Justice Minister Alan Shatter was grilled for three hours in Geneva on Ireland’s human rights record as part of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
As access to safe abortion is regarded as a human right in many countries, six countries raised Ireland’s abortion laws and openly called on the country to legislate for abortion.
The question, from Holland, Germany, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway and Spain, asked Ireland to legislate to clarify the circumstances in which abortion may be lawful (as required by 1992 Supreme Court X case and last year’s judgement in A, B and C v Ireland case in European Court of Human Rights).
Mr Shatter replied that the government intended to establish an expert group to look at the matter.
Caroline Simons, Legal Consultant to the Pro-Life campaign and who was present at the hearing, noted that Ireland had a much better record of safeguarding the lives of women in pregnancy, “than any of the six countries that challenged our laws on abortion at the UN session this morning.”
She went on, “Contrary to what pro-choice groups claim, Ireland is not obliged to legislate for abortion following on from the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling in A, B, and C, v. Ireland. It would also be grossly irresponsible to do so, given the sheer volume of published peer reviewed studies, highlighting the negative consequences of abortion for women.”
In its own submission to the UN made earlier this year, the Pro-Life Campaign said the ECHR decision (A, B & C v Ireland) fully respected the entitlement of the Irish people to determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children.
“The Irish people must now make a choice. If they were to choose to endorse the Supreme Court decision in X, this would involve legalising abortion contrary to existing medical practice and the best evidence of medical research. If on the other hand, the Irish people choose to endorse the current medical practice, they will be ensuring the continuation of Ireland’s world renowned safety record for mothers and babies during pregnancy.”
The Pro-Life campaign pointed out that the evidence over the past 18 years contradicted the medical assumptions of the X case (that a pregnant woman might commit suicide) and “the evidence has steadily built up confirming the opposite of what the judges had assumed; women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide than women who continue with their pregnancy.”
They said that the suggestion that because of this country’s pro-life ethos, pregnant women are denied necessary medical treatments is “ simply not true,” and that in the latest UN report on maternal safety during pregnancy, Ireland led the world, and women were safer in Ireland when pregnant, than “in countries like Britain and Holland, which permit abortion on demand”.
Finally they pointed to the latest research on abortion that showed a sizeable majority of the Irish public supporting the legal protection for the unborn child, while at the same time ensuring that women receive all necessary medical interventions in pregnancy.
Last Thursday, Minister Shatter was also quizzed by Finland and the UK on what progress was being made to create effective national bodies to monitor conditions in places of detention.
Minister Shatter replied that the government was committed to reform, in particular in relation to the practise of in-cell sanitation, or slopping out but this reform would be subject to resources.
The Netherlands, Finland and the UK asked how the government intends to improve the protection of children’s rights and formally recognise “modern, pluralist and inclusive family relationships?”
Minister Shatter reiterated that the Irish government is committed to introduce a referendum on the rights of children, which would be held in 2012.
Commenting on the session, Caroline Simons from PLC said that the UN’s Universal Periodic Review presented a "genuine opportunity to re-affirm self-evident inalienable human rights,” the most basic of which is the right to life.
“If ending the life of an unborn child were to be officially declared a human right, the term ‘human rights’ would be stripped of all its meaning. Were the UN to adopt such a position, it would do incalculable damage to its credibility as a protector of genuine human rights,” she added.