RTÉ journalist Dyane Connor spoke to Rachel English on Morning Ireland earlier, to discuss the case of the woman whose baby was born by Caesarean section after a panel of experts turned down her request for an abortion.
Neither journalist mentioned that the woman was raped.
Rachel English: “We’re joined by RTE reporter, Dyane Connor. I suppose I should say as well, Dyane, that there are legal restrictions on what we can say about the woman at the centre of this case but what can you tell us about her.”
Dyane Connor: “Yes, there is a court order in place, so she cannot be identified at all, to protect her identity. We do know that she was in her second trimester when she was admitted to hospital, requesting an abortion. Now, as it required under the new legislation which came into effect at the beginning of this year, she was assessed by a panel of three medical experts – two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. I understand it was decided that she did have suicidal thoughts but it was decided not to carry out an abortion, instead to terminate the pregnancy by a Caesarean section. Now when the woman was told of this, she was very upset and she began a hunger and thirst strike. At this point, the HSE went to the high court to get an order, to allow it to hydrate her, because, for a woman to undergo a Caesarean section, I understand, it’s very dangerous if she is dehydrated. Now a further court date was set, subsequently to this, the woman I understand did agree to allow a Caesarean section to be carried out and this was performed when she was either 24th going on her 25th week of pregnancy, the baby was delivered.”
English: “Now this practice if we go back for a moment, this practice, the assessment by a medical panel. This was introduced under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, so what happens? How does this work?”
Connor: “Well, once the legislation is called upon, the woman is seen by three medical experts, so you have to psychiatrists who are examining her mental health and then an obstetrician who obviously, in this instance, made the decision that the baby is considered viable, can survive outside the womb. Now an option that was open to the woman, when she was refused an abortion, she could have I suppose asked for a review of this decision which would have meant that a panel of ten medical practitioners are then called upon. This has to be done within, no later than three days, after the initial decision is made. Once the panel has convened to review that decision, they then must make a decision no longer than seven days. Obviously time is of the essence in this case. Now, it’s very important as well to stress that the termination of a pregnancy is the ending of a pregnancy. In the first three months, we would refer to it as an abortion. But in later stages of pregnancy, this termination of a pregnancy can be the delivering of a baby by Caesarean section if an obstetrician believes that the baby is viable.”
English: “As you mention the timeframe here, can we go back over that for a moment because there does appear to be some confusion. Now, it’s reported that the young woman here, that she first asked for an abortion when she was eight weeks’ pregnant. And, yet, some time seems to have passed before she was assessed by this panel of medical experts.”
Connor: “That’s correct. A colleague of mine, Emer Lowe, was also working on this story over the weekend and sources close to this woman say she did find out she was pregnant in her first trimester and that she asked her doctor for an abortion and she claims that she wasn’t given the options that should be open to a woman in a situation like hers. And it was impossible for her to travel abroad for an abortion in her circumstances. But it was her second trimester before she went in to hospital, looking for the abortion.”
English: “What’s known now about how the young woman is and, indeed, how the baby is?”
Connor: “I believe the woman is quite upset and traumatised and the baby was born by Caesarean section and is being cared for and treated in a hospital at the moment, where the baby will remain for the coming months. What happens then is still not clear. But I understand that at the moment, it looks like the baby will be taken into care.”
English: “Dyane, thank you very much indeed.”
Anyone?
Listen back here
Woman sought abortion at eight weeks (Kitty Holland, Irish Times)
Meanwhile, on the BBC..
Woman denied abortion in Republic of Ireland ‘was raped’ (BBC)
Siiiiiiigh.
“I suppose I should say as well, Dyane, that there are legal restrictions on what we can say about the woman at the centre of this case”.
But no, you’re right, it’s a media conspiracy between RTE, the Catholic Church and, eh, the Iona Institute to deny that rape every happens.
Except several other media outlets have published that detail so it seems the rape is not one of the restricted details of the case.
I think they also deny that consensual sex happens..
I noticed this too, no mention it was rape.
Probably did not mention it because RTE does not have a real journalists working for it?
The rape part, as far as I am aware, have thus far only come from a “close friend” of the lady at the centre of this. I’d imagine they’d want to be more confident that this was definitely the case before reporting it as fact. Something the written press are generally less concerned about.
BS you know why it was not mentioned so please stop with the ‘anyone’! It was not mentioned because she is a woman and because we are a nation of misogynists and because RTE is a load of patriarchal excrement. Just heard Breda Iona on RTE – she is given way too much air time.
Was there a balancing voice representing women who believe in women’s right to bodily integrity or have RTE left themselves open to being sued again?
Ah, they had Sam Coulter Smith from the Rotunda on – a very reasonable man who believes that women know what is best for themselves. But as usual, Breda spoke the usual fifty words for every three he uttered. She is probably one of the worst misogynists on this island.
be thankful she is only a mouthpiece and not a clinician in our maternity hospitals.
How did Brenda defend this one?
Here’s the link.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!type=radio&rii=9%3A20634569%3A15036%3A18%2D08%2D2014%3A
Nor did RTE’s It Says In The Papers at 7am or 8am….and what’s this bs….”terminate the pregnancy by C-section”….where did that come from…was the woman told that…this country just gets worse and worse for women…
Also, ‘We do know that she was in her second trimester when she was admitted to hospital, requesting an abortion.’ That’s a very big window from 13-28 weeks. But other sources are saying she requested an abortion after only 8 weeks: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-sought-abortion-at-eight-weeks-1.1899851
Even though they do acknowledge that she first sought it after 8 weeks, saying ‘second trimester’ instead of the specific week creates a much longer and later time period and makes it sound like the abortion was sought at a later stage than it actually was.
That’s what I want to know…. big difference between 8wks and 28wks!
From the article above, it sounds like she initally went to her GP in the earlier stages but got nowhere, and then, after a period, went to a hospital with the same request. My interpretation is that she requested it early and then later.
I’m now wondering if it’s that the GP was anti-choice and a terrible doctor or if it was the fact that no guidelines existed that caused the delay in her access to the panel.
Jaybus. Under the Act it doesn’t matter if there was rape or not. If you’re going to harp on about the application of the legislation then at least understand it.
Maybe they’re just poiting out one of the many ways in which the legislation isn’t fit for purpose?
apoplectic.
The Guardian newspaper has an editorial about this in today’s paper, which concludes: “That surely is one of the most absurd and morally compromising pieces of state hypocrisy in Europe.”
But no mention of it on RTE radio one news bulletins at 9am and 10am. It was discussed on Today with Sean O’Rourke. But with no pro-choice speaker. Just an Irish Times journalist (Harry McGee), the Master of the Rotunda hospital… and Breda O’Brien of the Iona Institute.
Here is the Guardian editorial:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/17/guardian-view-abortion-ireland-no-choice
Fair and balanced. Fox News would be proud.
You understand the difference between editorials and news?
You understand there needs to be balance in a political debate. I’m sure the invitations to the pro-chopice groups just got lost in the post or something.
Devil’s Advocate: The RTÉ line is that the woman should have had the right to an abortion regardless of whether she was pregnant due to rape or not. Two psychiatrists decided that she was suicidal and she was still fupped over.
In what sense are you playing devil’s advocate (whatever you mean by that – I can’t find any way to interpret your post that suggests anything remotely connected with it)?
he’s plauing devil’s advocate by suggesting an explanation other than the one posited by broadsheet.
it’s pretty much the definition of the phrase.
try to keep up.
by suggesting an explanation other than the one posited by broadsheet.
Broadsheet didn’t give any explanation, they simply stated the fact – Neither journalist mentioned that the woman was raped
You’d be better off leaving the explaining to people who don’t imagine things.
This is exactly right. If people were actually seriously pro choice they might realise this
I disagree. Given that this has a serious bearing on the state of distress this poor woman was in and that most people are in favour of abortion in the case of rape then it is an extremely relevant detail.
they didnt mention rape because :
A. it’s unconfirmed and presumably a legal matter and more importantly,
B. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying issues being discussed
stop pandering to the slavering extremists like Anna for gods sake and try to show a little maturity
b. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying issues being discussed
C. Wrong.
When a woman conceives a pregnancy through rape then it has bloody everything to do with it. What part of “I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THE CHILD OF THE MAN WHO VIOLATED ME” don’t you get.
The ‘B’ bit kind of sums up the weirdness doesn’t it?
The rape aspect has nothing to do with the legality of the woman demanding an abortion except to allow you explode with hyperbole.
She was examined by two psychiatrists who deemed her suicidal and presumably this allowed for the abortion to happen. the question that must be answered is why did it not take place after the examination.
Again, the rape whilst certainly horrific is not what is at issue in this particular discussion.
but please continue your apoplexy
Was there an asplosion somewhere? Oh no.. Of wha Hyperbole? This sounds like a serious issue.
Well, the rape (assuming she was raped) is very much part of the debate here. It’s not part of the current legislation, but like I said upthread, that’s one more place in which the current legislation fails.
Was she entitled to an abortion as a rape victim under the protection of life during pregnancy bill? No.
Does that make the situation all right? No.
Well said Lorcan. Also. there are women who have consensual sex, become pregnant and then have their partners turn nasty on them. Even disregarding rape, there are so many other factors to consider. A woman’s body, a woman’s right to choose.
wait, so your position is that any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape is entitled to an abortion?
you honestly don’t see any minor flaws to this?
the current legislation sidesteps these problems and the question here is why it failed
Any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape and wants to have an abortion should be able to have one.
Any woman who has a non-viable pregnancy, fatal foetal abnormality or other complication should be able to have an abortion
Any woman who is pregnant via incest should be able to have an abortion.
If a woman who is pregnant for any of these reasons “procures a miscarraige”, to use the legal term, in the Republic of Ireland she’s liable for criminal charges and a jail sentence of up to 14 years. If she’s lucky enough to be able to travel to the UK it’s all well and good, no questions asked. That’s a horrible situation which actively victimises the poor, the under educated, refugees, and anyone who can’t travel for any reason.
But beyond that, any woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one, because neither you nor I are in any position to pass judgement on their lives. I’m not a fan of “abortion as birth control”, but I recognise that I have no say in the pregnancy of a woman who wants an abortion for any reason.
This is what annoys me about the circle jerk here.
your manifesto there is admirable and i agree with most of it but its stating the bloody obvious abd preaching to a very vocal choir.
the question here on this thread is nothing to do with most of your statement, its not about the legislation we DON’T have here. its about why the legislation we DO have failed.
No, it’s that the legislation is completely inadequate and always was and that as long as the 8th amendment exists it will continue to be so.
Well, the legislation we do have failed because it’s worthless and impractical. And pro-choice advocacy groups said as much before the bill and we were roundly ignored.
But to say that this issue is separate from the general abortion debate is, IMO wrong. It’s all part of the same problem. The government is forced into a corner by a tragedy stemming from the lack of clear guidelines, but rather than take a progressive stance (or outright ban abortion) they try and please both pro-life and pro-choice groups. And you obviously can’t please both sides, and we end up with legislation that isn’t fit to purpose. This poor woman and her child are just the latest victims of an ongoing problem.
Underlining issues.. Ugh.
Where’d they teach you to talk like that?
You have to read between the sheets.
haha “Underlining issues” all right.
The issues underlining the other issues, underlining them other ones.
school?
and i think you’ll find it’s “underlying”
you’re welcome dear.
fo shizzle my nizzle