6 things you need to know about the Belfast Court abortion ruling
By Niamh Ui Bhriain
Editor’s note. The following comes from Life Institute, a leading pro-life organization in Ireland.
Belfast High Court
A Belfast High Court judge has ruled that abortion should be made
available in the north of Ireland where the baby had a severe disability
or was conceived through rape. The case was taken by the Northern
Ireland Human Right Commission and the ruling has been described as
driving a coach and horses through Northern Ireland’s abortion law.
Precious Life, the leading anti-abortion group in the north, said
that Justice Mark Horner’s ruling was ‘incompatible with human rights’,
and it’s hard to see how the court could have made a ruling which was
both misinformed and contradictory, and used language that was sometimes
cruel and offensive.
HERE’S 6 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BELFAST COURT RULING:
1. THE JUDGE SAID CHILDREN WITH A SEVERE DISABILITY WERE ‘DOOMED’ AND ‘HAD NO LIFE TO PROTECT’
Justice Mark Horner made some shocking comments in his ruling, which
showed both contempt and disregard for unborn children who had what he
described as a ‘fatal foetal abnormality’. He described these babies as
follows:
“But in the case of an FFA, there is no life to protect. When the
foetus leaves the womb, it cannot survive independently. It is doomed.
There is nothing to weigh in the balance. There is no human life to
protect.”
His words were sharply criticised by parents whose babies had been
diagnosed as having life-limiting conditions, who said Justice Horner’s
comments were “grossly offensive, cruel and discriminatory”.
“[His] language is not only grossly misinformed it is deeply
offensive and cruel to parents who have lost babies to life-limiting
conditions such as anencephaly or Trisomy 13,” said Tracy Harkin of the
group Every Life Counts. “Our children were alive and kicking in the
womb and deserved respect and protection.”
Ms Harkin added that her own daughter, Kathleen Rose, had reached her
9th birthday living with Trisomy 13, a condition described by the media
and campaigners as a ‘fatal foetal abnormality’.
“Would Justice Horner look my daughter in the eye and say that she
was ‘doomed’ and that she ‘had no human life to protect’”, she said.
“It’s time for antiquated and discriminatory attitudes towards unborn
babies with disabilities to end.”
Justice Horner also said that babies with conditions like Kathleen
Rose could be aborted because they were unable to ‘enjoy life’, a
reasoning that has no basis in law or ethics. On what highly-subjective
basis can any judge decide who is enjoying life and who isn’t? If he had
looked at this video of Kathleen Rose, he might have been disabused of
such a crass notion.
2. HIS RULING SHOWED A REMARKABLE IGNORANCE OF MEDICAL REALITIES
Justice Horner’s ruling claimed that some unborn children had what he
described as a ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ and that these conditions
justified abortion whereas a ‘severe malformation’ would not. This is
nonsense.
In the first instance, the ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ label is not a
medical diagnosis: it cannot, for example, be found in any medical
textbook. Babies with conditions such as anencephaly have a severe and
life-threatening disability, but it cannot be accurately described as
‘fatal’ and this label is not a diagnosis nor does it describe or inform
parents about the condition affecting the baby.
In fact, as a 2012 paper published in the British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology observed, there is no agreed list of ‘lethal’
or ‘fatal’ conditions in the medical literature because, for all of the
conditions reviewed – including anencephaly, Trisomy 13 and 18 and
others –
“prolonged survival” had been observed or was possible.
Justice Horner should have acknowledged that research shows 72% of
babies with anencephaly lived for a short time after birth. Of those
children, 25% lived up to 5 days, while up to 7% lived up to 28 days
after birth.* Or that babies born with Trisomy 13 or 18 have median
lives of 7 and 14 days respectively, while up to 10% of these babies
live for more than a year.**
Neither did the judge seem to give due consideration to the
remarkable success of perinatal hospice care which helps parents make
the most of time with their babies, or to findings which show that
aborting a baby because of a severe disability has led to negative
mental health outcomes for women.
Most recently, new research published in
Prenatal Diagnosis found that women who had an abortion after a diagnosis of anencephaly were significantly
more likely to suffer depression and despair than those who continued with the pregnancy.
Instead, the judge seemed to rely on outdated information and
discriminatory language to justify ending the lives of babies who are
very sick. This is shameful.
*Jacquier M, Klein A, Boltshauser E. ‘Spontaneous pregnancy outcome
after prenatal diagnosis of anencephaly.’ British Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology 2006; 113:951–953
**Rasmussen SA, Wong LY, Yang Q, May KM & Friedman JM. (2003).
Population-based analyses of mortality in trisomy 13 and trisomy 18.
Pediatrics.111(4 Part 1):777-84.
3. HE ALSO SHOWED A HARSH INSENSITIVITY TO THOSE CONCEIVED THROUGH RAPE
The court ruling held that children conceived through rape could be
aborted and that otherwise a raped woman was “merely a receptacle to
carry the child of a rapist” and that “the law is enforcing the
prohibition of abortion against an innocent victim of a crime in a way
which completely ignores the personal circumstances of the victim.”
It is understandable, and desirable, that we should wish to protect
and support women who have been raped, whether they have become pregnant
or not. The rapist is a criminal and the woman is an innocent party to
this crime. She is a victim. However, the judge seems to have assumed
that abortion is a solution to this distressing and difficult situation.
In fact, figures from the Rape Crisis Centre show that more than
eight out of ten rape victims who became pregnant did not avail of
abortion. *
A study by Dr. Sandra Mahkorn** involving women who had become
pregnant through rape or incest also found that most sexual assault
victims refused abortion, and gave some important insights into why that
was the case. Most women in Dr. Mahkorn’s study felt that abortion
would be another violation, and that issues relating to the rape
experience, not the pregnancy, were of primary concern in counselling
and rehabilitation. Women in the study who were made pregnant by rape
who did not abort said that hostile and negative feelings towards the
baby changed during pregnancy. They also said that they felt the baby
was an innocent party to the crime just as they were.
Sadly, Justice Horner did not recognise or acknowledge the humanity
of these babies, instead choosing to label them a ‘rapists’ child’.
In doing so he showed a harsh insensitivity to children conceived in
rape, and to women who have raised and loved children who were conceived
in rape through no fault of their own. No child is responsible for the
sins – and the crimes – of a rapist.
Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape, says that “Rape victim
mothers need real help, not abortion. Justice is served by punishing the
perpetrator, not the innocent child.”
*Rape Crisis Network Ireland, 2010 National Rape Crisis Statistics and Annual Report, pp. 53-54.
**Sandra Mahkorn, ‘Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,’ The Psychological
Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C.:
University Publications of America, 1979), 55-69 5
4.THE JUDGE SOUGHT TO IGNORE THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Justice Horner actually acknowledged that legalising abortion was an
issue which was “unlikely to be grasped by the legislature in the
foreseeable future”. So he decided to ignore the democratic process and
force a change to the law.
The judge ignored the fact that a consultation process had been held
by the Department of Justice, which did not recommend a change in the
law on abortion for sexual assault victims. He also ignored the fact
that the vast majority of respondents to the consultation did not want
to see abortion laws liberalised.
5. THE COURT DID FIND THAT THERE WAS NO GENERAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
Justice Horner said that there was ‘no right to abortion’ under the
European Convention on Human Rights, and pointed out that the European
Court in A, B and C v. Ireland found that there was no ‘right’ to
abortion.
He also refused the Human Rights Commission’s submission that abortion law amounted to torture.
As Peter Lynas pointed out “[T]he court refused the Human Rights
Commission’s submission that abortion law amounted to torture. The
commission also wanted to allow abortion if the unborn child had a
serious malformation. The judge noted that it was illogical to call for
no discrimination against those born with a disability while permitting
selective abortion to prevent them being born in the first place.
Questions must be asked about a commission that supports such
discrimination”
[www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/our-unelected-judiciary-has-overreached-on-abortion-34254206.html].
6. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING AT APPEALING THE RULING TO THE SUPREME COURT
The Northern Ireland Attorney General, John Larkin, is considering an
appeal of the Belfast High Court abortion ruling. Mr. Larkin, the chief
legal adviser to the Stormont Assembly, said he was “profoundly
disappointed by the ruling, that there was no public appetite for a
change to the law, and that the ruling would take away the rights of
disabled unborn children.
Source: NRLC News
Fred “Mr.” Rogers, whose beloved television show taught children the many ways to love one’s neighbor as oneself, delivered a message
in a 1999 award acceptance speech that is as relevant today as ever.
When he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame, he underscored
the impact television has on children, noting that what children see on
TV will influence the choices they make, and even their perception of
Life.
Quebec’s
euthanasia experiment that was scheduled to begin on December 10, 2015,
is the only law in the world which attempts to coerce physicians and
palliative programs into providing euthanasia. Thankfully, a Québec
Superior Court Justice prevented the launch of euthanasia in Québec
based on its conflict with the federal Criminal Code.
Posts
