One of the reasons for opposition the European Union was the ability of EU courts to dictate social policies within different countries. This issue is likely to come to a head for some critics with the ruling this week by the European Court of Human Rights that Irish abortion laws violate the rights of a woman seeking abortions in Britain.
At issue was a Lithuanian woman who was in remission for cancer and unaware of her pregnancy. She had to leave Ireland and travel to England, which she claimed put her life at risk. However, her lawyers later said that that was not true.
Protecting the life of the mother is an exception under Irish law. However, the government has not implemented legislation guaranteeing such protections after a 1992 ruling of the Supreme Court.
Two other women challenged the constitutional ban but had their cases dismissed. Notably, the court ruled that these women could not challenge the law because it was protecting “public morals.” This is one of the guarantees made to those who opposed the jurisdiction of the EU courts — to maintain the right of nations to enforce their own morality legislation. The two women expressed a simply desire not to have additional children. One woman was described as “a former alcoholic whose four children were in care [who]her pregnancy would prevent her getting her children back” and the other was a woman who took “a morning-after pill [and] was told by doctors the drug had failed and she ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. The government had argued that the law reflected the “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society”.
The Strasbourg court found that the one woman did face a violation of her human rights by being forced to travel while noting that the woman could receive medical counseling and treatment before and after the procedure. The Court specifically criticized Ireland for leaving the right of mother’s unclear. It found that woman should have received an abortion in Ireland as a matter of medical urgency.
Source: Sky
Jonathan Turley
swarthmore mom
if women have to go to canada for abortions i expect they’ll get it cheaper and without anyone screaming at them as they go in. only they’ll have to get a passport to do it,so don’t tell the teapugs or the border patrol will start doing pregnancy tests.
on a more serious note
i don’t see the republicans outlawing abortions. they had enough control from 2000 to 2006 to do it and they never really tried. it’s been a good wedge issue for them for to long now. if they actually do anything about it, it may backfire on them in a big way.
Tony,
I can agree with you on the blame lies with the Vatican. In the States we have right wing religious groups that are also against it, but the Catholic Church is the 600 pound gorilla in the room.
Professor Turley got the detail wrong but there are some concerns about membership of the Council of Europe too. Before the May election in the UK the Conservative Party did flirt with the idea of abolishing the Human Rights Act, the instrument which incorporates the European Court of Human Rights into the country’s legal system, but they have faced strong and principled opposition from prominent figures within the legal establishment and within their own ranks.
I’m no familiar with Irish politics except where it relates to the tragic necessity of women seeking abortions to take the ferry or airliner to England. Residents of the the Mediterranean island nation of Malta, where abortion is illegal, must also make a journey, usually to England or Italy, when they have an unwanted pregnancy. This barbarous state of affairs can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Catholic church.
What may happen, were the day to come when authentic compassion is not an identified crime against humanity?
I give everyone “a pass,” for I observe that I have yet to meet or hear about anyone, myself included, who does not demonstrate one or another form of profound ignorance.
Were I not as ignorant as I am, I might be able to realize how ignorant I am.
Why do I observe that ignorance is merely the opportunity for learning?
Am I alone?
@Tony Sidaway
You’re an American law professor so I’ll grudgingly give you a pass on this, but generally people who pontificate about public bodies should be careful to make sure they’re aiming at the right bodies.
—
You should not give Turley a pass, professors shoulld be held to a higher standard and he has demonstrated a profound ignorance on this blog in the past.
Swarthmore Mom,
don’t get me started on Kirk. He sent out an email to his supporters asking how did they want him to vote! I am one of his constituents and I did not get that email. Not that I expected to. He will vote any way that McConnell tells him to vote. He is someone who lied about his military career and got caught. I have absolutely no use for him.
rafflaw: I don’t think Quinn could knock anyone’s socks off. I see the “liberal” republican Mark Kirk won’t vote for the repeal of DADT.
Swarthmore mom,
You are right that we dodged a bullet by electing Quinn,but he hasn’t knocked my socks off with his performance either.
Tony Sidaway, Thanks for the primer in the history and scope of the European Court of Human Rights. AS I read the initial posting I was wondering if the European Court or the World Court was the body that had jurisdiction for claims of violations of human rights in Europe. Frankly, I had so little knowledge on the subject that I didn’t even know if my question was in the ball-park. Thanks for the succinct and clearly written information.
rafflaw: The republicans are more extreme now, but they very well could go for a state by state basis as they captured many state legislatures and governorships. You dodged Brady in Illinois.
Coming soon to a city near you . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8q6u2oTJLk&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Swarthmore Mom,
You may be right, but when the Teapublicans had control of both Houses and the White House, nothing was done on the Federal level to legislate an end to abortion. I believe that if they had done that, the political fallout would have been huge. I think they are satisfied with trying to eliminate it piecemeal, state by state, issue by issue. The end result, if they are successful, is the same, but the national politicians can claim that they are not involved.
Every republican candidate for president is anti-abortion so if one of them wins, we could be headed to Canada for an abortion.
Q&A: Ireland’s abortion ruling (BBC News):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12008623
rafflaw wrote: “If this woman could travel without danger and had the ability to get an abortion in England, I am confused why the court dealt with it.”
England is part of a separate country, the United Kingdom. Your argument is a bit like saying American Catholics don’t need to be guaranteed first amendment rights by the federal courts because they could always pop over a national border and practise their religious rites there.
Nevertheless, according to the BBC’s FAQ on the matter there was a tangible risk to this woman’s life and she was not able to obtain a prompt medical abortion even in England because of residency requirements, and had to wait 8 weeks for a surgical abortion.
Ireland has long had a de facto policy of palming off women needing abortions to medical services in England, which is a national disgrace.
You’re an American law professor so I’ll grudgingly give you a pass on this, but generally people who pontificate about public bodies should be careful to make sure they’re aiming at the right bodies.
The court in question is the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe antedates the European Union and has nothing to do with it except insofar as the latter body only accepts signatories of the Convention as members.
Membership of the Council of Europe involves signing a treaty known as the European Convention on Human Rights, which commits the signatory to recognising the human rights of its members; it’s comparable to the US Constitution in its role of safeguarding the rights of individuals. The Court has the rule of adjudicating when a member state’s actions infringe an individual’s rights. the member state can appeal the ruling if desired.
No guarantee given to a state by any body, including the EU, can abrogate the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Convention.
Most, but not all, Council of Europe states have incorporated the European Court into their own legal systems. It’s a voluntary act that typicslly requires a legislative initiative.
Social policy is the business of a national legislature, but there will always be questions over whether a given policy has sufficient safeguards for the existing recognized rights of certain individuals. That’s the kind of question the European Court of Human Rights answers. I think that’s a good thing.
I’m waiting for Tootie to arrive & tell us all that all leftist must demand forced abortions for everyone because that is what they all believe.
I was going to make a snarky remark about Ireland being a theocracy but that’s in many ways calling the kettle black.
The States have burdened clinics and hospitals with such extraordinary requirements that the distribution of abortion clinics and hospitals that perform abortions are appallingly low in the U.S.
You can see the distribution; do a search of “distribution of hospitals that perform abortions in the US” and also “distribution of abortion clinics in the US” and “distribution of women’s health clinics in the US” and “distribution of women’s health clinics that perform abortions in the US” If you do it in a series in google maps you will see that for the major part the last 3 searches hardly change the image. The hospital search shows scant hospitals that perform abortions or have the facilities to do so. Some States totally lack facilities. In some areas of the country the distance a woman needing an abortion would have to travel is similar to having to go from Ireland to England.
I think a court challenge to the current state of abortion services in America would be interesting. The Federal government asserts that a right is present but does nothing to insure that it can be acted upon and allows states to so burden private providers and their customers (as well as failing to adequately protect those providers and customers) so as to render the right nonexistent or nearly so for some number and identifiable classes of women.
Ireland isn’t the only socially backward country in the world when it comes to women’s health issues. Good for the European Court in this instance.
I know that abortion is a hot issue just like here in the States. If this woman could travel without danger and had the ability to get an abortion in England, I am confused why the court dealt with it. I guess they did not know the truth about the woman’s health when they made the ruling. I am glad that she was able to obtain the abortion, but I don’t think this issue will improve in Ireland for quite some time, if at all.
I suppose that they will find out what a unified force is…I think that the US was to be a the EU when it was first formed….but kinda of like the seat belt rule/law…it get changed….
Each state is responsible for its own licenses…so how come a traffic ticket 2 states over can give you points on your licenses in your home state?