Legislating for "limited" abortion, a dilemma based on the Sunday Independent opinion poll.

This post is inspired by an opinion poll in last Sunday's Sunday Independent. I can't locate an online version but if anyone can find a link for me I'd appreciate it. 

As I've said before, I ain't no big city lawyer but there's one thing that puzzles me about the reporting in the media regarding the discussion about abortion in the case of rape. There have been opinion polls over the last few weeks that ask people if they favour making abortion available in the case of rape. This is a very emotional question. Rape is a horrible crime, a violation that most of us could never imagine. It is argued that making abortion available in the case of pregnancy arising from rape is a compassionate response to women who have suffered a huge trauma.
I've heard a lot of people who describe themselves as pro-life say that in the case of rape they'd be willing to make an exception, indeed I've heard it from members of my own family. I've heard other impassioned campaigners speak about being forced to carry a reminder of the horrible experience of rape for the rest of their lives.
This is a complicated debate. It attempts to balance the rights of a woman who has suffered a violation and deserves to be treated with compassion and the unborn child. It is an attempt to see justice done, how will that happen? On the other hand there is the new life, does the unborn have any rights in this context? I will not go near any of those questions, instead I have another issue that struck me as I looked at the opinion poll in the Sunday Independent last Sunday (3/2/2013). I can't find a link to an online version but if anyone can please add it in the comment section below. 
If a woman is pregnant as a consequence of rape and seeks an abortion who decides? Since we are discussing a crime, surely it must have to be a judge. A decision to permit an abortion based on the fact that conception occurred as a consequence of rape is a decision that a serious crime has been committed. Will the judge hear evidence on behalf of the accused as in any rape trial? It seems to me that in such a case that would be essential, necessary before any decision could be made.
At this stage I think it's necessary to mention that pregnancy resulting from rape is rare. It is also necessary to mention that most women who are raped are in fact raped by men whom they are in a relationship with. This may be a marriage relationship or an on again/off again relationship. In other words the attacker is known to the victim, it would not be hard to name him to the authorities. The victim may be afraid of her attacker but surely it would be necessary to name him since the decision that a rape took place, and thus an abortion is legal, is a de facto judgement.
Presumably, in the case of limited abortion, there would be a time limit imposed. suppose that limit was twenty weeks. That would leave very little time to carry out an investigation. It is more likely that in the case of limited abortion the accused would have to have his day in court, the right to defend himself. That would be the only right thing to do, however that would lengthen the process to an extent that would make an abortion based on rape impossible. Justice delayed is justice denied but hasty justice does not help anyone either.  
Introducing a limited form of abortion in the very rare case of pregnancy resulting from rape would, in my untrained legal opinion, result in huge legal problems. In order to provide abortion in that very rare case you would have to introduce a very liberal law providing abortion on demand and with no time limit.

The Story of Why (the Irish Times is on its last legs).

Here's a question for you? When was the Irish Times' circulation at its highest? Believe it or not it was in the second half of 2007, after the sub-prime crisis hit the US and all but the most delusional saw that the bottom was falling out of property. In other words the Times was most popular when Ireland was at its most dysfunctional.

Since then the sales of the Times have likewise fallen. People are less interested in Fintan O'Toole's analysis of why Ireland's so utterly corrupt (... and why, oh why can't people be as smart as him and see it all) than they were in the huge property supplements exhorting the faithful to buy now before their badly built, pyrite infested flats/houses were out of their reach. 
When the sales of the "paper of record" dipped below 100,000 a year ago they began to worry and started a campaign to rebrand that culminated in a change in ... format! This was accompanied by a video promoting their new slogan! "The Story of Why." I wonder how much they spent on that? Sounds like something some stoned student came up with in the Trinners common room. 

The new slogan makes me think is why is the Irish Times even asking Why? We all know that they are the answer to a question that most of us never asked and more importantly, don't care about. The highly dubious tactics they used last year when the death of Savita Halappanavar became public knowledge is but one example of how the Irish Times is no longer a newspaper. It is a campaigning paper of opinion, not record. That is why it is dying. On the sensitive issue of abortion they are, and a glance at their archive will reveal they always have been, a campaigning paper that wants abortion in Ireland. A paper that does not consider the humanity of the unborn person, a paper that commodifies
human life.

 

I'm a celebrity lawyer ... get me out of here!

I should really begin this post by saying that I'm not a solicitor.  I'm not a barrister either; I'm not even a law clerk.  Everything I know about the legal profession, I've gleaned from box sets of Rumpole Of The Bailey, with the odd episode of The Irish R.M. thrown in for good measure.  

 This is a joke, please don't report me to Aodhán Ó Ríordáin!

So it could be that when it comes to reporting on one of their own in their official publication, the Law Society of Ireland operate a clandestine set of rules that the rest of us don't know about.  

That said....I was more than a little surprised when a solicitor friend put me wise to the article appearing on page 9 of the December 2012 edition of the Law Society Gazette.  (You can access the entire publication here: Law Society Gazette and then scroll down to page 9.)

As you can see, the story seems to be part of a regular slot entitled "In the media spotlight" - presumably focusing on members of the profession who are involved in high profile cases.  The December slot is devoted to Gerard O'Donnell, Solicitor for Praveen Halappanavar, husband of Savita who died tragically on October 28th in University College Galway.  

I have a few problems with this article.  Why was it considered an appropriate topic for inclusion in the Gazette, given the fact that an investigation is currently underway and the results are awaited?  Newspapers can't report on legal cases before they come before the courts for fear that the Defendant will claim that his right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.  Why wasn't the same consideration applied here? Surely the editors of the Gazette were aware of the way in which Savita's tragedy has become part of the national debate on abortion?  Yet they chose to print an article which allowed the solicitor involved to broadcast his own views on the matter.  In fact, the Gazette allowed him to canvass his case without any thought for the fact that this implies a clear bias on the part of the editors:-

"It was disappointing that some politicians sought to coerce my client to partake in a process in which he had absolutely no faith or trust."

"I would have hoped that the Government would have responded promptly and efficiently to my client's request for a full public inquiry, but unfortunately, this has not yet happened."

But perhaps the most worrying aspect of this article is the way in which it highlights the way in which the media was used throughout.  The solicitor himself admits on several occasions throughout the article that media manipulation allowed him to stage-manage the way in which the case was handled:-

"I had some experience of working with the media.  I have always had an interest in human rights and in the equal treatment of all persons.  I realised this case would benefit from sustained exposure in the media rather than a one-off media 'storm', and so we chose to release information to the media more slowly in order to ensure that the case would have continued momentum.  This certainly worked."

"A case such as this highlights just how important the media is in society.  The interest in the case could not be achieved simply by writing letters."

It is hard to read these comments without being amazed at the fact that the solicitor involved sees nothing wrong with ensuring a "drip-feed" of information to the media - something which we have seen result in near-hysteria during the weeks following Savita's death.  To act in such a way over an issue of vital importance like abortion is grossly irresponsible.  It is also quite remarkable that the editors of the Gazette would see fit to publish this piece.  By revealing the way in which the media was controlled during this fraught and tragic case, they have confirmed what many suspected but few were able to prove.  Gerard O'Donnell's own words do not lie.  

Unfortunately, they also reveal a more fundamental problem in society - the fact that the media is being placed above everyone.  Cases involving human tragedy are played out in the most public forum possible.  Maximum attention is sought and ensured, thus denying the general public the opportunity to have a calm and rational response.  And what happens now, when we don't even have the results of the investigation?  Those responsible for dripping the information to us are heralded by their own professional Body, and given even more exposure!  

Perhaps the Law Society should bear in mind the comment that my friend made to me - the fees for membership of this organisation increase annually.  For a pro-life solicitor like him, one-sided articles like this one really stick in the craw, not to mention the wallet.

I'm a celebrity lawyer ... get me out of here!