The High Court judgment in the Baby A case raises serious questions, once again, about the nature of our society. These relate not only to the manner in which a pregnancy counselling agency unlawfully took custody of two babies from young single mothers in attempted private adoptions but, even more disturbingly, to the modus operandi of some members of the anti-abortion movement at this time.
Miss Justice Laffoy's judgment presents a disturbing picture of the lengths to which some activists are prepared to go to pursue their cause. Having failed to convince the Oireachtas, the electorate and the courts to introduce an outright ban on abortion in all circumstances in their campaigns over the last two decades, the judgment reveals the coercive methods engaged in by a minority in the movement to circumvent the constitutional position established by way of two abortion referendums and subvert the constitutional rights of vulnerable young mothers. The willingness on the part of professionals - legal and medical - to participate in such a process is a cause for further concern.
Turning to the specific case of Baby A, Miss Justice Laffoy was unequivocal in her condemnation of the practices used to persuade two student girls to hand over their babies for private adoption. The 21year-old mother of Baby A was the victim of the deliberate design to "ring fence" her and her baby; to remove the baby as far as possible from the supervision of the Eastern Health Board and other regulatory authorities; and to isolate the mother from independent legal advice and from counselling "so as to overbear her will".
The judgment is equally critical of the actions of the Aadam's pregnancy counselling agency. Since April 1999, the proprietor had been aware that a "private" adoption to a non-relative was illegal. On his own evidence, according to Miss Justice Laffoy, he misled the mother by suggesting to her that she could choose to go the "private adoption" route and was entitled to leave her baby with a couple of her choice. Moreover, the agency and the proprietor involved professionals such as the general practitioner and the barrister in the mother's affairs. On the evidence, the judge concluded, it was reasonable to infer that he did so with the intention of "bolstering his influence" over the mother.
There are many lessons to be learned and wrongdoings to be rectified, arising from the sequence of events portrayed in the Laffoy judgment. The most immediate policy issue to be addressed is the need to regulate the activities of pregnancy counselling agencies. The Eastern Health Board has taken a wise decision to try to track down the estimated 50 women with crisis pregnancies referred to the same GP by the Aadam's agency. Furthermore, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which will hold public hearings on the Government's Green Paper on Abortion within the next fortnight, would also do well to consider the circumstances in which young girls still find themselves during the various stages of crisis pregnancies.
Presented with such a disturbing array of facts about the case histories of babies A and B, Miss Justice Laffoy is to be commended for the decision to have the judgment made public. This newspaper was strongly of the view that it was in the public interest to seek to have the Aadam's Women's Centre identified. It was for this reason that it took the unusual step of making an application before Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness in the High Court.