The devil is in the details of abortion law
otwithstanding the exclusion of suicide as a grounds for abortion (the value of which was contested by both Michéal Martin and the Mother and Child Campaign), the concession on travel was a greatly enhanced version of what was passed in 1992.
The Referendum of 1992 permitted travel under Article 40.3.3 (though many understood it to mean travel in general): “This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state”. It followed Article 40.3.3 which reads:
“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, and with due respect, and, as far as is practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”.
On the face of it, we were again being given the opportunity to vote against the travel amendment, in the Referendum of March 2002.
But the amendment went further than this. This time, we were specifically asked to surrender our moral objection to abortion, as long as it was carried out in another state (60 miles east of Dublin or five miles north of Drogheda). F&L’s Personal Update is not correct in stating that “This section created no new law; it just restated the current law”. Section 4 (2) of the proposed referendum (Act) reads: “This Act does not operate to restrict any person from travelling to another state on the ground that his or her intended conduct there would, if it occurred in the State, constitute an offence under section 2 of this Act”, that is to say, an abortion.
I was not prepared to put my name to this. Nor did I. I voted “No”.
D O’Driscoll,
33, Dargle Road,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
