Pro-Lifers
Fear
Disastrous Decision in "Roe v. Wade of Europe" Case
STRASBOURG - Pro-life advocates involved in the "A, B and C v. Ireland"
case fear that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is preparing
to issue "an activist" decision that could lead to the abolition of the
pro-life amendment of Ireland's constitution.
The ECHR heard arguments yesterday in the case that has been described
as the "Roe v. Wade of Europe." Three women, two Irish nationals and
one Lithuanian, who live in Ireland and obtained abortions in the UK,
have complained to the Court that had they been allowed to have had
abortions in Ireland they could have avoided medical complications,
expense and "trauma."
In 1983 the Constitution of Ireland was amended to read, "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."
In Court documents, the women have claimed that having to travel to the
UK, "made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and
traumatic," and that the "restriction stigmatised and humiliated them
and risked damaging their health." They are being supported in their
suit by the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), an affiliate of
International Planned Parenthood.
The women claim that Ireland's law on abortion "was not sufficiently
clear and precise, since the Constitutional term 'unborn' was vague and
the criminal prohibition on abortion was open to different
interpretations."
Pro-life advocates fear the ECHR is preparing to issue "an activist
opinion" that will "abandon settled jurisprudence, impinge the
sovereignty of Ireland, and result in a global assault on the unborn."
William Saunders, senior vice president of legal affairs for Americans
United for Life and a consultant in the case, wrote on National Review
Online that ECHR case law and the European Convention on Human Rights,
"would decide the merits of the case in favor of Ireland, but the mere
fact that the Court is entertaining arguments is troubling."
The Court, in noting that the women had become pregnant
"unintentionally," has dropped a hint that the question has already
been decided, Saunders wrote.
"What relevance is the intent to create a human being to Ireland's
right to protect its life once created?"
Saunders points out that the Court has bypassed the normal procedures
for deciding which cases it will hear, which require that all possible
local legal avenues be pursued before making appeals to the ECHR. He
notes also that the ECHR has unusually referred the case to the Grand
Chamber before waiting for an opinion from the lower chamber.
Other pro-life groups are warning that should the decision go against
the Irish law, the case could have far-reaching effects for the other
countries of the EU and around the world. John Smeaton, director of the
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which has filed a brief
in the case, has said that the case is part of a larger plan by US
abortion lobbyists to install a "right to abortion" in jurisdictions
around the world.
Smeaton cited a memo prepared by the New York based Center for
Reproductive Rights (CRR), that revealed a detailed strategy to distort
existing international human rights treaties in cases before
international courts and in particular before the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg.
CRR intervened in a case in 2007 in which the ECHR ruled that the human
rights of a woman who had been refused an abortion in Poland had been
violated under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Smeaton said the claims of the women in the A, B and C case "are not
only unfounded, they are an attempt to pervert everything the European
Convention originally set out to protect."
"No treaty or convention has ever recognised access to abortion as a
human right. Article 2 of the European Convention protects the right to
life and while it does not specifically prohibit abortion, it would be
turning the convention on its head to argue that it provides a right to
kill through abortion," he added.
Contact: Hilary
White
Source:
LifeSiteNews.com
Publish
Date:
December 10, 2009
Link
to
this
article.
Send
this
article
to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.