Feb
23
And it has nothing to do with € 145 billion (+/-), or job creation, or any of that other boring stuff.
Oh no.
Grafton street this morning:
In the midst of putting up the ‘Labortion’ posters, they seem to have remembered that there is indeed another important issue:
The ‘Labortion’ party wants marriage equality too!
That allowing gay people to marry is bad is seemingly self-explanatory, so they just slapped up a piece of an article.
Next week’s slogan: ‘A vote for Labour is a vote for Satan.’
Tagged: Abortion, Anti-choice, LGBT, Marriage equality, Politics, Pro-life
Jan
11
From tomorrow the morning-after pill will be available over the counter for the first time in Ireland.
Based on legislation from 2005, Boots have decided to sell the emergency contraception.
This is a welcome, but long overdue, decision. Until now, Ireland and Greece have been the only two EU countries where the morning-after pill could not be obtained without a prescription.
Access to emergency contraception is essential for womens right to make their own decisions about reproduction. Ireland has a high number of crisis pregnancies every year, and abortion is not only illegal, but also extremely stigmatised.
Making the morning-after pill more freely available will hopefully contribute to a decrease in the number of emergency pregnancies and relieve many women of the added trauma (and economic burden) of travelling abroad for terminations.
This new initiative will also mean that women do not have to worry about whether their GP will provide them with a moral lecture rather than a prescription, as well as greater access to emergency contraception during weekends and holidays. It could also mean one less worry for women who have been raped but do not wish to attend their GP or a sexual assault clinic.
So, thank you Boots, and welcome to the 21st century, Ireland!
Tagged: Abortion, Morning-after pill
Dec
16
Finally, the much anticipated judgement from the so-called ‘Case of A, B and C’ in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is here.
The three women, referred to as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, brought their cases to be heard in the ECHR in December last year. They were supported by the Irish Family Planning Association.
All three women traveled to the UK to access abortion services.
They had different reasons for their choice to terminate their pregnancies:
‘A’ had children in state care, and was hoping to regain custody. She felt that another pregnancy would lower the prospects of reunification with her existing family.
‘B’ became pregnant unintentionally, despite having taken the morning-after pill. She had been told by two different doctors that there was a substantial risk of an ectopic pregnancy.
‘C’ was in remission from cancer. While pregnant, but unaware of this fact, she underwent several tests in relation to her illness. On finding out about her pregnancy, she could not find a doctor in Ireland who would advice her on the risks the pregnancy posed to her own life and health, nor about potential risks the tests she had undergone could have had on the fetus.
Unable to find a doctor who would determine the level of such risks, she did not fulfill the criteria for the exceptions to the abortion ban in Ireland, namely the ‘real and sustantial risk’ to her life. She felt she had no choice but to go abroad for an abortion.
‘C’ wanted a medical procedure (termination induced by drugs). However, because such procedures require follow-up appointments, and she was a non-resident, she could not find a clinic in the UK willing to perform this. She therefore had to wait until performing a surgical abortion was possible, and underwent this procedure in the UK.
Today, it was announced that the Strasbourg court ruled that one of the women’s rights had been violated.
The court held that in the cases of ‘A’ and ‘B’, no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedom had taken place.
However, it was found that ‘C”s right to a lawful abortion was breached, due to the lack of “effective or accessible procedure”.
Some argue that all three women suffered from ill-health, stigma and violation to their rights of privacy by having to travel abroad for the procedures. These are very important arguments which hopefully will lead to further debate on the issue.
On the positive side, the decision has raised awareness around Irish legislation on abortion, and particularly around the state’s unwillingness to implement legislation and procedures that take into consideration the (very limited) exceptions to the abortion ban.
Following the judgement in the X-case in 1992, abortions should be accessible in Ireland when a woman’s life is at risk. As illustrated by complainant ‘C’ in this case, the state has yet to follow up its’ legal obligations 18 years after this Supreme Court decision.
The ECHR has legally binding status in all the 47 states signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights; thus including Ireland. As a result of today’s ruling, the state is now obliged to provide a legal exception to the abortion ban.
The ECHR judgement has highlighted the state’s failure to implement this piece of legislation for the past 18 years, and hopefully this means that such legal exceptions to the abortion restriction will be implemented shortly.
Today’s landmark decision has been heavily discussed in the media, including in the Irish Times, Irish Independent, Choice Ireland, Catholics for Choice, the Anti-room (and not to forget their brilliant piece from yesterday), the Irish Family Planning Association, Journal.ie, the New York Times, the Guardian, and many, many more.
I have however received a tip via Twitter that the Pro-Life campaign has a ‘more informed and balanced’ take on the case than the mainstream media, and been referred to read up on it here and here.
Finally, I would like to thank these three fantastic women for their strength and bravery, and for their commitment to fight for the right to choice and the right to privacy to make personal decisions on private matters.
Tagged: Abortion, Choice, Health, Legislation, Women's Rights
Nov
09
Anti-abortion campaigner Philip Benham, founder of the group Operation Save America, met in court yesterday charged with making and distributing ‘Wanted’ posters featuring personal details of doctors performing abortions in North Carolina, US.
Benham describes the posters as information tools and claims that he is exercising his right to freedom of speech. Others however, name these actions ‘calls for murders’, referring to the assassinations of four doctors following similar posters.
The most recent murder took place last year, when Dr. George Tiller, who survived an attempted murder in 1993, was killed while attending church. In 1993 and 1994, four doctors depicted on wanted posters were killed.
You can see a CBS news report about the wanted posters here.
Tagged: Abortion, Murder, Pregnancy
