This is Part 1 in a two part series about the recent ABC v. Ireland decision out of the European Court of Human Rights.

Since 1980, almost 140,000 women have traveled to the United Kingdom from Ireland to receive a safe and legal abortion, meaning approximately 5,000 women per year make a clandestine journey to obtain health care that, at home, has carried a penalty of life in prison for 150 years.  Until recently, even making the journey carried the same penalties.  Many women are entirely responsible for the costs (around $900 USD), have to make a series of lies or excuses to those around them (or suffer anything from minor disapprobation to domestic violence to the possibility of criminal charges), are sought out by pro-life groups on the boat to London, and face potentially serious complications without assurances of follow-up care.

Although Ireland theoretically respected a woman’s right to choose when her life was at risk – a so-called “grave circumstances” exception courtesy of European and Irish courts – the government took an interesting approach in demonstrating that requisite gesture.  It opted to keep the public in a state of perpetual ambiguity so no one could say for sure what circumstances were sufficiently grave.  A woman would have no idea whether she was a criminal or even if she would be helped if something went wrong.  If the Irish authorities later determined a procedure was not performed under the strict, but ephemeral and subjective “grave circumstances” exception, the physician would face license revocation and life in prison.

And so, reminiscent of pre-Roe America, women had to cross borders to receive basic health care (not to mention some respect).  And, in 2005, three of those women took Ireland to court.

All three women had become pregnant unintentionally and had traveled to the United Kingdom to receive an abortion.  The first plaintiff (referred to in European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] parlance as the first “applicant”) was impoverished, single, unemployed, struggling with depression, and in recovery for substance abuse.  She was afraid having another child would jeopardize her chances of reuniting with her other children in foster care.  The second applicant was not prepared to become a single parent and had concerns about complications from the (unsuccessfully administered) morning after pill.  The third applicant, a Lithuanian national living in Ireland, was in remission from cancer.  Not knowing she was pregnant, she’d had some treatment and testing which should not be done on pregnant women, and she was unable to find a doctor who would determine the risks to her or the fetus (due to the prohibition on abortion).  All three experienced painful complications after the procedure (e.g., blood clots, infection) and were afraid to seek care at home.

In the case of ABC v. Ireland, before the ECHR, these women argued that Ireland had violated its promises to them under the European Convention on Human Rights by prohibiting (essentially all) abortions.  Putting their health and well-being in jeopardy, Ireland had failed to safeguard their:

-    right to life, article 2
-    right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, article 3
-    right to respect for private and family life, article 8
-    right to an effective domestic remedy when those rights are violated, article 13, and
-    right to the enjoyment of these rights free from discrimination, article 14.

For a breakdown of the arguments presented to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in December 2009, see this article.

Sara Taylor

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 19th, 2011 at 8:18 pm and is filed under abortion, human rights, international. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.