TotD: United Nations Human Rights Committee

On Thursday (09/06/16) it became widely known in the Irish media that the United Nations Human Rights Committee returned a verdict on a case brought to it by a Dublin lady who had to travel to England to get an abortion back in 2011.

The UN HR Committee has declared the treatment of this lady as inhumane and degrading. It is certainly an extreme case, the baby had a rare extra 18th chromosome that would likely have ended in still birth or death by the age of one. The pregnancy was also wanted, and the mother devastated by the news she would likely give birth to a stillborn baby when she was 21 weeks pregnant. She then had some psychological issues, imaging the baby already dead and other horrible things.

The reality of this situation has to be kept in mind, what this lady and those around her went through is undoubtably horrible, traumatic and difficult. However, we cannot make legal decisions based on extreme circumstances.

The UN has made a number of findings, or criticisms of Ireland's handling of abortion in circumstances like these.

The UN committee stated that options on abortion were not presented to this lady, bar from it being mentioned she could go to the UK. The UN points out a difficulty Irish support agencies have in providing information about abortion to those who want to go through with one and supporting and promoting abortion. Consequentially, she wasn't informed of where to go in the UK etc.
-This is a ridiculous comment. If something is illegal in a country it would never be a country's policy to tell you where you can do the illegal thing... That makes no sense. Obviously, issues surrounding abortion are sensitive and deep, but on a purely legal level the UN has suggested something similar to the following scenario:
A person addicted to cannabis moves from a country where it is legal to possess and use cannabis to Ireland. Consequentially, they suffer from various issues and distresses related to going cold turkey from not being able to get cannabis and wisely not trusting the black market. The person goes to a medical professional who tells them they can fly to Amsterdam, where it would be possible for them to get cannabis without having to use the illegal black market.
The person does so and comes back to Ireland, less financially stable than when they left, they decide to take Ireland to 'court' because of the distress they were caused in not being able to find cannabis legally in their familiar environment and not being provided with information such as where to go to get the cannabis once they got to Amsterdam.
Legally speaking, the system of not over providing information on abortion makes so much sense.


A second complaint was that she was unable to access public monies to pay for the abortion and so was out of pocket, not receiving the same support (otherwise and financially) she would have been able to receive had she decided to carry the child to stillbirth (or potentially birth).
-This actually makes me angry. This is from the UN's report:
"On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December she received further medication to induce labor. She was in labor for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford staying longer in the UK.a There is no financial assistance from the state or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad."
Really? Is she serious? There are a lot of other things not covered by medical cards that could do with coming under it faster than an abortion... like most dental work besides extractions (pretty much the only thing covered besides 2 metal fillings, and not on the same tooth within five years).

The lady in question stated that the reason she wanted to terminate the pregnancy was to avoid having to let the child go through pain. However, there is evidence to suggest that babies of 21 weeks can feel pain (this is difficult to tell as they cannot actually tell us they do); therefore her decision to kill the child to save her from pain is senseless. Her doctor attempted to dissuade her when they found a heartbeat after she heard the baby's diagnosis, but she chose to continue with the abortion. In this sense this case can be seen as euthanasia, the woman wanted to save pain for her daughter and so thought it best to kill her than to see her suffer. Euthanasia is also illegal (with the exception of switching off life support machines which is considered by some to be euthanasia).

The Irish State representatives responded saying that the current provisions regarding abortion, as expressed in the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, represented the electorate of Ireland's stance on this issue. The lady questioned this, saying opinion polls show support for abortion. While this is certainly true, from a purely legal standpoint the law is the law, and until the Referendum, which is likely to occur in the lifetime of the present government, it remains the law. Whatever you think of the law, you can't just say "yeah, but people don't actually like that law" and it be a viable prosecuting point.
Again, the UN has been idiotic here. They state that even though something might be illegal in domestic law that it could still be in violation of UN law.
-So now the UN, an unelected body, has decided that it has the right to decide on whether laws surrounding moral actions are right or wrong? Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice this should make your blood boil. If we truly hold that democracy is the best of a bad bunch of ways of governing ourselves then the United Nations, an unelected body, saying something like that should be an affront to you.
Presently, Britain debates Brexit, often stated grounds are the fact that the European Union, largely unelected, makes decisions and supersedes Britain's own made laws. In a time when countries are beginning to realise that being part of these bigger organisations sometimes presents a cost that is too great in terms of sovereignty, the United Nations would be wise not to step beyond its charter and start making pronouncements about the international legality of laws.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is perfectly entitled to believe what it will but to suggest as it has: "The State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, including effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that healthcare providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions." certainly oversteps that.



It has often been a question in the abortion debate as to whether a foetus counts as a human being, is a baby a baby from conception or from birth. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) unfortunately begins with "from birth", making its position known.

It is part of a repeating cycle of history that certain people are considered as less than human.
-In Sparta it was those who couldn't hold their own in a battle, and they would be left to die.
-In some cultures it was the elderly, who became an unnecessary burden and would be left to die or leave to die.
-Other times it has been baby girls.
-Other places it was children born with a disability.
-For a long time it was anyone who wasn't white.
-For a period in Europe it was someone who had a Jewish grandparent.

Over and over again we, as the human race, have devised these theories and schemes to convince ourselves that 'the other' (whoever that other is for the particular period) is so other that they could not be human as we are.

For this generation it is unborn babies that we have come up with theories and methods and ideas until, for many of us, we have convinced ourselves that unborn babies are not actually babies (except in the case of Kate Middleton's unborn babies, who were seldom if ever called foetuses, but unborn babies in even the most liberal of media outlets. So, is the difference between an unborn baby and a foetus not the amount of time, but how wanted the child is, because that's certainly the message!)

Some, if not most, of the above list are considered crimes against humanity now.
I am 100% sure that at some point in the future people will sit down and have a good think for themselves; I'm sure a cup of Barry's Tea will be involved in the scenario, and they will realise, "hey wait, unborn babies are people too." William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln and others like them will have to come on the scene again and fight this inhumane practice, this crime against humanity (because unborn babies are humans), in our courts and governments, and Civil Wars [let's hope not].
Then we'll have the word unbornists added to our vocabulary (please come up with a better word people of the future).

The distress caused to the woman who took out the case against Ireland was severe and intense, no one can deny that. However, distress, no matter how severe and intense, does not make her right in this instance.