The Government plans to ignore a key recommendation of the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) concerning abortion legislation.
In its submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination, published yesterday on the eve of International Women's Day, the IHRC recommended "that the Government should introduce legislation to define the circumstances in which abortion can currently be legally carried out in Ireland".
Responding to the recommendation last night, a Department of Health spokesman said: "The Government has no plans for legislation in regards to abortion."
However, Labour Party deputy leader and spokeswoman on health Liz McManus supported the IHRC recommendation, saying "it makes sense and is in line with the Whittaker group recommendations on the Constitution".
She said that although then taoiseach Albert Reynolds had promised such legislation in the event of the abortion referendum of 1992 failing, as it did, no legislation had been introduced.
The IHRC submission was launched in Dublin by Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness of the Supreme Court who, while noting she was inhibited by her position from commenting on proposed constitutional or legislative change, said she hoped the submission had a wide circulation "and that many, if not all, its recommendations are put into effect".
The IHRC recommendation was not unanimous. Two of its 15 commissioners dissented. They were the regius professor of laws at Trinity College, Dublin, William Binchy and Suzanne Egan, barrister and lecturer at the faculty of law in University College Dublin.
As recorded in the submission published yesterday, Prof Binchy opposed the recommendation because "in his view legislation of this type would violate the human rights of unborn children up to the time of birth, denying them the right to life, dignity and equality, and would be inconsistent with the democratic will, since the referendum of 2002 demonstrated that the majority of voters oppose such legislation". Ms Egan's reasons for dissenting were not recorded but are understood to be similar.
Katherine Zappone, the chairwoman of the IHRC subcommittee that drafted the recommendation, said yesterday it was felt such legislation was necessary to deal with "the very limited circumstances involved" and particularly where the medical profession was concerned.
Ms Egan was a member of the sub-committee which looked at the Constitution from a gender equality perspective. Ms Zappone said the dissent of Ms Egan, and of Prof Binchy at full commission level, showed that membership of the commission reflected the broader society.
Explaining its recommendation, the IHRC referred to the 1992 X case, where it was held by the Supreme Court that abortion was permitted where a pregnancy was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. This included the possibility of suicide.
The IHRC said: "There is no definition of what is meant by the 'unborn' in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. In addition there is no expressed protection for appropriate medical intervention where the life of the mother is at risk, and there are no criteria for the assessment of a 'real and substantial' risk to the life of the mother."
