After the European Court of Human Right’s decision in

A B and C, where do we stand?

Dr. Joseph McCarroll PhD

Chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign

Our national office has been taking calls since yesterday’s European Court of Human Rights ruling in A, B and C v Ireland asking what it means, where do we go from here, and what steps do we need to be taking right now to progress the pro-life cause.

It’s important to make a couple of things clear – which may not have been clear from yesterday’s reporting of the decision.

Ireland does not have to legalise abortion because of the ruling

In the considered view of Professor William Binchy, the most important point is that the judgment does not require Ireland to introduce legislation authorising abortion.   On the contrary, it fully respects the entitlement of the Irish people to determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children.

Article 40.3.3 says the State should pass laws protecting the unborn’s right to life.  We need to recall how we got here. In 1983, the Irish People voted to insert into the Irish Constitution Article 40.3.3 that said the State acknowledged the right to life of the unborn child as equal to the right to life of the mother. It also said the State ‘guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

Politicians didn’t bring in such laws, fearing pro-life voters at the polls and the pro-abortion voices in the media

But the Oireachtas since then did not bring in such laws - the politicians were unwilling to bring them forward. They were aware that a consistent majority among the general public wanted clear abortion laws so any politician taking an opposite view ran the risk of paying a high penalty in votes lost at the ballot box.

On the other hand, the politicians were also aware that the dominant voices in the media were largely pro-abortion, so politicians taking a pro-life view ran the risk of paying a high price on the box in the corner of the living room.

18 years on, the medical assumptions underpinning the Supreme Court’s decision in the X case are outdated.   It was left to the Courts to address the issue in the X case in 1992. In Professor Binchy’s words, “It is crucial to note that the judges in the X case heard no medical evidence.”   The evidence over the past 18 years contradicts the medical assumptions of the X case decision.[1]

  

In the years since the ruling, the evidence has steadily built up confirming the opposite of what the judges had assumed - women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide than women who continue with their pregnancy.[2]

The Supreme Court’s X decision has to be revisited and revised.  To clear the way for the kind of laws protecting the unborn that Article 40.3.3 calls for, the Supreme Court’s medically out-of-date judgment of eighteen years ago has to be revisited and revised. Again, to quote Professor Binchy’s words,

“The Irish people must now make a choice. If they were to choose to endorse the Supreme Court decision in X, this would involve legalising abortion contrary to existing medical practice and the best evidence of medical research. If on the other hand, the Irish people choose to endorse the current medical practice, they will be ensuring the continuation of Ireland’s world-renowned safety record for mothers and babies during pregnancy.

Any revisiting of the X case decision would need to take on board the evidence from these new studies that abortion involves significant risks for some women. Based on the current state of medical evidence alone, it would be irresponsible simply to introduce legislation along the lines of the X ruling as it would put at risk the mother’s life as well as taking the baby’s”

So where does the pro-life community go from here?

Quite simply, we go to the politicians and let them know we are pro-life and that, in the forthcoming General Election, we will only be voting for Parties and Candidates with a clear public commitment that they will not introduce or support legislation providing for abortion to be carried out here.

Starting with … the Pro-Life Campaign’s initiative to send postcards to your local politicians.  Click here to send yours.

The political reality is this – the ECHR ruling is as was widely expected, and it was in anticipation of just such a ruling that the Pro Life Campaign started rolling out its political initiative to build up pressure on local politicians using postcards stating our voting intentions as pro-life voters.

Now that the decision is out and the election only months away, we need to redouble our efforts to see that everyone we know who is pro-life sends these postcards to their own local politicians.

This is how real political change comes about – by showing one local politician after another that there is a palpable dividend for them in giving you a public commitment to support your demand, and a political cost to failing to do so.

The Pro Life Campaign sees the A, B and C ruling as an opportunity for the pro-life community to bring home to their local politicians the breadth of pro-life commitment in their constituency. Coming only months before a General Election, it is an opportunity not to be missed.

To see Professor William Binchy’s Statement click here

To read and send our online postcard to your local politicians, click here

To donate to the Pro Life Campaign – we really need your support now more than ever, please click here

---

[1] [David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood and Joseph M. Boden, "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study," British Journal of Psychiatry (2008), 2008, pp. 444-451. ‘Position Statement on Women’s Mental Health in Relation to Induced Abortion, Royal College of Psychiatrists’, UK (2008)]

[2] [Mika Gissler, Cynthia Berg, Marie Helene Bouvier-Colle and Pierre Buekens, ‘Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, in Finland, European Journal of Public Health 2005 15 (5): 459-463]

European Court of Human Rights finding in the case of A B and C v. Ireland must respect human life at all stages of development.

Remarks by Professor William Binchy at the 

Pro Life Campaign Press Conference 

Buswells Hotel, Dublin 2

12.30pm, 16^th December 2010

Today’s judgment from the European Court of Human Rights will require detailed analysis over coming days but some clear points emerge immediately. The most important is that the judgment does not require Ireland to introduce legislation authorising abortion. On the contrary, it fully respects the entitlement of the Irish people to determine legal policy on protecting the lives of unborn children. The Irish people must now make a choice. If they were to choose to endorse the Supreme Court decision in X, this would involve legalising abortion contrary to existing medical practice and the best evidence of medical research. If on the other hand, the Irish people choose to endorse the current medical practice, they will be ensuring the continuation of Ireland’s world renowned safety record for mothers and babies during pregnancy. 

The evidence over the past 18 years contradicts the medical assumptions of the X case decision. [1] [2] It is crucial to note that the judges in the X case heard no medical evidence. In the years since the ruling, the evidence has steadily built up confirming the opposite of what the judges had assumed - women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide than women who continue with their pregnancy. [3]

Any revisiting of the X case decision would need to take on board the evidence from these new studies that abortion involves significant risks for some women.  Based on the current state of medical evidence alone, it would be irresponsible simply to introduce legislation along the lines of the X ruling as it would put at risk the mother’s life as well as taking the baby’s.

The suggestion that because of this country’s pro-life ethos pregnant women are denied necessary medical treatments is simply not true. In fact,

Ireland is a world leader in safety for pregnant mothers. The latest UN report on the safety of mothers during pregnancy found, of all 172 countries for which estimates are given, Ireland leads the world when it comes to safety for pregnant women.[4]

Women are safer in Ireland when pregnant than in countries like Britain and Holland, which permit abortion on demand. Given our record in maternal care, the question has to be asked, why are some people proposing to blur the time-honoured distinction between necessary medical treatments in pregnancy and the deliberate targeting of the baby in the womb with the aim of ending its life?

The most recent opinion poll findings show that 70% of the public support constitutional protection for the unborn,13% oppose it and 16% don’t know or have no opinion.[5]

What marks this finding out from polls showing support for abortion is the distinction it makes between necessary medical treatments in pregnancy and induced abortion, where the aim of the procedure is to target the life of the unborn child.

By all means, let us debate the abortion issue openly, honestly and with all the facts in front of us. But equally, we cannot shy away from the implications of what legal abortion would involve and the brutal reality of abortion, legal up to birth, in countries like Britain.

What’s at stake in this debate is the value of life, and the sad experience is that once laws permitting abortion are introduced, they diminish the society’s respect for the inherent value of every human life, born or unborn.

What we need now is a calm, respectful national discussion, in which the latest medical and scientific evidence is fully considered leading to a solution at a Constitutional level, which will ensure the full protection of all human beings, mothers and unborn children, on the basis of respect for their equal dignity and worth.

ENDS

---

[1] David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood and Joseph M. Boden, "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study," The British Journal of Psychiatry (2008), 2008, pp. 444-451

[2] Position Statement on Women’s Mental Health in Relation to Induced Abortion, Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK (2008)

[3] The European Journal of Public Health 2005 15 (5): 459-463, Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy,

   in Finland by Mika Gissler, Cynthia Berg, Marie Helene Bouvier-Colle and Pierre Buekens.

[4] Report on Maternal Mortality by World Health Organisation, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank, (2007, 2010)

[5] Millward Brown Lansdowne survey on a quota controlled sample of 950 people aged 18+ between 27th January and 6th February 2010.

Donegal By Election - Use Your Vote to Protect Human Life

The Donegal South West constituency by-election will take place on Thursday 25th November 2010. 

The Pro Life Campaign urges those who believe in the right to life and who will be voting in this by-election to only vote for candidates or parties with a record of defending life from its earliest beginnings.

The Pro Life Campaign will be seeking the views of each candidate in the by-election.  We will then publish the answers from each candidate on this website and via our Facebook and Twitterpages.

The threats to unborn human life at present in Ireland are as grave as Ireland has ever faced.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the R-v-R case last december that the lives of human embryos in clinics or laboratories are not protected under Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution.   The Government is preparing new legislation on this and unless pro-life people act now, we could be faced with legislation allowing the destruction of human embryos in clinics and laboratories.   And it is possible that the outcome of the A, B & C -v- Ireland case in the European Court of Human Rights will trigger a new push for legislation allowing abortions to be carried out in Ireland. 

It's essential that pro-life people send a strong and united message to our politicians telling them that our vote cannot be taken for granted and urging them to protect human life from its fragile beginnings. 

To inform yourself of the stance of the various candidates and parties in the forthcoming election, visit our website before voting or follow us on Facebook or Twitter. 

Chinese mother forced to abort baby in eighth month of pregnancy

We have all heard of China's 'one child policy' but have we ever thought through how it translates into family life?  Have we made the imaginative effort to feel how it would be to live as a family under such a regime?  Maybe we imagine we would be forced to listen to a lecture by an earnest official?  Surely they wouldn't break into a family home and drag a pregnant woman out the door screaming and kicking, bring her to hospital and forcibly inject her to kill her baby?

On October 10th, in southwest China, Xiao Aiying, who was eight months pregnant, was put through just such an experience of assault, abduction and forced injection to punish her and her husband for having a baby, and intimidate others into obeying this obscene law.

Click here to watch the two minute news report which features a profoundly disturbing interview with Aiying's husband. 

Major pro-life victory at Council of Europe. Ireland's Senator Rónán Mullen plays key role

Yesterday evening, in a dramatic surprise victory spearheaded by Luca Volonté, Chairperson of the European People's Party group in the Council of Europe, and Ireland's independent Senator Rónán Mullen, an attack on doctors' and nurses' right of conscientious objection to performing abortions was roundly defeated.


The attack was contained in a Resolution proposed by Christine McCafferty of the UK Socialist Group based on the Report for which she had been the Rapporteur.  It proposed draconian limitations on the freedom of conscience which has always been recognised by law as a sacrosanct right of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, and a cornerstone of the trust we have in them to act according to their honest conviction as to what is really in their patient's interests.


The McCafferty Resolution, which was widely expected to be carried, would have put pressure on Council of Europe Member States to bring in measures requiring healthcare professionals to perform or facilitate abortions or be officially blacklisted by the State.


In a shock reversal, however, the interventions co-ordinated and led by Luca Volonté, Senator Mullen and other Council of Europe colleagues turned the tide of opinion and in the dry words of the official record,


'At the end of a debate on the subject during which the text presented by the Committee on Social Affairs was substantially amended, the adopted resolution states that "no person and no hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion"'


The result has been widely and warmly welcomed by the pro-life community as a victory for common sense and good professional ethics and medical practice, and as an encouraging example of people of conviction, courage and persistence, making a real and significant difference, not only lobbying outside in the corridors of power and on the airwaves all over Europe, but also in the Chamber of the Council of Europe itself.


Read the Resolution reaffirming doctors' and nurses' right of conscientious objection to taking part in abortion here

Read the original draft report here

Virginia Ironside says a 'good mother' would put a pillow over the head of a disabled child!

Columnist with The Independent Newspaper (London)  Virginia Ironside has said that a 'good mother' would put a pillow over the head of her baby if he/she had a disability. Naturally this has caused outrage in Britain even though abortion is legal there up to birth where the baby has a disability.  The comments were made on a BBC morning television show last week.  What’s worse is that the other studio guest is Vicar Joanna Jepson, who was born with a birth defect which was corrected by surgery in her teens.    

Click here to watch the 1 ½ minute video.

"this is a game-changer" Scientists hail giant leap forward in adult stem cell research

An article by researchers at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, published at the end of last month in Cell Stem Cell, presents a series of ground-breaking advances used to take skin cells, de-specialise them into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), and re-programme them into muscle cells, overcoming drawbacks in earlier methods such as inefficiency and genetic interference that led to fears they might cause cancer. 

The pro-life community has welcomed the breakthroughs as showing yet again how the advances in science are made without deliberate destruction of human embryos.  It is to be hoped that Minister Harney and her officials will take this on boards as they prepare the legislation due out, we are told, before Christmas.

Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Worcester, Massachusetts, who was not involved in this study, commented, “All I can say is ‘wow’ – this is a game-changer. It would solve some of the most important problems in the field.’

Marius Wernig, from Stanford University, another stem cell researcher not involved in this study, if other researchers confirm their methods of generating iPS cells without any genetic modification, ‘then it would be a big advance’ and ‘would be the first practical method for generating iPS cells that could be used for transplant therapies.’

Kathrin Plath of UCLA, said the research was ‘very impressive’, and seemed to be the best way yet developed for generating iPS cells for transplant tissue. She said they would be trying out these techniques at UCLA.

Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, Japan, one of the original researchers who first produced iPS cells said the same, adding that the processes described in the article if validated could become the standard method for generating iPS cells.

You can watch Dr Derrick J. Rossi, lead researcher, explaining the breakthrough here

You can read the breakthrough article here

"How the first nine months shape the rest of your life"

In the cover headline to its current issue, Time magazine invites the reader to identify with the child before birth - How the first nine months shape the rest of your life.  The opening page of the article does the same, placing three lines of text over the mother's womb that read

The Womb.

Your Mother.

Yourself.

The writer, Annie Murphy Paul, is a journalist who covers science. Her article is about how science is now understanding the many ways in which our experience in the womb before we are born affects our health prospects and probabilities throughout our lives.

She comments, 'two years ago when I began to delve more deeply into the field, I had a more personal motivation: I was newly pregnant. If it was true that my actions over the next nine months would affect my offspring for the rest of his life, I needed to know more.' (p. 46)

The full-page cover photo shows a woman 10 days before birth. The unborn baby sucking her thumb is there in all her full-colour, icon-like golden glow on page 47, and on the contents page there is a photo of a newborn being weighed with the caption, 'the baby shortly after she left her first formative environment'. (page 5)

A small red box at the top left of each double page of the article carries the woird SCIENCE to remind you that this is science not opinion.

And the whole opening page (p. 44) of the article is taken up with a photograph of the pregnant mother's tummy 'great with child', photographed from the side, with only three, dramatically stark lines of text, like a poem:

The Womb.

Your Mother.

Yourself.

The article explores different ways our experience before we are born may affect us - pollutants, drugs or infections the mother is exposed to, and her health, stress level and state of mind; and the areas of possible impact currently under studt include heart disease, obesity, diabetes, depression and schizophrenia.

To see the online version of the article click here

Revised EU Directive on animal testing highlights Ireland’s urgent need to ban human embryo-destructive research

The European Parliament passed a draft Directive earlier this month, requiring Member States to use alternatives to animal testing where available and rejected calls to rule out methods using cells of human embryos involving the deliberate destruction of those human embryos.

Johanna Touzel, speaking for the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, said it was paradoxical to protect animals from suffering by methods requiring the destruction of human embryos, and warned that Member Sates that did not have an explicit ban on embryo destructive rsearch could find themselves forced by EU law to use alternative methods requiring the destruction of human embryos.

This comes as a wake-up call for Ireland, which has no law protecting the human embryo outside the mother following the Supreme Court ruling in the frozen embryos case, R -v- R.

Background

On 8th September 2010, the European Parliament voted to revise Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used in research. Where alternatives methods exist to testing on animals, the Directive requires Member States to introduce legislation making the use of these alternative methods obligatory.

The European Commission issued a set of questions and answers on the revised Directive. The thirteenth question is, ‘Would it be obligatory to use alternative methods involving human embryonic stem cells if these present themselves as alternatives to animal tests?’

The answer makes it clear that ‘the requirement to use alternative methods in place of an animal method’ is ‘a legal obligation that has been in place since 1986.’ And Articles 4.1 restates this.

The answer also says that where a Member State has legislation prohibiting the use of human embryonic stem cells ‘the revised Directive cannot overrule any such national prohibitions.’

The answer also says that the use of human embryonic stem cells as an alternative method of testing to using animals would be obligatory if it was recognised as an alternative testing method by EU legislation.

It seeks to reassure by saying, ‘No such legislation exists, nor is its adoption to be expected in the light of the above considerations.’ But Article 13.1 explicitly envisages legislation recognising alternative methods of testing. And the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods is part of the European Commission as may be seen from its website.

The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, however, point out in their Press Release that in the European Commission’s own Alternative Testing Strategies – Progress Report 2009, which discusses the alternative testing strategies that are currently being developed, 5 of the 21 new methods involve the use of human embryonic stem cells obtained by deliberately destroying human embryos.

Furthermore, the Press Release points out that these new technologies based on destroying human embryos have been financially supported by the EU through the 6th and 7th Framework Research Programmes.

The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community had asked for an amendment to be introduced into the revised Directive that would have excluded human embryonic stem cells testing from the alternative testing methods, but the European Parliament did not make any such amendment.

Further resources click here

Brendan O’Connor’s inspiring article on the birth of his daughter with Down Syndrome

On 12th September, the Sunday Independent carried an inspiring article, ‘A prayer for my daughter’ by its columnist and RTÉ personality, Brendan O’Connor, on the birth only weeks before of his second daughter, Mary. It evoked a huge reaction from readers – the following week, 13 of the letters received were published.

The day before the Irish Independent’s Weekend magazine had carried another shorter, yet profound article by columnist, Mary Kenny, about looking after her husband who is deteriorating following a stroke.

What the articles have in common is a visceral bluntness, a shocking directness and honesty in articulating difficult dimensions of intimate human experiences, but an authenticity that connects with us as we read them, a ring of truth that involves us in the family stories they are telling. What is surprising about the two articles is that each leaves us with the same impression of a toughness of character in the writer and a highlighting kindness in the writing.

Mary Kenny’s piece describes the difficulties of taking care of her husband who is suffering from a progressive condition. Almost defiantly she sets before us the hard reality of her life caring for him – ‘I carry out my carer’s duties because it’s my duty: I’m the obvious person to do it.’ Right after she asserts how this has changed her. ‘Caring changes your value system. Kindness has become much more important to me than almost anything else. Abstract talk about “rights” and “equality” strike me as containing a great deal of hot air, whereas “kindness” and “genuine respect” for the person really do mean the world.’

And that’s just the right phrase, isn’t it, kindness means the world - gives us the right meaning of our world. ‘Governments have legislated to support the disabled, but no amount of law will produce kindness. And it’s kindness that matters. It lifts my heart, nowadays, when I encounter kindness – and it does happen.’

Brendan O’Connor’s piece is more extraordinary in the way it captures, as it were, in slow motion, his heart’s u-turn following the birth of his daughter, the way it turned his life inside out and upside down, dismantling the perspective he had lived out of up to that moment, and, to his surprise, landing him in a wider world, a world with a richer meaning, a world whose outer extent and inner atmosphere are defined by kindness.

‘Thursday two weeks ago, we went into Holles Street in the morning, tentative but full of hope; and by two o'clock, our hearts were broken and our lives were turned upside down.’ The discovery that Mary had Down Syndrome was a before-and-after moment. Looking back, he sees ‘life before Mary’ as ‘a different life indeed, when we were innocent and foolish and thought we knew what worries and troubles were.’

Like Mary Kenny, kindness has taken on a new importance. ‘I have learnt many things in the last few weeks. One thing is that kind words can be so important and such a consolation. I never gave much of a damn for kind words before.’ The consultant’s words to them, “Mary is Mary”, struck just the right chord. ‘But with those three words he came through for us in the most unexpected way. For some reason it soothed us as we stood there dazed, and in a waking nightmare.’ Kind words from all sorts of doctors, nurses, friends and some unexpected sources would help get us through the next few days.

He gives the example of a text message from the woman in their older daughter’s creche – ‘she sent the most beautiful text about how they looked forward to welcoming Mary there. For Sarah, it meant a lot that these people, who have embraced Anna so much, were also going to embrace Mary.’

In a series of amazing sentences he describes the transformation he was undergoing.

After we had our first child, I thought I saw the world very clearly for a while -- I saw clearly who my friends were and who I valued. After Mary, I thought I could almost see the difference between good and evil. And some people you just didn't want near you and some people you knew were good.

So now I know that people are amazing. And I have more of an idea what love and friendship and family and kindness are. Some days, in my more elated moments, I would think that having spent 40 years looking for the meaning of life, sometimes in the most self-destructive ways, Mary had taught it to me in a few days.

I don't know that I can put it in words yet but I think the meaning of life may be about now, and love, and not giving a damn about things that don't really matter.

The texture of the new world he has entered is one of greater realness, compared with where he was before. ‘Real life has begun. I have woken up. It's not all easy but it is real.’

And the principal reality that has entered his life is the new person, his daughter, Mary. It is she who has brought him into this new world. ‘But do I wish she had never been born? Do I wish that we had just been happy with one? Do I wish we could have our old life -- which I have idealised out of all proportion -- back? Not any more. She's here now, a part of our little family. And we'd be lost without her. She has burrowed her way into our hearts so there is no imagining the world any other way. And even if she broke our hearts a bit when she came first, she's fixing them up a bit every day.’

The concluding paragraph of this amazing article is a ringing affirmation, of trust in the new world he has entered, in which the word ‘okay’ is repeated like the word’ yes’ in Molly Bloom’s soliloquy:

The funny thing is, you know very quickly when something happens whether everything is going to be okay. And even in my shock and agony in that operating theatre, I think I suddenly knew everything was going to be okay. And it is. There might be sadness ahead and there might be challenges ahead. But everything is going to be okay. Everything is going to be okay. Better than okay.

Every human being brings something new into the world with them, the very mystery of their unique being as a human person, thereby making the world a bigger, better place. Kindness is the larger, better part of humanity, and vulnerability invites kindness from the human heart. Brendan O’Connor’s article gives us a rare opportunity of observing this expanding of world and deepening of heart as it happens.

Read Brendan O’Connor’s article here

Pro Life Campaign calls Irish Times Poll on Assisted Suicide 'misleading'

The Behaviour & Attitudes poll on assisted suicide published in The Irish Times on 17th September claims that 55% of the public support assisting terminally ill patients to end their lives with 32% opposed.

The question was posed as follows: “Doctors in some countries are allowed under strict circumstances to assist terminally ill patients who are in intense pain and who repeatedly express the desire to end their own live to do so. Should doctor assisted suicide be legalised under such circumstances in Ireland?”

Responding to today’s findings, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said:

"The result is not surprising as the question posed was highly emotive and was clearly going to elicit a predictable response. Also, given the wording of the question, I feel it was misleading for the Irish Times to headline the result with ‘Majority believe assisted suicide should be legal.’

If there were a fully informed debate on this issue, I have no doubt a majority would oppose what amounts to de facto euthanasia. If doctor assisted suicide were legalised in this country it would completely change the nature of medicine and the doctors’ duty to preserve human life.

It would also inevitably lead to some of the most vulnerable people feeling they were a burden on society and had a duty to die as the State would be sending out a clear message that it was legitimate to hasten the end of some lives.

There is a marked difference in the ethos of care of terminally ill patients in countries like Ireland where assisted suicide is not legal and countries like Holland where a once restrictive euthanasia regime has quickly escalated in scope" Ms. Cullen concluded.

Ends.

For more information contact the Pro-Life Campaign Press Office on 01-6629273

Judge blocks US funding of destructive embryo research - And what Ireland must do

This week in Washington DC, a federal judge blocked the implementation of President Obama's executive order allowing federal funding of research requiring the destruction of human embryos, saying it was against federal law.

Judge Royce C Lamberth said the legislation enacted in 1996 by Congress, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, prohibited ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero.’

In 1999, in an attempt to get around this clear ban, Harriet S Rabb, a lawyer with the US Department of Health and Human Services came up with an argument that the ban only covered the killing of the embryo, but that the research involving the cells that the embryo was killed to extract was not banned.

Judge Lamberth rejected this: ‘The language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding in which a human embryo is destroyed. This prohibition encompasses all “research in which” an embryo is destroyed, not just “the piece of research” in which the embryo is destroyed’, which was Rabb’s argument.

The Obama administration has pledged to appeal the decision.

The decision by UCC and other Irish third level colleges to allow research on their campuses using cells that needed human embryos to be deliberately destroyed to get them relies on the same ethically phoney distinction.

And the same thirst of the embryo research industry to get their hands on a steady supply of human embryos to extract elements for use in research is evident in the ghoulish recommendations of the 2005 Report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction which the Irish Supreme Court deferred to so conspicuously in its R -v- R decision. The Ethical, Scientific and Legal Issues concerning Stem Cell Research: Opinion, issued in 2008 by the Irish Council for Bioethics, made similar recommendations based on equally fallacious arguments.

Every year since the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction published its discredited Report, however, in one professionally conducted opinion poll after another carried out for the Pro-Life Campaign, the Irish public has shown itself, by a substantial majority, to be consistently and coherently in favour of the Dáil enshrining protection of the embryo in legislation, as has been done in other EU jurisdictions like Germany and Italy.

Not only that, it is the ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research that is bringing in the breakthroughs in the clinical management and treatment of a range of conditions, not the ethically objectionable embryo-destructive research.

This was confirmed in a review piece by Associated Press Science Writer, Malcolm Ritter, at the start of this month. With the heading, ‘Adult stem cell research far ahead of embryonic’, the article states:

"For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals.

Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases".

You can read the Associated Press article here

Let’s hope the ethical difference between treating someone with their own cells, on the one hand, and on the other hand, destroying another member of the human family in order to get some of their cells to use in research or treat someone else, will be grasped by the Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney and her officials as they draft the embryo legislation expected this autumn. And let’s hope, too, that they will see and seize the golden opportunity to promote Ireland as an international centre of excellence in adult stem cell research.