header-logo header-logo

No Roe v Wade

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll