Sir, – I attended the Vigil for Life in Dublin last Saturday and I would like to comment on Ann Marie Hourihane’s account of same (Opinion, June 10th).
We are all agreed that two sides of Merrion Square were more or less full for the vigil. I did not bring a measuring tape, but 500m in length and 20m in width sounds about right to me for the area occupied by the crowd. We were not jammed together, but neither were there large gaps evident: between three and four people per square metre, perhaps, on average. Let us say three, so as not to be accused of exaggerating. On these figures, the numbers attending were 500x20x3 =30,000 people. That is a conservative estimate, but it is 50 per cent higher than the figure cited by Ms Hourihane, and portrayed by her as being an over-estimate.
Ms Hourihane made some very odd comments on the speakers, but I will do my best to reply. About 90 per cent of us attending were adults, and did not need to have explained to us where babies come from, nor that men have a role in the process. The contributions of Edel Best and John McAreavey were dignified, brave and deeply moving, and it is incomprehensible that their country of origin should be considered relevant.
What Ms Hourihane did manage to convey, however, was the sense of bewilderment among the crowd at the antics of Enda Kenny on this issue. – Yours, etc,
JIM STACK,
Lismore,
Co Waterford.
Sir, – We understand the Minister for Health has been advised that it is not possible to include terminations for fatal foetal abnormality in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, 2013. With respect, our initial response is to disagree. It is possible to interpret Article 40.3.3 so that the “unborn” that is protected therein does not include those foetuses with fatal abnormalities. The Irish courts have not considered this legal issue and there is no binding precedent excluding such an interpretation.
Moreover, the legislature has the power, and the duty, to legislate under the Constitution. When Justice McCarthy criticised the legislature for failing to regulate the terms of Article 40.3.3 in the X case in 1992, he was speaking of a duty that existed prior to that case. The interpretation and regulation of Article 40.3.3 is not limited to the circumstances which arose in X. That case showed how the general principle, of vindicating unborn life with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, justified a termination in the particular circumstances of suicide risk. A different set of factual circumstances, such as those of fatal foetal abnormality, could also legally justify a termination of pregnancy given that these “unborns” will not live once born. Therefore, it is within the legislature’s power to act on this possibility and regulate for these circumstances.
The State used this legal argument to defend itself against the unsuccessful claim of Deirdre Conroy in the European Court of Human Rights, as she explained (Opinion, May 31st). The High Court declined the opportunity to address this argument in D v HSE. The court ruled instead that D, who was pregnant with an anencephalic foetus, could travel for a termination of pregnancy. The women of Termination for Medical Reasons, including Ruth Bowie and Arlette Lyons, have spoken publicly of being unable to access the healthcare they wanted in Ireland when their pregnancies were found to be unviable. In these circumstances, the legislature has a moral as well as a legal duty to act now and include abortion for fatal foetal abnormalities within the Bill.
We urge the Minister to publish his legal advice on this issue so that it can be assessed and discussed. We ask the Minister to reconsider his position and to minimise the suffering of those women and couples who wish to end their unviable pregnancies at home. – Yours, etc,
RUTH FLETCHER, Senior Lecturer in Law, Keele University; MARY DONNELLY, Senior Lecturer in Law, University College Cork; MAIRÉAD ENRIGHT, Lecturer in Law, University of Kent; EIMEAR SPAIN, PhD, Lecturer in Law, University of Limerick; JENNIFER SCHWEPPE, Lecturer in Law, University of Limerick; SIOBHÁN MULLALLY, Prof of Law, University College Cork; FIONA de LONDRAS, Prof of Law, University of Durham; FIONNUALA Ní AOLÁIN, Prof of Law, University of Ulster; MARGUERITE BOLGER, MLitt, Senior Counsel, Law Library, Dublin; DAVID CAPPER, PhD, Reader in Law, Queen's University Belfast; VICKY CONWAY, Lecturer in Law, University of Kent; LOUISE CROWLEY, Lecturer in Law, University College Cork; JOHN DANAHER, Lecturer in Law, Keele University; MICHAEL DOHERTY, Lecturer in Law, Dublin City University; CATHERINE FORDE, Barrister at Law, Law Library, Dublin; MARIE FOX, Prof of Socio-Legal Studies, University of Birmingham; PATRICK HANAFIN, Prof of Law, Birkbeck College, University of London; MAEBH HARDING, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Portsmouth; JOHN HARRINGTON, Prof of Law, Cardiff University; BARBARA HEWSON, Barrister at Law, Lincoln's Inn, London; SARAH HOULIHAN, LLM, Barrister at Law, Women's Link Worldwide; JULIE F KAY, Lead Counsel for A, B, and C in ABC v Ireland; SUSAN LEAHY, Lecturer in Law, University of Limerick; JULIE McCANDLESS, Lecturer in Law, London School of Economics; NATALIE McDONNELL, Barrister at Law, Law Library, Dublin; SHEELAGH McGUINNESS, Research Fellow in Law, University of Birmingham; KATHYRN McNEILLY, PhD candidate in Law, Queen's University Belfast; THÉRESE MURPHY, Prof of Law, University of Nottingham; CLAIRE MURRAY, Lecturer in Law, University College Cork; COLIN MURRAY, Senior Lecturer in Law, Newcastle University; AOIFE NOLAN, Prof of International Human Rights Law, University of Nottingham; COLM O'CINNÉIDE, Reader in Laws, University College London; CATHERINE O'ROURKE, Lecturer in Human Rights and International Law, University of Ulster; CATHERINE O'SULLIVAN, Lecturer in Law, University College Cork; SARA RAMSHAW, Lecturer in Law, Queen's University Belfast; SINÉAD RING, Lecturer in Law, University of Kent; FERGUS RYAN, Lecturer in Law, DIT; YVONNE SCANNELL, Prof of Law, TCD; OLIVIA SMITH, Lecturer in Law, DCU; MARK TOTTENHAM, Barrister at Law, Law Library, Dublin; SORCHA Uí CHONNACHTAIGH, Lecturer in Ethics, Keele University; JUDY WALSH, Lecturer in Social Justice, UCD; DARIUS WHELAN, Lecturer in Law, University College Cork & Dr RUTH FLETCHER, Senior
Lecturer, School of Law
Head, Centre for Law, Ethics
and Society, Keele
University,
Staffordshire,
England.
Sir, – Declarations by the anti-abortion movement on how Catholic politicians may vote on the abortion bill in accordance with their consciences are most disturbing.
On the one hand, Breda O’Brien says that those who conscientiously oppose the bill should have a free vote (Opinion, June 8th). On the other hand, Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh Eamon Martin says that those who just as conscientiously support the Bill may not do so.
Equal rights for mother and child but not for conscientious politicians? God help Ireland. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN BURKE,
Gainsborough Park,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.