Human Rights

“Abortion on mental health grounds has proved to be abortion on demand”, William Binchy


The Government has formally published the bill containing the proposed wording of the abortion referendum. It gives the details of the law the Government wants to introduce if the Eighth Amendment is repealed. One of them is abortions legalised in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, including cases which will lead to the loss of life of the baby shortly after birth (policy 5). Also abortion being allowed up to 12 weeks “without specific indication” as part of a medical practitioner-led service (policy 7). The document can be read at (pdf).

William Binchy explains in this article the implications of this text in the light of the Supreme Court decision on the 7th of March. The full version was published in the Irish Times.

“Outside article 40.3.3, inserted by the Eighth Amendment, there is no constitutional protection for babies before birth. Repeal that provision, and constitutional protection disappears. Instead the politicians would have the function of framing abortion laws.

It is bad enough that we pass over to politicians this function. Politics, perhaps necessarily, can be an ugly business. Deals have to be done, compromises made. Small parties, with strong agendas, can exert an influence well beyond their numbers. In the context of abortion, this is likely to push legislation further in a direction of removing any limits.

But matters are actually somewhat worse than this. Under the model of repeal that is proposed to be adopted, the courts would still have a role. The Supreme Court judgment has made it quite implausible to argue that babies before birth would have any continuing effective protection if the Eighth Amendment were repealed.

On the contrary, advocates for abortion on demand would argue that the mother’s rights to privacy and autonomy require that legislation accommodate abortion of unborn children, who would no longer have any constitutionally protected rights, their right to life having gone with the repeal.


Where one party has a panoply of constitutionally-protected rights and the other party has no rights at all, it will be argued that the legislature must give full effect to the rights of the rights-holder.

We already know what resulted in the United States from the supreme court’s embrace of the right to privacy in the decision of Roe versus Wade. The same pattern has emerged in other countries around the world. This means that our politicians’ hands would actually be tied to some degree in a way that severely damages the lives of unborn babies.

The Oireachtas would be free to introduce legislation providing for wide-ranging abortion, with few or no restrictions. But there is a real prospect that they would not be free to have a law that afforded effective protection to unborn babies as this could be trumped by arguments based on rights of privacy and autonomy (…).

Wider picture

We also have to keep in mind the wider picture. At present the European Court of Human Rights has taken the position that the existence of the Eighth Amendment, which evidences a desire on the part of Irish society to protect unborn babies, is a reason why arguments for access to wide-ranging abortion under the European Convention based on the right to privacy should not succeed. If we take away that protection these arguments before the European Court of Human Rights will be far more likely to prevail, resulting in further pressure for extension of abortion law. (…) Reflect for a moment on the type of legislation that the Government has in mind if we remove the present constitutional protection for unborn babies. It is abortion on demand, overtly so until the baby is 12 weeks old and in practice for the remaining weeks of pregnancy up to birth: policy 9 of the Government’s policy paper.

Signatures of doctors

Abortion on mental health grounds has proved to be abortion on demand in England, where one in five babies is aborted. Everybody knows that the requirement for signatures of doctors is no effective barrier to abortion on demand. This is not to impugn the good faith of the medical profession, but rather to acknowledge simple factual reality.

In Britain’s Abortion Act 1967, abortion for mental or physical health is based on ground C. The Department of Health Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2015, paragraphs 2.14-2.15 records that

“In 2015, the vast majority (98 per cent; 181,231) of abortions were undertaken under ground C… The vast majority (99.95 per cent) of ground C only terminations were reported as being performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health.”

The Supreme Court has done our society a service in making the position that faces us in the forthcoming referendum clear. We can choose to retain the Eighth Amendment, under which doctors in Irish hospitals protect the lives of both their patients, mother and baby, to a standard of care that is among the safest in the world; or we can repeal the amendment and face the prospect of our politicians introducing laws providing for abortion on demand.”


Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution. Riddle me this!

Article 40.3.3

There are so many contradictions in the debate around the article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, better known as the. Here are a few I have been studying…

1. We are told: ‘It’s not a baby, it’s just a clump of cells’ yet we are also told ‘abortion is a traumatic experience for a woman and is not entered into lightly.’ So why the trauma?

2. We are told: ‘It’s not a baby, it’s a clump of cells’ yet the politicians say ‘abortion should only be legal up to 12 weeks.’ Why should it make a difference to a bunch of cells?

3. Abortion is supposedly OK for fatal foetal abnormalities or in cases of rape or incest. Why not then on other grounds?

4. “I believe women should have the choice but I couldn’t have an abortion”. But why not?

5. Abortion supporters talk about rape, incest, sexual abuse and fatal foetal abnormalities as justifications for abortion. Yet they accuse pro-life supporters of resorting to emotional language by using the term ‘baby’.

6. Women who have had a hysterectomy or who have gone through menopause or who are unable to conceive can have an opinion. So why do abortion campaigners not want men to have an opinion?

7. Article 40.3.3 considers a pregnant woman a mother by virtue of her pregnancy. Abortion campaigners argue is that women shouldn’t be forced to become mothers. But mothers of what … a bunch of cells?

8. The death penalty was made illegal in Ireland in 1990 for all crimes (including rape and incest). So why then do abortion campaigners now want to make it legal to kill the innocent child resulting from rape or incest?

9. Our TDs and Senators voted to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, under which abortion for reasons of disability is a violation. So why at the same time do they want abortion available if there is a disability diagnosis of ‘fatal foetal abnormality’.

10. In all countries where abortion is legal, sex selection forms part of the abortion business and females are aborted purely for being female. So why do abortion campaigners consider abortion as a women’s rights issue?

11. Studies show a much higher rate of depression and anxiety among women who have had an abortion when compared to women who have continued the pregnancy to birth. So why then do abortion campaigners consider abortion as a women’s health issue?

12. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list abortion as a human right so why do abortion campaigners claim abortion as a human right?

13. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “the child…needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. So why do abortion campaigners consider repealing article 40.3.3 as a human rights issue?

14. Scientific studies prove that a fertilised egg is an autonomous, living being. So why do abortion campaigners consider abortion itself, the negation of life, a human rights issue?

15. Article 43.3.3 has served women and children well. No one woman has died because of Article 43.3.3. So why should we even consider removing it?


By Brónagh Hayes.

Brónagh is a Law student in Dublin.