House of Lords committee raises concerns over N Ireland abortion regulations

April 29, 2020 CNA Daily News News Briefs 0 Print

CNA Staff, Apr 29, 2020 / 01:01 pm (CNA).- A legislation scrutiny committee of the House of Lords last week published a report on the abortion regulations imposed on Northern Ireland by the British government, noting that the regulations are more expansive than were required by law.

Among the key criticisms in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's April 23 report was the six-week duration of public consultation on the proposed regulations. The committee includes members of the Conservative Party, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, as well as crossbenchers.

“In our view this is too short for so sensitive a topic, the committee wrote. “Added to which, it took place during the General Election period and in the run up to Christmas, neither of which conforms with best practice. Of the over 21,000 responses received, 79% registered general opposition to any change to the established position in Northern Ireland.”

The committee received a number of submissions that “criticise the Government response to the consultation for failing to explain why such a strong level of objection has been overridden,” and which “assert that no attempt has been made to engage with them to address their objections or with the restored Northern Ireland Executive, and that certain provisions … were not included in the consultation document.”

In addition, the Lords' committee said that the regulations should not have been made so soon before a parliamentary recess: “While acknowledging that due to the current coronavirus crisis, Ministers have had much to occupy them, we find it regrettable that the Government chose to lay so controversial an instrument just as a recess started and, more importantly, so close to the implementation date set out in the 2019 Act, thereby denying Parliament an opportunity for scrutiny before the instrument came into effect.”

The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which came into force March 31, allow elective abortions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy; abortions up to 24 weeks in cases of risk to the mother's physical or mental health; and abortion without time limit in cases of severe fetal impairment or fetal fetal abnormality.

Previously, abortion was legally permitted in the region only if the mother's life was at risk or if there was risk of long term or permanent, serious damage to her mental or physical health.

The new framework was adopted to implement Westminster's Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which decriminalized abortion in Northern Ireland and placed a moratorium on abortion-related criminal prosecutions, and obliged the UK government to create legal access to abortion in the region by March 31.

The NI EF Act required that the recommendations of a UN report on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women be implemented.

The legislative scrutiny committee said its report on the regulations sets out the key points made in submissions from members of the House of Commons, House of Lords, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as churches and other organizations.

“This Report also notes several instances where the Government’s administrative process for bringing these Regulations forward appears suboptimal,” it added, before drawing the regulations to the special attention of the House.

The committee noted that nearly all the submissions it received are critical of the regulations' provision for conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection is allowed for direct participation in abortion, but not for ancillary, administrative, or managerial tasks associated with the procedure, because, according to the regulations, that “would have consequences on a practical level and would therefore undermine the effective provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland.”

The exclusion of those carrying out ancillary, administrative, or managerial tasks from conscientious objection may be “too narrow and does not adequately protect” the rights to religious or philosophical beliefs under the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the committee, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland submitted that ancillary staff are unlawfully discriminated against because the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Assembly and the Secretary of State “from enacting any provision which discriminates against any person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion.”

The committee wrote that “Given the sensitivity of the issues around conscientious objection, the House may wish to ask the Minister to consider further the scope of the policy and how it will be interpreted.”

The report also discussed the regulation of abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment or fetal fetal abnormality.

Several submissions said the abortion of those with severe impairment is contrary to EU law because the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “extends to those in the womb,” but that the region's attorney general acknowledged that the NI EF Act required the implementation of such a regulation because of CEDAW.

“There therefore appears to be a question over which UN Convention should take priority,” the committee wrote.

However, the Northern Ireland Office holds that the UNCRPD is not a binding law, and added: “we do not agree that the provision extends protection to those in the womb.”

The legislative scrutiny committee noted that the “the regime chosen largely mirrors the services available in the rest of the UK. In the light of the overwhelmingly negative response to the consultation exercise, it would have been better if the reasons for the specific policy choices made, were explained in more detail in the EM, and the House may wish to press the Minister for further explanation.”

Other submissions noted that “severe disability” could be interpreted differently and could include cleft lip or Down syndrome, and that the CEDAW recommendation requires the provision of abortion for “severe foetal impairment”, while  not “perpetuating sterotypes towards persons with disabilities.”

“The House may wish to press the Minister about how these provisions will be interpreted,” the committee noted.

Some submissions also noted that because the baby's sex can be identified at 10 weeks, and elective abortions are permitted up to 12 weeks, “there is a significant omission in the Regulations in that … they do not prevent abortion on the grounds of the foetus’s gender.”

The report concludes noting that “the NIO states that, where possible, this statutory framework mirrors the Abortion Act 1967 so that provision will be broadly consistent with the abortion services in the rest of the UK. The NIO was, however, obliged by law to implement the specific recommendations of the CEDAW Report which relate to Northern Ireland. This report has sought to expand on some of the Government’s policy choices and also to air the main issues drawn to our attention in submissions, to assist the House in the forthcoming debate.”

Right to Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said April 28 that the committee “chosen to draw these regulations to the special attention of the House. The Committee has reported on a number of serious issues with the regulations.”

“MPs and Peers at Westminster must take on board these problems and vote against the regulations when they are brought before Parliament,” she added.

The regulations are due to be voted on before May 17.

David Alton, Baron Alton of Liverpool, commented April 25 that Northern Ireland's abortion law “should have been decided in Northern Ireland not imposed by Westminster. Both Parliament and the Northern Ireland Office have shown great contempt for the people of Northern Ireland – and for normal constitutional and parliamentary good practice – in seeking to impose, by diktat, laws which in the rest of the UK have led to one child in the womb being aborted every three minutes.”

Lord Alton wrote that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report highlights “that this issue needs to be reconsidered in Northern Ireland by the Assembly which is responsible for what the law and policy on this issue. Riding roughshod over the Assembly in this way shows contempt for devolution, power sharing, proper political process, and the people of Northern Ireland.”

The bishops of Northern Ireland have encouraged members of Northern Ireland's devolved legislature to debate the regulations, and, “insofar as they exceed the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 2019 … to take steps to formulate new Regulations that will reflect more fully the will of a significant majority of the people in this jurisdiction to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children.”
 
Northern Ireland rejected the Abortion Act 1967, which legalized abortion in England, Wales, and Scotland; and bills to legalize abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or incest failed in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016.

Northern Irish women had been able to procure free National Health Service abortions in England, Scotland, and Wales since November 2017. They are allowed to travel to the rest of the UK to procure abortions during the coronavirus outbreak.

The amendment to the NI EF Act obliging the government to provide for legal abortion in Northern Ireland was introduced by Stella Creasy, a Labour MP who represents a London constituency.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Related Articles

No Picture
News Briefs

Euthanasia movement is weaker than it seems, expert says

September 27, 2017 CNA Daily News 1

Rome, Italy, Sep 27, 2017 / 06:45 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A leading opponent of assisted suicide says that while the movement supporting euthanasia seems strong, the reality is that, at least in the United States, it has had few political victories.

“The difficulty in this issue is that the media sells us this as a tidal wave that’s coming; it’s inevitable, this is people’s rights, it’s going to happen anyway, and in fact none of this is true,” Alex Schadenberg told CNA Sept. 23.

While a handful of states in the U.S. have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, “over and over and over again [euthanasia] bills have been defeated.”

Assisted suicide became legal in the United States when Oregon approved the practice in 1998. Washington State legalized it in 2009, Vermont in 2013, and Colorado, California, and Washington, D.C. in 2016. In Montana, the practice was permitted by the state Supreme Court in 2009.

However, while the legalization of euthanasia in these states has been “tragic,” the losses for the euthanasia movement far outweigh their victories, Schadenberg said, explaining that thus far in 2017, assisted suicide bills were introduced in dozens of states, and “all of them were defeated.”

“U.S. courts have universally found that there is no right to assisted suicide,” he added. “So in the U.S. you don’t have a tidal wave.”

Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada, and was a speaker during a Sept. 20-24 conference for MaterCare International in Rome.

In his comments to CNA, Schadenberg said “the [euthanasia] movement has lost more battles than probably any other movement in the history of the U.S., and yet there’s supposedly a tidal wave in favor.”

“And for a group that has the kind of money they have, they should almost be embarrassed,” he said, explaining that Americans “are not buying the news, they’re not buying their lies.”

The euthanasia mentality is built on a lie, he said, because while those supportive of legalization argue that euthanasia supports freedom and autonomy, though actual laws are focused on protecting doctors’ rights instead.

In Canada, which legalized euthanasia in 2016, laws protect doctors and nurse practitioners who assist in euthanasia from nearly any liability or error, “so long as it is reasonable error.”

By law, then, there’s essentially “no way (for) a doctor who intentionally does something, (that) you can prosecute them. The law is so tightly protecting of them,” Schadenberg said.

He noted that the American College of Physicians reiterated their stance against euthanasia and assisted suicide in a recent position-paper on topic, published September 19.

In the paper’s abstract, the college said they remain unsupportive of euthanasia because it “is problematic given the nature of the patient–physician relationship, affects trust in the relationship and in the profession, and fundamentally alters the medical profession’s role in society.”

“Furthermore, the principles at stake in this debate also underlie medicine’s responsibilities regarding other issues and the physician’s duties to provide care based on clinical judgment, evidence, and ethics,” the abstract read, and stressed the need to focus on palliative care.

“There is no tidal wave in the U.S…the doctors don’t even want this,” Schadenberg said. What actually happens in the states and counties where euthanasia has been legalized, he said, is“terribly sad, because lives are being lost and vulnerable people are being abandoned.”

“The reality is when you legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide, there is money that’s saved because you are ending the lives of people who are not always terminally ill…but might have a significant health condition, which means they are expensive,” Schadenberg said.

He condemned the “eugenics mentality” that he said drives the push for euthanasia, saying it’s a part of our culture “whether we like it or not.”

Schadenberg said that euthanasia supporters “look at certain lives as not worth living, they would look at certain conditions” and, coupled with the fact that euthanasia is money-saving and makes healthy organs available, “would be in favor of it for those reasons, they would say that’s actually a good thing.”

However, the average person who supports the euthanasia cause wouldn’t argue on these points, but rather on the prospect of eliminating suffering, Schadenberg said.

People are afraid to suffer, “and that’s a normal human reality,” he said, explaining that “we’ve got to break down the issue and talk about our normal human experience, and my experience as a human being is that when I’m going through a terrible situation, I become very emotionally upset, and that’s because that’s how we are as humans.”

“This is how we were made to be, whether you believe in God or not, we’re wired this way,” he said, adding that throwing in the idea of euthanasia when one is “emotionally and physically distraught” makes the situation worse.

Rather than freedom and autonomy, euthanasia and assisted suicide are about “abandonment,” he said. “It’s about abandoning people in a time of need, it’s not about freedom.”

 

[…]

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*