European Court's love-in with pro-abortionists
In Ireland, a looming judgment from the European Court of Human Rights is anticipated on the ACB Case, which may or may not ‘recommend’ that Ireland legalise abortion. One of the dubious cases, ‘B’ thinks she may have had an ectopic pregnancy and went to England for an abortion. In anticipation of the judgment, there has been a pro-life awareness campaign, ‘Set the Record Straight’, that has used advertisements to publicise the huge difference between appropriate medical care for treating an ectopic pregnancy, and social abortion. With the ‘judgment’ of the ECHR looming, it has never been more important to stress that treatment for an ectopic pregnancy or cancer that may result in the unintentional death of the baby, is not the same as abortion that is the deliberate killing of an unborn baby.
'My baby's death was not an abortion' Facebook link.
The advert above has been seen by hundreds of thousands of people, which angered pro-abortionists because of what they called it's 'anti-choice message’. But in reality who is ‘anti-choice’? Who is trying to confuse the public into thinking that an abortion and having an ectopic pregnancy are one and the same?
Anti-choice? Who is trying to override the wishes of an Irish electorate that has consistently voted against abortion, and bring in abortion on the recommendation of a far-flung court? The answer: both the phony European Court, and the Irish pro-abortion establishment.
In a move that undermined Irish sovereignty, The European Court of Human Rights did not request that the case be first brought before Irish Courts, instead the ECHR last year held a Grand Chamber hearing with 17 judges in Strasbourg to hear the A, B and C case. Apparently, the fact that the Grand Chamber heard the case signifies the importance with which the A, B and C cases were held. Also, especially in Ireland, the pro-abortionists have been very chummy with the inflated European courts. In disowning the laws of their own country, the cases of A, B and C did not exhaust Irish domestic law, but ran to the European Court. The solicitor representing A, B and C, is Julie Kay of the Irish Family Planning Association and her beef is that Irish pro-life laws contradict the Convention of Human Rights. Julie Kay rejects Irish laws that give the sentence of life imprisonment to a doctor guilty of killing unborn children as a ‘disproportionate penalty’. But she prefers to attempt the ravaging of Irish laws, not in an Irish court but in a European Court.
A sickening sight for all pro-lifers is to observe the cosy scratching-of-backs happening between the ECHR and the pro-aborts.