The public consultation for the three-year review of our abortion laws closed last Friday. This was an invitation not to propose changes to the law but rather to comment on the operation of the law as it stands.
So, three years after the coming into effect of abortion legislation, is our society better? More transparent? More tolerant? More compassionate?
Despite politicians such as Leo Varadkar promising that abortion in this country would be “safe, legal and rare”, the number of abortions soared, from 2,911 in 2018 to 6,666 in 2019. In just two years, 13,243 abortions were carried out. Is our society better for it?
Almost four years ago, government ministers and pro-choice advocates celebrated the dawn of a bright, new, transparent future, unencumbered by the duties, responsibilities and guilt they associated with a formerly Catholic Ireland. No more would there be women hiding their pregnancies in the shadows, judged and treated without compassion – all that was behind us now, they said. But just how transparent is our brave new world?
To date, the Minister has refused to publish any meaningful figures about the operation of the law – despite the call for public comment. This approach runs contrary to the spirit of the “information age” in which we live. Other countries which have made abortion legally available publish detailed statistics, which give a fuller picture of the operation of their law and the circumstances of women seeking abortions.
Questions of racism, the oppression of poor and marginalised women and “gendercide” arise – but we can challenge abuses only if we have the data.
It would seem that the current Government approach is to keep the women seeking abortions in the shadows, and yet, if the “freedom” to have an abortion is such a good thing, what is there to hide?
Tolerance
And what of tolerance? Pro-choice campaigners and politicians have rushed to demonise and ban small groups of people gathering in vigils outside hospitals providing abortions (despite gardaí saying there was no evidence of criminality or threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour). Where is the tolerance for religion, for a different point of view, for those willing to offer a voice of hope to women who may feel forced into having an abortion, with no real choice in the matter?
Is it not judgmental and oppressive to stop someone exercising her right to free association, expression and the practice of religion? Is this tolerance: to prohibit her from talking to or inviting a woman to change her mind about abortion?
It used to be a woman's prerogative to change her mind. Not any more
Finally, we were told that our society would become more compassionate. We on the Pro-Life side were accused of lying and misrepresenting the law when we said that it allowed for late-term abortions, and that children with disabilities diagnosed in the womb would be under particular threat. Yet what we predicted has indeed come to pass – although it has been swept under the table in our open, free, transparent society.
Despite the assurances of certain doctors and Government Ministers, prenatal screening has allowed for abortions after 12 weeks. Despite assurances that no doctor would abort on the basis of a screening test, without following up with a full diagnostic test, exactly that situation arose in the baby Christopher case in the National Maternity Hospital.
And where is the compassion for the other 13,342 foetuses (and counting) who have been aborted since 2019? Where is the compassion for mothers who changed their mind and looked for help to reverse what they came to realise was a bad decision?
It used to be a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. Not any more. Ironically, the pro-choice mentality has put paid to that.
Waiting period
Contrary to what you might be led to believe, women do sometimes change their minds about abortion. Those on the pro-choice side want to remove the three-day waiting period – presumably to make it even easier and quicker to obtain an abortion. Once the decision to abort is made, there is no going back, and there should be no opportunity to reflect upon such a life-changing, life-ending decision; that at least is the message coming from the pro-choice camp.
Such is the opposition to women reconsidering their abortion decisions that in the UK, Dr Dermot Kearney, an Irish doctor administering abortion pill reversal treatment, was made the subject of a disciplinary procedure by the General Medical Council following complaints by an abortion provider. Thankfully, that procedure resulted recently in dismissal of all charges of wrongdoing. However, the “chilling effect” of such complaints makes it difficult for Irish doctors confidently to offer such treatment.
Let’s see how many feminists and pro-choice advocates who supported “repeal” will come forward to support this “choice” for women. I predict either deafening silence or outright condemnation from these quarters: proof, if proof were needed, that they are not pro-choice, but rather pro-abortion.
Maria Steen was a spokesperson for the No side in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment