Tag Archives: Pro Life Campaign



From top: Niamh Uí Bhriain and William Campbell

Niamh Uí Bhriain of prolife group The Life Institute (formerly Niamh nic Mhathuna of Youth Defence) answers questions from William Campbell, of the Here’s How podcast, about the origins of the Eighth Amendment and its effects in the courts and the constitution.


Listen here


The Pro Life Campaign held its national conference in the RDS on Saturday. One of the issues raised was media bias.

Caroline Simons, legal consultant for the Pro Life Campaign said:

“For over two years now, every time this issue comes up in the news there has been an almost exclusive focus on abortion. This is doing a massive disservice to women. How many women end up going for abortion in this situation having heard nothing whatsoever about the extraordinary support which perinatal hospice care offers to the mother and baby for whatever short length of time the baby may live? There is urgent need for more balance in this debate.”

Cora Sherlock, Deputy Chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign said:

A majority of people in this country consistently say that they want to keep a pro-life model in Ireland. Put simply: we’re not into ending lives here. We are into saving them. Recent polls claiming widespread support for abortion fail to take into account the fact that the evidence shows abortion is not a treatment for suicidal feelings. The Government ignored this when introducing abortion last year.”


According to today’s Irish Times, 68% are in favour of referendum in cases of rape or where the foetus will not be born alive.

Majority of voters want abortion law liberalised (Stephen Collins, Irish Times)

Previously: No Direction Home

Pic: The Scientist

90098985Professor William Binchy (top) and Justice Adrian Hardiman (above)


From March 1992, a piece written by Adrian Hardiman SC (Supreme Court Judge since 2000) in the Sunday Independent on the X case and Pro Life Campaign legal advisor William Binchy.

Anti-abortion extremists are demanding a further referendum to turn the clock back in a drastic way. Their position is both obscurantist and less than honest.

The first thing to be said about this group is that their legal thinking is demonstrably unreliable. They were warned in 1983 that the wording of the amendment was, in the words of the then Attorney General, “ambiguous and unsatisfactory”. They insisted that it was perfect. They now wish to change it again.

They were expressly warned, by this writer amongst others, that the amendment could be used to prevent women from travelling. They scoffed at the idea or pretended to do so, and called it scaremongering. This is precisely what happened and (without the amended protocol) what could happen again.

In recent weeks this group has loudly proclaimed that it does not wish to interfere with the right to travel. If this is true, it is a death-bed conversion. It was not apparently their view a few months ago when the original protocol was negotiated.

Worse still there is ample evidence that this group positively envisaged the use of penal sanctions, including imprisonment, against Irish women who had abortions abroad. In 1981 Professor-elect William Binchy wrote the first article I am aware of suggesting a referendum on abortion. If passed, he foresaw that injunctions could be granted to restrain a pregnant woman from travelling abroad for an abortion.

He continued “. . . if the consequences of defying an injunction were made absolutely clear to the defendant, this might (have some effect. These consequences are indeed awesome. The defendant would be in contempt of court — for which commital to prison is the penalty: moreover an action for damages would also lie for ‘destruction of the child’s constitutional right to life: One must be realistic here. A woman threatened with such sanctions (could well decide to stay in England after her abortion rather than come back to prison in Ireland’ (emphasis added). (Binchy: Ethical issues in Reproductive Medicine: A legal perspective”) published by Gill and Macmillan 1982.

In the same article the Professor-elect declared that-the “simple legal solution” might be to make it a criminal offence to have an abortion anywhere in the world.

He said “for our legislation now to provide that it should be illegal to have an abortion abroad would therefore not be changing what since 1861 has been the intended effect of our abortion law: on the contrary it would do no more than restore the position in light of legislative developments elsewhere over which we have no control”.

He continued by asking whom precisely the law would cover. Answering his own question he said, “Obviously it should not extend, for, example, to an English woman residing in England who had a perfectly legal abortion there. If she came to Ireland for a visit some time later, she should scarcely be hauled off to Mountjoy for what she had done.

“It would seem that the law should be limited to persons with a close connection with Ireland at the time of the commission of the offence. Such persons could include those who are habitually resident here or, more restrictively. Irish nationals who are habitually resident here.”

Via Oireachtas Retort

Previously: And So It Came To Pass

Not So Fast

Just William

“Our Values Are Considerably More Subtle Than You Might Think.”

Senior Moment

He Hasn’t Changed A Day

Eamonn Farrell/Photocall Ireland


Screen Shot 2014-05-17 at 14.28.33

[Campaign literature for Anne-Maree Quinn and notice of a pro-life campaign meeting in Blessington]

Anon writes:

I recently met an Independent local election candidate for Pembroke-South Dock, Anne-Maree Quinn. She seemed quite nice, so I had a quick search to see what she stands for. It turns out she’s very involved in pro-life campaigning. She’s much more reticent about this on her website. I’m not advocating a witch hunt against her, but it would be very easy for a pro-choice person to vote for her in the belief they’re supporting an independent voice.

Anne-Maree Quinn

Might this be the same Anne-Maree Quinn who wrote to the Irish Times in November 2007 opposing marriage equality?

It might not be accidental that this exclusive focus on emotional gratification coincides with a high divorce rate…”The question is not whether gay people should have relationships. The only question is whether this should be done in the specific context of marriage.”

Of course, the most important cross-cultural and historical function of marriage as an institution is raising children.

Previously: Opus Dei, You Say?