Catherine Bolger was invited to Ireland by the pro-life movement at the time of the referendum. She spent 2 weeks speaking to the nursing staff in hospitals, to parish groups and pro-life workers. Pro-life individuals in Toronto sponsored her trip and her accommodation was provided by pro-lifers in Ireland.

Ireland September 7, 1983 Liberation Day for the Unborn

The people of Ireland have spoken. They ignored the ongoing media propaganda. They ignored the urging of the FitzGerald government to vote “NO” to the referendum. Their response was a massive “YES” vote to enshrine the rights of the unborn in the constitution. Bishop McNamara of Kerry, leading spokesman for the Catholic Hierarchy, congratulated the lay people who, he said, wholly initiated the campaign for the amendment. It was the lay people who alerted the people of Ireland to the move to legalize abortion in Ireland. He said “I would like to thank them for their persevering efforts over the past few years to achieve their aims and I would include in that the great number of lay people who have worked so hard at local levels to ensure the success of the campaign.”

The Wording of the Amendment

“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.” All government documents in Ireland are recorded in both Irish (Gaelic) and English. For purposes of interpretation, the Irish version is always used. Father James Sheridan, a Gaelic scholar on the staff of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, provided a literal translation of the Irish wording. He explained that the English wording “the unborn” in Irish is “all the living not yet born.” He noted, “There are no exceptions, and no restrictions in that wording. So long as there is life, that life is protected.” Regarding the English wording “as far as practicable” Father Sheridan said that the wording in Irish is “to the extent to which it is possible.” This would cover problems such as ectopic pregnancies, etc. the amendment is modelled on Article 40 of the existing Constitution, which protects the rights of the citizen: “The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.” Article 40 also states “All citizens shall, as human persons be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean, that the state in its enactments, have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.” A court interpretation of the foregoing states, “Article 40 does not require identical treatment for all persons without recognitions of differences in relevant circumstances. It only forbids invidious discrimination.” All other statements of Supreme C\and High Court Judges are to the same effect. There is no judicial authority which is contrary to this. A pamphlet issued by the Pro-life Anti-Amendment Doctors gave careful study to the Irish wording of the Amendment and noticed that the Amendment gave protection from the time of fertilization – or in their words “the fertilized egg onwards.” Their concern was that doctors, clinics and women who were involved in the distribution and use of abortifacients would be charged under the terms of the constitution. They mentioned specifically the I.U.D. and the low dose Pill and others (presumably the morning after pill).

Malcolm Muggeridge Cancels Irish Tour

Prime Minister Dr. Garret FitzGerald in a T.V. address claimed that the Amendment “creates the possibility of an interpretation by the Supreme Court that would actually permit abortions up to the stage of pregnancy where a baby becomes capable of being born.” It is quite that if one read the English version of the Amendment they could interpret it as protecting only those about to be born, or just before birth. One would have to go the Irish wording (which is always the version used in interpreting the laws in Ireland) to find that unborn refers to “all the living not yet born.” It is likely that the people, who went to England to persuade pro-lifer Malcolm Mudderidge not to come to Ireland, showed him the English wording of the Amendment only. After seeing the wording, Mudderidge cancelled his tour of Ireland. He said he hoped he was wrong, but he was concerned that the wording may in fact open the door to legalize abortion rather than prevent it.

A Poor Turnout?

67% voted “YES”

33% voted “NO”.

Just under 54% of the Irish electorate turned out to vote on the Referendum on September 7th. The turnout compared favourably with other referendums. Unlike an election campaign, neither major political party was active in getting the voters to the polls. Bad weather and a one day strike by the trade unions, which halted bus and train transportation, made the trip to the polls more difficult.

The Background of the Historical Amendment

It is agreed that the vast majority of Irish people are pro-life. All the pro amendment “YES” groups are pro life. Many in the Anti Amendment “no” group are pro life. But, there is a hard core in the latter group who are pro abortion, or “pro choice”, as they would say. A number of people in the “NO” camp firmly state they are opposed to abortion, but they are pro contraception, and accept abortifacient pills and IUD’s. This is where the division comes in.

Roots of the “YES” Group

A board based group of people from various faiths and political backgrounds in Ireland recognized that an international campaign was actively promoting abortion, and agents working in this campaign were in Ireland. This pro-life group first approached the government opposition, then the party in power, and Prime Minister Huaghey in 1981. Their recommendation was to have an Amendment added to the constitution which would enshrine the rights of the unborn. The groups recognized the possibility that through a court case in Ireland, or in the European Court of Human Rights (Ireland is a member of the European Parliament) abortion could be introduced to Ireland. There was also the possibility that a government vote could overturn the 1861 anti-abortion law (The Offences Against the Persons Act). A constitutional amendment would safeguard the rights of the unborn from these sources. Prime Minister Charles Haughey and his Fianna Fail party sought advice on the wording of the amendment from legal, medical and religious leaders. The agreed wording had wide acceptance from all parties and passed by a vote of 87 to 13. The issue was considered a non-sectarian piece of legislation. However, the Huaghey government fell on a vote on non confidence, and all pending legislation fell with it. But the popular idea of the Referendum was taken up by the Fine Gael party under Dr. Garret FitzGerald who had formed a coalition party with the Labor members. Dr. FitzGerald took it upon himself to change the wording of the Amendment. His new wording read: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any provision of a law on the grounds that it prohibits abortion.” This new wording was unacceptable and caused 5 Labour and 8 Fine Gael backbenchers to cross the floor and vote against their party. The original wording of the Amendment was then restored, but Dr. FitzGerald and his party, after having first voted for the original wording, took a stand against the same wording, and he and his whole Cabinet of 18 members (with 2 possible exceptions) urged and advised the people to vote “NO” against the Amendment.

Roots of the “NO” Group

The anti-amendment campaign was instigated by a pro abortion group. The original group was the Women’s Right to Choose Group which first met in February 1980. In June of the same year they opened the Irish Pregnancy Counselling Centre, an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood, in Dublin at the old CAP (Contraceptive Action Programme) headquarters. The Irish Pregnancy Counselling Centre refers women to Liverpool, North London and Birmingham for abortions. In December 1981, the Women’s Right to Choose Group held a conference with 30 members in attendance and called for the decriminalisation of abortion in Ireland, in the face of the amendment threat. The group subsequently split into 2 factions. One group wanted to oppose the amendment on the basis of every woman having a right to legal abortion. The other group felt that such an approach should be played down and the campaign should be fought against the amendment itself. It was finally agreed to play down the Women’s Right to Choose, and to broaden the campaign to include groups as far to the right as possible. The original group included members from the Communist Party of Ireland, The Democratic Socialist Party, The Workers Party, The Dublin Well Women Centre (an abortion federal centre) and the Woman’s Right to Choose Campaign. Some of the women acknowledged they had had abortions, and one member, Ruth Riddick, sniffed “The current political objective is the defeat of the Amendment; the Pro Abortion Lobby comes later.” The group agreed that it was essential to get the support of the protestant churches. Mary Holland, who was assigned to recruit many of the non-Catholic clergy, admitted publicly that she had had an abortion. Later, many others who were pro life joined the anti amendment campaign for political, contraceptive and other reasons. Young Fine Gael members, later referred to as “the donnybrook set”, also gravitated to this group. In June 1982, the name Anti Amendment Campaign was agreed upon, and the campaign was formally launched, with speakers from the Democratic Socialist Party, Rape Crisis Centre, Trade Union Women’s Forum, a Protestant Minister, a doctor and Bernadette Devlin. The meeting stressed that many of their members were opposed to abortion and they distinguished their campaign from the Right to Choose group. However, the Anti Amendment Campaign Headquarters was housed at the Dublin Well Woman Centre, the largest abortion referral agency in Ireland. At their first and subsequent meetings, their strategy gradually unfolded. Their platform spread out in several directions and would keep the opposition busy, and confuse the electorate “Confuse the enemy” seemed to be the name of the game, then “decry the confusion and division caused by the Amendment.” “Vote ‘no’ if you are confused”, they advised. “If you are against abortion vote no” was a tactic used in the door-to-door campaign.

Claim: The Amendment would do nothing to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies (or women going to Great Britain for abortions.)

Response: The Amendment was not meant to solve this problem.

Claim: The wording is ambiguous-it will lead to abortion.

Response: The working is clear, particularly if you look at the Irish wording. The intention of the amendment was and is to stop abortion in Ireland.

Claim: The Amendment is unnecessary abortion is already illegal in Ireland.

Response: the very same anti-abortion act which is in effect in Ireland was in effect in England and it was overturned by a court decision.

Claim:  The Amendment would not limit contraception.

Response: Contraception is already legal in Ireland (through a right of privacy case which struck down the existing law). Contraceptives are available only to married couples, by prescription and through designated pharmacies. Abortifacients are illegal under the present anti-abortion law and would be illegal under the new Amendment.

Claim: If the Amendment went through it would pose a threat to toxemia and the lives of women. (Ectopic pregnancies and cancer were most often mentioned.)

Response: The heads of all five Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Republic of Ireland stated that no women would be put at risk by the Amendment because it will not affect accepted medical practice. The Irish Medical Association also confirmed that “the Amendment is in line with its policy of opposition to abortion and that it does not conflict with medical ethics.” More than 1,000 doctors pledged support for the amendment and stressed that there would be no change in medical practice. (An anti-Amendment brochure listed 28 doctors against the Amendment and a newspaper report said there were 200 doctors opposed to it.)

Claim: The Amendment would be sectarian. It sought to enshrine the teaching of one religious denomination in the Constitution.

Response: The 1861 Act (The Offences Against the Person Act) was passed by the British Parliament in the United Kingdom for Great Britain and Ireland. The theology behind the Act when it was passed was the moral teaching of the Protestant Churches. A group of 148 British Pro life Ministers and Prominent non-Roman Catholic churchmen, in august 1983, wrote to all clergymen in Ireland, regarding the “trivialisation of the pro-life issues by those who described it as “sectarian”, and warning them “not to fall prey to the tactics of the pro-abortion movement and make the tragic mistakes of Britain and other countries throughout the Western world.” In the last days before the Referendum, Dr. Sidney Garland, evangelical Presbyterian minister and Chairman of Life in Northern Ireland stated, “We do not accept the proposed amendment is sectarian. Abortion is not exclusively a Roman Catholic issue; it is a matter of basic human rights.”

Claim: The Amendment is divisive between Northern and Southern Ireland.

Response: The anti-abortion group Life started in the north through the initiatives of Protestants in the Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has the same anti-abortion law as the South. The Church vs. church, Church vs. State, Political Party vs. Political Party, women’s health, and all the other issues had a lengthy airing and stirred up the media during and ordinarily slow news period. It is possible that the media thought they were giving equal time to each side (in an 85% Catholic country?) but the presentations were inadequate, incomplete and biased, particularly in the national dailies, on radio and TV. The Canadian dailies dutifully took their news stories from these biased reports. The Referendum was a learning experience for many people. The clergy held meetings to explain the situations to the people and came out loud and clear in favour of the Amendment. There were some cries of “misuse of the pulpit” and “the church should keep out of political matters”, but the Bishops and the clergy used their churches well to communicate with their people, and this, along with the basic strong faith of the people accounted for the strong “yes” vote.

The Cabinet Voted Against. The People Voted ‘Yes’

The anti-abortion laws in Britain, United States, Spain and many other countries were struck down by a test case in courts. The anti-abortion laws in Canada, Zambia, Bermuda and many other countries were struck down by a parliamentary vote. The people of Ireland took the initiative, so that the issue of life and death, which in the past has been left in the hands of God, would not fall to the judgement of a court or a parliament vote. It was the people of Ireland who enshrined the rights of the unborn in their constitution, despite the fact that the cabinet was solidly against the Amendment. What would have happened in 1969 in Canada, if the matter of abortion had been in the hands of the people instead of the liberal party? The Irish people I spoke with were horrified that the Constitution of Canada could be changed without direct consultation and a vote of the people.

Question: Why do we allow mere elected officials to change our Constitution? Can this situation be remedied so that the constitution is placed directly in the hands of the people where it belongs? In Ireland, the people called the shots. Had it been left to elected officials the rights for the unborn would have never been enshrined in the constitution.