header-logo header-logo

28 January 2011 / Barbara Hewson
Issue: 7450 / Categories: Features , Family , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No Roe v Wade

Barbara Hewson considers the latest ECtHR ruling on Ireland’s abortion law

Last December, a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued a landmark judgment on the sensitive topic of abortion. The case of A, B & C v Ireland (App No 25579/05) was argued on 9 December 2009, but the court spent over a year deliberating. Six out of 17 judges issued partly dissenting opinions. The majority decision is conservative: this is no Roe v Wade.

The applicants Ms A, B and C were Irish residents who had travelled to the UK for abortions. They complained that Irish law did not allow them to terminate their pregnancies lawfully in Ireland. Ms A had health and social issues: four children (one disabled), and problems with alcohol and depression. Ms B initially thought she was at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, though later it was confirmed that she did not have this condition. Ms C was Lithuanian, and in remission from a rare cancer. Before discovering she had become pregnant, she

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll