Sir, - Your Editorial "Facing Abortion" (July 6th) says: "The public hearings [of the Oireachtas Abortion Committee] have now ended." That is untrue, because I am among those due to contribute to the final day's hearings next Wednesday (July 12th).
Although I do not represent an organisation or church, the committee decided to talk to me as the sole public advocate of option III, "Retention of the status quo".
I shall modify, in a significant way, the argument you published in my article of December 29th last, and show that it accords with Catholic logic. That is contrary to what our Catholic bishops say. They seek a referendum because, their opening statement to the committee claimed, "the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court [Chief Justice] in the `X' case is seriously flawed". Yet, neither they nor the legal and moral advisers on their team were asked to substantiate referring to the 68-word sentence which outlined that principle.
In taking my argument seriously, the committee is doing what our media have refused to do. It seems to me that our money-driven media are as keen to embroil us in an unnecessary referendum as they are in an unnecessary general election, at great public (paid by us) and private cost. Your blatant, superficial, pro-abortion one-page set of articles by Aine McCarthy (Features, July 4th) is, I'm afraid, in line with that campaign. It even includes the irresponsible - because totally unsubstantiated - assertion that "the psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing an unwanted child to term and relinquishing it (sic) for adoption". - Yours, etc.,
Joe Foyle, Sandford Road, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.