Sir, – The article on abortion law by former taoiseach John Bruton (February 15th) shows a bewildering lack of appreciation for legal precedent.
The clear precedent set in the 1992 X case is that where a woman faces a real and substantial risk to her life, including a risk of suicide, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, then that termination is lawful. This Supreme Court judgment was confirmed by the people in not one but two referendums – November 1992 and June 2002.
The judgment against Ireland given by the European Court of Human Rights in the ABC case in December 2010 further confirms the principle, and requires the Irish State to provide an effective and accessible procedure whereby life-saving terminations of pregnancy may be carried out.
This Government has now made a very welcome commitment to legislate in accordance with the legal principles already well established. The former taoiseach needs to take more care in consulting and quoting from his legal sources. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – What a relief to read former taoiseach John Bruton’s clear-sighted and cogent interpretation of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (Opinion, February 15th). His careful reasoning illuminates the fallacy of the threat of suicide in the terms of the legislation that will permit abortion. The Constitution clearly emphasises the equal right to life of the unborn, and this can be changed by the Oireachtas only following the passing by the Irish people of a precisely-worded referendum.
Our elected representatives should study carefully Mr Bruton’s arguments and respond to them in open debate. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Although John Bruton brings the useful perspective of a former legislator in his contribution to the debate on abortion legislation, he appears not to appreciate that politicians are empowered to legislate within the terms of the Constitution; not to override the Supreme Court’s interpretation of those terms. This has two serious implications undermining his argument.
First, unless the Supreme Court reverses its X case position and decides that suicidal ideation does not, somehow, constitute a risk to life it is patently not unconstitutional to include suicide in the abortion legislation. Second, to do otherwise would leave us in an entirely unsatisfactory position where women with a constitutional right to access abortion (ie women for whom suicidal ideation constitutes a real and substantial risk to life that in probability can only averted by termination) must still wade in legally unclear waters. He must understand – as must all – that simply leaving suicide out of the legislation does not erase its inclusion in the X case or change the constitutional position. Only a referendum could do that.
I assume that as a woman I cannot claim inclusion in what Mr Bruton calls “a priesthood of constitutional lawyers”, but these rudimentary points of constitutional law and organisation require no such “elevated” a perspective to understand. – Yours, etc,