After a lull of over three months, since the Maastricht referendum in June, the pro-life movement is again getting ready for battle. The Maastricht referendum was a disaster, the pro-life movement lost by a two-to-one majority, because the public was afraid to risk the economic doom threatened by the Government in the event of a “No” vote. (I have been told by pro-life parents that their high school children pleaded with them, in tears, not to vote against the Treaty. Their European Studies teachers had warned them that a “No” vote would condemn them to a life of poverty and unemployment).
According to constitutional experts, one result of the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty is the surrender of some part of national sovereignty to the European Union. Before the June referendum, the Government, the media, and the groups generally in favour of abortion all insisted that the Maastricht vote would have no effect whatever on the situation regarding abortion. But no sooner was the referendum over and the result known as the media and pro-abortionists were hailing the outcome as proof that the people of Ireland had rejected “the anti-abortion fundamentalism” and had finally “come of age as Europeans.” Now that we faced with another referendum, to deal with the results of the Supreme Court decision of last March, the politicians are claiming that, because of the Maastricht Treat, “it is probably no longer possible to enact a complete ban on abortion, because that would not be acceptable to our European partners.”
November 25 Referendum
During this past weeks the Government has introduced a Bill authorizing the holding of a new referendum on an amendment to the Constitution to clear up the mess caused by the Supreme Court decision in the rape/abortion case. The Bill proposes to present three separate questions in separate ballot papers, to the electorate. Each of these questions, if approved, will become subsections of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, the former pro-life Article, which the Court interpreted as giving authority to permit abortion. The proposed new subsections are as follows:
a) Travel. “Subsection 3 of this section shall not limit travel between the State and another State”
b) Information “Subsection 3 of this section shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another State.”
c) Abortion “It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct form the health of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantive risk to her life, not being a risk of self destruction.”
Note: Article 40.3.3., as enacted in the 1983 referendum reads:
“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 a practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Also, “Travel” and “Information,” (a) and (b) above, refer to travel to abortion facilities in England or elsewhere, and the “right” described by referral agencies to advertise their services and the services of the British clinics they serve. This claimed “right to information” has already been rejected by the Irish Supreme court and by the European Court of Justice. An appeal by two Dublin agencies is due to be heard in the European Court next month. The Court’s decision may well be affected by the fact that the Government now shows itself willing to concede such a “right.”
Pro-life movement rejects the proposed wording
Leaders of the pro-life movement were shocked and dismayed by the wording of the proposed amendment, which they immediately rejected at totally unacceptable. Pro-life source say the Abortion clause would, for the first time, enact a legal right to abortion in Ireland, and that like laws permitting “limited” abortion in other countries, this right to abortion would be manipulated and enlarged upon by abortion providers until, in a very short time, it would become a situation of abortion on demand. The leading legal expert in the Pro-life movement, Professor William Binchy, Regius Professor of Law, Trinity College, Dublin, informs me that he has, on behalf of Pro-life, submitted a more acceptable wording to the Government on which the essential phrase would be that “abortion would be unlawful except where it might occur as an unsought side-affect of a medical treatment necessary to save the life of the mother.” Up to the time of our conversation the government had not replied or acknowledged his suggestion.
Head I win, Tails you lose!
When questioned by the news media about what would happen if the pro-life movement was able to win a vote against the proposed referendum amendment, the Taoiseach, (Prime Minister) Mr. Albert Reynolds, said that if his proposed amendment fails he will introduce legislation legalizing abortion in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in the “X” case. In other words that means that abortion for reasons of threatened suicide as well as for risks of life or health.
The Referendum Bill will be debated in Dail Eireann (Parliament) during the coming weeks. The Government has said that no amendments will be accepted. It is being forced through against the wishes of all other parties. They want a much more permissive amendment. Even Reynolds’ coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats, want more permissiveness but, for the sake of remaining in power, they are supporting the Bill.
The Pro-life movement is hoping for some support from the Catholic Bishop of Ireland, but already the Government has said it doesn’t intend to be influenced by anything the bishops may say.
We can only wait and see whether they will enter the fray. Should they issue a strong statement against the Bill, the Government could not ignore it. After all, there will be a General Election sometime within the next twelve months, and there are still people in Ireland who will be guided by the Church.
