I was guilty of assuming that Ireland was unique in its anti-abortion laws, and further (wrongly assumed) that Northern Ireland’s laws wouldn’t be more similar to the Irish Republic’s than the rest of the UK on the issue. Mea Culpa.
Reading further (have I got THIS right?) - the specific woman who was ‘Case C’ actually HAD the baby (a girl) by this time anyway.
The Irish government should appeal the damages, claim that given the health of the mother it is equally likely that an abortion might have been too traumatic to be safe medicine. As exhibit A - defending its position that the doctor(s) involved made a sound medical decision (or refusing to do a risky medical procedure at the time demanded) - the defense should subpoena the living child and the plaintiff/mother.
This case is such an unusual one that the Court probably felt it could decide the case
for plaintiff C and against the broader claims of A and B (as it did) without seeming that radical or intrusive to Irish law - and yet throw a crumb to at least one of the plaintiffs - so as not to appear “regressive” or “staunchly intransigent” or “hidebound” by the media.
A little Pontius Pilate goes a long way though.
Pontius knew the right thing to do. Did part of it. HAD to do it again. Tried to get out of it. Schemed to turn the whole thing into a personal and political triumph. And ended up piling injustice upon injustice, NOT getting out of it, and being forever remembered for his lack of fortitude and courage. " … suffered under Pontius Pilate."