Abortion case analysis: LEFT WITHOUT A VOICE
WE don’t know. As of now, the general public, the media, the lobby groups, don’t know fully what happened. That’s the reality of the apparently heart-rending story involving a young woman and her baby at the centre of the current abortion controversy.
Questions abound. Why, when the woman apparently discovered her pregnancy at eight weeks, was nothing proactively done to address it for at least another three months? Was her extreme distress, and her wish for a termination, not obvious? Why was it not acted on? Why was the HSE not informed until eight weeks after her discovery? Was the lack of urgency associated with the fact that she had just recently arrived in the country?
These questions will presumably be addressed in the HSE review that is due to report by the end of next month. By then, the controversy may have blown over, and the great middle ground on the issue will have been drained of its transient compassion.
A bigger question might be whether, in terms of changes to the constitution or legislation, the specific facts of this case are vital?
The fall-out from the tragic, needless death of Savita Halappanaver in 2012 accelerated the process that ended with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, passed last year. Initially, it was believed that Ms Halappanaver’s death was associated with a refusal of her request that her pregnancy be terminated once it began known the baby would not survive outside the womb.
Following a number of investigations, it emerged that Ms Halappanaver’s demise might be more accurately attributed to incompetence rather than the restrictions of the law.
Reaction to initial reports accelerated changes to the law that had been due, in any event, following a European Court of Justice ruling in 2009.
Effectively, the compassion generated by the Halappanaver case, irrespective of the details, gave licence to the Government to do the right thing post haste. The mere fact that somebody could die in the circumstances initially thought to apply to the case, rather than the reality that somebody had died, was enough to illustrate the urgency in addressing the matter.
That’s not the best way to process controversial law in a democracy, but there is precious little democratic about the fundamentalist lobby that can hold the body politic to ransom on this issue in this country.
Similarly, the facts of the current case may, or may not, turn out to be as they initially appeared. The reality, however, is that a rape victim in this country, who can’t travel abroad for a termination for whatever reason is, under law, subjected to cruel and degrading treatment.
The public at large don’t wish for that situation to continue. Opinion polls have shown that a large majority would like to see provision for abortion in circumstances of rape, fatal foetal abnormality, and where the health of the woman is in danger. Last year, an MRBI poll suggested that 85% of the population would favour such provisions.
Next year, the people are going to be asked to vote on up to six different referendums, yet this, the one that affects, nearly exclusively, the most vulnerable women in society, is to be put on the long finger. ‘Suffer on’ seems to be the message to these woman, because you are more trouble than you are worth.
And it is the constituency directly impacted by the abortion laws that allow the body politic to turn away. The extremely limited circumstances in which a termination is permitted gives licence to the so-called pro-life lobby (which, in reality, is a pro-fundamental Catholicism lobby) to retain its self-appointed role as moral guardians of Irish society.
For nearly all women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy, the law is an inconvenience, albeit one that inflates negative emotions at a time of distress.
As perinatal psychiatrist Anthony McCarthy pointed out during the week, why would any woman who could avail of an alternative abroad go through the process of seeking an abortion in this country.
Only those who can’t travel, for a variety of reasons, feel the cold cruelty of a legal regime imposed on the basis of religious beliefs. No government is willing to attract the wrath of the fundamentalists in order to provide a small minority of vulnerable, non-voting women, with what are regarded in the western world as basic rights.
One of the most striking contributions over the last few days came from Jan O’Sullivan, the Minister for Education. She accepted a new referendum was required but admitted that it would not happen in the lifetime of this Government.
Imposing the fundamental religious beliefs of a minority on the majority in a selective manner is not unique to this country. Such inequitable behaviour fills pages upon pages of newspapers’ foreign news coverage.
Here, the exemptions from our religious-based constitutional provision extend to most of those potentially affected. Take the plane, and let the fundamentalists continue with the fallacy that there is no abortion in Ireland, congratulating themselves for keeping Ireland pure.
Strict adherence to the tenets of a religion is an admirable quality in anybody, but the insistence on imposing beliefs on others is offensive.
Depending on the result of the HSE review into the case at issue, the lobby groups will either adopt an aggressive or defensive position, and, following further sniping, things will move on. There is little doubt but that, irrespective of the outcome, the body politic will opt to push the issue back on to the long finger.
As of now, the only group pushing for changes to the abortion regime are those broadly in favour of widespread availability for the procedure.
The majority is not of that mind, certainly not yet, so it is easy for scared politicians to ignore that lobby.
Change will come. It is no longer sustainable to maintain laws that visit cruelty on the most vulnerable on the basis of one particular religion.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
