💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › aileen-o-carroll-abortion-vote.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:23:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Abortion vote
Author: Aileen O’Carroll
Date: 1992
Language: en
Topics: abortion, Ireland, democracy, Workers Solidarity
Source: Retrieved on 9th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws92/abortion37.html
Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 37 — Winter 1992.

Aileen O’Carroll

Abortion vote

A 14 YEAR OLD rape victim was injuncted last February by the Irish

state. She was physically prevented from leaving the country in order to

have an abortion in England. Public outrage, manifested in near

continuous demonstrations forced the Supreme Court to reverse this

decision.

The government then came under pressure to clarify what the legal

situation was in Ireland. The “pro-life” movement pressurised for a

reversal of the Supreme Court ruling. Public opinion called for changes

that would ensure that a case similar to the “X” case would never occur

again.

Juggling with womens rights

There are two ways they could have done this, by legalisation on the

Supreme Court decision or by a referendum which would in some way amend

the original Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Fianna Fáil like to

appear as all things to all people, they usually go where the votes

carry them. For this reason they avoided the option of legalisation.

Enacting legislation based on the Supreme Court judgement would

inevitably result in allowing for abortion in some circumstances (i.e.

threat of suicide) in Ireland.

If the government were to propose this they would face the Catholic

church and the “pro-life” movement organising against them in the

constituencies, costing them votes. For this reason the preferred option

of Fianna Fáil was to “let the people decide”, thus letting them off the

hook, through having a referendum. As would be expected the holding of

this referendum doesn’t indicate a new found desire for democracy as

much as a desperate attempt to sit square in the middle of the fence.

Three referenda FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!

However they attempted the impossible and they messed things up. They

attempted to forge a consensus between diametrically opposing points of

view. There can never be agreement between the “pro-life” movement and

those who would allow abortion in Ireland. The result of all this

manoeuvrering is that we are being faced with three separate, and each

in their own way highly insulting, referenda. These are on the right to

Travel, the right to Information and on the right to Abortion in certain

very restricted circumstances. Anarchists will be voting Yes to Travel,

Yes to Information and No to the so called ‘“pro-life”’ wording.

A Woman’s Right to Choose

Our decision on which way to vote is based on our support for a woman’s

right to choose. The state, it’s lawyers and it’s police should have no

right to force any women to continue with a pregnancy. The role of the

medical profession should be to advise, not to dictate to women. The

decision whether to remain pregnant or not should only be made by that

pregnant woman. Any state that state that uses force to ensure that a

pregnancy is continued is at its root barbaric (and this includes

Ireland).

Anarchists believe in real options and real choices for women. This is

why we favour full childcare provision paid for by the state, maternity

leave and flexi-time for working women as well as free access to

contraception, free public creche facilities, adequate sex education,

decent housing and a living wage. On the other hand a woman who does not

want a child should have a right to free, safe abortion on demand. This

is what we see as “a woman’s right to choose”.

Travel and back street abortions

I always assumed that I had a right to travel. Its an indication of how

bad the situation in Ireland has become that we are voting on this at

all. It would be funny if it weren’t true. We have abortion in Ireland.

At least 4,600 Irish women travel to England every year to have

abortions (this is the figure for those who give an Irish address, many

don’t). The logic behind the wording is that if enforced, women would be

prevented from travelling to England to have an abortion.

Those women would still be having their abortions and some would die on

Irish back streets. In September Channel 4 reported on a Belfast

teenager who couldn’t afford to travel to England and became seriously

ill following a back street abortion. You don’t here the “pro-life”

movement saying much about the 300,000 women worldwide (World Health

Organisation figure) who died last year following backstreet abortions

in mostly Catholic countries.

Information

The ban on information imposed on the Well Woman Centres and Open Line

Counselling clinic has recently been overturned in Europe. After the

Supreme Court ruling on the “X” case, the Irish government conceded in

Europe that they had lost the case. The Supreme Court ruling allowed for

abortion in some circumstances in Ireland, making it impossible for the

Irish government to continue their argument against information.

No matter what happens in the information referendum, the government

have been told by the Council of Europe to sort out Irish law so that it

allows abortion information. The ball is in the Irish government’s

court. It it could be there for a very long time. A similar ruling was

handed down by them, in the David Norris case, regarding our

anti-homosexuality laws. Four years down the road and the government

still hasn’t managed to get round to it. A sizable ‘Yes’ vote to

information could form the basis for a strong campaign which would

ensure that information was still available. A ‘No’ vote could give them

just the excuse they need to avoid touching the issue.

If we do vote ‘Yes’, the story doesn’t end there. The government will

then have to legislate on the circumstances where we will be able to

obtain information. The political parties who brought us Section 31

obviously believe that too much knowledge is a bad thing. If they had

their way we would only be able to get the information from Catholic

priests!

It seems women are not to be trusted. Any attempts to impose

restrictions on information will have to be resisted. There must be no

restrictions. If restrictions are brought in we will have to continue as

as we are at the moment, supporting those services that clandestinely

give information (such as the Womens Information Network). The law will

have to be publicly and continuously broken. It must be made unworkable.

The so-called ‘substantive issue’

Anarchists are calling for a ‘No’ vote on the 12^(th) Amendment. The

wording seeks to allow abortion “where there is a real and substantial

risk to the life as to opposed to the health of the mother, excluding

self termination”. The “X” case changed Irish abortion law. Previously

it was illegal under any circumstances. The Supreme Court ruling changed

this. The judges indicated that abortion should be allowed where there

is a threat to the life of the mother, including that of suicide. The

present wording cuts out suicide. In February “X” could have had her

abortion here. If this wording is passed this would no longer be

possible.

The new wording also introduces the concept to the Constitution that a

distinction can be made between the “health of a woman” and the “life of

a woman”. A medical condition that was life-shorting would not be

grounds for an abortion. There has been much discussion within the

medical profession about this distinction. The amount of disagreement

alone indicates how difficult it would be for women faced with

complications during pregnancy if the wording were passed.

Cruelty

A woman whose foetus had died as a result of chemotherapy or whose

foetus is encephalic and therefore had no possibility of survival, would

be needlessly and cruelly forced to carry the dead foetus for the nine

months. Indeed it could be,that cancer would not be treated until it

developed to such an extent that it became “life-threatening”.

At the moment women with ectopic pregnancies (where the foetus implants

in the fallopian tube, which is life-threatening for the woman and there

is no chance of survival for the foetus) lose the entire fallopian tube.

This is completely unnecessary. It reduces their chance of having

further children. All because the more direct straightforward treatment,

an abortion is illegal.

The “pro-life” movement criticise this wording because they say it is a

choice between “some abortion or more abortion”. In fact it is a choice

between extremely limited abortion and abortion in even more extremely

limited circumstances. In reality it won’t change the situation for the

vast majority of the 4,600+ who travel to England. They will still have

to get the boat to England. However a victory now could pave the way for

a further victory later. It is time to start a big fightback, we need to

start winning.