Sir, – While there is much debate so far in this campaign accusing the Eighth Amendment of putting women’s lives at risk, there is no focus on what kind of healthcare system we are proposing to replace the Eight Amendment with, should it be repealed. The logic being presented to repeal the Eighth Amendment implies that we can keep our world-class maternal mortality rate but reduce any instance where the Eighth Amendment will be perceived to cause difficulty.
However, I believe this to be misleading. For example, in the UK in 2017, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) found that Marie Stopes-run clinics were paying their staff bonuses to encourage women to carry through with their abortion, along with being encouraged to contact women who had changed their minds about having an abortion to try and get them to reconsider and reschedule their appointment. One clinic was described by staff as a “cattle market’” with a “very target-driven culture”. The CQC also found that approximately 400 botched abortions were performed in a two-month period and during a three-month period, 11 women had to be rushed to emergency departments in nearby hospitals following complications that arose during their abortion procedures.
In addition, the debate centred around “trusting women” does not consider the number of women who are coerced into abortion nor does it acknowledge that when a women enters a clinic for an abortion, she has no way of knowing how she will view that decision over the course of her life. If we want abortion on the grounds that other countries have it, then we must accept that we will receive all the facets of an abortion culture that other countries get – increased abortion rates, abortion on the grounds of disability and gender, including, as proven in the UK, a target-driven abortion industry. To suggest that we will be any different is naive and any efforts to mitigate against this are likely to be futile. For example, the proposal that there will be a 72-hour waiting period between requesting an abortion and receiving one, is not a “restriction”, it’s just a waiting period. The stipulation that GPs will have to discuss alternatives to abortion with their patients is unrealistic and not provided for in law. Moreover, it is not reasonable for us to expect GPs to counsel a patient in a short period in any meaningful way.
Our foremothers settled for nothing less than an equal vote, equal education and equal career opportunities. As a mother of a young daughter, I feel that we owe it to the next generation of females to reject abortion as a bad solution and to settle for nothing less than practical and emotional supports during their time of great distress including insisting on a healthcare and economic system that uses its wealth to serve humanity and not the other way around. – Yours, etc,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
SINEAD SLATTERY,
Love Both, Dublin 2.
Sir, – In recent months there has been great discussion from No campaigners about the rights of the unborn child. What is notably absent from their debate is the acknowledgement that women too, have rights. In particular, women have the right to attend maternity appointments without being subject to 7ft-high graphic abortion imagery displayed outside the hospital. The callousness of these actions add nothing to the argument but merely serves to traumatise women who have experienced miscarriage or received distressing news. Women deserve better than this. Women deserve to be treated with compassion. As a society we can start moving in this direction by voting Yes on May 25th. – Yours, etc,
LOURDA SCOTT,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – You write that the Save the 8th campaign “denies any conflict over late-term abortions” (News, May 3rd). The article appears to suggest that Save the 8th favours late-term abortions where there is a risk to the life of the mother.
For clarity, Save the 8th, and indeed those of us who hold pro-life views generally, support every necessary measure to save the life of the woman. However, it is not the case that we support late-term abortions. In the proposed heads of Bill that will underpin a new abortion law in the event of a Yes vote, “termination of pregnancy” is defined as “a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of the foetus”. This is never necessary, and we do not support it. No other definition of “termination of pregnancy” is included in the heads of Bill, which therefore explicitly make legal the ending of an unborn child’s life at any stage under head 5 of the proposal.
Where a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, that pregnancy can be ended prematurely even if it will cost the unborn child his or her life. This has been the position in Irish law for many years, and indeed it was the position before the unnecessary introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. There is a significant and notable difference between the ending of a pregnancy, and “a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of the foetus”. The latter is the deliberate and targeted destruction of a life, and our position is that this should not be permitted by law.
The proposed heads of bill allow such an abortion on mental health grounds up to viability in head 4, and up until birth on the grounds of a mental health emergency in head 5. We have asked the Department of Health to specify which mental conditions it believes can be addressed by “a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of the foetus”. To date, we have received no answer. – Yours, etc,
JOHN McGUIRK,
Communications Director,
Save the 8th, Dublin 1.
Sir, – Perhaps when the proposition of repealing the Eighth Amendment is resolved, the Government could get on with ensuring that the other fundamental rights of the citizen, as enshrined in the 1937 Constitution, are fully protected. – Yours, etc,
CORMAC MEEHAN,
Bundoran,
Co Donegal.