European Court: No Right to Abort

[catharina]

from zenit.org:

zenit.org/article-31255?l=english

**European Court: No Right to Abort

Upholds Irish Constitution on Prohibiting Abortion**

STRASBOURG, France, DEC. 16, 2010 (Zenit.org).- In a case regarding a challenge to the Irish constitution, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there is “no human right to abortion.”

The Grand Chamber of the European court decided today on the A, B and C v. Ireland case, noting that the Irish constitutional prohibition of abortion does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

The challenge against Irish law was brought to the court last December by three women who allegedly were “forced” to go abroad for abortions, which they claim put their health in danger.

The court decided that the country’s laws do not violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which stresses the “right to respect for private and family life.”

The European Centre for Law and Justice, a third party in this case, lauded the court’s further recognition of the “right to life of the unborn.”

Grégor Puppinck, director of the center, explained to ZENIT the concern that the court would “recognize a right to abortion” as a “new right stemming from the always broader interpretation of article 8.”

However, he added, “the court did not recognize such a right;” rather, it “recognized the right to life of the unborn as a legitimate right.”

Puppinck clarified that “the court doesn’t recognize the right to life of the unborn as an absolute right, but as a right that has to be balanced with other competing interests, such as the health of the mother or other social interests.”

Balance of interests

Nonetheless, he added, “the states hold a broad margin of appreciation in the balancing of those competing interests, even if there is a vast pro-abortion consensus in European legislation.”

“This is important: The broad pro-abortion consensus in European legislation doesn’t create any new obligation, like in other socially and morally discussed issues,” the director asserted.

He continued: "So, a state is free to provide a very high degree of protection to the right to life to the unborn children.

"The right to life to the unborn children can legitimately overcome other competing guaranteed rights.

“As such, there is no autonomous right to get an abortion based on the convention.”

Puppinck noted, “I do not remember a previous case recognizing clearly an autonomous right to life to the unborn children.”

The European Centre for Law and Justice noted in a communiqué that “the natural purpose and duty of the state to protect the life of its people; the people, consequently, hold the right to have their lives protected by the state.”

“The reciprocity between people’s rights and the duty of the state in the field of life and security is traditionally seen as the foundation of public society; moreover, it is the foundation of state authority and legitimacy,” it affirmed.

“Therefore,” the statement continued, “the authority to prescribe the protection of the right to life belongs originally to the state and is exercised within the framework of its sovereignty.”

| More

ZE10121601 - 2010-12-16
Permalink: zenit.org/article-31255?l=english

 

[catharina]

If the European Court, situated in a Europe well-known for its secularistic beliefs and practices, can/does declare the import of the right to life for the unborn, how can Carol Keehan, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Margaret McBride, the young Cuomo and so many others, think otherwise?

Is this the death of hope and the death of logic?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Some good news (finally).

 

[Brooklyn]

From here in the abortion capital of the US (41% of pregnancies in NYC end in abortion), this news is wonderful, and I am sure the result of much prayer. May it spread around the world. This is one time when I would want our courts to use foreign law.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

:clapping: a victory or the unborn

 

[Jehoshua]

Thank God the european court has not totally succumbed to the void of the liberalist-utilitarian-relativist agenda.

 

[Kaninchen]

Just to try to clarify the situation a little.

The closest Europe got to a ‘Roe’ decision was a ‘pro-life’ case brought by a Mrs Vo against the French Government which came before the ECHR in late 2003. If the Court had found for Mrs Vo then the fetus would have had established rights under the European Declaration On Human Rights.

In the summer of 2004, the Court decided not to support Mrs Vo’s case. This meant that the fetus was not a ‘person’ under the Declaration but, further, as far as the Court was concerned, the question of a ‘right to abortion’ was a question for the several States themselves, ie there was no ‘abortion right’ under the Declaration, either.

This decision created a situation that many pro-lifers in the US would consider a step forward in in the US - ie the equivalent of the Supreme Court saying when deciding ‘Roe’: “Nothing to do with us, it’s all a matter for the individual States to decide for themselves.” So, New York and California, say, would have abortion and Alabama and Oklahoma, say, wouldn’t.

The recent Irish cases have to be seen in this context - the appeals to the Court were over the Irish Government’s failure (in one case but not in the other two, the Court decided) to abide by its own rules not about whether Ireland had to change its laws to allow abortion.

These decisions have, in other words, changed nothing and established nothing new.

 

[catharina]

Just to try to clarify the situation a little.

The closest Europe got to a ‘Roe’ decision was a ‘pro-life’ case brought by a Mrs Vo against the French Government which came before the ECHR in late 2003. If the Court had found for Mrs Vo then the fetus would have had established rights under the European Declaration On Human Rights.

In the summer of 2004, the Court decided not to support Mrs Vo’s case. This meant that the fetus was not a ‘person’ under the Declaration but, further, as far as the Court was concerned, the question of a ‘right to abortion’ was a question for the several States themselves, ie there was no ‘abortion right’ under the Declaration, either.

This decision created a situation that many pro-lifers in the US would consider a step forward in in the US - ie the equivalent of the Supreme Court saying when deciding ‘Roe’: “Nothing to do with us, it’s all a matter for the individual States to decide for themselves.” So, New York and California, say, would have abortion and Alabama and Oklahoma, say, wouldn’t.

The recent Irish cases have to be seen in this context - the appeals to the Court were over the Irish Government’s failure (in one case but not in the other two, the Court decided) to abide by its own rules not about whether Ireland had to change its laws to allow abortion.

These decisions have, in other words, changed nothing and established nothing new.

Yes, Kaninchen, and thank you. Nice for those of us in the States to have the 2004 action (one of non-decision) reiterated and clarified. Yes, in the USA, pro-life workers would be most grateful if this definition became the norm here. It might be a first step in a morally correct direction. The fact that union-nations have not declared and will not declare abortion to a right of women is no small thing

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, Kaninchen, and thank you. Nice for those of us in the States to have the 2004 action (one of non-decision) reiterated and clarified. Yes, in the USA, pro-life workers would be most grateful if this definition became the norm here. It might be a first step in a morally correct direction. The fact that union-nations have not declared and will not declare abortion to a right of women is no small thing

One should be clear, by the way, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. The European Declaration On Human Rights predated the EU and signatories to it include European countries that are not in the EU.

The European Court of Human Rights is entirely independent of the EU, the chief court of the EU is the ‘European Court of Justice’ which deals with EU law.

 

[catharina]

One should be clear, by the way, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. The European Declaration On Human Rights predated the EU and signatories to it include European countries that are not in the EU.

The European Court of Human Rights is entirely independent of the EU, the chief court of the EU is the ‘European Court of Justice’ which deals with EU law.

Again, my thanks. Shalom.