User:Jnestorius/abortion

Documents relating to Abortion in the Republic of Ireland:

1979
Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979:
 * Section 10: Saver in relation to abortion
 * Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising—
 * (a) the procuring of abortion,
 * (b) the doing of any other thing the doing of which is prohibited by section 58 or 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (which sections prohibit the administering of drugs or the use of instruments to procure abortion or the supplying of drugs or instruments to procure abortion), or
 * (c) the sale, importation into the State, manufacture, advertising or display of abortifacients.
 * Section 12 Amendment of Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, and Act of 1946. (removes contraception but keeps abortion as grounds for banning.)
 * (see also Section 14 "Amendment of Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967" of Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995, which relaxes the ban on abortion information)

1983
Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1983 Oireachtas debates Act

1992

 * Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 Oireachtas debates (rejected)
 * It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of the unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.
 * Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 Oireachtas debates Act
 * Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 Oireachtas debates Act

1995

 * Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995 Oireachtas debates Act Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the bill (S.C. No. 87 of 1995)
 * Minister introducing: It has five objectives: (i) to clarify the legal entitlements and obligations of persons or agencies who give abortion information; (ii) to ensure that any doctor or advice agency who provides abortion information to pregnant women does so only in the context of full counselling on all of the available options, without any advocacy [15] or promotion of abortion; (iii) to prohibit such a doctor or advice agency form referring women to pregnancy termination services, but without interfering with the ethical obligation on a doctor or counsellor to ensure the safety of the patient; (iv) to ensure that abortion information made available to the general public, for example, in newspapers, books or broadcasts, is factual and does not advocate or promote abortion; and (v) to prohibit the provision of abortion information by means of billboards, public notices or distributing unsolicited leaflets, so that abortion information will not be imposed on the public in a manner which will be offensive to some.

2001

 * Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001:
 * Oireachtas debates
 * Cases disputing (unsuccessfully) the correctness of the manner of tagging the proposed Act onto the amendment:
 * Riordan v. Ireland & Ors [2002] IEHC 176 (14 February 2002)
 * Riordan v. Ireland [2002] IEHC 42 (14 February 2002)
 * Morris v. Minister for the Environment and Local Government [2002] IEHC 5 (1st February, 2002)
 * Referendum Commission explanatory booklet
 * Text as passed by the Oireachtas includes as the second schedule the text of the proposed "Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act, 2002", which repealed the 1861 Act sections and said:
 * In this Act, ‘‘abortion’’ means the intentional destruction by any means of unborn human life after implantation in the womb of a woman.
 * Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, abortion does not include the carrying out of a medical procedure by a medical practitioner at an approved place in the course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended where that procedure is, in the reasonable opinion of the practitioner, necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life other than by self-destruction.

2003

 * European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (adds the European Convention on Human Rights to Irish law)

2012

 * Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012 -PMB- (Number 10 of 2012)
 * Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) (No. 2) Bill 2012 -PMB- (Bill No 103 of 2012)

2013

 * Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013
 * General scheme (30 April)
 * Draft (13 June)
 * Oireachtas index

1973
McGee v. A.G. & Anor [1973 IESC 2; [1974] IR 284 (19 December 1973)]
 * Does a law which - effectively prevents the plaintiff and her husband in their particular circumstances from resorting to the use of contraceptives for the purpose of ensuring that the plaintiff will not have another pregnancy "respect" or "not interfere with" the right of family privacy of the plaintiff and her husband?" In this context, I wish to emphasise that this judgment is confined to contraceptives as such; it is not intended to apply to abortifacients, though called contraceptives, as in the case of abortifacients entirely different considerations may arise. In my opinion, a statute which makes it a criminal offence for the plaintiff or her husband to import or to acquire possession of contraceptives for use within their marriage is an unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate of all their personal relationships.

1980
G v An Bord Uchtála (quoted in Norris v. A.G. [1983 IESC 3; [1984] IR 36 (22 April 1983)])
 * Not only has the child born out of lawful wedlock the natural right to have its welfare and health guarded no less well than that of a child born in lawful wedlock, but a fortiori it has the right to life itself and the right to be guarded against all threats directed to its existence whether before or after birth. The child's natural rights spring primarily from the natural right of every individual to life, to be reared and educated, to liberty, to work, to rest and recreation, to the practice of religion, and to follow his or her conscience. The right to life necessarily implies the right to be born, the right to preserve and defend (and to have preserved and defended) that life, and the right to maintain that life at a proper human standard in matters of food, clothing and habitation. It lies not in the power of the parent who has the primary natural rights and duties in respect of the child to exercise them in such a way as intentionally or by neglect to endanger the health or life of the child or to terminate its existence. The child's natural right to life and all that flows from that right are independent of any right of the parent as such. I wish here to repeat what I said in McGee's Case at p. 312 of the report:- '. . . any action on the part of either the husband and wife or of the State to limit family sizes by endangering or destroying human life must necessarily not only be an offence against the common good but also against the guaranteed personal rights of the human life in question.' In these respects the child born out of lawful wedlock is in precisely the same position as the child born in lawful wedlock.

1983

 * Norris v. Attorney General; obiter dictum: Norris v. A.G. [1983 IESC 3; [1984] IR 36 (22 April 1983)]
 * There are many acts done in private which the State is entitled to condemn, whether such be done by an individual on his own or with another. The law has always condemned abortion, incest, suicide attempts, suicide pacts, euthanasia or mercy killing. These are prohibited simply because they are morally wrong and regardless of the fact, which may exist in some instances, that no harm or injury to others is involved. ...
 * I cannot delimit the area in which the State may constitutionally intervene so as to restrict the right of privacy, nor can I overlook the present public debate concerning the criminal law and arising from the statute of 1861 in regard to abortion – the killing of an unborn child. It is not an issue that arises in this case, but it may be claimed that the right of privacy of a pregnant woman would extend to a right in her to terminate a pregnancy, an act which would involve depriving the unborn child of the most fundamental right of all – the right to life itself. I recognize that there has been no argument in this case relevant to such an issue, but nothing in this judgment, express or in any way implied, is to be taken as supporting a view that the provisions of s. 58 of the Act of 1861 (making it a criminal offence to procure an abortion) are in any way inconsistent with the Constitution. There are but two judicial references to this question, if question be the appropriate word. In McGee's case Mr. Justice Griffin said at p. 335 of the report:- "In this context, I wish to emphasise that this judgment is confined to contraception as such; it is not intended to apply to abortifacients, though called contraceptives, as in the case of abortifacients entirely different considerations may arise."
 * More elaborately, in G. v. An Bord Uchtála {1980] I.R. 32 Mr. Justice Walsh said at p. 69 of the report:- [see above]

1989

 * SPUC v Grogan
 * European Court 61990J0159; European Court reports 1991 Page I-04685
 * Supreme Court [1989] IR 753, [1997] IESC 4

1992

 * Supreme Court (1992) Attorney General -v- X

1997

 * "C" case ( A. and B. v. Eastern Health Board)
 * High Court ruling [1997] IEHC 176; [1998] 1 IR 464; [1998] 1 ILRM 460 (28th November, 1997)

1998

 * Colgan v. Independent Radio and Television Commission [1998] IEHC 117; [2000] 2 IR 490; [1999] 1 ILRM 22 (20th July, 1998)
 * A Youth Defence anti-abortion ad was found to breach the Radio and Television Act, 1988 "No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute."

2002

 * Supreme Court (2002) IESC 44 (Baby O & anor -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & ors) "In this case, neither the State nor any of its organs was seeking to terminate the second named applicant’s pregnancy and the fact that the standard of ante or postnatal care available to her in Nigeria was less than would be available to her in this country was entirely irrelevant to the legality of her deportation."

2004

 * Supreme Court (2004) IESC 46 (Griffin -v- Patton) "There was undoubtedly an undercurrent running through the evidence of the respondent’s English medical experts that Irish doctors would not be experienced in this kind of surgical procedure because they did not carry out abortions."

2006

 * Supreme Court (2006) IESC 60 (N. & anor. -v- Health Service Executive & ors.) "The X case surprised many who had not realised that by acknowledging a right in “the unborn” (an entity which, like a young child, cannot personally assert the right), the Eight Amendment to the Constitution had opened the door to the assertion of that right against individual citizens, including the mother of the unborn, by unrelated third parties, public authorities or the Attorney General. Indeed, prior to the X case, persons concerned about the dissemination in Ireland of information about abortion services in the United Kingdom had incorporated a limited company, SPUC Ltd., which the Courts recognised as having locus standi to litigate against the providers of such information. The creation or acknowledgement of an entirely independent right in a person or entity personally incapable of exercising that right may have unintended or undesired legal consequences. The effect of our constitutional dispensation is that, presumptively, the right to form a view of the child’s welfare and to act on it belongs to the parents. The facts of this case make it unnecessary to consider the difficulties which arise where the parents themselves are in disagreement as to how the welfare of the child may best be secured."

2009

 * (Roche -v- Roche & ors)
 * High Court [2006] IEHC 359: It is not for the Courts to decide whether the word "unborn" should include embryos in vitro. This is a matter for the Oireachtas, or for the people, in the event that a Constitutional Amendment is put before them. In 2000 the Government established a Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction to make recommendations in the area of in vitro fertilisation practices. The members of the Commission included a wide range of experts in the fields of reproductive medicine embryology genetics law and other relevant areas which can be ascertained from the description of the members of the Commission published at the commencement of their report. The Commission also invited a number of additional experts with complementary expertise in specific areas including Philosophers, Sociologists, a Director of Ecumenical Studies and a Roman Catholic Theologian. In March, 2005 the Commission published its report in which it made forty recommendations, most of which were unanimous. The first recommendation (unanimous) was that "a regularity body should be established by an Act of the Oireachtas to regulate A.H.R. services in Ireland". (By A.H.R. they meant Assisted Human Reproduction). A majority of the Commission recommended that "the embryo formed by IVF should not attract legal protection until placed in the human body, at which stage it should attract the same level of protection as the embryo formed in vivo". It is a matter for the Oireachtas as to whether they implement the recommendations of the Commission. In the meantime the Courts are being ask to deal with a complex dispute involving social issues which should be governed by a regulatory regime established by an Act of the Oireachtas.
 * Supreme Court (2009) IESC 82
 * Murray C.J. "The primary issue in this case is whether the constitutional protection afforded to the life of the unborn as provided in Article 40.3. of the Constitution extends to three fertilised embryos which have been frozen and stored in a clinic. ... I do not consider that it is for a court of law, faced with the most divergent if most learned views in the discourses available to it from the disciplines referred to, to pronounce on the truth of when precisely human life begins. ... The choice as to how life before birth can be best protected, and therefore the point which in law that protection should be deemed to commence, is a policy choice for the Oireachtas[.]
 * Geoghegan: I would take the view that “the unborn” refers to a child in the womb not yet born.
 * Fennelly: I am also satisfied that the frozen embryos do not enjoy the protection of the guarantees provided to the right to life of the unborn by Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. I agree, for the reasons given in the judgments of Hardiman J. and Geoghegan J. that Article 40.3.3 does not extend to or include frozen embryos which have not been implanted. I do not think that the constitutional provision should be considered only as being intended to reinforce the effect of section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. The people, in adopting the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution employed distinct, new and independent language.
 * Denham I am satisfied that, in the context of the statutory law prior to the introduction of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, the State protection of an embryo arose after implantation. The Amendment introduced in the Constitution was to copper fasten the protection provided in the statutory regime, to render unconstitutional the procuring of a miscarriage. It meant that any expansive interpretation of the Act of 1861 was precluded. ... Of course there is a relationship between the frozen embryos in the clinic and the mother and the father - but not the link and relationship envisaged in Article 40.3.3°. Article 40.3.3° was drafted in light of the special relationship that exists uniquely between a mother and the child she carries.
 * Hardiman two quite different analyses of Article 40.3.3 - a linguistic one and one based on the authorities - lead harmoniously to the same conclusion... that the “unborn”, “na mbeo gan breith”, is the foetus en ventre sa mere, the embryo implanted in the womb of the mother.

2010
See

Official discussions and reviews
See also

1996
Constitution Review Group (1996) Report, pp.250-256 ("Rights to Life (‘Unborn’ and Mother)") and 378-9 ("whether provision should be made for amendment of the Constitution by way of a preferendum instead of/as well as a referendum")

1999
Department of the Taoiseach (1999) Green Paper on abortion (also included as appendix 1 of the 2000 Oireachtas Committee report)

2000
All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (2000) Fifth progress report: Abortion

2005

 * Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (March 2005) REPORT; APPENDIX III: ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF THE WORD ‘UNBORN’ FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION and the earlier:
 * The Commission noted that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution did not explicitly define the term ‘unborn’. This matter is discussed further in Appendix III. The uncertainty relates to the point in the process of fertilisation at which the ‘unborn’ enjoys constitutional protection. There is general agreement that the term ‘unborn’ does not apply to any point prior to the fertilisation of the ovum by the sperm. What is not clear is whether Article 40.3.3 applies at that precise point or at some subsequent point during the process of fertilisation and development of the embryo. This uncertainty has important implications for AHR, for if Article 40.3.3 applies to an in vitro embryo once fertilisation is complete, one could not allow such embryos to perish. Thus one could not engage in embryonic stem cell research or allow an embryo diagnosed with a genetic disorder to perish following PGD (see Chapter 8). If, on the other hand, Article 40.3.3 does not apply to an in vitro embryo from fertilisation, there would be no constitutional impediment to conventional IVF or to other associated procedures such as embryo (including embryonic stem cell) research and the disposal of embryos diagnosed with genetic disorders.
 * Unfortunately the law currently lacks clarity on this important point. Clarification can only be sought in one of two ways, either an authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court on the meaning of the term ‘unborn’ for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 or by way of constitutional amendment.

2011

 * United Nations Human Rights Council / Nineteenth session / Agenda item 6 / Universal Periodic Review: Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ireland 21 December 2011:
 * 108.	The recommendations below did not enjoy the support of Ireland:
 * 108.4.	Bring its abortion laws in line with ICCPR (Norway);
 * 108.5.	Introduce legislation to implement the European Court of Human Rights judgement in the A, B and C versus Ireland case (United Kingdom);
 * 108.6.	Take measures to revise the law on abortion with a view to permitting termination of pregnancy in cases where pregnancy is a result of rape or *incest, or in situations where the pregnancy puts the physical or mental health or well-being of the pregnant woman or the pregnant girl in danger (Denmark);
 * 108.7.	Allow abortion at least when pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant woman (Slovenia);
 * 108.8.	Adopt legislative measures that guarantee greater integration of women as well as safeguards for their personal rights and reproductive health care and reform the Offences against the Person Act of 1861 to decriminalize abortion under certain circumstances (Spain);
 * 108.9.	Ensure that the establishment of an expert group on abortion matters will lead to a coherent legal framework including the provision of adequate services (Netherlands);
 * Other Questions - European Court of Human Rights Judgment Tuesday, 8 November 2011 The Government rejected all recommendations on this issue submitted to the State during the universal periodic review process in Geneva on 6 October, as it would be inappropriate for it to pre-empt the recommendations of the expert group at this stage. In the case of the recommendations made by Denmark and Slovenia, these were outside the scope of the judgment and not in line with Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution of Ireland.

2012
See

Death of Savita Halappanavar:
 * 14 November 2012 Dáil
 * 15 November 2012 Dáil
 * 20 November 2012 Dáil

2013
Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children
 * Implementation of Government Decision Following Expert Group Report into Matters Relating to A, B and C v. Ireland
 * 8 January 2013
 * 9 January 2013
 * 10 January 2013
 * Heads of Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013: Public Hearings
 * 17 May 2013 Policy - Overview of Heads of Bill; Regulatory and Representative Bodies; Obstetric Care Facilities - Larger Hospitals; Obstetric Care Facilities - Smaller Hospitals
 * 20 May 2013 Psychiatry and Perinatal Psychiatrists; Psychiatry; Other Medical Specialties
 * 21 May 2013 Medical Law; Constitutional Law; Medical Ethics; Members' Time and Closing Statements

2014
"Abortion
 * United Nations Human Rights Committee — Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Ireland

The Committee reiterates its previous concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party owing to article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and its strict interpretation by the State party. In particular, it is concerned at: (a) the criminalization of abortion under section 22 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, including in cases of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality and serious risks to the health of the mother, which may lead to up to 14 years of imprisonment, except in cases that constitute a “real and substantive risk” to the life of a pregnant woman; (b) the lack of legal and procedural clarity concerning what constitutes “real and substantive risk” to the life, as opposed to the health, of the pregnant woman; (c) the requirement of excessive degree of scrutiny by medical professionals for pregnant and suicidal women leading to further mental distress; (d) the discriminatory impact of the Act on women who are unable to travel abroad to seek abortions; (e) the strict restrictions on the channels via which information on crisis pregnancy options may be provided to women and theimposition of criminal sanctions on health-care providers who refer women to abortion services outside the State party under the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995; and (f) the severe mental suffering caused by the denial of abortion services to women seeking abortions due to rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality or serious risks to health (arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 19 and 26).

The State party should:
 * (a) Revise its legislation on abortion, including its Constitution, to provide for additional exceptions in cases of rape, incest, serious risks to the health of the mother, or fatal foetal abnormality;
 * (b) Swiftly adopt a guidance document to clarify what constitutes a “real and substantive risk” to the life of the pregnant woman;
 * (c) Consider making more information on crisis pregnancy options available through a variety of channels, and ensure that health - care providers who supply information on safe abortion services abroad are not subject to criminal sanctions."

2015

 * Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights — Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Ireland p.9:
 * Sexual and reproductive health
 * 29. The Committee is concerned at the State party’s highly restrictive legislation on abortion and strict interpretation thereof. It is particularly concerned at the criminalization of abortion, including in the cases of rape and incest and of risk to the health of a pregnant woman; the lack of legal and procedural clarity on what constitutes a real substantive risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the pregnant woman; and the discriminatory impact on women who cannot afford to get abortion abroad or access to the necessary information. It is further concerned at the limited access to information on sexual and reproductive health (art. 12).
 * The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary steps, including a referendum on abortion, to revise its legislation on abortion, including the Constitution and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, in line with international human rights standards; adopt guidelines to clarify what constitutes a real substantive risk to the life of a pregnant woman; publicize information on crisis pregnancy options through effective channels of communication; and ensure the accessibility and availability of information on sexual and reproductive health.

2016
UN Human Rights Committee report on Amanda Mellet, who took 2013 complaint that her fatal foetal abnormality pregnancy could not be terminated. "7.4 The Committee considers that the fact that a particular conduct or action is legal under domestic law does not mean that it cannot infringe article 7 of the Covenant. By virtue of the existing legislative framework, the State party subjected the author to conditions of intense physical and mental suffering. ... Many of the described negative experiences she went through could have been avoided if the author had not been prohibited from terminating her pregnancy in the familiar environment of her own country and under the care of the health professionals whom she knew and trusted

7.5 suffering was further aggravated by the obstacles she faced in receiving needed information ... the Abortion Information Act legally restricts the circumstances in which any individual may provide information about lawfully available abortion services in Ireland or overseas, and criminalizes advocating or promoting the termination of pregnancy

7.6 The Committee additionally notes, as stated in General Comment No. 20, that the text of article 7 allows of no limitation, and no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons.
 * Accordingly, the Committee considers that, taken together, the above facts amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

7.8 The Committee considers that the balance that the State party has chosen to strike between protection of the foetus and the rights of the woman in this case cannot be justified. ... the Committee considers that the interference in the author’s decision as to how best cope with her non-viable pregnancy was unreasonable and arbitrary in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.

7.10 The Committee notes that under the legal regime in the State party, women pregnant with a foetus with a fatal impairment who nevertheless decide to carry the foetus to term continue to receive the full protection of the public health care system. ... By contrast, women who choose to terminate a non-viable pregnancy must do so in reliance on their own financial resources, entirely outside of the public health care system.

7.11 ... The Committee considers that the differential treatment to which the author was subjected in relation to other similarly situated women failed to adequately take into account her medical needs and socio-economic circumstances and did not meet the requirements of reasonableness, objectivity and legitimacy of purpose. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the failure of the State party to provide services to the author that she required constituted discrimination and violated her rights under article 26 of the Covenant.

8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5(4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

9. the Committee considers that the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy.

10. the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. In addition, it requests the State party to publish the Committee's Views"

In November, Simon Harris, the Minister for Health, personally apologised to Mellet and said the state would pay €30,000 compensation to her.

Crisis Pregnancy Agency

 * S.I. No. 446/2001 — Crisis Pregnancy Agency (Establishment) Order, 2001
 * The functions of the Agency are as follows:
 * (i) in consultation with Departments of State specified in the Schedule and with such other persons as considered appropriate, to prepare a strategy to address the issue of crisis pregnancy, this strategy to provide, inter alia, for:
 * (a) a reduction in the number of crisis pregnancies by the provision of education, advice and contraceptive services;
 * (b) a reduction in the number of women with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering services and supports which make other options more attractive;
 * (c) the provision of counselling and medical services after crisis pregnancy.
 * Crisis Pregnancies: Motion. Seanad, 3 October 2001
 * Crisis Pregnancy Agency. Dáil, 15 October 2002
 * Crisis Pregnancy Strategy: Statements. Seanad, 29 January 2004
 * Written Answers - School Curriculum. Dáil, 2 October 2007 (Relationships and Sexuality Education)
 * Crisis Pregnancy Services. Seanad, 29 October 2009
 * Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 PART 6 Dissolution of Crisis Pregnancy Agency
 * Oireachtas debates:
 * second stage "The integration of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency within the HSE will facilitate co-ordinated planning in the area of crisis pregnancy as part of the HSE’s overall planning for and provision of health and social services, including contraception and sexual health strategies, family support, support for immigrant communities and teen parent support programmes. The integration of the functions and staff of all the bodies will be carefully managed to ensure a seamless continuation of the important services they provide."
 * Jan O'Sullivan: wish to focus particularly on the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, which had very specific functions when it was set up. It has fulfilled those functions very well. It was set up as a direct response to a recommendation made by the all-party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and was to have a very singular focus on crisis pregnancy. It was given specific responsibility to develop a strategy to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies and to ensure that women faced with a crisis pregnancy are offered real and positive alternatives to abortion. Official figures indicate that since the agency’s establishment, the number of abortions carried out on Irish women has decreased by approximately 2,000. In anybody’s language, this must be a success. ... I wish to ensure that the agency’s good work in respect of reducing the number of women from Ireland who travel abroad to have abortions will continue. However, the Bill does not appear to contain any provisions in respect of maintaining the agency’s functions, engaging in a review or ensuring that the funding relating to this issue will be ring-fenced and will not be used for other purposes.
 * Crisis Pregnancy Agencies: Discussion with Choice Ireland. Joint Committee on Health and Children, 1 December 2009
 * Written Answers - Counselling Agencies. Dáil, 11 February 2010
 * Written Answers - School Curriculum. Dáil, 3 June 2010 "the steps that are being taken to ensure that the relationships and sexuality education curriculum is rolled out in full to all leaving certificate students"

Medical Council ethics guides

 * Medical Council ethics guides:
 * 1st ed 1981 p.15; 2nd ed 1984 p.21-22: Abortion in any circumstances is professional misconduct and it is illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Doctors must be prepared to resist requests by patients and their relatives to advise termination where pregnancy is unwanted. ... Doctors must maintain the time-honoured medical principle that every effort should be made to preserve human life, both born and unborn.
 * 3rd ed 1989 p.32: Abortion is illegal in Ireland and is professional misconduct. Doctors are reminded of the legal position in Ireland concerning requests for, or advice on, termination of pregnancy.
 * 4th ed 1994 p.36:
 * Abortion is illegal in Ireland and is professional misconduct. Doctors are reminded of the legal position in Ireland concerning requests for, or advice on, termination of pregnancy.
 * 39.03 It has always been the tradition of the medical profession to preserve life and health. Situations arise in medical practice where the life/or health of the mother or of the unborn, or both, are endangered. In these situations it is imperative ethically that doctors shall endeavour to preserve life and health. This is in accordance with the International Code of Ethics where the English text states: ‘A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life’ and the Declaration of Geneva which in 1983 stated ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity’.
 * 39.04 While the necessity for abortion to preserve the life or health of a sick mother remains to be proved, it is unethical always to withhold treatment beneficial to a pregnant woman, by reason of her pregnancy.
 * 39.05 Departure from these principles in practice may leave the doctor open to a charge of professional misconduct.
 * 5th ed 1998 p.39-40:
 * 26.1 In this rapidly evolving and complicated area the Council reminds doctors of their obligation to preserve life and to promote health. The creation of new forms of life for experimental purposes or the deliberate and intentional destruction of human life already formed is professional misconduct.
 * 26.5 The Child In Utero: The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct. Should a child in utero suffer or lose its life as a side-effect of standard medical treatment of the mother, then it is not unethical. Refusal by a doctor to treat a woman with a serious illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and could be considered professional misconduct.
 * 6th ed. 2004 pp.36,44:
 * 24.6 The Child in Utero: The Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when there is real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and subscribes to the views expressed in Part 2 of the written submission of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution as contained in its Fifth Progress Report, Appendix IV, page A407. (See Appendix C).
 * Appendix C:
 * The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is the professional body representing the speciality of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Ireland. The Executive Council of the Institute has examined the Green Paper on Abortion and the members have been consulted. We welcome the Green Paper, which provides a comprehensive, up to date and objective analysis of the issues arising in the care of the pregnant woman. Our expertise is in the medical area and our comments area confined to these aspects.
 * In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.
 * We recognise our responsibility to provide aftercare for women who decide to leave the State for termination of pregnancy. We recommend that full support and follow up services be made available for all women whose pregnancies have been terminated, whatever the circumstances.
 * 7th ed 2009 21 Abortion:
 * 21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.
 * 21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, subject to strict conditions.4 It is not lawful to encourage or advocate an abortion in individual cases.
 * 21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services for women who have an abortion abroad.
 * 21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.
 * Irish Medical Times: Council clarifies its stance on abortion after EU ruling 5 Jan 2011 (see ):
 * In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving.
 * In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby, the Council stated.

A. B. and C. v. Ireland
ECHR (2010) In the case of A. B. and C. v. Ireland
 * ACTION PLAN A, B, and C v. Ireland Application no 25579/2005, Grand Chamber judgment 16th December 2010, Information submitted by the Government of Ireland on 16th June 2011
 * Action Report 2012: On 29 November [2011], the Government approved the establishment of the aforementioned Expert Group with the following terms of reference:
 * To examine the A, B and C v Ireland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights;
 * to elucidate its implications for the provision of health care services to pregnant women in Ireland;
 * to recommend a series of options on how to implement the judgment taking into account the constitutional, legal, medical, and ethical considerations involved in the formulation of public policy in this area and the over‐riding need for speedy action.
 * DOHC Expert Group established to examine A, B and C v Ireland Judgment 13 January 2012
 * Dáil questions details of the membership of the expert group 18 April 2012
 * Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012 Oireachtas debates and bill versions.
 * 18 April 2012 (Deputy James Reilly): Members have a task to perform. They must take action to deal with a long-overdue responsibility. While I note Deputy Wallace’s comment that no action has been taken by six successive Governments, I assure Members this will not be the seventh. ... On a technical level, the pressing responsibility is to take action to deal with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the A, B and C v. Ireland case. ...  The Government has established an expert group that draws on appropriate medical and legal expertise with a view to making recommendations on how this matter should be addressed properly. ...  While this Bill as drafted goes some way towards addressing the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment, the Government is clear that in its current form it cannot be accepted because it is lacking in certain legal respects.  ... I wish to meet our obligations, not simply to the European Union but more importantly to our citizens.


 * Dáil questions on Expert Group:
 * 2013 No.240 the persons who framed the terms of reference for the expert group on the A, B and C report on abortion; if there were draft guidelines; the persons involved in drawing up the terms of reference and the brief they received from him on the matter; the groups or organisations that were requested to supply recommendations; and if they were selected, the person that selected and approved the nominations; how often and when the group met and if the discussion notes are available; the members, if any, that resigned; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
 * 2013 No.261 if there were draft terms of reference for the expert group; if so, what there were; the brief he gave the chairman of the external group; the nominations received from the Irish College of General Practitioners, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, an Bord Altranais, and the Medical Council; who, if any, of these were selected; the personnel other than those nominated above that were on the group; and the persons who nominated them; and if the meetings held in his Department may the accessed to view or copy


 * REPORT OF THE EXPERT GROUP ON THE JUDGMENT IN A, B AND C V IRELAND NOVEMBER 2012
 * Dáil 2012-12-04
 * Dáil 2012-12-06
 * Dáil 2012-12-07
 * Dáil 2012-12-17
 * Seanad 2012-12-06


 * Government decision on ABC Expert Group option 2012-12-18

Alleged illegal abortions
As regards the offences of "procuring abortion" (1947–1999), "procuring or assisting in abortion" (2000–2003), the number of cases "known to the Gardaí" was 0 for every year except 1948 (8 counts) 1958 (1) 1964 (3) and 1968 (1). Each known case led to proceedings being commenced.
 * Criminal statistics:


 * 1948 related to Kathleen Gilbourne, a "handywoman" from Mountrath, County Tipperary. Charged with murdering Wilhelmina Birney in 1948 and infant in 1945, and 8 counts of abortion; pleaded guilty to manslaughter of infant and sentenced to 7 years for that and each of the 8 abortions, concurrently.
 * 1958 Arnold Ram Sukul Hardyal, a medical student from British Guiana in Dublin; found not guilty.
 * 1964 Robert Anthony Stammers "a married glazier" of Ranelagh, Dublin, charged with attempting to procure abortions [in Belfast] and conceal births for his mistress between 1953 and 1963; first trial collapsed; retrial acquitted.
 * 1968: ???

"There were only three abortion prosecutions between the 1948 Gilbourne and 1956 Cadden cases" — two in England and one attempt to obtain ergot.


 * 1995–7 Family Planning Centre, Dublin [later "Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices"]:
 * [premises raided on 20 Feb; abortion in 1995, Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices took over in October 1996; separate from Marie Stopes International as required by law]
 * doctor in his 70s had previously run "Family Planning Centre", in 1996 it became "Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices" under different management; three complainants of complications were offered immunity for testimony; doctor suspended; DPP declined to prosecute
 * "only previous high-profile Garda investigation into abortion claims" was Mamie Cadden ["high-profile" is doing a lot of work]
 * [two women came forward after initial report and made statements to Garda about 1995 abortions]
 * Dunne in 1998 received file from Garda with confidential info including women's sexual history; claimed file was volunteered, no bribe paid
 * McDowell wanted to make such leaks punishable by 5 years' imprisonment for Garda and journalist; see Garda Síochána Act 2005 s. 62
 * [two women came forward after initial report and made statements to Garda about 1995 abortions]
 * Dunne in 1998 received file from Garda with confidential info including women's sexual history; claimed file was volunteered, no bribe paid
 * McDowell wanted to make such leaks punishable by 5 years' imprisonment for Garda and journalist; see Garda Síochána Act 2005 s. 62
 * McDowell wanted to make such leaks punishable by 5 years' imprisonment for Garda and journalist; see Garda Síochána Act 2005 s. 62


 * 2001 Women on Waves : Aurora docked, but no abortions because of legal complications: "it lacked two Dutch and Irish licenses, one for operating medical facilities and the other for carrying passengers to sea" "Although there was little public curiosity, more than 200 international journalists covered the arrival".


 * 2004 immigrants:
 * Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, and 1992 constitutional right to travel
 * [Romanian and Filipino patients had complications; Moldovan alleged abortionist using outdated procedure]

TBD
 * Abortion pills via Internet pharmacies: