CNA Staff, Apr 29, 2020 / 01:01 pm (CNA).- A legislation scrutiny committee of the House of Lords last week published a report on the abortion regulations imposed on Northern Ireland by the British government, noting that the regulations are more expansive than were required by law.
Among the key criticisms in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s April 23 report was the six-week duration of public consultation on the proposed regulations. The committee includes members of the Conservative Party, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, as well as crossbenchers.
“In our view this is too short for so sensitive a topic, the committee wrote. “Added to which, it took place during the General Election period and in the run up to Christmas, neither of which conforms with best practice. Of the over 21,000 responses received, 79% registered general opposition to any change to the established position in Northern Ireland.”
The committee received a number of submissions that “criticise the Government response to the consultation for failing to explain why such a strong level of objection has been overridden,” and which “assert that no attempt has been made to engage with them to address their objections or with the restored Northern Ireland Executive, and that certain provisions … were not included in the consultation document.”
In addition, the Lords’ committee said that the regulations should not have been made so soon before a parliamentary recess: “While acknowledging that due to the current coronavirus crisis, Ministers have had much to occupy them, we find it regrettable that the Government chose to lay so controversial an instrument just as a recess started and, more importantly, so close to the implementation date set out in the 2019 Act, thereby denying Parliament an opportunity for scrutiny before the instrument came into effect.”
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which came into force March 31, allow elective abortions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy; abortions up to 24 weeks in cases of risk to the mother’s physical or mental health; and abortion without time limit in cases of severe fetal impairment or fetal fetal abnormality.
Previously, abortion was legally permitted in the region only if the mother’s life was at risk or if there was risk of long term or permanent, serious damage to her mental or physical health.
The new framework was adopted to implement Westminster’s Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which decriminalized abortion in Northern Ireland and placed a moratorium on abortion-related criminal prosecutions, and obliged the UK government to create legal access to abortion in the region by March 31.
The NI EF Act required that the recommendations of a UN report on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women be implemented.
The legislative scrutiny committee said its report on the regulations sets out the key points made in submissions from members of the House of Commons, House of Lords, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as churches and other organizations.
“This Report also notes several instances where the Government’s administrative process for bringing these Regulations forward appears suboptimal,” it added, before drawing the regulations to the special attention of the House.
The committee noted that nearly all the submissions it received are critical of the regulations’ provision for conscientious objection.
Conscientious objection is allowed for direct participation in abortion, but not for ancillary, administrative, or managerial tasks associated with the procedure, because, according to the regulations, that “would have consequences on a practical level and would therefore undermine the effective provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland.”
The exclusion of those carrying out ancillary, administrative, or managerial tasks from conscientious objection may be “too narrow and does not adequately protect” the rights to religious or philosophical beliefs under the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to the committee, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland submitted that ancillary staff are unlawfully discriminated against because the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Assembly and the Secretary of State “from enacting any provision which discriminates against any person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion.”
The committee wrote that “Given the sensitivity of the issues around conscientious objection, the House may wish to ask the Minister to consider further the scope of the policy and how it will be interpreted.”
The report also discussed the regulation of abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment or fetal fetal abnormality.
Several submissions said the abortion of those with severe impairment is contrary to EU law because the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “extends to those in the womb,” but that the region’s attorney general acknowledged that the NI EF Act required the implementation of such a regulation because of CEDAW.
“There therefore appears to be a question over which UN Convention should take priority,” the committee wrote.
However, the Northern Ireland Office holds that the UNCRPD is not a binding law, and added: “we do not agree that the provision extends protection to those in the womb.”
The legislative scrutiny committee noted that the “the regime chosen largely mirrors the services available in the rest of the UK. In the light of the overwhelmingly negative response to the consultation exercise, it would have been better if the reasons for the specific policy choices made, were explained in more detail in the EM, and the House may wish to press the Minister for further explanation.”
Other submissions noted that “severe disability” could be interpreted differently and could include cleft lip or Down syndrome, and that the CEDAW recommendation requires the provision of abortion for “severe foetal impairment”, while not “perpetuating sterotypes towards persons with disabilities.”
“The House may wish to press the Minister about how these provisions will be interpreted,” the committee noted.
Some submissions also noted that because the baby’s sex can be identified at 10 weeks, and elective abortions are permitted up to 12 weeks, “there is a significant omission in the Regulations in that … they do not prevent abortion on the grounds of the foetus’s gender.”
The report concludes noting that “the NIO states that, where possible, this statutory framework mirrors the Abortion Act 1967 so that provision will be broadly consistent with the abortion services in the rest of the UK. The NIO was, however, obliged by law to implement the specific recommendations of the CEDAW Report which relate to Northern Ireland. This report has sought to expand on some of the Government’s policy choices and also to air the main issues drawn to our attention in submissions, to assist the House in the forthcoming debate.”
Right to Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said April 28 that the committee “chosen to draw these regulations to the special attention of the House. The Committee has reported on a number of serious issues with the regulations.”
“MPs and Peers at Westminster must take on board these problems and vote against the regulations when they are brought before Parliament,” she added.
The regulations are due to be voted on before May 17.
David Alton, Baron Alton of Liverpool, commented April 25 that Northern Ireland’s abortion law “should have been decided in Northern Ireland not imposed by Westminster. Both Parliament and the Northern Ireland Office have shown great contempt for the people of Northern Ireland – and for normal constitutional and parliamentary good practice – in seeking to impose, by diktat, laws which in the rest of the UK have led to one child in the womb being aborted every three minutes.”
Lord Alton wrote that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report highlights “that this issue needs to be reconsidered in Northern Ireland by the Assembly which is responsible for what the law and policy on this issue. Riding roughshod over the Assembly in this way shows contempt for devolution, power sharing, proper political process, and the people of Northern Ireland.”
The bishops of Northern Ireland have encouraged members of Northern Ireland’s devolved legislature to debate the regulations, and, “insofar as they exceed the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 2019 … to take steps to formulate new Regulations that will reflect more fully the will of a significant majority of the people in this jurisdiction to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children.”
Northern Ireland rejected the Abortion Act 1967, which legalized abortion in England, Wales, and Scotland; and bills to legalize abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or incest failed in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016.
Northern Irish women had been able to procure free National Health Service abortions in England, Scotland, and Wales since November 2017. They are allowed to travel to the rest of the UK to procure abortions during the coronavirus outbreak.
The amendment to the NI EF Act obliging the government to provide for legal abortion in Northern Ireland was introduced by Stella Creasy, a Labour MP who represents a London constituency.
[…]
From Bergoglio’s full text interview on the plane regarding Donatism:
“And to solve this there are two publications that I recommend: one that is an article by Gianni Valente in Vatican Insider where he talks about the Donatists. The danger of the Church today of becoming Donatist by doing all [with] human provisions, that which must be done, but only these, forgetting the other dimensions: prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self, which we are not used to doing. Both! Because to overcome the spirit of evil is not ‘washing one’s hands,’ saying ‘the devil does it,’ no. We too must struggle with the devil, as we must struggle with human things.”
Please tell me how Bergoglio in any meaningful way defines, understands “Donatism”…or his previously wielded references to “Pelagian and semi-Pelagian?”
Is it just that Bergoglio grabs whatever he can to take on his enemies? Are we forgetting the “spiritual part?” Is that another way of saying we can get too focused on the human/ legal aspect of fighting the sexual scandal? Are we also Pharisees?
Laughable! In the news… It took how many years for Dolan in NY to finally suspend (March 19, 2019) Fr. Miqueli just recently though parishioners in filed a lawsuit (2016) accusing Miqueli of embezzling more than a $1 million dollars and being of being involved in homosexual prostitution and drug use. Check out Catholic NY March 28, 2019 for the noted suspension. Another priest was also recently suspended after an arrest for use/packaging of methamphetamines “along with a 27 year old male.”
Whether it’s the Archdiocese of NY, Chile or France: not much “donatism” really. No fear the sacraments will be made invalid by unworthy ministers (especially in seminaries)..and not much fear really that there is such a thing as receiving the Eucharist “unworthily.”
There’s “donationism” (to bankroll all the lawsuits) but not much “donatism.”
There’s no denying the spiritual dimension, the role of the Devil…but there’s no denying the need for prompt legal action…not simply what gets interpreted as the “canonical” or some imagined “more spiritual” process.
No, one mustn’t ignore the spiritual dimension; but while we’re waiting for the “prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self” on the part of the abuser, possible future victims must be protected, and justice done on behalf of past victims.
Meanwhile, “child sexual abuse” is not the only, or even the main, problem. Homosexual behavior is.
En flight and at arrival in Rome according to the Pontiff’s somewhat cryptic allusions Am Hierarchy seeking to investigate McCarrick, purge homosexual enabling prelates had misplaced priorities. Apparently fundamentalists who refused to pray, be introspective, accuse themselves. Donatism, the heresy of invalidation of sinful clergy doesn’t fit the Am effort. The Am bishops never raised the question of sacramental validity. Two fundamental premises at play here were introduced in Amoris Laetitia and remain the deceptive solvents diminishing all Catholic doctrine. They are worship of individual conscience a take away by liberals from Vat II and Dignitatis Humanae. Authored by Avery Dulles SJ the progressive Jesuit never set limits in respect to conscientious rejection of the Deposit of Faith, which is always a responsible and fatal error, and the Church’s coercive authority on faith and morals. The other fundamental premise is merciful appeal to mitigating conditions. Mitigation is a reality fear, burden can impede freedom of will to some degree. Although it cannot absolve intrinsically evil acts like murder, killing the innocent, false witness, adultery. The error here is that conditions without universal evidence cannot absolve [allow the priest to validly absolve] manifest inherently evil acts. In respect to the latter conscience becomes the determinant although exceptions to the rule presumably exist [the first marriage of a D&R may have been invalid but lacking evidence]. Personally I cannot perceive how an exception to manifest sin can be determined without evidence. Cardinal Raymond Burke former Pontifical Signatura has consistently refuted the Pontiff’s proposal. And presuming there are such instances the Pontiff in Amoris and elsewhere by pronouncing his doctrine publicly makes it a universal premise [if presuming Amoris Laetitia or the Argentine exchange of letters in AAS are somehow binding though as held by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller they are not binding] obliging the priest to give benefit of the doubt based on the penitent’s conscience. The result has been as in Malta, Sicily, the Philippines and elsewhere dissolution of the commandment against adultery and by inference all other moral doctrine. Evil is not a mistaken priority. Evil is in the will.