Category: Abortion

Lost in Translation: The Failure of the International Reproductive Rights Norm

 Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

CFAM has posted a three part series based on a new paper just published in the Ave Maria Law Review.

Part One: A Norm is Born

NEW YORK, September 13 (C-FAM) For decades, powerful countries and wealthy foundations conducted a campaign to create a global standard for abortion rights. Despite their efforts, the phrase “reproductive health” has been adopted, but not an international norm of reproductive rights. [CFAM Part 1]

Part 2: Reproductive Health Doesn’t Include Abortion . . . But It
Does

NEW YORK, September 20 (C-FAM) The term “reproductive health” seeped without fanfare into UN language in 1972 when it was adopted by Jose Barzelatto, the inaugural head of WHO’s program on human reproduction.  Its first appearance in a UN document was a World Health Organization (WHO) report 20 years later by Barzelatto’s successor, Mahmoud Fathalla. His sprawling description of the term contained “fertility regulation,” which for WHO included “pregnancy interruption,” that is, abortion. [CFAM Part 2]

Part 3: No Norm, No Right

NEW YORK, September 27 (C-FAM) In 2006, the term “reproductive health” made it into a binding international law treaty for the first time, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While this was a victory for the reproductive rights movement, it produced mixed results.

Twenty-three nations opposed the term. After it was reluctantly included, fifteen made statements reminding the term’s proponents what they had assured them throughout the negotiations: that the term “reproductive health” did not include abortion or create any new rights. [CFAM-Part 3]

 

 

Irish hospital agrees to comply with abortion law

The Mater Hospital in Dublin has announced that it will comply with Ireland’s new abortion law, which requires designated institutions, including the Mater, to provide abortions approved under the terms of the statute.  Father Kevin Doran, a member of the board of directors, had previously stated  that the hospital could not comply with the law. [The Journal]

Irish Times publishes false “abortion” story

Paper admits “abortion” did not happen

No explanation offered for fabricated “news”

Sean Murphy*

The controversy surrounding Ireland’s new abortion law has been further inflamed by a story by Irish Times Health reporter Paul Cullen.  The story first appeared on 23 August, 2013.  Its accuracy was immediately disputed, and the paper had to add note stating that the article was erroneous in claiming that an “abortion” had occurred at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin “under the provisions of the new abortion legislation,” which had not yet come into effect. Nonetheless, in an interview the following day, Cullen continued to insist that the reported “abortion” had occurred at the hospital, and that the public had a “right to know” about it.

The Irish Times has now been forced to remove the article from its website because it was found to be false.  Despite Mr. Cullen’s concern about the public’s “right to know,” the paper has offered no explanation to account for the fabrication of the story and the failure of editorial oversight that permitted its publication.

A significant issue raised by the incident is a dispute about what constitutes an “abortion.”  A protest outside the Irish Times organized by Irish pro-life organizations Youth Defence and Life Institute included statements and signs to the effect that premature delivery of a baby (presumably resulting in death) is not an “abortion,” but “medical treatment” intended to save the life of the mother.  It is by no means clear that the Irish Times or those favouring legalization of abortion accept this distinction.  Differences on this point are likely to complicate the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care workers who do not wish to participate in abortion.

Australian regulator misrepresents physician obligations

Claim that practitioner codes require referral disproved by Australian Medical Association

Sean Murphy*

According to a report in The Examiner, a representative of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Association told a Tasmanian legislative committee that physicians who object to a procedure for reasons of conscience are obliged by professional codes of ethics to refer patients to another physician.  Lisa McIntosh was addressing the Committee concerning a proposed Reproductive Health Bill.

Her assertion is contradicted by a submission by the Australian Medical Association Tasmania, which protested the section of the bill that would force objecting physicians to facilitate morally contested procedures by referral.  The AMA Tasmania submission included quotes from the AMA Code of Ethics and a document from the Medical Board of Australia Good Medical Practice to demonstrate that the draft legislation information paper falsely claimed that there was a duty to refer.

The Committee also heard from Catholic Archbishop Adrian Doyle, whose concerns about the proposed bill included the mandatory referral provision.

 

American OB/Gyn professors demand compulsory referral by objecting physicians

Time Magazine reports upon a statement signed by 100 American professors of obstetrics and gynaecology under the headline, “Doctors Urge More Hospitals to Perform Abortions.”  The statement expresses frustration that abortion policies and laws envisioned by 100 predecessors who signed a 1972 letter have not materialized.  Notably, the statement reiterates the demand of the original letter that objecting physicians should be compelled to refer for abortion, something many objectors find unacceptable, and insists that all hospitals that admit women should be forced to admit women for abortions – and, presumably, provide them.  This would be unacceptable to denominational institutions that object to the procedure.

The Time article notes that only 14% of American obstetrician-gynaecologists perform abortion, and hospitals provide only 4% of abortions done annually.  The rest are provided in free-standing clinics.  The signatories stress the need for hospitals to respond to the demand for second trimester abortions, which are even more controversial than the much more numerous first trimester procedures.  It does not appear that the signatories recognize that requiring hospitals to provide second trimester abortions would likely generate more dramatic conflicts of conscience for health care workers who might be pressured to participate.