Why Roe vs Wade was overturned

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned Roe vs Wade, the 1973 ruling that a woman has an untrammelled right to abortion up to viability. Why did it do so? The simple answer is that the 1973 ruling had no real constitutional basis.

The new ruling does not ban abortion. It simply gives the elected politicians, and by extension, voters, the freedom to legislate for or against it. This is the same situation as in Ireland, after the 2018 referendum, and in other European countries.

The Roe vs Wade ruling in favour of abortion was built on an earlier ruling that found a ‘right to privacy’ in the Constitution, although that ‘discovery’ was also highly suspect.

“The right to privacy … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.”, said the Supreme Court in its Roe vs Wade decision.

In its new ruling in Dobbs vs Jackson, the Supreme Court has decided by 5 to 4 majority that: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”  (The Casey ruling dates from 1992 and confirmed that original 1973 decision.)

What Justice Alito was saying is that the US Constitution enshrines abortion neither explicitly nor implicitly.

In 1975, Justice Byron White, in his dissenting opinion in Roe vs Wade called that ruling an “exercise of raw judicial power”, meaning the judges essentially created the right out of thin air because they wanted to.

His words were vindicated by the current Supreme Court when they declared that a right to abortion has no support in history or relevant precedent, and Roe vs Wade was “egregiously wrong. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.“

The most damaging consequence of Roe vs Wade was allowing abortion for any reason up to viability, which would be considered extreme even by the liberal standards which are now common in the West. Most European countries permit abortion after 12 weeks only in (theoretically) limited circumstances.

Another consequence of Roe vs Wade was that any democratic attempt to limit abortion was potentially deemed unconstitutional.

Justice Alito wrote that the 1973 Supreme Court “short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe.”

The new ruling leaves the question of abortion up to the people and their elected representatives.

Terminations will, in fact, continue to take place in most states, and there will be no immediate change, but possible limitations can be introduced with time. In some states, pre-1973 bans can now be enforced, while in other states, more recently passed laws will go into effect, banning or restricting access to abortion.

Overturning Roe vs Wade was probably the main political goal of the pro-life movement in the US, and it has to be abundantly celebrated. This victory, which many considered impossible, proves that pro-life activism has a future even when circumstances appear hopeless. It is an encouragement for the whole world, Ireland included.

The pro-life battles will continue in the U.S. at the state level, trying to change current liberal laws or to prevent their introduction, but also promoting policies and offering services that help pregnant women in difficult circumstances. The pro-choice movement will fight back, but that is how normal politics works.

Number of abortions in England hits new record of 214,869

 

Last year, 214,869 abortions took place in England and Wales, according to newly released statistics from the Department for Health show. It is the fifth consecutive year that the number has risen and it is both the highest number and the highest abortion rate since data have been collected.

The number of terminations is the equivalent of 19.2 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Irish residents accounted for 206 abortions, 6pc more than in 2020. Half of the Irish women were unmarried and 11pc of them had an abortion before in Britain.

Eugenic abortions continue to rise. There were 3,370 disability-selective terminations last year, 9.3pc more than in 2020. Half of the Irish babies aborted in England had a disability.

In England and Wales, 859 babies with Down Syndrome were aborted in 2021, an increase of 24pc from 693 in 2020, with 59 of them from Irish, 24 more than the previous year when 35 Irish babies with Down Syndrome were terminated. This number continues to grow as the figures were 27 in 2019 and 17 in 2018.

Among the Irish residents, 29pc of the aborted babies were at 20 weeks gestation or older.

While numbers have increased in England and Wales during the Covid pandemic, they went down in most of Europe.

In 2020, the most drastic reduction took place in Spain (-10.9pc) and Italy (-9.3pc). In France, the numbers went down by 4pc. We still don’t have the 2021 figures for those countries.

The rate (number per 1,000 women aged 15-44) went from 11.5 to 10.3 in Spain and from 5.8 to 5.4 in Italy*, from 15.6 to 14.9 in France, from 9.1 to 8.9 in the Netherlands. This is a common trend that has been recorded in almost all European countries and also Canada.

Germany is an interesting case because we have figures up to the first quarter of 2022 and so we can analyse how they changed during the different phases of the pandemic.

In 2020, the number of abortions was 0.9pc lower than 2019. It reduced another 5.4pc in 2021 but it increased by 4.8pc in the first quarter of 2022, compared to the same period of the previous year.

After a decline during the most intense period of the pandemic, now numbers seem to be going towards pre-Covid levels.

There are many complex factors influencing those figures, and the lockdowns are one of them, but even Sweden, which had fewer public restrictions compared to other European countries, saw a decline of its very high abortion rate in 2020, from 19.2 to 18.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

The United Kingdom is the only exception to this trend. Numbers went up in England and Wales in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, Scotland saw the second highest number of terminations and the highest abortion rate since data have been collected, while in 2021 there was slight decline (1pc) compared to the previous year but still higher than 2019.

How to explain this exception, when compared to the rest of Europe?

Unlike other countries, in March 2020 the British government and the Scottish health authorities allowed abortion pills to be taken at home, after an online consultation, without the need to attend a hospital or a clinic. This could have contributed to an increase in requests, and it is even possible that some of those pills were prescribed but never consumed.

In the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there has been a small increase in the rate in 2020 compared to the previous year, from 14.2 per thousand women aged 15-44 to 14.4, but those figures refer to abortion overseen by clinicians and do not account for self-managed abortions.

We don’t have official data from the US Department of Health for 2020, and other independent sources report a decrease in number. Canada also saw a decrease. Great Britain seems to be the only exception.

—

* Italy calculates its rate on women of 15-49 years of age, while all other countries use the range 15-44.

Conscientious objection to abortion remains strong in Irish hospitals

 

Conscientious objection to abortion is widespread among health care professionals working in Irish hospitals. This reality is highlighted in a recent paper by a group of pro-choice doctors. It admits that pro-life conscientious objectors were initially a challenge to establishing “abortion services” and still are a persistent barrier to expanding them.

The paper is based on about 60 in-depth interviews with patients and health professionals. The interviews make clear that the most common reason for reluctance to participate in abortion is an ethical objection. Conscientious objection (CO) “was present to varying degrees in all hospitals. CO was an issue among consultants and midwives but also among other staff such as operating theatre nurses, unit nurses, and anesthesiologists”. (p. 5)

Some respondents said that, at least initially, they were afraid of protests taking place outside of their hospitals or damaging their careers through an association with abortion. They didn’t want to be seen as “full-time terminators”.

The paper acknowledges that “none of the providers mentioned actually feeling personally stigmatised. Most providers said protests were minimal where they did occur, and quickly dissipated after the initial implementation period”. (pp. 5-6)

Those who want to impose “safe zones” around hospitals often mention harassment (which the Gardai already have the powers to deal with) but this paper effectively rebukes those false allegations.

Even inside the hospital, opposition to abortion from other staff members did not translate into hostility towards those who offer it.

“Despite initial fears, no interviewees mentioned personal experiences with being stigmatised for providing abortion” (p. 7), notes the paper.

The initial fear of being overwhelmed by the number of cases was unjustified, it says. “The number of abortion patients has been lower than expected, thus allowing hospitals to meet the demand.” (p. 7). (This would be largely down to the fact that the great majority of abortions are chemically induced via the abortion pill and not surgically performed).

Pro-choice campaigners complain that a number of Irish hospitals do not offer abortions, but the article acknowledges that there is little need for more services.

“Regardless of the reasons why abortion services were not introduced at some hospitals, respondents from non-providing hospitals felt that there is little incentive to introduce services now as the demand is being met by nearby hospitals.” (p. 8)

Nonetheless, the paper advises for hospitals with a high level of conscientious objectors “to recruit consultants specifically to perform terminations of pregnancies, an approach which was helpful in some hospitals.” (p. 5)

This would be highly problematic, and possibly illegal, as new recruits would be discriminated against because of their personal beliefs.

One of the respondents, a midwife, openly exposed the doublespeak she employs to obfuscate the reality of abortion. “… if you go into a lady with a miscarriage, it’s her baby. You go into a lady with a termination, it’s her fetus”. (p. 6) This doublespeak has always been common among pro-choice activists, but it is frightening to think that now midwives and doctors refer to the same unborn child differently, depending on whether the child is wanted or not.

The paper admits that the opposition to abortion among health care professionals is solid.

“Abortion care remains peripheral and marginalised at some hospitals” (p. 10) Even some doctors who offer abortion pills are not happy with providing surgical abortion, as they considered it a more active form of participation.

Different degrees of reluctance, varying from uneasiness with the most extreme termination methods up to total opposition, prove that abortion remains contentious and problematic among Irish health care professionals.

 

Forcing religious-run health centres to allow assisted suicide

 

All hospitals and hospices will be forced to allow euthanasia to take place on site, with no exception, according to a law recently passed in the Australian state of New South Wales.

Pro-life health care facilities will be obliged to allow external doctors to access patients who have requested assisted suicide. The Australian state of Queensland has a similar provision.

Some faith-based groups offering health care had requested an exemption for reasons of freedom of conscience but with no success.

“This law will force organisations that do not agree with assisted dying to allow doctors onto their premises to prescribe and even administer restricted drugs with the intention of terminating a resident’s life – without even informing the facility,” said Brigid Meney, of Catholic Health Australia. “These laws ignore the rights of staff and residents who may choose to work and live in a particular residential facility because of their opposition to assisted dying.”

This is a dangerous breach of medical ethics that erodes freedom of conscience rights.

Belgium was the second country in the world to introduce euthanasia, just 20 years ago, and in 2020 they amended the law to prevent any institution from objecting to euthanasia being practiced within its premises.

In Canada, where euthanasia is legal, religious-based health institutions are currently exempted from offering it but two months ago the Dying with Dignity lobby has started a campaign to remove those exemptions.

Opposition to euthanasia is prevalent among the health care professionals, particularly in those offering palliative case, and it is not necessarily motivated by religious faith as the Irene Thomas Hospice case in British Columbia (Canada) shows.

Last year the Irene Thomas Hospice, which is not religiously affiliated, was forced to issue layoff notices to all its staff after the local health authority cancelled the $1.5 million per year contract with them for refusing to provide “assisted death” on their premises.

The Delta Hospice Society (DHS), a non-profit organisation that owned the hospice and is inspired by the principles of palliative care, offered to operate it without public funds, but the local health authority expropriated the facilities because they are built on public land and DHS refuse to participate in euthanasia.

DHS are simply following Hippocratic medicine, which never permits killing a patient. Hippocratic medicine predates Christianity by several centuries.

There is a fear that other hospices will be compelled to follow the same route as the Irene Thomas Hospice and will be shuttered, unless they betray their own principles.

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians have released a joint statement clearly saying that hospice palliative care is not compatible with ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAiD).

“Hospice palliative care and MAiD substantially differ in multiple areas including in philosophy, intention and approach. Hospice palliative care focuses on improving quality of life and symptom management through holistic person-centered care for those living with life threatening conditions. Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life.”, they stated.

We often hear that euthanasia and palliative care should not be presented as exclusive alternatives but, instead, as two different choices to be offered to the same patient.

But if the law imposes euthanasia everywhere and allows no space for institutional conscientious objection, many professionals will leave medicine or move to areas not affected by the law, provoking a degradation of the services offered.

It also means that patients can no longer be assured that the place in which they are being cared for never permits assisted suicide or euthanasia.

This totalitarian attitude that leaves no exception should be rejected in principle, as it denies freedom of conscience, but also for practical reasons, as it alienates good health institutions who want to offer Hippocratic medicine.