Reasons to Reject Abortion Legislation
With reference to the Updated General Scheme of a Bill Entitled Health (Regulaton of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018. The following is a commentary on the various heads, and reasons why the Bill should be rejected.
Head 1. Definitions; and Heads 4, 5, 6, 7, 19
“foetus”, in relation to a pregnancy, means an embryo or a foetus during the period of time commencing after implantation in the uterus of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the foetus from the body of the woman
“termination of pregnancy”, in relation to a pregnant woman, means a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of a foetus
This Updated General Scheme obviously is being presented on the basis that it is legal to end the life of an embryo/foetus ‘during the period of time commencing after implantation in the uterus of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the foetus from the body of the woman.’ That would appear to be based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the X Case in 1992, reinforced by the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, and by the deletion of Article 40.3.3º in the Referendum held on May 25, 2018.
I submit that that interpretation of the law is faulty. As the Referendum of May 25, 2018 is the most recent piece of legislation in regard to the matter, it is well to record here the wording of the successful Amendment:
Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy
A number of points suggest themselves immediately. ‘By law’ is not defined. What precisely does that mean: by the Oireachtas, by Ministerial order, or by statutory instrument? It isn’t clear. Also to be noted is that ‘Provision may be made.’ The logic of that is that provision may not be made, that there is no legal requirement for it to be made. As to the expression ‘termination of pregnancy’, that has a number of meanings, and the Amendment doesn’t enlighten us as to which types of termination of pregnancy may be regulated by law.
For years since the X Case judgement, the Courts have been urging the Oireachtas to define when human life begins, or at least to define from what point onwards does the law begin to protect and vindicate the right to life. It is of great significance that after the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, the Oireachtas passed the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014. That Act in Interpretation 2. (1) acknowledges that the human foetus is a human person. Furthermore, that Act passim endorses the use of DNA testing. DNA testing has been in use in the Republic of Ireland since 1994. Taking those 2 points together, it is to be concluded that the State recognizes, not just that the human foetus is a human person, but that the individual human being begins life at fertilization, because it is at that point, fertilization, that the DNA of the individual human being is set down. It must also mean that the State recognizes that a human being is a human person, because DNA testing would be completely invalid, if that weren’t the case, and it would lead to an ‘appalling vista’ if evidence from DNA testing were no longer admissible in criminal cases, or in paternity cases.
Article 40. 1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann says the following:
All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
That is a recognition by the Constitution that human persons are equal before the law. When the X Case judgement was being decided, the law did not define either when human life begins, or whether human beings are human persons. Since the 2014 Act, it does, and therefore must affect the X Case judgement; and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, that allows ‘destruction of unborn human life’ in certain circumstances –– see sections 7, 8, 9, and 22.
In 2001 a referendum was held here the result of which was to abolish the death penalty completely. That means that, whether a person is guilty of murder or not, he/she may not be executed for that crime. The human unborn is incapable of committing murder, but nevertheless, this General Scheme, in effect, is proposing the execution of innocent human persons. That goes against all the Republic’s equality laws going back decades, and it also goes against the Republic’s commitments to human rights internationally. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the UN in 1989, signed by the Republic of Ireland, September 30, 1990, and ratified by the Republic of Ireland, September 29, 1992. That Convention took on board the following position from the Declaration on the Rights of the Child 1959:
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth” …
The Convention continues: [The State Parties to the present Convention] Have agreed as follows:
PART I
Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Accordingly, the Republic of Ireland has no legal grounds for permitting direct abortion in any circumstances, as referred to under Heads 4, 5, 6, 7 and 19, of this General Scheme.
Head 15 Conscientious Objection
That refers only to medical practitioners, nurses and midwives. Those who object directly to providing the ‘termination of pregnancy’ will be required to refer the woman in question on to someone who will perform it. That fails to respect the Constitutional rights of persons, and religious institutions –– see Article 44.2.1º, 44.2.3º, and 44.2.5º, and doesn’t make any mention of other staff involved in such situtations, such as anaesthetists, paramedical staff and cleaners.
Head 18 Prohibitions against receiving certain payments or rewards or agreeing to do do.
Minister Simon Harris is quoted in various newspapers as saying that the State will pay for ‘terminations of pregnancy’ to be permitted under this proposed legislation, if passed by the Oireachtas. Head 18 appears to cover that, but that is not as clear–cut as it is being reported. If direct abortions are to be paid for from the public purse, will taxpayers not have the right to opt out from paying part of their tax for that?
Head 21. (c).
Section 10 of the Health (Family Planning) Act 1979 is to be repealed. In spite of assertions to the contrary, that wasn’t repealed in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. It refers specifically to abortifacients and to sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. As the Joint Committee on Health are expected to be dealing with the licensing of drugs, it is would be prudent for them, before they do anything foolish, to consider what has been said in the comment on Head 1 above. They also should take on board that not everybody agrees that the abortion pill is safe for women.
The Abortion Pill is Safe? 22 Women Have Died, 411 Got Infections and 1,041 Women Hospitalized
Women’s health groups claim that abortion, and particularly the abortion pill, is safe, but data shows that abortion-inducing drugs are not risk-free.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Whole Women’s Health and other abortion providers contend that abortion is safe and that attempts to educate women about the risks of abortion are disingenuous ploys intended to restrict abortion access.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) most recent update shows that since the abortion pill was approved, 22 women have died, 97 women have suffered ectopic pregnancies, 1,041 women have been hospitalized, and 411 women have contracted infections after taking the abortion pill.
“As of December 31, 2017, there were reports of 22 deaths of women associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000,” the FDA’s March 28 report reads. Those deaths included two ectopic pregnancies resulting in death and several cases of fatal severe infection.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
The abortion pill is 98 percent effective for women less than eight weeks pregnant and 96 percent effective for women eight to nine weeks pregnant. The pill is 91 to 93 percent effective for women who are between nine and 10 weeks along in pregnancy, according to Planned Parenthood.
The pill costs roughly $300 to $800 depending on the state and the woman’s health care plan.
“Safe, legal, and rare” is some stigmatizing bullshit.
I will provide as many abortions as people need. If you need one #abortion or two abortions or twelve abortions, I’m here for you. #sorrynotsorry #shoutyourabortion https://t.co/1YV5GzVnD7
— Dr. Diane Horvath-Cosper (@GynAndTonic) July 25, 2018
The FDA notes that while it has received reports of serious adverse events in cases where women took abortion-inducing drugs, “adverse events cannot with certainty be causally attributed to mifepristone because of concurrent use of other drugs, other medical or surgical treatments, co-existing medical conditions, and information gaps about patient health status and clinical management of the patient.”
Complications from the abortion pill, RU486, have also rose in Ohio, according to a July 20 Operation Rescue report. There were 106 complications due to pill-induced abortions in 2017, a 44-percent increase from 2016 and an 87-percent increase from 2014.
Ohio abortion clinics saw 192 abortion medication complications between 2014 and 2017, and the abortion pill has caused 47 medical complications in 2018.
LifeNews Note: Grace Carr writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
