 100+cell blastocyst stage (usually takes about 5-7 days post-fertilization), and then implanted into a woman’s uterus. Several scientific errors are inherent in the proposed “definition”. For the accurate objective facts of human embryology, known internationally for over 125 years, that document concerns expressed below,

see: The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, at:;


For quite extensive accurate scientific references from internationally praised human embryology texts for both human sexual and human asexual reproduction that also refute the definition of “unborn life” in this Irish abortion bill, see

Irving: “Why Accurate Human Embryology Is Needed To Evaluate Current Trends In Research Involving Stem Cells, Genetic Engineering, Synthetic Biology and Nanotechnology” (November 20, 2012),


Why the formal definitions used in this Irish abortion bill are scientifically, objectively false:
(1) In normal sexual reproduction involving abortion, it is not the single-cell embryo called a “fertilized egg” that implants into the uterus, but an older embryo consisting of about 100 cells.
(2) Implantation (5-7 days post-fertilization) is not when the sexually reproduced unborn child begins to exist. That new human being begins to exist at the beginning of the process of fertilization.
(3) Fertilization cannot take place in the woman’s uterus. It takes place in her fallopian tube.
(4) Once fertilization has taken place in the woman’s fallopian tube, the new human embryo travels through the tube to the uterus in order to implant, thus the embryo is already about a week old before attempting to implant in the woman’s uterus.
(5) The terms “fertilization” and “conception” do not scientifically cover how all human beings are reproduced. Only some human beings begin to exist by means of sexual reproduction (fertilization); some human beings begin to exist by means of a-sexual reproduction (without the immediate use of sperm or ooctes) — reproduced both in vivo and in vitro.
(6) The earlier law involving “frozen embryos” is legally irrelevant, because that case only applies to “unborn life” fertilized artificially outside the body of the woman. Only in artificial settings like IVF/ART “infertility” clinics is a woman “pregnant” at implantation. In normal sexual reproduction (fertilization), a woman is pregnant when the “egg” is fertilized by the sperm in her fallopian tube (5-7 days before implantation in the uterus).

Some consequences of this scientifically erroneous definition of “unborn life:
1. The early human being, from fertilization (sexual reproduction) until implantation, is not legally recognized as an “unborn life”, and thus may be used in destructive experimental research when fertilization takes place in petri dishes in IVF/ART research laboratories and clinics, as well as killed by the use of abortifacients if fertilization takes place normally in vivo.
2. As noted above, only some human beings begin to exist by means of sexual reproduction (fertilization); some human beings begin to exist by means of a-sexual reproduction (without the immediate use of sperm or ooctes) — reproduced both in vivo and in vitro. Therefore, the definition of “unborn life” in this abortion bill would not apply to any human beings asexually reproduced — whether in vivo (e.g., identical or Monozygotic twins) or in vitro (e.g., reproduced asexually in IVF/ART research laboratories and clinics by means of dozens of different techniques such as cloning, genetic engineering, etc.). Since these human beings would not be legally recognized as “unborn life”, they may be used in destructive experimental research — as well as aborted after being implanted into women as “infertility treatments”. Note that artificial “twinning” (a form of cloning) has been used for decades as “infertility treatments” for women who have few “eggs”.

To falsely define “implantation” as when an unborn life begins to exist is simply a linguistic version of the now formally rejected term “pre-embryo”: “I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between a six-day-old embryo and a sixteen-day-old embryo. The term is useful in the political arena—where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo experimentation—as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients.” (Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39.)”



Note from ACLI.

Dr Irving has extensive experience in the area of embryology. Her impressive biography is here:

Dr. Dianne Nutwell Irving is a former biochemist, a career-appointed bench research biochemist and biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NCI), did extensive graduate work in biology in the Graduate School, Department of Biology at Georgetown University (Washington, D.C.), and received her Masters (metaphysics and epistemology) and Doctorate Degrees in Philosophy from the Department of Philosophy at Georgetown University — concentrating in both the History of Philosophy and in Bioethics (Kennedy Institute of Ethics).  Her doctoral dissertation,Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo, was awarded by Georgetown University in 1991. 
As full professor she has taught full time at two seminaries (De Sales School of Theology, and the Dominican House of Studies), as well as taught at Georgetown University and at The Catholic University of America — including courses in biology and biochemistry as well as in the history of philosophy, natural law ethics, and medical ethics.  She has also published, lectured and debated widely in academia on bioethics, medical and research ethics concerning human embryo research, human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, and research with the mentally ill, and has analyzed and evaluated state, national and international legislations on these and related issues.  She has also served as a consultant on medical and research ethics concerning human embryo research, human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, and related issues for many professional organizations, including The Catholic Medical Association, The Linacre Institute of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC).  Dr. Irving has also written two books with Dr. C. Ward Kischer (professor of Human Embryology for over 35 years), The Human Development Hoax:  Time To Tell The Truth!  (Gold Leaf Press, 1995, ISBN 1-886769-01X;  2nd ed. 1997).  Many of her published articles are collected in the “Irving Library”,, at: Dr. Irving is now semi-retired, married to a lawyer for 45 years, and has two married children and five grandchildren.

Irish Abortion Bill will change the law. Kenny’s Abortion Bill reduces the Constitutional Provision protecting the unborn to a footnote .The suicide ground is a red herring The Devil is in the detail. (part 4)

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Law by admin on May 2, 2013

“The ambition of the abortion campaigner is always the death of the child” ACLI

“reasonable opinion” means an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable” Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013

The wording of the definition of “reasonable opinion”  demonstrates ill will by the Irish Government.

The Constitutional Provision protecting the unborn requires that;

“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.” Article 40.3.3 Bunreacht na hEireann)

The point has been made in a previous post that the very law which presently protects the unborn child, s.58  and s.59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is to be thrown aside. Here I am concerned with what attempt is made in this legislation to provide the unborn with the constitutional right to be respected, defended and vindicated by the statute laws of the land.

In effect this constitutional protection has been reduced to a footnote, or an “Explanatory Note”.

Here we see it; briefly acknowledged:

“Reasonable opinion”
The definition of “reasonable opinion” requires that this opinion must be formed in good faith
and must have regard to protect and preserve unborn human life where practicable. The
registered medical practitioner(s) will be obliged to record this opinion in writing if certifying a
procedure that will end unborn human life. This definition is intended to place a duty on
certifying medical practitioners to preserve the life of the unborn as far as practicable, and is
influenced by the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in
Pregnancy) Bill 2001 (section 1)

From the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill 2013.

It is freely admitted herein that this “footnote” is “influenced” by the 2001 Bill. More of that later.

For now, having reduced the unborn child’s constitutional protection so glibly to an aside regarding the abortion doctors apparently subjective “reasonable opinion” regarding deciding to end the life of that unborn child, what more, even at the basic minimum could have been done for that constitutional protection to have been upheld?

To illustrate the gross neglect of their Governmental duty to uphold the Irish Constitution in this respect I turn to the legislation allowing for abortion in the Isle of Man, The Termination of  Pregnancy Medical Defences Act (1995). While in no way supporting this legislation, which is abhorrent in as much as it provides for the destruction of the unborn child, as does the Irish Bill, it provides an interesting clause.

Section 3 is entitled The Duty To Preserve the Life of the Child. This requires the surgeon to carry out any medical procedure where the unborn child is 24 weeks gestation or more, in a manner “best calculated to preserve the life of the child” and further “to take other such action as is reasonable in all the circumstances to preserve the life of the child”.

Clink here to view Manx law on abortion

I am pretty sure that there is no constitutional provision in the Isle of man requiring this clause (I could be wrong). However it seem that an honest legislature (albeit morally wrong on abortion ethics) can include a clause specifically tailored to protect the life of the unborn child. It seems also that they can bear to refer to that infant as a child something which the Irish Ministers apparently have a problem with in their Abortion Bill.

Why then cannot Mr Kenny and his esteemed cabinet include a similar clause, bound as they are constitutionally to protect the unborn child?

The crux of the matter may be in the number of abortions in the Isle of Man: there are non.

Johanna Higgins


Tagged with: ,

Irish Abortion Bill will change the law: Kenny’s Abortion Bill provides only a fake conscientious objection clause. The suicide ground is a red herring The Devil is in the detail. (part 3)

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Law by admin on May 2, 2013

No institution, organisation or third party shall refuse to provide a lawful termination of
pregnancy to a woman on grounds of conscientious objection. Protection of Life  During Pregnancy Bill 2013.

While the Abortion Bill changing the law on abortion in Ireland presents a conscientious objection clause for those who are opposed to the destruction of innocent human life (as per the Fifth Commandment), what it gives with one hand it then takes with the other.

The above clause is so wide that it would make it certainly impossible for a clinic or a hospital to refuse to carry out abortions  It seems to make it even realistically improbable that an individual doctor will be able to refuse, for what is a “third party”?

The legal definition of Third Party in this context is entirely unclear. Third Party is generally used to include all persons involved in a matter. Its wide reaching.

Notwithstanding any so called conscientious objection clauses, in reality no doctor in Ireland has ever needed such a clause, so this represents a massive change in the law. The practical ramifications for doctors and nursing staff are unknown.

But for certain, if the doctor has to rely on the gift of a conscientious objection clause to carry on his vocation, then he knows that what can be given can also be taken away.

Johanna Higgins


Irish Abortion Bill will change the law: Kenny’s Abortion Bill Repeals 1861 Act: Removes All Protection From the Unborn Child and Mother. The suicide ground is a red herring. The Devil is in the detail. (part 2)

Posted in Uncategorized by admin on May 2, 2013

Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are hereby repealed. Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013.

As Mr Enda Kenny, the current Taoiseach presented his Governments Bill to the media he stated:

“The law on abortion in Ireland is not being changed. Our country will continue to be one of the safest places in the world for childbirth.” Enda Kenny

Contrary to that statement stand the facts:

The very definition of a Bill is that it is draft law; because it doesn’t already exist its therefore new law. Therefore a new law has been presented to Ireland.

Not only that , but within the Bill the current law protecting the Unborn Child, its only protection, is being entirely repealed therefore effecting a complete change in the law.

Not even in England and Wales has this occurred.  Even there, with the Abortion Act 1967, under which million  of babies have been aborted,  the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 is still in place.

Below is a copy of a statement I made, which was read a a pro life gathering at Knock in February:


If the 1861 Act were to be repealed in the Republic of Ireland it would be a disastrous matter for the Unborn Child and for the country [Ireland] North and South.
The 1861 Act has prevented the mutilation of Irish babies for over 150 years. This protection has resisted the greatest attacks of the pro abortion movement through the worst years of a culture of murder, which has claimed the lives or untold millions of children worldwide.
There is no exception to the Illegal abortion offence contained in the Act, notwithstanding what some may wish. It is a serious crime to take the life of an Unborn Child in Ireland, whatever the circumstances, and if we want to protect the Unborn Children of the future, we must protect the 1861 Act which protects the Unborn.
The X Case decision on the Constitutional provision directly clashes with the 1861 Act. This is why the abortionists call for “legislation for the x case”, because the legislation, that is the 1861 Act, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE X CASE.
If a doctor induced an Unborn Child in the Republic, causing its abortion, or killed that child in the womb and delivered it dead, it would be a jury in a criminal trial who would decide whether or not he had a defence. The X case has not legalised abortion, because the 1861 Act is still in place.
The X case is a perverse decision which resulted in the Constitutional provision, which was meant to protect the statutory prohibition against abortion (1861 Act), actually being used to undermine the statutory prohibition.
The repeal of the 1861 Act would be a resounding success for the global abortion movement. Any substitute legislation would be less than the protection which the 1861 Act has afforded our Unborn Children thus far. Any legislation which had ANY exception in its text would be an open door for liberalised abortion in Ireland. Drafting legislation is a very delicate matter. History shows us that even clauses which intend to tighten up the law have lead to the opposite happening due to liberal interpretations, as in the case of the Pro Life Constitutional Provision and the X case.
For the North of Ireland the repeal of the 1861 Act, in the Republic, would bring great pressure to bear. The abortion providers in Britain will surely waste no time in repealing the 1861 Act, which is still in place in Britain. The 1967 Act was only introduced as medical grounds for abortion. It was later expanded to mean abortion to full term. The leading abortionists have only dreamed of the chance to repeal the 1861 Act, which would make abortion on demand a legal reality. What then for the Irish Unborn Babies in the North of Ireland?
The Irish Medical Council guidelines DO NOT accurately reflect the law. The Irish Media DO NOT accurately reflect the law, and, unfortunately, due to propaganda, many well meaning people DO NOT accurately state the law.  Abortion is a serious criminal offence, a defendant in a criminal trial before a jury may have a defence. That is not an exception to a law, just as defence to murder or rape is never described as an exception.
Abortion must be described in a criminal context. The abortionists have expended a lot of money medicalising the terminology of abortion. The pro life movement must regain the notion that abortion is a serious criminal offence and treat the criminal law protecting the Unborn Child as seriously as we treat the criminal laws which protect us.
Johanna Higgins

Irish Abortion Bill will change the law: Kenny’s Abortion Bill May Legalize Infanticide and Murder: The suicide ground is a red herring. The Devil is in the detail. (Part 1)

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Law by admin on May 1, 2013

“unborn” as it relates to human life means following implantation until such time as it has
completely proceeded in a living state from the body of the woman. (Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013) 

In a new definition of “unborn” put into the draft legislation of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013,  the Irish Government will remove from infants who are in the process of being born any current protection of the laws against murder and infanticide.

With the explanation that the Expert Group identified a lacuna in the current law, this new definition is proposed as a solution to that irregularity.

Its hard to believe that the Ministers are serious.

For a little background on this matter. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (sections 58 and 59) is the current law in Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is still on the statute books in England and Wales. This law protects the unborn child in the womb. In the early 20th Century, well before the Abortion Act 1967 was enacted, Lord Darling raised the concern with the British Parliament that the 1861 Act might not protect a child who was killed during its birth. Thus attempts were made to ensure the protection of such children, and this resulted in the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 which contained the serious offence of Child Destruction. The lacuna in the law was closed, the child now enjoyed the double protection of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

Northern Ireland adopted the Child Destruction offence in 1945 in the Criminal Justice Act.  The offence was never adopted in the Republic of Ireland as it was introduced in England post 1921.

It seems, therefore, that the Expert Group noted this lacuna and were suspiciously concerned about the fact that the constitutional protection might not fully cover the child during birth. It appears that the Irish Governments solution is to extend the meaning of “unborn” to the child who has “completely proceeded in a living state from the body of a woman“.

In reality, given that the “constitutional protection” has now become a “constitutional death sentence”  for some children, this means that the child who is in the process of being born can have its “unborn human life ended” under the terms of this Bill. Actually this definition of unborn is meant to be a catch all provision, to ensure that there can be no question that a child in the process of birth escapes from this Bill.

Of the words “completely proceeded” what are we to make of them? Is this an obstetric term, as it certainly is not a legal term? Has the child “completely proceeded” when its foot has left the birth canal, its elbow perhaps…or when the umbilical cord is cut? Can the child be subjected to a “medical procedure” which results in its “unborn human life ” being ended with impunity as it presents from the birth canal , being partially born?

According to Kenny’s Bill, “medical procedure” includes the provision of any drug or any medical treatment.

D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression is such a “medical procedure” in countries where the ending of unborn human life is tolerated. The surgeon delivers the baby breach, retaining the head within the “woman’s body” . The baby’s head is then crushed (cranial decompression.) If the reader needs more information it’s readily available online.

When considering the draft phrase defining  “unborn” it is interesting that the deliberate omission of the word “baby” or “child” makes the whole phrase unwieldy, resulting in the person of the child being reduced to “it”.

“unborn” as it relates to human life means following implantation until such time as it has 
completely proceeded in a living state from the body of the woman.

Lord Darling sought to close the lacuna in the law and devised an added protection for the unborn child at birth to protect it from the violent hands of the abortion minded practitioner. Enda Kenny, faced with the same dilemma nearly 100 years later in Ireland opts to clarify the grey area by ensuring that the same child can never avail of the protection of the born, that is the laws against murder and infanticide, by extending the meaning of “unborn” to an undefined moment when the baby is “completely proceeded”. Sounds like it will be quite a hurdle for the Irish Child to show that he is deserving of a little human dignity. Getting born is going to be a difficult task for some in the New Ireland.

Johanna Higgins


Attorney General of Northern Ireland Clearly States the Law on Abortion.

Posted in Uncategorized by admin on October 18, 2012
Abortion in Northern Ireland is a Criminal Offence which is punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Attorney General of Northern Ireland John Larkin QC


Intervening today in the action taken by Marie Stopes International to  open an abortion clinic in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General wrote a letter to the head of the Justice Committee at Stormont.

Inviting the Justice Committee to investigate the Marie Stopes operation, the Attorney General also clearly stated the criminal law governing abortion in N Ireland.

Attorney Generals Letter Regarding Marie Stopes.

Given that the Attorney General helpfully presents the law against Illegal Abortion and Child Destruction clearly in its criminal law context it should be much easier for people to grasp the severity of these crimes.

The Attorney General also gives the proper interpretation of the Bourne defence, referring to the words “reasonable grounds” and “adequate knowledge” which present a narrower defence than that which has recently been preferred by abortion apologists.

Also the Attorney General states;

“an abortion carried out in northern Ireland may not result  criminal liability…….”

It must be well noted that the defence to illegal abortion and child destruction is not therefore automatic, as has sometimes, erroneously,  been stated but rather will depend on the circumstances of the act carried out.

The Attorney General refers particularly to the fact that it is always illegal to abort based solely on the abnormality of  an unborn child.

The investigation which the Justice Committee will now undertake puts the discussion of abortion firmly in the field of Justice. It reminds us that in Northern Ireland, abortion is a criminal matter, not a “health issue”.

The Justice Committee can subpoena attendees to answer questions before its committee, and it will be very interesting to see precisely how Marie Stopes intends to carry out their promise of abortion provision and still maintain the law in this jurisdiction.

Doctors and staff acting for the clinic will be under intense scrutiny with regard to their acting lawfully.

Interestingly, given that the Attorney General is the highest legal authority to make a clear statement on the criminal law around abortion, and also the Stormont Government’s legal advisor, this clarity on the law is something of a benchmark, and very welcome.

Tagged with:

Abortion Bill in Irish Dail is defeated, but its not a time for celebration.

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Law, Anti Abortion by admin on April 20, 2012

Although the abortion Bill, tabled by Socialists, was defeated today in the Dail, people should be wary of being complacent about the continuing threat to Irish children. It was a bad day for Irish Politics and Irish babies, all we can say is it could have been worse.

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.

Socialist Architect of the Irish Pro Abortion Bill Admits That “Medical Necessity” Is Not The “Issue”.

Posted in Uncategorized by admin on April 16, 2012

Socialst party member Clare Daly TD, who has put forward the private members Bill in the Dail to legalise abortion in Ireland, has admitted that like contraception, abortion is not a medical necessity.

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.

Socialist Abortion Bill in Irish Parliament seeks to make abortion legal to full term. No limitations.

Posted in Uncategorized by admin on April 14, 2012

Further to the previous post on this issue it is worth pointing out that while the liberal media have called Clare Daly’s Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy ) Bill “limited abortion access” this Bill does in fact allow for abortion to full term.

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.