The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the State concerning a significant High Court judgment which found the word “unborn” in the Constitution means an unborn child with a broad range of rights including and beyond the right to life. The State had argued that an unborn child enjoys only a right to life, and no other, and it appealed the judgment straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the appeal and, because the matter is so important, the whole 7 judge panel of the Court may hear the case. If the State is successful, it means the unborn child will have absolutely no statutory rights whatsoever, apart from the right to life. Then, if the 1983 amendment is repealed and not replaced with anything else, the unborn will be left with no rights at all.
The case stems from a legal dispute over a deportation order that involved a question about the rights of an unborn child. In the High Court Mr Justice Humphreys held “unborn” means an “unborn child” with rights extending beyond the right to life under Article 40.3.3 (the 1983 pro-life amendment to the Constitution). He also interpreted Article 42A of the Constitution, inserted as a result of the 2012 Children’s Referendum, as affording protections to all children “both before and after birth”. The unborn child, including of a parent facing deportation, enjoys “significant” rights and legal position at common law, by statute, and under the Constitution, “going well beyond the right to life alone”, the judge held. Many of those rights are “actually effective” rather than merely prospective, he said.