In a letter to all priests in Ireland, the pro-life leaders say that
"Christians cannot in good conscience support either the Bill's
specific proposals or the Bill as a whole" and that "the current
position of the Irish bishops is based on a misunderstanding of the
legal effect of these amendments".
The letter is signed by, among others, Dr Jack Willke,
president of the International Right to Life Federation, and John
Smeaton, director of Europe's largest pro-life organisation, the
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), UK. Pro-life
leaders from the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy and Kenya also
signed the letter. The leaders emphasised Cardinal Connell's statement
that the Irish bishops' opinion on the referendum was not binding on
Catholics.
The international coalition of pro-leaders said that failing to vote No at the referendum would mean:
25th February 2002
Dear Father,
We are writing to you to express our grave concern about the
proposed amendments to the Irish Constitution to be voted on at the 6
March referendum and as contained in the Protection of Human Life in
Pregnancy Bill. His Eminence Desmond Cardinal Connell has stated that
"Catholics informed of the bishops' views on the issue were free in
conscience to vote differently". As international pro-life leaders
representing many thousands of both Catholics and non-Catholics, we
therefore feel at liberty to voice our views in this serious matter,
especially as these amendments may set a precedent affecting the
defence of the unborn in other European and/or common-law countries.
Most notable among these amendments is, firstly, the removal of
criminal protection for the right to life of the pre-implanted human
embryo currently guaranteed by Article 40.3.3 of the Irish
Constitution; and secondly, permission for direct (intentional)
abortion throughout pregnancy on the ground of preserving the life of
the mother.
Firstly, if the amendments are approved, it will no longer be a
crime to kill an unborn child before his or her implantation in the
womb. The motivation behind this amendment is the legitimisation of the
morning-after pill (the primary action of which is to abort the unborn
child by preventing implantation) and other means of destruction of the
pre-implanted embryo. An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has stated that "the
use of 'morning-after' pill and the IUD will be lawful under these
proposals." This has been confirmed by Mr Ahern's deputy Mary Harney,
who has said: "Certainly I could never support or would never have
supported legislation that wouldn't facilitate the morning-after pill
being used.". Such a change may pave the way for the European Court of
Human Rights to take away the protection of Article 2 (the right to
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights for the unborn child
before implantation.
Secondly, the proposals will also permit the direct
(intentional) killing of even a child in the womb. Clause 1(2) of the
Bill would not only allow the ending of life of the unborn
post-implanted baby 'as a result' of the carrying out of a medical
procedure, but also 'in the course of" such a procedure. As no
time-limit has been specified, abortion would therefore be allowed up
to birth. There is no medical or moral justification for intentional
abortion on the vague pretext of "saving the life of the mother". This
pretext is the backdoor through which liberal abortion has been
introduced in several countries. This very same amendment was rejected
by the Irish people in the 1992 referendum. Before that referendum,
five Irish bishops urged Catholics not to vote for that amendment and
the remainder of the bishops made no recommendation. We are therefore
saddened that the Irish bishops have now abandoned this principle.
Amazingly, it has been claimed that support for the Bill accords with paragraph 73 of Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), because the suicide precedent set in the X
case (1992) may be abolished by the Bill. In that paragraph, however,
the Pope speaks of the passing of a more restrictive law. The
Government's Bill is the exact opposite, a new liberal law that will
increase the number, the scope and the types of abortions performed.
Not one single known abortion has been performed under the X case precedent.
The current position of the Irish bishops is based on a
misunderstanding of the legal effect of these amendments. It is
absolutely clear to us that the Bill weakens the protection for the
unborn child currently provided by the Constitution. As a further
explanation of these facts, we enclose the legal opinion [available
from SPUC] of eminent barrister Richard Gordon Q.C.
Many of us have been educated to respect Ireland as a strongly Christian country. We believe that Christians cannot in good conscience support either the Bill's specific proposals or the Bill as a whole.