A decision to delay the abortion of a seriously disabled child has been described in the Dáil as a deprivation of a woman’s constitutional rights to have an abortion “at a time she chooses”.
Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger raised the case of a 15 weeks pregnant woman whose unborn child, she said, has been diagnosed with a condition likely to result in the child’s early death.
The new law allows abortions up to birth in such circumstances, but Ms Coppinger alleged that the woman was told by doctors at the Coombe hospital to wait four weeks to see if a natural miscarriage would occur. A miscarriage is generally considered medically better for the woman’s health than a surgical intervention.
Calling the situation of the woman a “test case”, Ms Coppinger condemned the delay and said the hospital was “refusing her constitutional right that we all voted for to have an abortion at a time she chooses.”
She also alleged that the board of the Coombe overruled the two consultants who had certified the abortion, and further claimed that they did so as a result of the chilling effect of the continued criminalisation of abortion in some limited circumstances.
The former chair of the Oireachtas abortion committee, Fine Gael Senator, Catherine Noone, called the situation “completely & utterly unacceptable.” She added that the board of the Coombe “should be called into the Health Committee next week to explain their actions.”
The Hospital released a statement later in the day denying that the board had any input into whether an abortion was certified or not.
Brid Smith TD also spoke in the Dail and actually named the woman and the town where she is from. In an interview with the Irish Times later in the day, the woman in question said she did not want her name used “because of the potential backlash, not against just me but my family and my employer”.
The first large study to assess the emotional impact on children of their parents splitting up has found that those whose parents split up when they were between the ages of seven and 14 were significantly more likely to suffer emotional and behavioural problems than those whose parents stay together. It also found no discernible difference between children whose parents split up between ages three and seven, and those whose parents do not split up.
The analysis of 6,000 children born in the UK at the turn of the century found that the greatest risk of repercussions in the form of bad behaviour and disobedience come in late childhood and early adolescence.
The University College of London scientists behind the new research believe divorce is more damaging to adolescents than to younger children, because they are more socially sensitive and better able to pick up on negative relationship dynamics.
Prof Emla Fitzsimons, who co-authored the study, said: “With adolescent mental ill health a major concern nationally, there’s a pressing need to understand the causes.”
The use of anonymous sperm and eggs in assisted IVF and surrogacy might not be outlawed after all, according to the Taoiseach. Speaking in the Dail yesterday, Leo Varadkar, said a decision on that question has yet to be made. This amounts to a significant change of policy for the Government as they have previously maintained that the practice would be banned.
In response to a question during private members time, the Taoiseach said the whole area of assisted human reproduction in Ireland is not illegal but it is also not legislated for. Emphasising the work that needed to be done in preparing for legislation, he said: “There are many questions that will require decisions on our part as to what will and will not be legal, including what forms of surrogacy will be allowed and whether we will continue to allow the practice of anonymous donation of sperms and eggs.”
He added that he understood “why people would want that to continue but if we are pursuing a child-centred policy, where children have the right to know who their parents are and that speaks to our history, perhaps that is something we should not allow.”
He finished by indicating it may be a matter for an Oireachtas Health committee to decide.
A bill to radically alter birth certificates is set for a record quick passage through the Oireachtas if the Minister shepherding the legislation has her way. The bill, which has yet to be named, would enable two women to be recorded as the parents of a child on the child’s birth cert. It would also allow others to the use of the term ‘parent’ instead of either ‘mother’ or ‘father’. This means a birth certificate would no longer always be a record of the progenitors of a child—its birth mother, and father, where known—but would instead sometimes record the name of one who ‘intends’ to parent the child.
The bill received cabinet approval last week and Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty has said she hopes to publish it next week. Speaking to the journal.ie, she said she hopes it can avoid pre-legislative scrutiny and proceed to the Dáil and the Seanad in a couple of weeks.
Doherty said it is her understanding that she has cross-party support for the Bill, and she sees no reason why the Bill could not pass speedily. She added that while it is unusual, she thinks all stages of the Bill could be heard in one sitting, if opposition parties agree.
The persecution of Christians in China is the worst it has been for more than a decade, with at least 50 million people expected to experience some form of repression this year as the government tightens its controls over religious worship, according to a global monitoring body.
In its 2019 World Watch List, Open Doors estimate that 245 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution this year, up from 215 million last year.
China has risen from no 43 on last year’s list to 27 in 2019. Henrietta Blyth, the chief executive of Open Doors UK and Ireland, said the figures for China indicate “persecution is the worst it’s been in more than a decade – alarmingly, some church leaders are saying it’s the worst since the Cultural Revolution ended in 1976.”
In the past year, the Chinese government has tightened its control on religious worship, shutting down hundreds of unofficial churches, detaining pastors and worshippers, removing crosses from buildings, banning the online sale of bibles and increasing the surveillance of congregations. Last month, the celebration of Christmas was banned in some schools and cities.
In September, the Vatican signed a provisional deal with Beijing on the appointment of Catholic bishops, aimed at a rapprochement in diplomatic relations. However, critics denounced it as a betrayal, with Cardinal Joseph Zen, the former archbishop of Hong Kong, saying the consequences would be “tragic and long lasting, not only for the church in China but for the whole church because it damages credibility”.
A broad range of social concerns were outlined in Pope Francis’ new letter to the Academy for life where he encouraged the group to be a place “for courageous dialogue in the service of the common good.”
Pope Francis also praised the 25-year history of the academy, which he said has shown a “constant effort to protect and promote human life and every stage of its development,” condemning abortion and euthanasia as “extremely grave evils.”
As never before, he said, business strategies and the pace of technological development is influencing “biomedical research, educational priorities, investment decisions and the quality of interpersonal relationships.”
A love for creation, deepened and illuminated by faith, has “the possibility of directing economic development and scientific progress towards the covenant between man and woman, towards caring for our common humanity and towards the dignity of the human person,” he said.
“It is time,” he wrote, “for a new vision aimed at promoting a humanism of fraternity and solidarity between individuals and peoples,” knowing that they are not completely closed off “to the seeds of faith and the works of this universal fraternity sown by the Gospel of the kingdom of God.”
A US District judge has blocked new rules that granted a religious freedom accommodation to employers who had a conscientious objection to providing abortifacient and contraceptive coverage for their employees.
The original regulation from the Obama administration forcing all employers to provide such coverage was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That case had been taken by a convent of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, who objected to paying for health coverage that included contraceptives and abortifacients.
The exemption proposed by the Trump administration allowed employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violated their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.
It has now been blocked by a Federal District judge in Philadelphia. It is expected the decision will be appealed.
The European Parliament has called on the EU institutions to step-up their work promoting and defending religious freedom around the world.
Yesterday the Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution to that effect with 576 in favour, only 46 against, and 73 abstentions. In the resolution, the Parliament expressed, “its deep concerns that recent years have seen a dramatic rise in violations of Freedom of Religion or Belief worldwide,” and that violations of this fundamental freedom “undermine democracy, impede development, and negatively affect the enjoyment of other fundamental freedoms and rights.” Therefore, the international community, the EU, and its Member States should “reaffirm their determination and strengthen their actions in promoting FoRB (Freedom of Religion or Belief) for all.”
Commenting on the development, Alice Neffe, Legal Counsel for ADF International in Brussels, said
“Nobody should be persecuted for their faith. Ahead of the European elections in May, the European Parliament is sending a clear message with this report. The European Union should take seriously its responsibility to protect the fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief and the EU Guidelines already provide the necessary instruments. With the institutionalization of the Special Envoy position, and the strengthening of the mandate, the European Union can and should be better positioned to help ensure religious freedom worldwide.”
The UK Court of Appeal will hear a pro-life activist’s challenge against London’s Ealing Council regarding its Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), which criminalised pro-life activity outside abortion clinics. Simon Harris is considering a similar nationwide ban here. If imposed, it would be the first nationwide ban in Europe.
According to the Order, no one near the business may express approval or disapproval of abortion, pray, hand out literature offering material support to women who might wish an alternative to abortion, or “interfere” with the business’s clients in any way.
Alina Dulgheriu lost her original case in the High Court but was “delighted” that the Court of Appeal will reconsider that decision. She herself changed her mind about having an abortion when she was approached by pro-life activists outside an abortion clinic. She is shocked that the Council had “criminalised charity and attempted to remove dedicated and caring individuals from public space without justification.”
“I cannot imagine a society where a simple offer of help to a woman who might want to keep her child is seen as a criminal offence,” she added. “I refuse to accept that women should be denied the opportunity to receive help where they want to keep their child.”
Although powerful supporters of the UK abortion industry called for similar PSPOs to be imposed across the country, even some pro-abortion British activists protest using PSPOs to shut down freedom. In May 2018, leading LGBT activist Peter Tatchell was among the pro-abortion signatories of a letter to the Times condemning the Ealing Council PSPO.
Last September the British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, announced that he would not be imposing nationwide “buffer zones” outside abortion businesses, saying that such a measure “would not be a proportionate response” given the realities of pro-life activism in the UK.
Doctors in the UK will be asked if they would personally help a terminally ill patient commit suicide and whether they would support changing the law to permit assisted suicide.
In sharp contrast to how Irish legislators and medical bodies proceeded with legislating for abortion, the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) is to poll its 35,000 members on their views before forming a corporate position. RCP president Professor Andrew Goddard said the College is frequently asked for its stance on this high-profile issue, which may be cited in legal cases and parliamentary debate, so, “it is essential that we base this on an up-to-date understanding of our members’ and fellows’ views.” The RCP said it will adopt a neutral position until two-thirds of respondents say that it should be in favour or opposed to a change in the law. It said this means it will neither support or oppose a change in the law so it can reflect the differing views of its members and fellows in discussions with government and others.
Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK, with doctors facing a jail term of up to 14 years under the Suicide Act 1961. Countries like Netherlands and Belgium have seen a sharp rise in the number of assisted suicides since each legalised it, or broadened the grounds for it.
