The rate of Down’s syndrome abortions in the UK and Europe is akin to Nazi eugenics, the Church of England’s General Synod has heard. Speaking during a debate on pre-natal testing, Andrew Gray, a lay member of Synod, said: “We live in a society that claims to value and appreciate those who are different and those who have a disability and yet what we say and do are two different things. In countries like Iceland Down’s Syndrome has been virtually eliminated”.  He continued: “What we have is a very simple situation. The UK and Europe has begun to practice eugenics, by default, and without intent. This is not because of a state-led desire to remove those considered weak or sub-human – we don’t live in 1930s Germany, thank God. But while the reasons and the motivations are different, the outcome is the same. I refer to 1930s Germany with some caution because the Third Reich has a habit of being drawn into these debates, but quite frankly, with this one, there are some stark comparisons.”

Synod members unanimously passed a motion calling for the Government to ensure that “unbiased information” is given to expectant parents who are told their unborn child has Down’s Syndrome. The Synod raised concerns that women were being put under pressure to abort such babies and urged doctors not to frame such a pre-natal test result as “bad news”. Earlier in the week the actress Sally Phillips, who has a son with Down’s Syndrome, said women were “over and over told by implication but also overtly that they will not be able to cope with a Down’s Syndrome baby”. She told a small group of Synod members that a pregnant friend had been “rung nine times during her pregnancy to be offered and offered and offered a termination in case she changed her mind”.

Numerous Churches in Australia have joined together to call for a Religious Freedom Act, similar to a charter of rights, that would enshrine in law and spell out in detail the human right to religious freedom of faith communities. “We’ve never needed to protect religious freedom before, but now we do,” said author Patrick Parkinson, a professor of law at the University of Sydney.

Essential to the proposed law, submitted to a Government review of religious freedom, is the right for church-run organisations – including schools and aged care homes – to hire and fire staff in accordance with their values. That would extend to employees who enter into a same-sex marriage following its legalisation late last year. The proposal described that freedom as “an existential issue for faith communities of all kinds”, saying if a Christian school cannot select its employees then it “will be indistinguishable from the state school next door”, just as Christian health facilities would “quickly lose their character”.

The churches have also asked for: changes to the Marriage Act to ensure facilities such as school chapels cannot be used for same-sex weddings against the wishes of the diocese, even if the school principal gives permission; the right for parents to remove their children from public school programs that don’t accord with their values; and the creation of a “national religious freedom commissioner” within the Australian Human Rights Commission.

While the issue of religious freedom was sparked by the legalisation of same-sex marriage, the churches said the issue was much broader, and it was a “completely false dichotomy” to claim religious rights were in conflict with LGBTI rights.

“The new frontier is gender identity,” the churches argued, deeming it a “new and popular” cause. It was also about “the normalisation of a particular, boundary-free attitude to consensual sexual conduct that conflicts with the moral values of a great many Australian parents”.

The Government inquiry into religious freedom was told extra protections for people of faith were necessary in an increasingly secular era in which there is “hatred against people of faith” and where “there is no longer a consensus that religious freedom matters”. Professor Parkinson said a federal law to codify religious freedom “may be rarely invoked” against the states and territories, but would have a “more educative effect” as to the legal boundaries.

A dispute between a school’s patron and its board of management over the proposed sale of playing fields has escalated with the Minister for Education now seeking the advice of the Attorney General on the matter. At stake is whether the patron of the School, the Christian Brother’s led Edmund Rice Schools Trust (ERST), has the right to sell school property despite the objections of the board of management led by parents of students in the school. The board have taken a case to the High Court prompting the ERST to begin the process of dissolving the board for not acting in the best interests of the school. If the board is dissolved, then the High Court case would likely cease. However, the permission of the Minister for Education is required to effect the dissolution of the board, and he has now sought the advice of the Attorney General on the matter.

A spokeswoman for the Minister told The Irish Times: “The statutory process of dissolution is under way in which the Minister for Education must make a decision having considered the submissions made. The Minister has sought clarity from the office of the Attorney General in relation to the correct procedures to be followed as part of this process. It would not be appropriate to comment on the matters that are related to the dissolution.” It is not known when the Attorney General’s advice would be presented to the Minister, or when he would announce his decision. If the Minister sides with the board of management in this row, it could mark a major shift in the control of schools all over the country out of the hands of denominational patronal bodies.

Sinn Féin TDs will not be allowed a conscience vote on abortion and anyone who deviates from the party line will be disciplined, the party’s new leader Mary Lou McDonald has said. “It’s a matter of private conscience but it’s also a matter of public policy,” Ms McDonald told RTÉ’s The Week in Politics on Sunday. Asked if TDs could vote in accordance with their conscience, she said: “They do have to respect and uphold and vote in accordance with Sinn Féin policy.” If not, she said, they will be subject to disciplinary action by the party.

Her position stands in stark contrast to that of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, and even members of the cabinet, whose members freedom to vote and campaign in accord with their conscience on matters of fundamental beliefs is guaranteed. One of the most prominent and outspoken pro-life members of the Dáil is Sinn Féin TD, Peadar Toibin. He previously sacrificed his membership of the Sinn Féin parliamentary party when he voted against the 2013 abortion Act. He has already stated his opposition to repealing the Eighth amendment.

Minister for Health Simon Harris has offered his political support and assistance to two pro-choice campaign groups seeking a repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Mr Harris met the Women’s Council of Ireland and the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment on Friday afternoon to discuss the upcoming abortion referendum and legislation that would follow its passage. After the meeting, he told The Irish Times, “I was delighted to meet with representatives of the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment and the National Women’s Council of Ireland to brief them. A strong civil society campaign will be key in the weeks ahead and I look forward to helping in any way I can.”

The Pro Life Campaign, however, accused the Minister of crossing a line. Spokesperson, Dr Ruth Cullen said: “Minister Harris has crossed a line by giving a private briefing to groups campaigning for abortion on demand. I think this latest initiative on his part will be widely perceived as unfair and even undemocratic. He is privy to the information he is imparting to them because he is a minister so any attempt to excuse it as something any TD could do simply doesn’t add up”

Dr Cullen continued: “As Minister for Health, Simon Harris has pointedly failed to meet or engage with people from the pro-life side, including families who say they owe the life of their child to the Eighth Amendment. He is also the Minister who is overseeing the referendum. With this role comes an obligation to maintain a high standard of objectivity. The way the minister is behaving at present does not inspire confidence that the forthcoming debate will be in any way fair.”