Attack on Sovereignty
The resolution represents an attack on the sovereignty of member states, by attempting to impose a European policy on abortion, something for which the Assembly has no legal or legitimate justification. The Assembly has no authority to call on member states to "guarantee women's effective exercise of their right to abortion" as no such right is recognised in any international human rights agreement. Nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights recognises a right to abortion or confers on individuals a right to require a state to permit or facilitate abortion. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the issue of when the right to life begins is a question to be decided at national level. It follows that the legal protection afforded to early human life must also be decided at national level. The resolution was so bad that any number of amendments could not have resolved the problems and the only satisfactory solution would have been complete rejection, nevertheless there were 69 amendments proposed, the majority of which were pro-life. Virtually all the pro-life amendments were voted down while the pro-abortion amendments were carried
|
|
The Council of Europe legal committee which customarily looks at all human-rights related material was not asked to consider the report or resolution prior to debating it in the plenary and voting on it.
This issue was raised during the debate by Mr Christos Pourgourides of Cyprus, on behalf of the conservative (EPP/CD) group, who asked for the report to be referred to the legal affairs committee however, this request was rejected by the chair and without a vote. If the report and resolution had gone to the legal committee, it would actually have fallen from the assembly's future agenda. as it would have exceeded its time limit | |
| Greetings!
Following our recent special report we report on the outcome of the Council of Europe debate on Abortion.
The resolution calling for unlimited access to abortion throughout Europe was rushed through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on Wednesday April 16th. Sadly the Assembly approved the resolution with 102 votes in favour, 69 votes against, 14 abstentions and with 133 members absent. Amendments seeking to make the report less extreme in its promotion of abortion were rejected. Fortunately the resolution has no jurisdiction in the Irish context but will undoubtedly be used to pressure Ireland Poland and Malta to introduce abortion. | |
A Tragic Day for Europe
This was a tragic day for Europe, not least because this report in favour of even more killing of unborn children was rushed through the Assembly without proper scrutiny. The time allotted to the debate was inadequate and many assembly members were denied the right to speak. Plenary session speeches were limited to three minutes, amendment speeches to 30 seconds and scrutiny by the Assembly's legal affairs committee denied. It was disappointing to see that only 185 members out of 318 thought the issue important enough to be present. Members complained to the chair that their right to speak had not been vindicated, that the time allotted for such an important debate was inadequate and that the arrangement to allow the Ukrainian Prime Minister time to address the assembly on a completely unrelated issue in the middle of the debate was unreasonable, particularly when she had given the same speech earlier.
The Irish and Maltese members of the Assembly voted to reject the resolution. The only consolation is that the resolution is not legally binding. The mere fact that this resolution prepared by a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was even allowed to proceed damages the Council of Europe's credibility.
Evidence also contradicts the claims made by this resolution. Permissive abortion regimes do not protect the health of women. Countries where abortion is not permitted actually show substantially better healthcare for mothers and children. Many women experience serious physical and emotional suffering following legal abortion. Nor does decriminalisation guarantee an end to clandestine abortions. The promotion of birth control and contraceptive-based sex education has proved to be incapable of reducing the level of abortions.
Mrs Gisela Wurm, a socialist deputy from Austria who prepared the report, claimed that refusal of abortion was violence against women. She also said that whether abortion was legal or not had little bearing on a woman's decision however, where it was illegal it was not safe. Mrs Christine Mc Cafferty, Labour MP for Calder Valley, England, said women would go to any lengths and take any risk to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Referring to the Tysiac case (ECHR Tysiac V Poland) she said that it was a case of a woman's sight being of less value than terminating a pregnancy.
"Senator Terry Leyden of Ireland's Fianna Fáil party, and vice-chair of the assembly's liberal group, said the resolution was partisan, one-sided and based on flawed logic. Ireland, which did not have abortion, had the lowest maternal mortality in Europe. He also told the meeting that Ireland had placed an article in its constitution protecting unborn life but also upholding the right to life of the mother. Other speakers were allowed to exceed their allotted time, but Senator Leyden was stopped from speaking before he had finished his intervention. Mr Leyden said afterwards "I regret this pro-abortion resolution was adopted but it has no jurisdiction in the Irish context". Mr Nigel Dodds MLA from Northern Ireland was also in attendance and voted against the resolution. Mr Dodds commented afterwards, "It is a sad day for babies in Europe but the fight goes on" | |
|
|
|