L’ Irlande va légaliser la location d’utérus

Une commission parlementaire irlandaise a proposé de reconnaître la maternité de substitution commerciale, une pratique interdite dans toute l’Europe à l’exception de la Russie, de l’Ukraine et du Biélorussie.

Dans certains pays, dont l’Italie, on discute de la manière de punir ceux qui ont recours à ce qu’on appelle la “location d’utérus” en se rendant à l’étranger pour acheter. Au contraire, l’Irlande, désormais perdue dans une dérive hyper permissive, va dans la direction opposée, une direction qui pourrait même en faire la nouvelle destination du tourisme procréatif, maintenant que la guerre a submergé les destinations très traditionnelles.

En février, le ministère irlandais de la santé a présenté un projet de loi visant à réglementer diverses formes de fécondation assistée, dont précisément la “maternité de substitution”. Toutefois, le gouvernement n’avait pas l’intention de s’attaquer à la question de la reconnaissance des naissances de mères porteuses à l’extérieur du pays. Pourtant, après une campagne médiatique à laquelle ont participé des personnalités du monde du spectacle qui avaient elles-mêmes eu recours à des mères porteuses à l’étranger, le Parlement a décidé de créer une commission ad hoc, qui a présenté ses conclusions déroutantes.

Le projet de loi du gouvernement n’autorise que la “maternité de substitution” dite “altruiste”, mais permet en même temps le remboursement des “dépenses raisonnables” engagées par la “mère porteuse”. C’est-à-dire non seulement les frais médicaux au sens strict, mais aussi toute perte de revenu sur une période de 12 mois, ce qui pour de nombreuses femmes, représente une somme d’argent considérable.

En fait, l’un des experts appelés à témoigner, a déclaré à la commission que “selon le projet de loi, il est possible de payer une mère porteuse irlandaise pour des dépenses raisonnables. Une fois que vous avez calculé la perte de revenu et les autres dépenses, le chiffre peut facilement atteindre 10 000 euros, ce qui n’est probablement pas très différent de ce que les mères porteuses sont payées dans d’autres pays, à l’exception des États-Unis.” En Ukraine, où se rendent généralement les couples à la recherche d’une “mère porteuse”, le revenu moyen par habitant est de 2 500 euros par an.

En bref, bien qu’elle interdise théoriquement la maternité de substitution à des fins commerciales, la proposition du gouvernement laisse en pratique une certaine marge de manœuvre, par le biais de remboursements de frais, ce qui pour de nombreuses femmes plus pauvres, représenterait un véritable travail.

Le rapport de la commission souligne également l’hypocrisie qu’il y a à qualifier d'”altruiste” une pratique impliquant des paiements substantiels et demande donc que le projet de loi soit modifié. Mais le même rapport va plus loin et recommande le paiement de certains services effectués à l’étranger que la proposition du gouvernement interdirait, car ils sont explicitement de nature commerciale. Par exemple, le paiement des agences ou des cliniques qui organisent ou donnent effet à un contrat entre les mandants et la “mère porteuse” est interdit.

Au cours des travaux de la Commission, un seul des participants avait dénoncé les risques de la “maternité de substitution commerciale”, qui transforme le bébé en marchandise et la femme en couveuse. Tous les autres, poussés par une campagne de presse très efficace, se sont montrés disposés à répondre à toute demande de couples ou de célibataires ayant recours à la “maternité de substitution”.

Certains fonctionnaires qui avaient participé à la préparation du projet de loi du gouvernement lors des auditions de la Commission sur la “maternité de substitution” internationale avaient rappelé l’impossibilité d’utiliser un double standard, permettant la reconnaissance d’une pratique interdite dans le pays uniquement parce qu’elle est possible à l’étranger. S’il est mal de louer un utérus en Irlande, pourquoi cela devrait-il être acceptable à l’étranger ?

Mais la Commission indique que, même s’il serait souhaitable que les conditions couvertes par les contrats signés à l’étranger correspondent aux conditions requises dans l’État irlandais, ce principe est presque impossible à appliquer, et la Commission estime donc qu'”il suffit que les conditions médicales et sanitaires fixées par l’État de la mère porteuse soient remplies.”

C’est-à-dire que c’est précisément le double standard qui s’applique et la double morale qui s’applique : être un peu plus strict à l’intérieur, mais fermer les yeux sur ce qui se passe à l’extérieur. Et cela va évidemment augmenter le tourisme procréatif.

Si la proposition de la Commission est adoptée, l’Irlande deviendra le seul État au monde à accorder une reconnaissance juridique aux contrats de “maternité de substitution” étrangers. Maintenant, il y aurait un garde-fou : par exemple, l’enfant doit avoir un lien génétique avec au moins l’un des parents commanditaires. Mais un autre passage du rapport qui laisse perplexe est la conclusion de la Commission selon laquelle une telle exigence dans le projet de loi du gouvernement est inutile si et quand la “maternité de substitution” a lieu en dehors de l’Irlande. Cela signifie qu’un homme non marié pourrait payer une femme pour mettre au monde un enfant conçu à l’aide des gamètes de deux donneurs, qui seront également remboursés. Quelle serait la différence entre cette pratique et l’achat d’enfants ?

Le bébé grandirait sans avoir aucune relation avec la mère génétique, avec le père génétique, avec l’autre mère qui s’est occupée de lui pendant neuf mois et lui a donné naissance, et avec les frères et sœurs génétiques, le cas échéant. Juridiquement, en somme, elle ne sera liée qu’à l’étranger qui l’a commandée, en payant les différents acteurs de cette tragédie. Il semble incroyable qu’un pays autrefois catholique comme l’Irlande ait complètement perdu le sens du lien maternel et soit sur le point d’approuver une pratique aberrante que le reste de l’Europe rejette et condamne.

Ireland to legalize uterus for rent

An Irish parliament committee has proposed recognition of commercial surrogacy, a practice banned throughout Europe with the exception of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

In some countries, including Italy, there are discussions about how to punish those who resort to so-called “womb renting” by traveling abroad to procure children that way. Instead, Ireland, now lost in a hyper-permissive drift, is moving in the opposite direction, one that could even make it the new destination for procreative tourism, now that the war has overwhelmed the very traditional destinations.

In February, the Irish Department of Health introduced a bill to regulate various forms of assisted fertilization, including surrogacy. However, it was not part of the government’s intent to address the issue of recognizing births to surrogate mothers outside the country. And yet, after a media campaign that also featured entertainment personalities who had themselves resorted to surrogate mothers abroad, the parliament decided to set up an ad hoc committee that, just in the past few days, presented its puzzling conclusions.

The government bill only allows for the so-called altruistic surrogacy, but at the same time it also envisages reimbursement of “reasonable expenses” incurred by the “surrogate mother.” That is, not only medical expenses in the strict sense, but also any loss of income over a 12-month period, which for many women would represent a substantial amount of money.

In fact, one of the experts called to testify told the commission that, “under the bill, it is possible to pay an Irish surrogate mother for reasonable expenses. Once you calculate the loss of income and other expenses, the figure can easily be as high as 10,000 euros, which is probably not very different from what surrogate mothers are paid in other countries, with the exception of the United States.” In Ukraine, where couples seeking a surrogate usually go, the average per capita income is 2,500 euros a year.

In short, while theoretically banning commercial surrogacy, in practice the government’s proposal allows for some leeway, through expense reimbursements, which for many poorer women would represent real work.

The commission’s report also underscores the hypocrisy of calling a practice involving substantial payments “altruistic” and therefore calls for the bill to be amended. But the same report goes further and recommends payment for certain services performed abroad that the government’s proposal would prohibit, as they are explicitly commercial in nature. For example, payment of agencies or clinics that arrange or give effect to a contract between principals and the surrogate mother is prohibited.

During the Commission’s work, only one of the participants denounced the risks of commercial surrogacy, which turns the baby into a commodity and the woman into an incubator. All others, prompted by a very effective press campaign, have been willing to meet any request from couples or singles resorting to surrogacy.

Some state officials who had helped prepare the bill during Commission hearings on international surrogacy recalled the impossibility of using a double standard, allowing the recognition of a practice banned at home only because it is possible abroad. If it is wrong to rent a womb in Ireland, why should it be acceptable to do so abroad?

But the Commission says that while it would be desirable for the conditions covered in contracts signed abroad to match the conditions required within the Irish state, this principle is almost impossible to enforce, and therefore the Commission believes that “it is sufficient that the medical and health conditions set by the surrogate’s state are met.”

That is, precisely the double standard and the double moral is applied: a little stricter at home, but turning a blind eye to what is happening abroad. And this will obviously give boost to procreative tourism.

If the Commission’s proposal passes, Ireland would become the only state in the world to give legal recognition to foreign surrogacy contracts. However, there would be a safeguard: for example, the child must have a genetic link to at least one of the commissioning parents. But another puzzling passage in the report is the Commission’s finding that such a requirement in the government’s bill is unnecessary if and when surrogacy takes place in Ireland.”

It means that an unmarried man could pay a woman to bring into the world a child conceived using the reproductive cells of two donors, who will also be reimbursed. What would be the difference between this practice and buying children?

The baby would grow up without having any relationship with the genetic mother, with the genetic father, with the other mother who cared it for nine months and then gave birth, and with genetic brothers and sisters, if any. Legally, in short, it would only be linked to the outsider who commissioned it, paying the various actors in this tragedy. It seems incredible how a once-Catholic country like Ireland has completely lost its sense of the maternal bond and is about to approve an aberrant practice that the rest of Europe rejects and condemns.

L’Irlanda sta legalizzando l’«utero in affitto»

Una commissione del parlamento irlandese ha proposto il riconoscimento della maternità surrogata commerciale, una pratica vietata in tutta l’Europa con l’eccezione di Russia, Ucraina e Bielorussia.

In alcuni Paesi, inclusa l’Italia, si discute di come punire chi ricorra al cosiddetto «utero in affitto» recandosi all’estero per la compera. Invece l’Irlanda, ormai persa in una deriva iperpermissivistica, si muove nella direzione opposta, una direzione che potrebbe addirittura farla diventare la nuova destinazione del turismo procreativo, ora che la guerra ha travolto proprio le mete tradizionali.

In febbraio il ministero della Sanità irlandese ha presentato un progetto di legge per regolare le diverse forme di fecondazione assistita, tra le quali appunto la «maternità surrogata». Non rientrava però tra gli intenti del governo affrontare la questione del riconoscimento delle nascite da madri surrogate fuori dal territorio nazionale. E però, dopo una campagna mediatica che ha visto protagonisti anche personaggi dello spettacolo che avevano fatto essi stessi ricorso a madri surrogate all’estero, il parlamento ha deciso di istituire una commissione ad hoc che, proprio nei giorni scorsi, ha presentato le proprie conclusioni sconcertanti.

Il progetto di legge del governo autorizza solo la «maternità surrogata» cosiddetta «altruistica», ma, allo stesso tempo, permette il rimborso di «spese ragionevoli» sostenute dalla «madre surrogata». Non solo, cioè, le spese mediche in senso stretto, ma anche qualsiasi perdita di reddito per un periodo di dodici mesi, che per molte donne rappresenterebbe una cifra sostanziale.

Uno degli esperti chiamati a testimoniare ha infatti detto alla Commissione che, «in base al progetto di legge, è possibile pagare una madre surrogata irlandese per spese ragionevoli. Una volta calcolati la perdita di reddito e altre spese, la cifra può facilmente arrivare a 10mila euro, cifra probabilmente non molto differente da quanto le madri surrogate vengono pagate in altri Paesi, con l’eccezione degli Stati Uniti». In Ucraina, dove solitamente vanno le coppie che cercano una «surrogata», il reddito pro capite medio è di 2mila e 500 euro l’anno.

Insomma, pur vietando in teoria la surrogata commerciale, in pratica la proposta del governo permette un certo margine di guadagno, tramite i rimborsi spese, che per molte donne più povere rappresenterebbe un vero e proprio lavoro.

Il rapporto della Commissione sottolinea pure l’ipocrisia del chiamare «altruistica» una pratica che implica pagamenti consistenti e chiede pertanto la modifica del progetto di legge. Ma lo stesso rapporto si spinge oltre e raccomanda il pagamento di alcuni servizi effettuati all’estero che la proposta del governo vieterebbe, in quanto di natura esplicitamente commerciale. Per esempio si vieta il pagamento di agenzie o cliniche che organizzano o danno effetto ad un contratto tra i committenti e la «madre surrogata».

Durante i lavori della Commissione, solo uno dei partecipanti aveva denunciato i rischi della «surrogata commerciale», che trasforma il bimbo in merce e la donna in incubatrice. Tutti gli altri, spinti da una campagna di stampa molto efficace, si sono dimostrati disponibili a soddisfare qualsiasi richiesta proveniente da coppie o single facenti ricorso a una «surrogata».

Alcuni funzionari statali che avevano contribuito a preparare il disegno di legge del governo, durante le audizioni della Commissione sulla «maternità surrogata» internazionale avevano richiamo l’impossibilità di utilizzare un doppio standard, permettendo il riconoscimento di una pratica vietata in patria solo perché essa è possibile all’estero. Se è sbagliato affittare un utero in Irlanda, perché dovrebbe essere accettabile all’estero?

Ma la Commissione afferma che, mentre sarebbe desiderabile che le condizioni contemplate nei contratti sottoscritti all’estero corrispondano alle condizioni richieste all’interno dello Stato irlandese, questo principio è quasi impossibile da far rispettare, e pertanto la Commissione crede che «sia sufficiente che le condizioni mediche e sanitarie stabilite dallo stato della surrogata siano soddisfatte».

Vale cioè appunto il doppio standard e vale la morale doppia: un po’ più severi in patria, ma chiudendo un occhio su quanto avviene all’estero. E questo ovviamente incrementerà il turismo procreativo.

L’Irlanda, se passasse la proposta della Commissione, diventerebbe l’unico Stato al mondo a dare riconoscimento legale a contratti stranieri di «utero in affitto». Ora, esisterebbe una salvaguardia: il bimbo deve avere per esempio un legame genetico con almeno uno dei genitori committenti. Ma un altro passaggio sconcertante del rapporto è il fatto che la Commissione ritenga tale requisito, previsto dal progetto di legge del governo, non necessario se e quando la «maternità surrogata» avviene in Irlanda. Significa che un uomo celibe potrebbe pagare una donna per mettere al mondo un bambino che venga concepito utilizzando i gameti di due donatori, i quali verranno anche loro rimborsati. Quale sarebbe la differenza tra questa pratica e il comprare bambini?

Il bimbo crescerebbe senza avere alcuna relazione con la madre genetica, con il padre genetico, con l’altra madre che l’ha custodito per nove mesi e poi partorito, e con i fratelli e le sorelle genetici, se esistono. Giuridicamente sarà insomma legato solo all’estraneo che l’ha commissionato, pagando i diversi attori di questa tragedia. Pare incredibile come un Paese un tempo cattolico, come l’Irlanda, abbia perso del tutto il senso del legame materno e si appresti ad approvare una pratica aberrante che il resto d’Europa rigetta e condanna.

The radical approach to sex education backed by the HSE

 

“Pornography to be studied in class”, said the front page of the Irish Independent last week, which is alarming at first glance, but much depends on how this is done because some HSE-backed researchers believe porn can be both ‘ethical’ and ‘positive’.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) is currently redesigning the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) curriculum for school, starting with Junior Certificate level.

Some of what is being taught in classrooms is already deeply concerning, and hopefully the Minister for Education will reject this approach.

The approach is exemplified by Sexual Health West, an organisation based in Galway, primarily funded by HSE West. The WISER (West of Ireland Sexuality Education Resource) team provides youth and community education on sexual health.

Grace Alice O’Shea is Relationship and Sexuality Educator at WISER and she recently authored “Sex Educated”, a guidebook for sexual education in schools and elsewhere, with extensive contributions from other members of WISER.

The book is based on “over thirty-years’ experience of delivering sex education in Ireland, working with tens of thousands of young people” and is addressed to teenagers and their educators.

On the back cover page there is the HSE logo and the endorsing words of President Michael Higgins: “I have no doubt that this publication will be an invaluable resource for our younger citizens, and for all those charged with their health and well-being”.

The main message of the book is that any kind of sexual activity is ok as long as it is consensual and ‘safe’.

The author has no objection to having multiple sexual partners. As she says: “It is not bad to have a ‘high’ number of sexual partners. This number is subjective anyway, and what one person considers a ‘low’ number may seem ‘high’ to someone else. What matters is that all sexual encounters are fully consensual and as safe as possible. You may have only one sexual partner for your life, or you may have many. There is nothing wrong with this, and there should be zero shame attached. The only person you need to talk to about your number of sexual partners is a medical professional if they ask, e.g. during a STI check. Apart from that, it is no one’s business but yours, and it certainly does not define your worth”. (p. 255)

Is this the message pupils should hear? What do their parents think?

The book has no objection to polyamory. “Some people have multiple intimate partners and everyone involved has agreed to this situation. This is known as polyamory, and it has been around for long time. … Monogamy can be perfect for some people but may not suit other people and their relationships. There are many different types of non-monogamous relationships. For example, people may engage in ‘open’ relationships, in which partners can typically have sex with other people but not have romantic relationship with others. Again, this must all be talked through in detail between the two people in the relationship, with everyone’s wishes and feelings being heard and considered.” (p. 377)

The authors of the guidebook also believes that there is nothing wrong with porn as such, and it can be used in a ‘safe’ and ‘healthy’ way.

She says: “Watching porn does not have to be bad. If someone watches porn and enjoys the experience, knows that porn is not like real sex, understands that it is all acted out and unrealistic, and knows when to switch off and look for help if they see something that felt wrong or they are worried about something, then that is a great starting point for looking at porn in a safe and healthy way. Watching porn can become a problem if someone uses it a sex education tool, feels under pressure to re-enact, feels bad, ashamed or distressed in any way during or after watching it, pressures others to watch it, or feels that their experiences of body image, masturbation, orgasm, or sex is negatively affected. In a nutshell, watching porn can be bad for someone, depending on how it is affecting them, but watching porn in itself is nothing to feel ashamed about.” (p. 183)

The book also defends so-called “ethical porn”, i.e. “porn made legally, respecting the rights of performers, with good working conditions, shows both fantasy and real-world sex and celebrates sexual diversity.” (pp. 183-84).

(In a previous blog we have covered the defense of “ethical porn” by Kate Dawson, one of the contributors of this book. See here https://ionainstitute.ie/teaching-children-that-porn-can-be-ethical-and-positive/)

These views are presented by people who have been teaching RSE in schools for over thirty years. They are funded by the HSE and endorsed by the President of Ireland.

Is this the kind of sex education parents want for their children? Why is the approach funded by the HSE? What does the NCCA and the Department of Education think?

Pro-choice campaigners no longer care how many abortions take place

 

Abortion will be “safe, legal and rare”, was the aspiration of the Government before the 2018 referendum to repeal the 8^th amendment. The reality is that abortion in Ireland is far from rare and we now have reached 7,000 terminations per year.

In January 2018, when announcing that the Cabinet had agreed to hold a referendum to repeal the 8^th amendment, Leo Varadkar, who was then Taoiseach, said: “If the amendment is approved in a referendum, abortion in Ireland will become safe, legal and rare, in the situations provided for by the Oireachtas.” And again, in the same occasion, he repeated: “Safe, legal and rare. No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors.”

Katherine Zappone, who was minister of children (the tragic irony!) at the time, said: “I hope that our people, that together, we will live in an Ireland someday soon where abortion is safe, legal and rare”.

A few days before the referendum, then Minister for Health, Simon Harris, announced free access to contraception as a way to keep the number of pregnancies low. “If our underlying principle is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, then we must do all we can to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies and to support women in every way,” he said.

Now, after three years, it is clear that the Government policies to make abortion rare were completely ineffective. Did they really believe it was even possible?

But it is now the case that leading pro-abortion campaigners have abandoned the goal of keeping abortion rare, something even Hillary Clinton signed up to once upon a time.

During the referendum, The Abortion Right Campaign (ARC) objected to the Government slogan that abortion should “safe, legal and rare”. It said the slogan “shamed” women.

It told the Government: “It’s vital that in the ensuing campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment we avoid shaming those who have made the decision to have an abortion, or those who may need one in the future.” The organisation asked: “What message does it send to those people when we say that their decision is undesirable [to terminate a pregnancy], that they are part of a problem to be minimised?”

Last week, when the Minister for Health said that GPs had claimed reimbursement for 6,700 abortion final consultations in 2021, the Abortion Right Campaign welcomed the news with enthusiasm. “ARC celebrates 6700 people accessing abortion care, but more and better abortion provision needed”, their press released said. Would any number be considered problematic for them? Probably not. The more, the better.

The slogan “safe, legal and rare” was first used by Bill Clinton in 1992 to express the view that the Democratic party was pro-choice but also wanted to keep abortions at a minimum. Hillary Clinton repeated the slogan, adding “and by rare, I mean rare”, in her 2008 presidential primary run.  But now, many on the pro-choice side regard the slogan as unacceptable because it ‘stigmatises’ abortion, and they have abandoned it. It implies that abortion is something negative, to be reduced, and they have substituted “rare” with the word “free”.

In practice, where has abortion become rare after it has been made legal on broad-ranging grounds?

The “safe, legal and rare” slogan might have convinced some naïve voters at the time of the referendum, but it was never realistic. If those who have used in the past sincerely believed in it, they have to look at the growing number of abortions in Ireland and acknowledge their mistakes. But they won’t, because they no longer believe, if they ever did, that abortion should be rare. They don’t seem to care how many take place.

More than 7,000 Irish women had abortions last year

More than 6,700 women had an abortion via their GP last year, new official figures indicate, but when the numbers from hospitals are included, plus the number still going to England and Wales, the figure easily exceeds 7,000.

The total of 6,700 alone is the highest figure since the 2018 referendum that repealed the 8^th amendment. In 2019 and 2020, the figures were 6,666 and 6,577 respectively.

Some media are reporting a sharp drop of numbers. Don’t be misled by this. There was a big drop in the number of abortions officially notified to the Department of Health, but not in the actual number that took place.

According to the Department of Health, notifications from doctors came to 4,577, but there were 6,700 reimbursement claims presented to the HSE by GPs after prescribing two abortion pills to women. The Department of Health blames the low number of notifications on the pandemic and the cyber-attack on the HSE in May 2021.

To the figure of 6,700 must be added several hundred more who will have had abortions in hospital, in addition to the 206 Irish residents had a termination in England and Wales last year. This brings the total to well above 7,000. Given that 58,433 babies were born in Ireland in 2021, that comes to approximately one abortion for every eight births.

This week, a new report commissioned by the HSE about the three-year review of the operation of the abortion law was also published. The research was led by a Trinity College academic who was involved in the Repeal the 8^th Campaign.

The report shows its colours by calling into question conscientious objection, the three-day waiting period and the current provisions around ‘fatal foetal abnormalities’ which require a baby to have an expected lift-span of only 28 days, or less, after birth in order to be aborted.

The push continues to make our present abortion law even more permissive.

The appalling recommendations of the surrogacy committee

The very one-sided Oireachtas Committee on International Surrogacy has recommended the recognition of ‘compensated surrogacy,’ which is commercial surrogacy by another name, in Ireland and abroad. Under the broad notion of “reasonable expenses”, women will be paid large sums of money to carry a child for someone else under the terms of a contract. Almost no country in Europe recognises commercial surrogacy for this reason.

The Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Bill 2022, which is still under the consideration of the Dáil, does not include provisions for international arrangements. A special Committee was established last February to address this specific issue and some of their recommendations in the Report presented this week are quite shocking.

The AHR Bill allows non-commercial surrogacy, but also the payment of ‘reasonable expenses’. This would include not just medical expenses but also any loss of income for a period of 12 months, which could be quite substantial.

One of the experts told the Committee that, “Under the Bill, an Irish surrogate can be paid reasonable expenses. When loss of income and other expenses are calculated, this could easily reach €10,000, which is probably not very different from the amount that surrogates are paid in some other countries, excluding the United States, although, of course, this does acknowledge the socioeconomic situation may be different in other countries.”

In Ukraine, where many Irish couples go, the average per capita income is about $2,500.

The Committee Report highlighted the hypocrisy of calling ‘altruistic’ a practice that involves large payments and asked the Bill to be changed.

“The Committee notes that compensation to the surrogate in respect of costs arising in connection with the surrogacy is provided for in the AHR Bill, where it is defined as altruistic surrogacy. This terminology should be amended to be re-termed as compensated surrogacy, to better recognise the compensatory nature of the arrangement, and provisions made for international surrogacy arrangements of a similar nature to be permitted.”, the Report says.

But then the Report went even further and recommended the payment for services abroad that the AHR Bill would explicitly ban because of their commercial nature, such as paying agencies and clinics for “facilitating the entering into or giving effect to the agreement” (54.1a).

State representatives warned the Committee that double standards should not apply to domestic and foreign arrangements. If the potential exploitation of poor women is wrong in Ireland, why should it be accepted abroad? The Committee acknowledged that, while it would be desirable for all international surrogacy agreements to match the list of conditions which apply for domestic arrangements, “it would also be almost impossible to enforce. The Committee believes that as long as the medical and safety conditions of the country of the surrogacy are met, this should be considered sufficient.”

So, double standards will apply.

With the exception of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, all European countries ban commercial surrogacy and many of them won’t allow any surrogacy at all, not even the “altruistic” one.

Commercial surrogacy in particular is considered exploitative for the women involved and treats children as commodities regulated by contract. There are proposals by politicians in Norway and Italy to make it a criminal offense using a surrogate mother abroad.

Ireland is one of the very few countries going in the opposite direction and will give legal recognition to foreign surrogacy arrangements.

Another shocking passage of the Report is that the Committee does not believe that a genetic link between the child and at least one of the commissioning adults (the ‘intended parents’) should be required in domestic surrogacy, something stipulated by the AHR Bill (53.3a). This means that a single man, for instance, should be allowed to pay a surrogate mother to carry a child conceived for him with the gametes of two “donors”, who will also be reimbursed for “reasonable expense”. How is this different from buying a child?

The child will grow up having no relations with the genetic mother, the genetic father, possible existing siblings, and with the birth mother. It will legally related only to the person who has commissioned him or her.

Senator Sharon Keogan was the only critical voice in a Committee that didn’t hear from exploited surrogate women from poor countries. She was constantly attacked but now that commercial surrogacy has been recommended, under the name of compensated surrogacy, her concerns have been proved to be well-founded. 

Ireland plays along with another charade at the UN

 

Ireland is currently before the UN Human Rights Committee in order to report on our compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But the whole process is so deeply flawed, it cannot be taken seriously.

For instance, the committee members in practice often know little about the many countries they have to scrutinise in each session and are deeply influenced by the submissions of home-based NGOs which are almost invariably radically pro-choice and secular.

Several Irish NGOs have told the committee that our present abortion law made even more permissive and claim that Ireland must amend it to be compliant with the ICCPR. This is despite the fact that abortion gets no mention in the document or in any other UN treaty. The ICCPR instead recognises the right to life. Article 6 says: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Undeterred by this, one member of the committee yesterday asked Ireland to remove the mandatory three-day waiting period after a woman requests an abortion, which is common in many other European countries, and also asked Ireland to allow for the aborting of disabled babies after the current 12-week limit.

The member was simply drawing on a submission from the Abortion Access Campaign West, which is a member of the State-funded National Women’s Council of Ireland. (Their submission can be found here.)

Another example of misapplying the ICCPR is the continued attack on the conscience rights of doctors and nurses. Article 18 of the covenant says: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

In clear contradiction of this, several NGOs and committee members criticised what they call the “resistance to provision of [‘reproductive health’] services”, i.e. conscientious objection by pro-life health workers.

Pressed on the matter, a representative of the Irish Government announced that the HSE is now recruiting five additional consultant obstetricians on the condition that they perform abortions. (See here at 2 hours and 13 minutes)

It is a shocking paradox that a human right body asks a country to violate the right of conscience, in open contradiction with the spirit and the letter of the UN treaties.

Last year, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) published a report that highlighted how committee members are often recruited and funded by leftist and pro-choice organisations.

The members sometimes come from those self-same bodies.

The ECLJ document says: “The omnipresence of these NGOs and foundations has reached such a degree that some mandate holders continue, once elected, to behave like NGO activists, promoting personal political ideas, thus exceeding the terms of their mandates, in violation of the Code of Conduct. This activist mentality, this “NGOization” of mandates contributes, according to several experts interviewed, to the weakening of the authority and effectiveness of the UN system.”

UN committees often present partisan and misleading interpretations of the UN treaties that have no real basis in the treaties themselves and cannot be imposed on Ireland legally.

As explained in this document produced by the Iona Institute, the provisions of any international treaties ratified by Ireland, do not become a part of Irish law unless they are expressly incorporated by the Oireachtas.

So, the highly contentious interpretations of UN committees and monitoring bodies are legally groundless. Nonetheless, they will be used by local campaigners to promote their agendas on the false assumption that those recommendations come from some compelling human right authority.

The whole thing is little more than a charade.

Dr Dermot Kearney talks about his prolife work that saved dozens of lives

 

Angelo Bottone · A prolife doctor speaks