2006 case means what happened to Savita was wrong

The Irish Government won a 2006 European Court of Human Rights case against a woman on the right to terminate a non-viable pregnancy by arguing it would not have prevented the move if asked.

Barbara Hewson, the barrister involved in the }]D v Ireland case] D v Ireland case revealed the situation to the Irish Examiner in light of the Savita Halappanavar case.

She said the State has “no excuse for misleading pregnant women about their options”. In her view, the case involving D — who subsequently revealed herself as Deirdre de Barra, now 51 — means it is “obvious” what happened to Savita was wrong and does not need a potential, three-month inquiry.

In late 2001, Ms de Barra became pregnant with twins. In Jan 2002 she went for an ultrasound at 14 weeks and was told one of the foetuses had died.

At 17 weeks, the second foetus was diagnosed with the life-ending condition Trisomy 18.

Ms de Barra said she was not in a fit state to continue with the births. She travelled to Britain for a medical termination.

In 2005, she took a case to the European Court of Human Rights over the fact that, in her view, the Irish Constitution’s stance on abortion in relation to foetal abnormalities violated articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 13, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Her argument was that it was a breach of her rights that the only way she could have ended the non-viable pregnancies was to travel for treatment abroad.

The case began on Sep 6, 2005. On Jun 27, 2006, the judgment ruled in favour of the Government as Ms de Barra did not go through the Irish courts.

A Government legal opinion by Gerard Hogan, was referenced in the ruling. It stated: “If it had been established that there was no realistic prospect of the foetus being born alive, then there was ‘at least a tenable’ argument which would be seriously considered by the domestic courts to the effect that the foetus was not an ‘unborn’ for the purposes of article 40.3.3 or that, even if it was an ‘unborn,’ its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb.

“In the absence of a domestic decision, it was impossible to foresee that article 40.3.3 clearly excluded an abortion in the applicant’s situation in Ireland.”