Statement by TUV leader Jim Allister:
“I am disappointed that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been granted leave for a judicial review of Northern Ireland’s abortion laws in cases of rape, incest or “serious malformation” of an unborn child.
“Just a few weeks ago a Department of Justice consultation on the issue closed. TUV was clear in our view that though there is a superficial plausibility within the promotion of abortion in the consultation document, and attempted assurance that nothing more is anticipated, the experience of the 1967 Act in Great Britain is a salutary warning against such glib assurance.
“The 1967 Act on the face of it permits abortion only in restricted circumstances, yet, in reality it swung open the door to abortion on demand. Who on reading the supposed restraints of Section 1 of the 1967 Act could imagine that under it over 8,000,000 babies have been terminated!
“There is a parallel danger that the Minister’s proposals will be similarly exploited. Denying that opportunity was an important consideration in TUV’s rejection of the Minister’s proposals.
“It is also important to stress that the present law of Northern Ireland is not an absolute bar to abortion in, for example, a case of severe anencephaly. As the Bourne test makes clear, and as amplified by Girvan LJ in the 2009 Judicial Review, lawful termination is possible where there is a real and serious risk to a woman’s physical or mental health, which is either long term or permanent. Thus, the mother whose mental health is so damaged by carrying a child with fatal foetal abnormality can at present avail of lawful termination within Northern Ireland.
“In TUV’s view this is sufficient.
“This is not an issue which should be settled in the court room and the OFMdFM funded Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is attempting to subvert the democratic process by way of this judicial review.
“The SDLP are clear on the matter. Sinn Fein, unsurprisingly for a pro-abortion party, is equally clear on the issue.
“I note, however, that there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding the position adopted by some other parties when it comes to abortion in cases of potentially fatal abnormalities. TUV is therefore publishing our response in full to the Department of Justice consultation today and calls upon other parties, including the DUP, to do likewise.”
TUV Response to Department of Justice abortion consultation
Unfair Exclusions from Consultation
At the outset TUV wants to place on record our opposition to the Department’s declared intention to discount any consultation responses which express a general opposition to abortion under any circumstances.
This is designed to exclude an important and large group from responding in a manner in which they feel comfortable.
Guiding Principles of TUV Response
TUV recognises that that this consultation poses some extremely challenging and sensitive questions.
We would make a number of points clear from the outset which have been the guiding principles of this response:
- TUV believes in traditional family values. This was one of the founding principles of our party.
- It naturally follows that TUV is a pro-life party. We are passionate supporters of the life of unborn children and oppose the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. We are conscious that legislation which has been introduced in other parts of the world to allow for abortions on medical grounds has effectively led to abortion on demand. Indeed, the present situation in Great Britain is a prime example of this.
- Finally, TUV believes that where it comes to tragic cases where the mother’s life would be in danger the life of the mother should take precedence over that of the unborn child.
TUV welcomes the acknowledgement in the consultation that a judgment in 2004 confirmed that a case had not been made that abortion law in Northern Ireland failed to comply with Article 8 of the ECHR when it comes to abortion.
TUV would contend that the present arrangements on abortion in Northern Ireland mean that we are more in line with both the letter and the spirit of the ECHR than anywhere else in the UK as Article 2 states: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
TUV does not believe that the unborn child should be denied his or her fundamental human rights.
Though there is a superficial plausibility within the promotion of abortion in the consultation document, and attempted assurance that nothing more is anticipated, the experience of the 1967 Act in GB is a salutary warning against such glib assurance.
The 1967 Act on the face of it permits abortion only in restricted circumstances, yet, in reality it swung open the door to abortion on demand. Who on reading the supposed restraints of Section 1 of the 1967 Act could imagine that under it over 8,000,000 babies have been terminated!
There is a parallel danger that the minister’s proposals will be similarly exploited. Denying that opportunity is an important consideration in TUV’s rejection of these proposals.
It is also important to stress that the present law of Northern Ireland is not an absolute bar to abortion in, for example, a case of severe anencephaly. As the Bourne test makes clear, and as amplified by Girvan LJ in the 2009 Judicial Review, lawful termination is possible where there is a real and serious risk to a woman’s physical or mental health, which is either long term or permanent. Thus, the mother whose mental health is so damaged by carrying a child with fatal foetal abnormality can at present avail of lawful termination within Northern Ireland.
In our view this is sufficient.
Potentially Fatal Abnormalities
There are many cases where parents want to continue with a pregnancy even though the prospects of the child surviving more than a few hours outside the womb (if even that) are extremely slim. There are many examples of this in countries where the abortion laws are much more liberal than in Northern Ireland.
TUV believes that parents who are told their child has a potentially fatal abnormality could feel pressurised to have an abortion if the law is changed in Northern Ireland.
Additionally, even when it comes to anencephaly there have been cases where children have survived for years. Therefore while the condition ultimately does lead to the tragic death of the child we believe that the State does not have the right to end that life.
It is also worth noting that while medical advances have made it possible to tell much more about a child prior to birth it is very possible to misdiagnose a condition.
Option 1 outlined in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 (i.e. Listing specific lethal conditions which could merit abortion) highlights the problem with this consultation.
The Department notes that:
“advice from medical professionals on this option makes it very clear that it would not be possible to list the conditions to ensure that no case where there was an individual prognosis that life after birth was unsustainable, would fall outside of the law. This is because there are numerous conditions which have symptoms across a spectrum of severity, from those which may be lethal, to those which may be treatable. Such a list would also be unable to respond in a timely manner to medical advances.”
Given that the Department is suggesting that there are a potentially endless list of conditions which could allow for termination of the unborn child we believe there are huge dangers with these proposals generally.
TUV believes that this section, regardless of what the Department says, suggests that tampering with our laws as presently constituted will open the door to abortion on demand.
Furthermore, as noted above TUV is mindful that children born with conditions described as fatal abnormalities can live for weeks, months or even years.
TUV REJECTS the suggestions proposed under Option 1.
Option 2 outlined in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.7 (i.e. legislating by using a specified measure of sustainable life) is lacking in clarity.
The danger of these proposals opening up the potential for abortion on demand is again highlighted in paragraph 4.6:
“The legislation would have to choose from an almost infinite and arbitrary number of definitions of ‘lethal’, based on sustainability of life. For example, termination could be offered if the prognosis was that:
• the foetus would likely not survive to term;
• the foetus would likely not survive birth;
• the baby would likely live for less than one hour;
• the baby would likely not survive for more than one day;
• the baby would likely not survive for more than one week, etc.”
The fact that the proposals cannot even agree on the definition of “lethal” again highlights the danger of these proposals and their potential to open up abortion on demand.
As no definition of “lethal” is proposed for the legislation we cannot believe that these proposals will lead to changes in the law which are as limited as the Department suggests.
This is a key flaw in the proposals and will doubtless be ceased upon by those who see this as the thin end of the wedge.
TUV REJECTS the suggestions proposed under Option 2.
Option 3 outlined in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9 (i.e. No statutory definition of lethal) obviously has huge dangers for the life of children which do not even have any evidence of serious medical problems as a result of examinations prior to birth.
TUV REJECTS the suggestions proposed under Option 3.
We note that the Department’s preference is for Option 4 outlined in paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 (i.e. a foetal condition has been assessed by medical practitioners as being incompatible with life, and a clinical judgment is made during pregnancy that there will be no intervention after birth).
TUV is mindful that mistakes can be made in assessing the condition of any child before birth. We also believe that individual beliefs of medical practitioners on the abortion could colour their judgment on whether an unborn child has a potentially lethal abnormality.
The dangers of this approach are implied in paragraph 4.11:
“This legislative framework offers two things. First of all, it is clear, precise and, most importantly, does not rely on an artificial or arbitrary line separating some very difficult and sensitive cases. Secondly, it clearly confines the change in the law to what is set out in the key objective, that is, to offer women carrying a foetus with a condition incompatible with life the option, if they so desire, of ending a pregnancy.”
TUV contends that it is neither “clear” nor “precise” because, as admitted above there is no “artificial or arbitrary line separating some very difficult and sensitive cases”.
The inability to clearly define fatal – and the deliberate avoidance of the word lethal here and indeed throughout the document – illustrates the potential (whether intentional or not) for this legislation to open up abortion on demand.
TUV REJECTS the suggestions proposed under Option 4.
Sexual Crime
TUV recognises the dreadful consequences of sexual crime for the victim. However, it is our strong view that provision should not be made for abortion in such circumstances as any other policy would merely result in the creation of another victim – the unborn child.
Conscientious Objection
TUV does not believe that the law in Northern Ireland should change and we reject all of the proposals put forward in this consultation.
Given that we do not believe that there is a need for any of the options suggested to widen provision for abortion it naturally follows that we see no need for conscientious objection.
Of course, if the folly of these proposals was followed through, then, it is imperative that a conscience clause exists for medical practitioners, but such is not a comfort blanket to justify these unwarranted proposals.