Sir, – It is outrageous that the Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald regards abortion as a “very separate issue” to her upcoming children’s referendum (Home News, October 12th). She states that the aim of the referendum is to protect “children who are at risk in exceptional cases where their safety is compromised”. Considering that legislation in line with the X-case would result in abortion being permitted right up to 40 weeks’ gestation, is this not an exceptional case where children’s safety is compromised? The Minister’s myopic view of the definition of “children” is quite disconcerting. As babies have been found to survive premature birth from as early as 21 weeks, six days, the threat of abortion up to 40 weeks is an issue which the Minister absolutely should be concerned about.
One would presume that a Minister for Children would defend and uphold the rights of all children in this State whether born at full term, born prematurely or preborn. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald, in her article promoting the so-called children’s rights referendum (Opinion, October 16th) states, “We believe that when a child is being starved, or beaten, or burned or physically or sexually abused social workers should be able to intervene to stop that.”
Under Article 42.5 of our constitution as it currently stands it says, “In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”
It is clear from this that our social workers are already able to intervene to stop this sort of abuse under the Constitution as it stands.
The questions that have not been either asked of, nor answered by Ms Fitzgerald and her Government are these: Given that there is already a clear provision in our Constitution for the State to intervene in the exceptional cases cited by the Minister above, why has the State, including this current Government, failed our children so abysmally by not acting according to the provisions of our Constitution as it currently stands?
What is the point in changing the Constitution when our Government sees itself as master of our Constitution rather than its servant; and when Government spokespersons constantly criticise Supreme Court decisions such as the McKenna judgment which found a Fine Gael government in breach of the very Constitution they now claim to so dearly cherish? To a large extent our governing parties are implicated in a lot of child abuse cases both by their actions and their inactions.
The Government can protect children under the Constitution as it stands; that it has failed to act under the Constitution shows this current referendum for what it is.
A marketing exercise is designed to paint this Government as caring and loveable and to allow it to lay the blame for the State’s appalling failures other than where it belongs: on the shoulders of those who have mismanaged this country for years by placing party political interests above the interests of the citizens. – Yours, etc,