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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll