Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘ Savita Halappanavar ’

Gilmore Welcomes Abortion Legislation

Gilmore

The Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has welcomed President Michael D Higgins’ decision to sign new abortion legislation into law without referring it to the Supreme Court.

After a brief meeting of The Council Of State, Higgins opted to sign the Protection Of Life In Pregnancy Bill into law, much to the delight of Labour party leader Gilmore. Continue reading

Advertisements

The Religious Have Their Say On Final Day of Oireachtas Abortion Committee

 

 shThe Oireachtas Committee yesterday held their final day of hearings regarding abortion in this country.

Representatives from several Christian sects, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church, along with Ali Selim from the Islamic Cultural Center,  Rabbi Zalman of the Dublin Hebrew Congregation and Michael Nugent from Atheist Ireland, convened in the morning session to give statements regarding their respective organisation’s stance on abortion.

The morning’s proceedings began with a statement from Christopher Jones of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, who stated that “Abortion…is gravely immoral in all circumstances”. The representatives for the Catholic Church conjectured that if the Govt. decided to legislate for the X case, in which a young teenage girl was raped and consequently impregnated, then that would pave the way in the future for women to seek abortions unrestricted. It was stated that:

“Reassurances that the Government’s decision to legislate for the X case will lead to very limited abortion in Ireland are not reliable. It will be open to anyone who wants to avail of abortion on the wider grounds provided for by the X case to challenge any attempt to limit these grounds in legislation and/or regulation through the Courts.”

The underlying message is that abortion is morally wrong in any situation and allowing abortion at any level will inevitably lead to abortion on demand.

Church of Ireland representative Michael Jackson and Methodist Church of Ireland representative Heidi Good both opposed abortion on demand and realized that the issue is contentious and very complex. Although opposed to abortion on demand Jackson and Good both recognized that there is some cases where an abortion would be permissible, namely if there was a ‘real and substantial risk to the life of the mother’. Trevor Morrow of the Presbyterian Church stated that his church were ‘strongly pro-life’ and believed the unborn foetus should be treated as a person, but insinuated that if there was a substantial risk to the life of the mother then an abortion may be what is required. Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Center reiterated much of what was said before him and stated that “Abortion could be conducted as the last and only alternative to protect the mother’s life”. Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland enjoined the committee to legislate based on ‘human rights and compassion’…and not on religious doctrines.’ Nugent bypassed all dialogue about the legal and medical aspect of abortion, expressing the view that the decision should be entirely that of the pregnant woman’s and her medical team, and said:

“Please respect that individual ethical decisions should be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others. Please respect that individual ethical decisions about pregnancy should be made by a pregnant woman in consultation with her medical team.”

Refuting the decision to automatically include religious institutions in the debate Nugent went on to say the religious must be respected but they should ‘not impose their own religious values on pregnant women who do not share those religious beliefs’.

What is wholly apparent is that the religious agree on much more than they disagree on. But there are some discrepancies. The Catholic representatives tip-toed precariously around the issue of rape and incest, refusing categorically to state that the stance of the church meant that a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest is still a valid pregnancy and should remain. Ali Selim was agreed upon this, also. He stated that:

“Women who have victims of rape deserve due sympathy and help. But a child conceived in this unfortunate situation still has the right to live. The continuity of this pregnancy of course places a heavy burden on the mother, which may drive her, likewise many other economic and social scenarios, to think of terminating this pregnancy. But killing the foetus is not the right solution. In fact it is a crime against this innocent human being.”

Selim believes the foetus, however conceived, is sacred and should be protected.

Following the representative statements the committee was opened up for questions from TD’s and Senators, and the Catholic representatives were duly pressed on clearing up their stance on the X case. Christopher Jones, the second representative of Catholic Bishops, expressed regret over cases of pregnancy following rape but reiterated that the denial of life in these circumstances is still not condonable. There was also much dialogue on the issue of suicide. Rabbi Zalman stated that the Jewish stance on this is one of compassion; if there is risk to the life of the woman it must be addressed. The outspoken Ivan Bacik, a Labour member of the Seanad, wanted to know by what right the Catholic Church felt they could advise on such an issue regarding pregnancy and a woman’s body, their institution being made up exclusively of celibate men. Marc MacSharry makes a point that only 3% of pregnant women were deemed suicidal last year, a relatively low number he contends. The Methodist representative Heidi Good took issue with this and said probably the most memorable thing of the morning session.

She stated that the need for legislation was absolutely necessary and that if only 3% of women were deemed suicidal it would be wrong not to legislate for that 3%. She said “This country was founded upon respect for the individual… If there was only 1 murder in the last 100 years we would still have to legislate about murder. If one pregnant woman in the next 10 years is deemed to be suicidal it would be wrong of us not to legislate for that.” There will be much rumination in the following weeks regarding this contentious issue. With an ongoing investigation into the death of Savita Halappanavar and this weeks proceedings, Ireland is likely to begin legislating in the near future.

By Shuki Byrne.

3 Day Oireachtas Committee on Abortion Begins Today

LHThe Oireachtas committee is today gearing up for 3 days of meetings, featuring expert legal and medical groups, to discuss the issue of abortion in Ireland. Pro-choice and pro-life organisations will also have an opportunity to lobby their cause. The issue has been propelled back onto center stage following the death of Savita Halapannavar in November. It has been an extremely divisive issue in this country for decades and because of governments precariously tip-toeing around the subject it has inevitably not been comprehensively addressed.

Topics of debate in the Oireachtas will centre on the legal issues of abortions in Ireland, on the medical aspect of the issue and the morality surrounding it. The imperative aim of the 3 day intensive meetings is to clear up the grey areas surrounding the legal facets of the eligibility, or lack-thereof, of seeking an abortion in Ireland. The law now states that abortion is illegal in Ireland. In Ireland abortion is currently prohibited under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person’s Act 1861.

Under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees to respect the mother in national laws. The 1861 Act puts women and doctors in fear of criminal prosecution regarding abortion. In the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court held that abortion was lawful in Ireland, if there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. No legislation regulating that right was ever enacted, a fact regretted by the Supreme Court in its 1992 Judgment.

Each day the committee will hear the arguments and evidences from the respective parties involved; today (08/01/13) the medical advisors will be heard in the Oireachtas. The committee will hear from the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Council in the morning. The second and third sessions will involve medical evidence from expert medical doctors from hospitals around the country. The fourth and final session will entail advice from Niall Behan, CEO of the Irish Family Planning Association, The Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists and advice from Maternal Death Inquiry Ireland.

The Oireachtas will then hear evidence and advice regarding the legislation surrounding the issue of abortion in Ireland. The day will be a rigorous one because of the contentious debate around the legality of seeking an abortion and the contentious court cases that have rocked Ireland in the recent decades, most recently in 2010. Back in 2010 3 women went to the European Court of Human Rights with a complaint about the grey area surrounding the eligibility of seeking an abortion in Ireland. The 3 women had traveled to the UK to seek an abortion for reasons of health and/or well-being as it was unclear whether any of them were eligible for one in Ireland. The motion was brought to the ECHR over 2 years ago and the question remains why it was put on the back burner instead of being addressed there and then. The aims of the day will undoubtedly be to clear up the muddied waters and provide concise advice about further legislation.

The final day of the proceedings sees religious groups, pro-life groups and pro-choice groups have their say. Various Christian sects, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of Ireland and the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference, take up the vast majority of the morning session, with the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland and Atheist Ireland (a very late addition) offered the chance of submitting advice. Atheist Ireland were only recently invited by the Health Committee to attend the session and a post on their website states that, “Ideally, there should be no need to hear any specifically religious or nonreligious ethical views, but if they are hearing religious ethical views, then they should also hear nonreligious ethical views.” The decision to invite the group will be a bone of contention for the other religious groups in attendance, as they see the moral landscape of the issue of abortion as primarily religious. The group hopes to put forward their views regarding the issue from a humanist and a secular perspective:

Our policy is that society should address ethical issues based on human rights and compassion, and applying reason to empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines; and that individual ethical decisions should where possible be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others… Also, as one example, Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean Brady has recently asked people to tell their public representatives that the right to life is conferred on human beings by ‘the creator’. We want to explain why we believe the Government should not legislate or regulate on the basis of imposing such theological ideas on citizens who do not share them.

Although the group rejects the general decision to seek advice from religious groups the Atheist population will be glad that they have been asked to contribute to this contentious debate.

The final 2 sessions of the day will encompass advice from pro-life and pro-choice groups, and will hear advice and evidence from the Director of Action on X, a group that have been actively campaigning for the government to legislate on this issue. The decision to split the days up into medical, legal and ‘moral’ is a telling one. It illustrates the tendency in this country to afford religious groups the sole right to moralize for the rest of us; the first day is medical, the second legal and the third ‘moral’. The group Atheist Ireland would contend that the moral landscape of the question should be addressed within the legal and medical framework, and should not be afforded to religious groups.

Enda Kenny recently said that Fine Gael remains a ‘pro-life’ political party. The majority of Fine Gael backbenchers maintain that Ireland will remain a country in which abortion is illegal but they face a backlash from the Irish public who were outraged when Savita Halappanavar died in November. The public show of solidarity with Savita’s husband and the general indignation that this could happen in our country in the 21st century was wholly apparent. If Fine Gael stubbornly insist upon a pro-life stance following the reaction of the public they look set to drop in popularity. Popularity among the coalitionists is low following the budget in December and this will only cause Fine Gael a further setback. However, if Labour manages to push through with their goals regarding abortion here in Ireland it might give them a much-needed boost. Support for Labour is waning following their poor efforts to halt Fine Gael cutting benefits in the recent budget.

Ireland And Abortion : A History Of Silence…

 Where were you on February 23 1992? Me, I was three years old and more than likely playing with my prized collection of Barbie dolls blissfully unaware of the court case that was rocking the Irish nation.

The case I’m referring to is of course The X Case and February 23 is the day the chaos eventually came to an end with the Supreme Court ruling (after a long and hardy battle) that a pregnant and suicidal fourteen year old was in fact entitled to an abortion.

Previous to this only the physical health of the mother was taken into account when deciding whether or not she was entitled to an abortion but this ruling meant that for the first time ever a woman’s mental health as well as the very real threat of suicide would also be taken into consideration.

Today, twenty years since that judgement was first handed down, I’m sorry to say Irish women are still waiting for the legislation that will allow them access to life-saving terminations.

Here, I take a look at what is perhaps the most controversial and divisive topic of our time; abortion and the Irish Governments damning history of silence…

The X Case

The X Case is without a doubt one of the most controversial and closely followed legal battles in the history of the state. Not only did it spark outrage and debate amongst Irish citizens but it also drove thousands of people – both pro choice and pro life – to demonstrations across the country.

It all began in December 1991 when a fourteen year old girl known only as X was raped by a man known to her and her family. Just one month later, following a bout of illness which forced the girl to visit her local GP, both her and her parents were informed that she had in fact become pregnant. It was then that the youth finally broke down and admitted that her attacker had been sexually abusing her for two years.

Immediately the attack and the years of abuse were reported to local Gardai and investigations began. Meanwhile, unable to tolerate the thought of carrying to full term her rapists child the fourteen year old and her parents decided it would be best for her to travel to England in order to undergo an abortion. Before doing so however they asked Gardai if the foetus could be tested in order to provide proof of paternity as the accused was denying all responsibility. The Gardai then asked The Director of Public Prosecutions if this evidence would be admissible in court who in turn contacted The Attorney General Henry Whelehan who immediately sought an injunction under Article 40.3.3 of the constitution – at the time this put the unborn child’s right to life on equal footing with that of the mother – which barred the teenager and her parents from leaving the country or terminating the pregnancy. Already in England the family were then forced to return to Ireland.

The first injunction barring the girl from leaving the state only lasted until February 10th at which point her case was then tried in front of Justice Costello. Despite hearing testimony from a clinical psychologist who felt the girl was at high risk for suicide and from her distraught mother who related how her teenage daughter had admitted wanting to throw herself down a flight of stairs and even considered throwing herself under a train while in London, Justice Costello eventually decided that the right to life of the unborn child should not be interfered with and ruled that the defendant must be restrained from leaving Ireland for a period of nine months.

“The evidence also establishes that if the court grants the injunction sought there is a risk that the defendant may take her own life. But the risk that the defendant may take her own life, if an order is made, is much less and of a different order of magnitude than the certainty that the life of the unborn will be terminated if the order is not made.”

Determined to see what they believed was justice served the defendant and her parents immediately sought an appeal from the Supreme Court. The teenagers legal team argued that the High Court judge was “wrong in law” in finding that the danger to the life of the mother was less than the danger to the life of the unborn.

On the final day of proceedings the Supreme Court judge ruled that the decision of the High Court should be set aside and the youngster was permitted to undergo an abortion. It is understood, however, that while awaiting termination the girl suffered a miscarriage.

Interesting to note is the fact that the victim’s perpetrator was tried, jailed, and eventually had his sentence severely reduced on appeal only to go on to kidnap and sexually assault another teenager in 1999.

The Referendum

As a direct result of The X Case and the Supreme Courts ruling the Irish Government put forward three possible amendments to the Constitution in a referendum. These amendments were known as the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments.

The 12th amendment asked to remove suicide as grounds for abortion, the 13th amendment asked that women should have the right to travel outside the state for abortion and finally the 14th amendment asked that information about abortion should be made available in the State.

Given that we are constantly hearing how severely opposed to abortion the people of Ireland – such a devout Catholic country – are you would expect that the 12th amendment passed where the 13th and 14th failed. In actuality the opposite is true.

History Is Forced To Repeat Itself

Despite the results of these referenda, the Irish Government did not act on them, and in 1997 history repeated itself with The C Case. This time a thirteen year old girl was forced to delay the termination the courts eventually declared she was fully entitled to in line with her basic human rights and in light of the X case ruling.

Instead of tackling the issue then and granting the Irish people what they had already asked for in the previous referendum the government engaged in what many critics have called “delay tactics,” commissioning more reports and expert committees on the subject. This continued until 2002 when then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, held another referendum asking what was essentially the same question as that of the failed referendum of 1992 – should we remove the threat of suicide as grounds for abortion. A decade later the Irish public issued the same answer, no. Once again they voted to support the X Case decision. Regrettably despite this, the second vote on the issue, legislation was still not forthcoming. Having yet again failed to address the issue of abortion the Irish Government ensured that women in need of what are in many cases life saving operations would not have access to them here in Ireland – Baffling considering the Supreme Courts ruling concerning the X case and indeed the two referendums in which the Irish public voted in favour of termination if and when the mothers life is in danger.

Dr Mark Murphy who has carried out and published extensive research into the States abortion crisis has found countless cases in which mothers threatened by a real and substantial risk to their lives were ultimately forced to travel abroad for a termination of their pregnancy. Dr Murphy found that 9% of GPs had managed a patient with a life threatening medical condition (including but not limited to cancer patients who required abortions in order to avail of chemotherapy, women with severe cardiovascular disease and those at severe psychiatric risk such as rape victims) however he recorded only one instance of an Irish doctor performing a termination in an Irish hospital – in the case of severe preeclampsia.

Savita Halappanavar

While I do not intend to belittle the pain and trauma suffered by these women who had to fight so hard simply to access the medical care that would allow them a chance at life perhaps the most shocking and heartbreaking case of all is that of Savita Halappanavar a woman who critics of Ireland’s antiquated and draconian abortion regime have dubbed a “martyr to the political cowardice” of our government. Savita, you see, did not have the opportunity to take her case to the courts.

If the X case gripped the nation twenty years ago then it is the tragic tale of Savita Halappanavar that is all but consuming the people of Ireland today. Two weeks ago Mrs Halappanavar who was 17 weeks pregnant and suffering intense back pain was admitted to Galway University Hospital where it was soon discovered that she was in fact miscarrying. As time went on it became clear that the child she was carrying would not survive and both Savita and her husband were made aware of this. Now in terrible pain Savita requested – on numerous occasions – a medical termination as did her husband Praveen only to be told that nothing could be done for her as a fetal heartbeat could still be detected. Having further questioned the hospitals decision the couple were then informed that an abortion could not be carried out as Ireland was a “catholic country”

Eventually, following three more days of agony in which the couple repeatedly begged for a termination doctors finally agreed to remove the remains of the fetus. Sadly, it was just days before Mrs Halappanavar showed signs of severe septicemia (this occurs when bacteria enters the bloodstream) which later proved to be fatal and at 1.10 a.m. on October 28 the 31 year old was pronounced dead.

It is understood that had the fetus been removed earlier the life of this woman, a beloved wife and daughter, could have been saved. Multiple investigations into Savita’s tragic and seemingly needless death are currently being carried out. This, however, will do little to ease the troubles of Mr Halappanavar a man who lost both his unborn child and wife within a matter of days.

Medical Confusion

As difficult as this may be for some to hear the Irish government’s failure to create definitive legislate concerning the issue of abortion is not only unfair to the women of the country but all those in the medical profession. Doctors want to provide safe and effective care for patients but legislation is required in order for them to provide that care. In other words they need clear guidelines for managing difficult situations such as that of Mrs Halappanavar’s. Addressing the nations current stance on abortion Dr Murphy said “To delineate and categorise those medical conditions on each side of that nebulous line between ill health and life threatening illness is difficult.” Personally I would be of the opinion that it is just too difficult. When it comes to matters of life and death I think we can all agree that the last thing we need is “grey areas”

Of course this is where our politicians and legislators are supposed to step in and provide legal clarity but even now despite rulings from the Supreme Court, referendum results, the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the Irish State is continuing to breach the human rights of every woman in the country due to their failure to implement a legislative or regulatory framework outlining their abortion rights, and countless medical professionals leaving them in no doubt as to what is required those in power have failed to take action and ultimately failed to protect the women of Ireland and their families.

Enough

Just what is it that our leaders are waiting for? Another fourteen year old rape victim to test her rights within the courts? A desperately ill cancer patient to beg for a shot at life or perhaps another unnecessary death such as that of Savita Halappanavar? The people have spoken and they have said, enough. We have had enough of the antiquated and draconian notion that a living breathing woman’s right to life is valued even below that of an unviable fetus, enough of exporting dying women to England in order to undergo the lifesaving abortions they should have access to within their own country, enough of women like Savita dying needlessly and others in similar situations enduring days of agony simply because this is a “catholic country.” Yes, we the people of Ireland have had enough.

A debate is scheduled to take place in The Dail today – Wednesday 28th of November – let’s hope a real effort is made to eliminate medical confusion and find a solution to the abortion crisis in our country. Maybe then the almost 21 year wait will somehow seem worth it.

No Record Of Abortion Request In Savita Case

Since the death of Savita Halapannavar following a miscarriage on the 28th October at University Hospital Galway her devastated husband Praveen has been fighting with the help of his solicitor Gerard O’Donnell to prevent a HSE inquiry into her death.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner Mr O’ Donnell confirmed that Mr Halapannavar’s legal team had requested that Savita’s medical records be handed over to her family and that any HSE copies be deleted immediately.

The solicitor said that it was his understanding, based on previous cases, that the HSE must comply with this request. Continuing Mr O Donnell warned that if the HSE failed to meet with this request that Mr Halapannavar’s entire legal team are fully prepared to file a complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner and if necessary obtain a High Court injunction to “restrain” any further access this particular group may gain to the files in question.

Mr O’Donnell then went on to criticise Taoiseach Enda Kenny for his comments on the case in which he said that widower Praveen should meet the chairman of the HSE’s inquiry “without prejudice” as this would be “in the interest of his own family’s tragedy.”

Given that it is his wish that any investigation into the death of his wife be fully independent Mr Halapannavar has already refused to cooperate with the HSE. Speaking on behalf of his client who wished to defend his decisions thus far Mr O’Donnell said “His wife died in the care of the HSE. He doesn’t think it’s appropriate nor does his family think it’s appropriate that the HSE should investigate it. They are the ones who are being investigated, so they should not investigate this.”

In what is perhaps a very surprising turn of events it was claimed, mere hours ago, by Mr O Donnell that having gained access to and studied closely Savita’s medical records that there is absolutely no mention of her or her husband’s repeated requests to have the fetus terminated after it was confirmed by hospital staff that Savita was in fact miscarrying and that the fetus would not survive.

The revelation came at the same time that it was announced that the HSE had asked the State’s health watchdog HIQA to initiate a statutory inquiry into the death of Savita Halapannavar. A move which may have been decided upon after an unprecedented intervention on the part of President Michael D Higgins who yesterday insisted that the inquiry into the woman’s death must meet the needs of her family as well as the state.

However, the director general designate of the HSE Tony O’Brien has since said that even if Mrs Halapannavar’s family decide not to cooperate with the HSE’s inquiry that it must still “be brought to a conclusion” It his belief that it would be “criminally negligent” to put an end to the HSE’s inquiry at this stage.

Mr O Brien claims that he requested the HIQA inquiry which may take place before the HSE’s inquiry concludes in order to give the family “further reassurance.” Only time will tell if this will in fact help to ease the worries of Mr Praveen Halapannavar and his family.

By Kerrie Mitchell

Pregnant Woman Dies After Hospital Denies Termination

A pregnant woman has died in hospital following a miscarriage just days after being refused the abortion that may have saved her life.

By Kerrie Mitchell

Three separate investigations have been launched into the death of 31 year old married Indian woman, Savita Halappanavar, following her death in Galway University Hospital.

It is understood that Mrs Halappanavar who lived in Roscam, Co. Galway with her husband, 34 year old Praveen, an engineer employed by Boston Scientific, died on October 28th after contracting a severe case of blood poisoning.

Mrs Halappanavar was admitted to Galway University Hospital a week earlier complaining of intense back pain where it was quickly discovered that the woman, now 17 weeks pregnant, was in fact miscarrying. Her husband Praveen claims that despite repeated requests from both his wife and her family for a medical termination hospital officials refused to carry out the procedure because a foetal heartbeat could still be detected.

It has also been reported – by numerous sources – that when Mr Halappanavar questioned the hospitals refusal to carry out the abortion he was informed by officials that it was not allowed because Ireland is a “Catholic country.”

Although the procedure was delayed a further three days, Mrs Halappanavar did eventually undergo surgery to remove the remains of the fetus. Following this the woman subsequently developed septicemia (this occurs when bacteria enters the blood stream) an infection which proved to be fatal. At 1.10 a.m. on October 28 Mrs Halappanavar was pronounced dead.

Now, Mrs Halappanavars distraught family is said to be taking legal action against the hospital claiming that if the fetus had in fact been removed earlier the life of this woman, a beloved wife and daughter, could have been saved.

Three separate investigations are now being carried out by the coroner in Galway, the local hospital’s risk review group and the HSE’s National Incident Management Team.

A spokesperson for the Hospital has refused to comment saying that the hospital cannot under any circumstances discuss the details of an individual patient within the media.

Undoubtedly this tragic case will re-open the debate on abortion which is perhaps Ireland’s most controversial and divisive social, legal and medical issue.

Currently, Ireland’s position in relation to abortion is set out in the Constitution as follows “it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy.” This ruling also takes into account the mental health of the mother in question and the potential risk posed to her life which may arise from the threat of suicide.

Naturally this particular case will enrage pro-choice campaigners who will argue that this proves that abortions are not taking place in those cases where the mothers life is in fact at risk while pro-life campaigners will counter that matters are much more complex than this.

In what many reporters are dubbing a “terrible irony” this case comes just days after the Irish Government delayed revealing its stance on abortion. Health Minister Dr James Reilly was originally scheduled to report back to a European body by the end of October on the Government’s proposed actions following the ruling of the European Court Of Human Rights on the abortion regime in this country. Two years ago the Strasbourg Court criticised the Irish Government for leaving its own courts with a lack of clear information regarding lawful abortions. Dr Reilly now has just weeks to set out a plan to respond to the Courts ruling.

Over 1,000 people gathered outside Dàil Eireann last night in order to vent their fury at Ireland’s abortion stance following Savita’s death. Large crowds also assembled in Cork and other parts of the country to protest.

Advertisements
Advertisements