The widely covered release of the report from the three-year review has begged the question, where has Marie O’Shea been during all this? The report has been cited by various pro-abortion campaigners and politicians in the media, but its author has been conspicuously absent from making any public comment.

This has created a sort of smokescreen for the government. The author is unavailable to answer serious criticisms of her work’s research basis, whilst the government can continue to pass the buck of responsibility to this supposedly “independent” report. The Pro Life Campaign has already drawn attention to serious flaws in the report, which have not been adequately explained or owned up to.

Despite flagrant mistakes such as her underrating of the abortion rate by 40%, the media continues to cite the abortion review report as an “independent” document underpinned by sound research. In fact, it has drawn extensively on research provided by pro-abortion groups whilst it has even ignored examining national statistics available from the HSE. This has led to a serious imbalance in its findings, which undermine the report’s extremely reckless proposals.

Some senior government members have already expressed wariness about the report’s recommendations to, amongst other things, abolish the three-day waiting period. However, there must be a further recognition that the report’s recommendations are by no means objective and are in fact based on flawed and biased sources. It would never be accepted as legitimate, for example, if a government-backed report over-relied upon evidence from pro-life sources whilst ignoring official HSE statistics.

We know from the beginning that the three-year review process was all going in one direction by the fact Stephen Donnelly only met with pro-abortion groups. There has still been no explanation for why he promised in December 2021 to hold an open and public tender for the position of the review’s chairperson, but subsequently appointed a largely unknown junior counsel without going through the public tendering process.

A deeper recognition must emerge in the coming weeks in the media and politics of the fundamental flaws associated with the report and review.

On Monday, 1^st May, thousands turned out to the annual March for Life from St Stephen’s Green to Molesworth Street, directly in front of Leinster House. The successful event heard testimonies from Dr Kirsten Fuller, Deputy Peadar Tóibín TD, Amrita Kaur, and others. Most importantly, thousands of people took to the streets of the capital to express their strong opposition to the extreme proposals contained in the biased three-year review report.

Attendees heard the excellent testimony of the importance of freedom of conscience from Dr Kirsten Fuller, a GP based in Clonmel. From Deputy Peadar Tóibín, they heard of the work being done by pro-life politicians in the Dáil, and the progress being made. Amrita Kaur told her powerful story of how she immediately regretted taking the first abortion pill, and how thankful she is that she managed to make contact with doctors who gave her an abortion reversal pill in time to save her baby's life.

A recurrent theme of the March for Life was challenging the deeply flawed research and radical proposals contained in the report from the three-year review. From the beginning, the review was a one-sided process which listened only to the whims of pro-abortion campaigners whilst excluding the perspective of pro-life organisations and parliamentarians. Due to this flagrant disregard of the very basic principles of fairness, pro-life citizens cannot accept this review as “independent” or “objective”.

The importance of pro-life votes at the next election was highlighted by several speakers. Pro-life citizens need to make their voices heard and no longer allow politicians to treat them with contempt. Pro-life votes cannot be taken for granted anymore; they must be hard-won and we expect our elected representatives to proactively push for positive pro-life measures in the Dáil – not simply to restate how they voted in 2018.

Laura Kelly, Democratic Governor of the midwestern US state of Kansas, recently vetoed several pro-life bills passed by the Kansas legislature. However, the legislature voted to override her veto on these measures, allowing the three key bills to become law. They include a measure to mandate the provision of care to babies who survive an abortion, to prohibit abortionists from buying liability insurance from a state fund, and to require that abortionists provide women with information on abortion pill reversal medication.

Several of these issues have a strong resonance in an Irish context. Babies who have been born alive having survived an abortion must be provided with immediate care to try with every effort to save the life of the baby or at least provide palliative care in cases where survival is impossible. Moreover, the recent March for Life (1^st May) heard the testimony of Amrita Kaur, who took the abortion reversal pill after regretting taking the first abortion pill. This allowed Amrita’s baby to be born.

This presents a victory for the pro-life movement in the United States in the complex political front opened up in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v Wade last year. In August 2022, Kansas unfortunately voted against a pro-life referendum; however, this recent measure shows that pro-lifers in the state are still committed to strengthening the rights of the unborn child. Jeanne Gawdun of Kansas for Life stated that state lawmakers had “stood together for compassion and basic human decency.”

(Credit: LiveAction)