Abortion debate rocks Ireland
THE recent threat to legally prevent a fourteen-year old rape victim leaving Ireland to have an abortion in Britain is a horrifying illustration of the barbaric consequences of a so-called "pro-life" position.
The amendment introduced into the Irish constitution in 1983 committed the state to protect "as far as practicable" the right to life of the unborn. From the outset, there were widespread fears of how this would be used. The pro-amendment campaigners denied that it would ever be used to attack individual women. Just as they denied that it would be used to ban
Already, the weight of traditional Catholic opinion weighs heavily on Irishwomen who find themselves forced to seek abortions - in a country where all forms of contraception are available only on medical prescription. The officially recognized figure of 4,000 women who go to Britain each year is undoubtedly an underestimate, based only on those who give an Irish address. Many more give the addresses of friends and relations in Britain for fear that they will be "found out", for fear of the opinions of their families, their communities and the Church.
Now, the fear has become real that they could also be subject to legal proceedings. While this amendment remains in force, the burden of fear will lie still more heavily on women who have so little choice.
The right to choose how to express their sexuality, to decide when and whether they want to be mothers, is a basic democratic right for women, because it is fundamental to their control over their own lives and bodies. Denial of this elementary right, as is so graphically illustrated in this case, leads inevitably to the denial of other basic rights.
Since 1983, the amendment has already given rise to a series of attacks on women's simple right to information on what possibilities exist in the case of an unwanted pregnancy (see accompanying article). The thousands of people on the streets of Dublin who chanted the telephone number of a pregnancy advisory service during the recent demonstrations
The recent injunction was a denial of another basic human right the right to travel. The young woman had committed no crime against Irish law. She was the victim of the crimes of sexual abuse and rape. She would commit no crime in Britain where abortion is legal. The only reason for preventing her — or any other woman wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy -from travelling to a place where it could be performed in safe and legal conditions, is to impose a view that takes no account of the individual woman's circumstances — a view that says that the potential life of a foetus is always an absolute priority over the life and well-being of a woman. The High Court judge summed it up when he said that the risk of this young woman committing suicide was "much less and of a different order of magnitude than the certainty that the life
But no legal or constitutional bans will offer any other certainty. Because bans only ensure that abortions are not legal — they still occur, in the worst and most dangerous conditions. Or women give birth, frightened and in hiding, like the fifteenyear old girl who died after giving birth alone in an Irish churchyard five years ago, too frightened to tell her family.
The Supreme Court ruling that the risk to the life — not the health or well-being — of women should be taken into account is progress — but limited. Women will have to threaten that they would commit suicide if not allowed an abortion.
Only women's possibility to decide for themselves on when and whether to have a child can ensure that such barbarities do not recur. That possibility necessitates information, education, and social and economic independence. Any attempt to impose that choice — whether it be by a so-called "Communist" state as in Ceasescu's Romania, an Islamic fundamentalist movement, or the combined weight of the Catholic church and state as in Ireland - has consequences that are disastrous for individuals and restrict the rights of society as a whole. - Penny Duggan. *
WOMEN: IRELAND
HE 14-year old school girl at the centre of the case had been the victim of sexual abuse since the age of 12 by the father of a school friend.
The girl and her parents went to England to obtain an abortion; prior to travelling
THE DUBLIN Supreme Court has decided that the risk to the life of the mother must be taken into account as well as the constitutional commitment to "defend the life of the unborn". This is the reason for its decision to overturn the High Court injunction preventing a 14 year old pregnant rape victim from travelling to Britain. It represents a first limited victory in Irish women's struggle for the right to abortion. But the political furore caused by this case - which has dominated the news headlines since it first came to public attention on February 13 — will not die down. How will this judgement be interpreted? The anti-abortionists show every sign of continuing their campaign to criminalize any support for the right to abortion, however limited. We explain what lies behind the latest developments.* ANNE CONWAY - DUBLIN, March 4, 1992.
information on abortion. were committing an illegal act! of the unborn will be terminated".
"PRO-LIFE" BARBARISM they had asked the gardai (Irish police) whether foetal tissue could be used in the Irish courts as legal evidence to identify and convict the rapist. The gardai subsequently approached the Director of Public Prosecutions about this.
The DPP's office then contacted the Attorney General who immediately issued an interim injunction against the girl and her family to prevent them from obtaining an abortion.
The family and the girl, who were at that time in England, returned without an aborton having taken place. They were distraught and shattered and, according to professional opinion, the girl was suicidal.
On Monday 17, the High Court upheld the injunction preventing the girl, her parents or agents from leaving the country for the next nine months. This ruling was struck down on Wednesday 26 February by the Supreme Court, which however
----- photo credits and running heads -----
T 3
rendum on the Maastricht Treaty because it underwrites the ban on abortion.
If the Maastricht treaty continues with the Irish anti-abortion protocol it will be doubly difficult to get rid of it — it will be necessary to hold a referendum to amend the 26 county constitution and to re-negotiate the Maastricht Treaty. *
International Viewpoint #224 • March 16, 1992
WOMEN: IRELAND reserved the explanation for its decision to a future date.
The injunction was described as barbaric and medieval. The main bourgeois newspaper, the Irish Times, considered that it put the position of women in Ireland on a similar footing as in Khomeini's Iran and Causescu's Romania.
The original injunction confirmed many of the worst fears of those who had campaigned against the 1983 amendment to the consitution. The possible implications of such a clause are obvious. It strikes fear into all women and makes those contemplating an abortion open to injunction if their intentions become known to the authorities.
Women who have been raped will not report the assaults for fear of interrogation and criminalization by the courts and the state.
Increased threat to women
It also enhances the threat for women that the life of the foetus will be given precedence over that of the mother in a complicated birth or emergency. This High Court judgement gave no weight to the mental or psychological health of the suicidal girl; the court ruled that she must continue with the pregnancy.
In the eight years since the anti-abortion constitutional amendment was passed Irish women have in fact witnessed a continuous and escalating series of attacks on women's reproductive rights through SPUC's (Society for the
Protection of the Unborn Child - an anti-abortion pressure group) determination to push the constitutional position.
First of all, the pregnancy counselling and abortion referral service of two Dublin women's clinics were closed down through rulings which found in favour of
SPUC, who claimed that these activities were contravening the constitution.
Secondly, British magazines such as
Cosmopolitan have been censored for carrying adverts for British abortion clinics in their Irish editions. The national students union was hauled through the courts for disseminating and publishing abortion information — a judgement against them was upheld by the EC Court of Justice. In the last few months books such as Everywoman and Our Bodies of public opinion and protest leading up to the Supreme Court ruling — including a demonstration of some 10,000 people in Dublin the previous Saturday. The singer Sinead O'Connor participated in the protests, stating publicly that she had had two abortions.
The cynicism and disregard shown for the girl and her family in the offer by LIFE (an offshoot of SPUC) to care for her until she bore the child have also alienated people. They are now being seen more clearly as reactionary bigots.
Dilemma for government
The case has presented the Fianna Fail government with a major political problem. They are aware of the depth of public feeling on the issue and the new Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Albert Reynolds has been forced to try and resolve the matter. The girl and her family were urged by the party leaders to appeal against the judgement to the Supreme Court — and the government took reponsibility for the family's legal
Clearly, it pushed for the Supreme Court to lift the injunction as they are anxious to avoid another referendum on the abortion issue. While in 1983 the constitutional amendment was used by Fianna Fail to gain votes on a Catholic nationalist conservative ticket in a situation of political instability, today popular Catholic nationalism has run its course.
Since 1983, women, young people, the rural poor and the working class have experienced mass unemployment, forced emigration and diminishing civil rights. These have led to unprecedented political instability and alienation from the main political parties, shown by the election of the socially liberal Mary Robinson as president and the sizeable votes for left
SPUC, LIFE and other virulent anti-abortion groups are contributing to this political instability and politicians who once courted them now want to take their distance, as does the Catholic Church.
This case also presents the Irish government with a major problem with regard to the referendum on the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty (see box).
There is now a real fear among the ruling class that the backlash caused by the present case could prevent the ratification of the treaty. This would result in the trea ty not being implemented in Europe — so this puts real pressure on the Irish goverment to amend or repeal its anti-abortion
However, despite the change in public another abortion referendum would still be very divisive from the government's point of view. While some elements of the Catholic hierarchy indicated that the High Court's interpretation of the constitutional clause was too strict, the Archbishop of Dublin has compared "permissive legislation on abortion" with Nazi
Another bishop interviewed on Irish radio said that he thought that men should have the right to take out an injunction to prevent their wives leaving the country to have an abortion. Anti-abortion forces have suggested that the recent case was a "put-up job" or that the girl seduced her rapist. The only party in the Dail (parlia ment) that is calling for the amendment to be repealed is the small Workers Party, which has also called for the resignation of the Attorney General.
### Solidarity vital
It is vital therefore for feminists and activists throughout Europe and internationally to organize protests in support of their Irish sisters and for the repeal of the anti-abortion amendment. Pressure should be put on parliamentary representatives to make official complaints to the Irish government on its antiquated anti-women laws. Dutch parliamentary representatives made an official complaint to the Irish government that received widespread coverage in the Irish media.
The widest possible protest from abroad is needed. While the strategy of the government and the opposition parties seems to be to sugarcoat the amendment enough to take the heat out of the situation without offending the Church, the forces of the right can be expected to continue to broaden their assault on women's rights as soon as the present crisis blows over.
THE government does not want another amendment, but its cowardice has
Ourselves have been removed from the limited the options. A special protocol was inserted into the Maastricht Treaty city council central library as they contain preventing any challenge to the anti-abortion clause from European law. Apparinformation on abortion.
ently, this was drafted by a senator of the ruling Fianna Fail party. This fact
In 1983, over two-thirds of the electoalone is likely to cause a lot of embarrassment as it is clear evidence of direct rate voted in favour of the amendment.
interference by extreme religious bigots at the highest levels of government.
Now, confronted with the human implica-
The intention was to stop the anti-abortion lobby from opposing Maastricht - tions of that position as applied to one but now this protocol is having exactly the opposite effect to what was intended.
young rape victim, there is a turnaround
If the politicians refuse to hold a referndum to scrap Article 40.3.3 they face in public opinion. The latest opinion poll, their own deserved "nightmare scenario" — a campaign against the June refepublished on March 2, shows that only
30% want to keep the amendment, 48% want to amend it and 18% want to get rid of it altogether (Financial Times, March
3,1992).
This follows a significant mobilization
----- photo credits and running heads -----
4
A poisoned legacy
WOMEN: ex-USSR and I believe it to be harmful" is a typical statement (Thalidomide is confused with drugs preventing ovulation and the consequences of taking thalidomide presented as the results of the contraceptive pill). Women use the coil as a method of pre-
The following article, written in November 1991, examines some of the consequences for women of 70 years of Stalinist rule in what was the Soviet Union. BARBARA SCHULTZ
E DUCATION and training
women has been comprehensively guaranteed in the Soviet Union. In 1984-85, 54% of high school students were women, and 58% of technical college students. For medical and teacher training institutions the proportion of women rose to 69 and 73% respectively.
Meanwhile, 37% of magistrates, 40% of academics but only 14% of higher grade academics were women. However, the profession of doctor is not highly respected and that of teacher is actually looked down on as a miserably paid women's job. Women made up 80% of primary school heads and 37% of heads of secon-
Women comprised 53% of the population and 51% of the workforce of the Soviet Union. However, as in the USA and Western Europe, on average women earned only about 60-65% of what men earned. Thus the formal equality of education should be approached with caution. In the Soviet Union too women have been concentrated in certain industries; 85% of textile workers, 91% in commerce and food services but only 16% in engineer-
In 1988 — and nothing has decisively pointed out the difficult situation faced by women, 3.5 million of whom worked in unhealthy conditions and four million of whom did night work (more than the total for men), despite the fact that legally women can only be required to do nightwork in special cases.
Women lose jobs first
Since 1988 it has become clear that when an enterprise adopts the profit principle it is women who lose their jobs first, women with children are not taken on and the enterprise's social amenities are cut back, hitting women hardest.