Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I welcome Liam Gibson, the Northern Ireland development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; Bernadette Smyth, Precious Life; and Caitriona Forde, Women's Network. As with previous evidence sessions, this session will be recorded by Hansard and published in due course. I am not sure who is making the opening remarks. Please take us through your submissions briefly, and members will ask questions after that.

Ms Caitriona Forde (Women's Network): I speak on behalf of Women's Network, which is a pregnancy counselling service that fully informs women of the procedures and risks of abortion and provides them with compassionate alternatives to it.

Whatever a woman needs to overcome her fear and panic when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, Women's Network is always there to provide loving care and support during pregnancy and after birth.

Soon to come in the new year will be a new pregnancy care facility in Northern Ireland called Stanton Healthcare. That will take over and expand the services of Women's Network. Such services will include pregnancy tests, ultrasound scans, pregnancy, childbirth and parenting education, maternity and baby supplies, and counselling on abortion, adoption and post-abortion stress. Stanton will work alongside local GPs to provide referrals for medical attention and treatment as required and will also work alongside other supportive organisations to provide referrals for adoption, housing and social services.

If a woman enters the Marie Stopes centre or any private abortion centre for help, it will cost her money and her baby. The doors of Stanton Healthcare will always be open, and anything a woman needs to help her through her pregnancy will always be free. Women and their babies deserve better than abortion, and Stanton Healthcare seeks to protect them from the exploitation of Marie Stopes and other profit-driven abortion providers. That is why Women's Network supports Mr Jim Wells's proposed amendment to the Justice Bill, which proposes that no defence to the criminal charge of abortion would be available to anyone who performed an abortion for a fee at a private medical centre.

Three months ago, Women's Network was contacted by a young pregnant woman who was very distraught after being told that her baby appeared to have a disability. When 20 weeks pregnant, her consultant suggested that her baby was incompatible with life, and it was recommended that she go to Marie Stopes to have an abortion. Women's Network contacted Mr Edwin Poots for assistance in this distressing case, and, thanks to their involvement, the young woman and her newborn baby, Poppy-Grace, were provided with perinatal care and comfort care in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice.

Poppy-Grace was diagnosed with a very rare condition called Neu-Laxova syndrome and lived for eight precious days. Surrounded by the loving warmth and care of her mother and family, she sadly passed away in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice on Wednesday 1 October. Parents, when faced with a devastating diagnosis, deserve better than cold and callous dismissal and abandonment.

Marie Stopes proudly professes to be the UK's leading provider of sexual and reproductive health-care services. In an editorial published in the 'British Medical Journal' in May 2014, Ann Furedi, the chief executive officer of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), declared that women in Northern Ireland need access to abortion for the same reasons as women in the rest of the UK. In her book, 'Unplanned Pregnancy: Your Choices', Ms Furedi writes that unplanned pregnancy is one of the most common medical problems faced by sexually active women and that many tens of thousands of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion, making it the most common operation among women. However, abortion should not be understood as a health service for treating a physical or mental health condition. It is no more than the intentional killing of the most defenceless and vulnerable human being: the unborn child.

Abortion also harms the woman. For instance, despite Marie Stopes stating that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer, researchers in 2013, after examining 36 studies that investigated the association between abortion and breast cancer, concluded that the risk of developing breast cancer among women who had had one abortion increases by 44% and that the risk of breast cancer increased as the number of abortions increased.

Research was conducted over a 30-year period, examining the extent to which induced abortion, live birth and pregnancy loss were associated with increased or decreased risks of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and alcohol and drug dependence. In 2009, it revealed that exposure to induced abortion was consistently associated with increased rates of mental disorders. That study shows that, although abortion was associated with increased mental health problems, no increase was evident for those having unplanned pregnancies that came to term. That evidence clearly poses a challenge to the use of psychiatric reasons to justify abortion for women who have unplanned pregnancies. According to a 2013 research paper by Byron Calhoun, John Thorp and Patrick Carroll, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland continue to be the safest places for pregnant women and their babies. Over the 40 years of legalised abortion in Britain, there has been a consistent pattern whereby higher abortion rates have run parallel to a higher incidence of stillbirths, premature births, low birthweight neonates, cerebral palsy and maternal deaths as consequences of abortion. In contrast, both Irish jurisdictions consistently display lower rates of all morbidities and mortality associated with legalised abortion.

However, if unplanned pregnancy is one of the most common medical problems, and abortion is the most common operation, supposedly providing the cure, why does Britain continue to lag behind the standards of maternal health in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? Perhaps Ms Furedi and her fellow profit-driven abortion providers should reconsider hiding behind the rhetoric of a woman's right to choose. It does not serve women's needs or best interests; it only fools them into believing that they need the likes of BPAS or Marie Stopes to kill their unborn children.

To conclude, on behalf of Women's Network, I reiterate that, rather than erasing the problem of an unplanned pregnancy with the immediate solution offered by a morning's visit to an abortion centre, every pregnant woman deserves to be comforted and assured that she is not alone in coping with her pregnancy and the birth of her child. Abortion is never the solution to an unplanned pregnancy, and Marie Stopes or any private abortion centre will never be wanted or needed in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you very much, Caitriona. Are there any other opening comments?

Ms Bernadette Smyth (Precious Life): I was just going to present the submission.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Feel free.

Ms Smyth: I am here on behalf of Precious Life, the leading pro-life group in Northern Ireland, in response to the Justice Committee's invitation to give evidence on the Justice Bill and the proposed amendment to it.

Since 1997, Precious Life has worked tirelessly to protect Northern Ireland's unborn. Through activism throughout Northern Ireland, lobby campaigns, through the courts and our information drives on the street, we have helped to save many babies and mothers from the horror of abortion.

In regard to Mr Jim Wells MLA's proposed amendment to the Justice Bill, Precious Life and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland support it. In fact, nearly 35,000 submissions were made through Project Justice during the consultation period. Abortion in Northern Ireland is a criminal offence, and it is governed by sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945. There is a defence that may be raised: namely that the abortion was performed to save the life of the pregnant mother or to prevent a real and serious adverse effect on her physical or mental health. That defence is not automatic and depends on the circumstances of the act carried out.

The sole purpose of the legislative provisions is to protect the unborn child. Mr Wells's proposed amendment makes it clear that a defence to the criminal charge of abortion would not be available to anyone who performed an abortion for a fee at a private medical centre. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that private medical centres, such as the Marie Stopes centre, which opened its doors in Belfast in October 2012, cannot legally carry out abortions in Northern Ireland. The sole purpose of private facilities is to destroy unborn children, and their sole interest is profit.

I refer to the case of a whistle-blower who drew attention to what was happening in Marie Stopes. She said:

She alleged:

Ms Georgiou also claimed that the bonuses act as a sales incentive, in the way that they might if you worked on a perfume counter in a department store: the more people you got booked in for terminations, the better bonuses you would get. Marie Stopes's professed mission is "children by choice, not chance". However, the law in Northern Ireland ensures that every unborn child — every human being, born and unborn — has the right to life, the right not to be intentionally killed. Precious Life wants unborn children and their mothers protected from abortion and is therefore totally opposed to the Marie Stopes centre or any private abortion facility in Northern Ireland. Precious Life wholeheartedly supports Mr Wells's proposed amendment to the Justice Bill and its prohibition of the commercial provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland.

Marie Stopes, or any other private abortion facility, is not needed in Northern Ireland. It has been widely reported that both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are among the safest places for women to give birth. Over the 40 years of legalised abortion in Britain, there has been a consistent pattern whereby higher abortion rates have run parallel to higher incidence of stillbirths, premature births, low birthweight neonates, cerebral palsy and maternal deaths. Those are the consequences of abortion. In contrast, Caitriona referred to a paper by Dr Byron Calhoun, in which we can see that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland:

The law in Northern Ireland ensures that pregnant women receive world-class medical care because both mother and child are treated as patients. In difficult cases in which the mother's life is in danger, she and her unborn child receive the best obstetric care, as has always been the case.

Marie Stopes proudly professes to be the UK’s leading provider of sexual and reproductive health-care services. However, abortion should not be understood as a health service — a treatment for a physical or mental condition — as it is, in fact, the deliberate killing of an unborn child. It must be understood that there is no medical condition whereby the life of a pregnant woman can be saved only by abortion. Operations, treatments and medications whose direct purpose is the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are legally permissible when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. If, through careful treatment of the pregnant woman's pathological condition, the unborn child inadvertently dies or is injured, that is tragic, but it is, if unintentional, not unethical and not a criminal offence. For example, if a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus, and the doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent death through the spread of the cancer, removing the uterus will always lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus. In that scenario, the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman. The organ that is malfunctioning is the cancerous uterus, and the woman's health benefits directly from the surgery because of its removal. It has been clear, time and again, that there is evidence that shows that there is no medical necessity. In fact, Professor Eamon O'Dwyer of University College Galway said:

To determine the appropriate treatment of suicidality in pregnant women, one must turn to the evidence that is already available from consultant psychiatrists who have had extensive experience in the care of patients who are suicidal and pregnant women with mental health problems. When suicidal intent arises in pregnancy, it is in the context of mental illness. A suicide risk assessment must be carried out when a pregnant woman threatens suicide, which will determine the appropriate care plan, treatment involved, psychological intervention, nursing, social support and, perhaps, medication as indicated by the needs outlined in the case history and examination of the patient.

Patricia Casey, a professor of psychiatry in University College Dublin, in her submission to the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children in May 2013, said that there is no evidence that abortion is a treatment for suicidal intent. In fact, to offer an abortion to a distressed woman who is psychologically ill is seriously ill advised, since the woman's capacity to make such a life-changing decision is frequently impaired. Moreover, there is an increased risk of relapse, both immediately and in the long term, post abortion. It is important to stress that preserving the pregnant woman's safety is done through care, support and psychological help, not by the killing of her unborn child.

As I stated, in difficult cases in which the mother's life is in danger, she and her unborn child receive the best obstetric care, as has always been the case in Northern Ireland. Marie Stopes, or any other private abortion facility, is not offering or providing any treatment that cannot be ethically and legally provided on the NHS free of charge. Pregnant women in Northern Ireland do not need Marie Stopes or any other private abortion facility to receive the necessary treatment and care, and, as former Health Minister Mr Edwin Poots stated, there are no cases of such women dying in Northern Ireland.

At a meeting of the Justice Committee on 10 January 2013, representatives of the Marie Stopes centre in Belfast failed to provide a detailed explanation of how pregnant women are medically assessed in order to determine whether an abortion can be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman or prevent a real or serious adverse effect on her physical or mental health. The representatives failed to defend how Marie Stopes health-care professionals could hold an honest belief, or have reasonable grounds to believe, that abortion was necessary to save a pregnant woman's life or to prevent injury to her physical or mental health. Alarmingly, Dawn Purvis, the programme director of the Marie Stopes centre in Belfast, when questioned by the Chairperson of the Justice Committee, admitted that there is nothing to stop the Marie Stopes centre in Belfast from carrying out abortions right up to birth. So there appears to be no accountability for services provided by the Marie Stopes centre.

I add that Marie Stopes is a member of Voice for Choice, a UK coalition of pro-abortion organisations that works to change the law on abortion in the UK, pressurise doctors who are pro-life by forcing them to refer them to other doctors, and they want to extend this amended Act to Northern Ireland.

I also draw attention to the fact that there appears to be no accountability for services provided. Although it has been registered with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), it has been very clearly outlined in evidence that the RQIA would have no role in ensuring that abortions are carried out within the legal framework. Precious Life's concern that Marie Stopes will not be providing pregnant women with the medical treatment and care that they need is amplified by Marie Stopes's association with the reported deaths of numerous women. We could go on and on. I think that Liam will probably be covering some of the effects of the recent deaths. In 2007, for example, a 15-year-old girl died after an abortion at a Marie Stopes clinic. A woman from the Republic of Ireland also died in a taxi after an abortion. She suffered a heart attack, which was caused by extensive blood loss.

We could go on and on, but I also want to refer to the fact that it has always been reported that Marie Stopes has performed illegal abortions all over the world, and I think that that evidence was debated here in 2013 as well. We have evidence that Marie Stopes has been involved in illegal abortions in Sudan, Zambia and Kenya. In 2007, a video was exposed wherein Marie Stopes International's programme director admitted, at an abortion conference in London, that Marie Stopes does illegal abortions all over the world. In a nutshell, Marie Stopes breaks the law in order to change it. There must be accountability, transparency and an open working relationship between health-care providers and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). So, clearly, that has not been the case, to judge from the history of Marie Stopes.

Without the safeguards, pregnant women in Northern Ireland are vulnerable, open to exploitation and exposed to physical, emotional and psychological harm. Precious Life urges the Justice Committee to adopt Mr Wells's proposed amendment to the Justice Bill and ensure that the Marie Stopes centre in Belfast, or any other private abortion facility, does not perform abortions in Northern Ireland.

Pregnant women in Northern Ireland do not need Marie Stopes or any private abortion facility to receive necessary treatment and care. Given that abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child — a cold and costly, direct and wrong social solution to the troubles faced by a vulnerable pregnant woman — one can appreciate why Britain falls below Northern Ireland's and the Republic of Ireland's standards of maternal health. Marie Stopes's rhetoric — children by choice, not chance — does not serve women's needs or best interests but only dupes them into believing that the choice to pay for higher-skilled hands to eradicate the existence of their unborn child is what they deserve. We say that women deserve better. With loving care and support, and appropriate medical treatment, every pregnant woman should be comforted and assured that she is not alone in coping with pregnancy and the birth of her child. Abortion is never the solution to an unplanned pregnancy.

Marie Stopes or any private abortion facility will never be wanted in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that I am going on a bit. There is one last point that I want to make.

I received an email from a worker for Marie Stopes in Kenya:

That is the clear message from someone who works in Marie Stopes:

I received that email yesterday, and this guy asked me to read it out today to highlight the fact that Marie Stopes is not needed in Northern Ireland. He has been following the case, and he asked me to refer to his email.

Thank you for listening.

Mr Liam Gibson (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children): Thank you very much for the invitation. I want to say a little about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. We were founded in 1967 in order to oppose the passage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, which later became the Abortion Act 1967. One of our founder members was Dr Aleck Bourne, who was an abortionist and an activist striving to bring about the reform of abortion laws in the United Kingdom. In 1939, he was prosecuted but acquitted, after having performed an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who had become pregnant as a result of having been raped by a group of soldiers. By 1967, he had had a change of heart and realised that this had, in fact, opened the floodgates. He did everything within his power to prevent the passage of the 1967 Act. Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful.

Since then, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has been very active in research, education and lobbying, and in the courts. We have had a number of cases, both domestically in England, Scotland and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. In 2009 and 2010, we launched two successful applications for a judicial review of the medical guidance from the DHSSPS, which resulted in its being withdrawn. At present, we are supporting two Glasgow midwives who are before the Supreme Court in London. Their case was heard just last month, and we expect the judgement to be handed down in the near future. It will be a very important case for medical professionals who want to protect their right of conscientious objection and non-involvement in abortion. We have accreditation at the UN and lobby in Geneva and New York.

One of the principal messages that I want to get across this afternoon is to refute some of the criticisms of the present law in Northern Ireland, which I think have already come up in previous evidence sessions, in particular, the criticism that the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is simply outdated Victorian legislation. It is true that it was passed in 1861. That said, the principles that are embodied in that law are much older than the Victorian era and date back, in fact, to the 5th century BC, the foundation of Western medical ethics and the Hippocratic oath. Our law is principally the same as that espoused by the Hippocratic oath in the 5th century BC. Those principles, which argue against medical personnel ever taking a human life, even in the womb, were re-espoused in 1948 by the World Medical Association and the Declaration of Geneva. This arose, of course, after the medical case at Nuremberg, when Nazi medicine had gone into the fields of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia programme in Germany was very well known. It is less well known that one of the first acts that the German occupation put forward in Poland was a law to decriminalise abortion. The doctor's oath bound doctors to maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat. It asked doctors never to use their medical knowledge:

That is a direct reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration was made within three months of the adoption of the oath. I hope that you are aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides human rights for all members of the human family, regardless of any distinction whatsoever, whether that be race, colour, political opinion, birth or any other status. Whatever way you want to cut it, human rights apply to all members of the human family, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their conception.

At Nuremberg, two of the people who stood trial because of their involvement in the decriminalisation of abortion in Poland were Richard Hildebrandt and Otto Hofmann. They were not abortionists but were just party functionaries who implemented law. It is ironic that people stood trial in Nuremberg for the decriminalisation of abortion in Poland and for doing what Amnesty International now argues that the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to do.

Contrary to what has been stated here previously, there are international human rights treaties and legislation that recognise the unconditional right to life; not one international instrument of human rights recognises the right to abortion. Not one. The American Convention on Human Rights explicitly states that the right to life applies from conception. The European Convention on Human Rights does not see it that explicitly, but, that having said that, it refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, as I have already outlined, excludes any section of humanity from having its rights abrogated.

The European Court of Human Rights has shown a great deal of latitude in its interpretation of the right to life in abortion cases. For a court that covers 50 member states, where there is no consensus on abortion, it is not surprising that it gives a wide margin of appreciation to member states to decide what their own abortion laws will be. There is no question that the law in Northern Ireland would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. When the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland helped to draft the European Convention on Human Rights, the whole of the UK had the same law as we have now. The idea that, somehow, it was in breach all those years and that we are in breach now of the convention that the UK helped to draft is simply preposterous.

In 2005, in the case of Vo v France, the court said:

The court did not go any further for the reasons that I mentioned; it does give a broad margin of appreciation. However, I think that anybody interested in human rights would recognise that if you are a member of and belong to the human race, you are automatically granted all the human rights that we share equally.

So, there is absolutely no obstacle in international law, either the law that is applicable to the courts in the UK — the European Convention — or the wider international instruments that do not actually have any legal standing in our courts, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. None of those things prevents the law in Northern Ireland from staying the same or adopting the proposed amendment.

The case of Tysiac v Poland of 2007 is somehow being presented as recognising a right to abortion. That did not happen. The court was very specific that, where abortion is already lawful, there cannot be obstacles outside that law preventing people from exercising their legal right. Since this amendment would not prevent the application of a right that already exists, which would be the right to access health care that would prevent death or long-term permanent damage, there should not be an issue with it at all.

Furthermore, any case that went from Northern Ireland would have to exhaust all domestic remedies first. Interestingly, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children had an amicus brief in 2005 with the D v Ireland case and in 2010 with the A, B and C v Ireland case. While the court rejected the application from D in 2005 because it failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, somehow that standard was not applied in the more recent case. Arguably, the case of A, B and C v Ireland should not even have been heard. This has set a precedent of the court going against the terms of the convention itself.

Furthermore, article 53 of the convention actually allows countries to have a higher standard of human rights than apply in the convention. That was to prevent the convention's being used to lower human-rights standards. Clearly, we have a higher standard of recognition of the right to life of the child in the womb than many countries across Europe. The convention cannot be used to lower our standards. We certainly do have recognition of the rights of the child in the womb. Even the recent case of Siobhan Desmond versus the senior coroner in 2013 recognised that a child from the point of viability can be recognised as a person under the law and can therefore be entitled to an inquest.

In winding up, I just want to say that, in the talk on this issue, the words "human rights standards" are very well chosen. These are basically the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW has no judicial standing whatsoever. Abortion is not even mentioned in the convention itself. The committee was set up a while after the convention was ratified. Its opinion is simply that of an NGO; it has no legal standing and cannot dictate to countries what their criminal law ought to be.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which both the UK and Ireland are signatories, recognises the right to life before birth. In its preamble, it says that:

Article 1 acknowledges that a child is anyone under the age of 18. It does not give a starting date; it does not say "from birth". It says that:

Article 2 specifies the right to life regardless of origin, property, disability, birth or any other status. Article 6 recognises the right to life. Article 24 recognises the duty on states to ensure the highest level of maternal health care during pregnancy. That is a right of the child: the mother is not the rights holder in this document; it is the child. That recognises the need for appropriate prenatal and postnatal care for the child.

Finally, the idea that restrictive abortion regimes drive people to illegal abortions is simply unfounded. Within the first 20 years of the implementation of the Abortion Act 1967, the police in England and Wales recorded 986 offences of procuring illegal abortions and brought 293 prosecutions. I have further material dealing with deaths due to legal and illegal abortions in Britain, and I can make it available to anybody who wants it. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you very much. Members will have some questions.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much for your submission. Obviously, I come at this from a pro-life perspective. Liam, in support of your case, you said that there was no question that the law in Northern Ireland would be in breach of the European convention and that there was no obstacle to this in international law. You quoted various articles about the rights of the child. There are two things. Have you as an organisation taken legal advice on those? Secondly, have those rights been asserted or interpreted as standards in either regional or international law? We have been hit over the last while that it is compliant with this international standard and that international standard as the case for the liberalisation of abortion laws in the North. Can you provide us with the counter legal interpretations of the law or the standards that are being upheld? I do not expect you to have them with you today, unless you are very well renowned — as you are — as a legal expert in international law, but it would be very helpful to us if those could be provided.

Mr Gibson: I will do what I can to make sure that I get those to you. I can give you a briefing on EU law, which is binding, unlike general international law on human rights. We took advice specifically on the amendment and the possibility that it would fall foul of the transportation of services. Our advice came from a lawyer who does work for the British Government, and it was verified by an Austrian colleague. I can make that available to you.

Mr McGlone: If you can share that with us, it would be very helpful.

Mr Gibson: The EU has absolutely no interest in controlling criminal law in member states, and that is what we are talking about. It is an amendment to the Justice Bill, and it just does not come under the remit of the EU. The more general standards that you are talking about are fraught with controversy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite clear, however. Many of the treaty bodies that are supposed to oversee compliance, even though they do not have any legal standing, are very influential in the United Nations. That is why we find that, in order to keep delegates informed of the language that arises in various conventions, there is a trend towards, basically, saying that black is white and turning the original purposes of the UN and the Universal Declaration on their head. there is a need to go back to the starting point. Like all human institutions, the UN and the European Court are subject to natural decay, and, unfortunately, we find that they are not prepared to stand over it. They prefer to reflect human rights standards rather than uphold the original standards that were agreed.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): One of the comments that we heard earlier from the Human Rights Commission was that there are no separate recognised human rights for the unborn child in any international human rights laws — that there are rights, but that they are interlinked with the rights of the mother; they are not a stand-alone, separate, recognised form of rights for the unborn child. There are rights, but they are inextricably linked to the rights of the mother. What do you say about that?

Mr Gibson: The European Court has always taken the view that it is a balancing exercise of weighing the rights of the child against the rights of the mother. That is understandable if you want to maintain a status quo with no consensus. The Tysiac case, which I mentioned earlier, involved a mother who had a threat to her eyesight.

It was possible that, during the process of giving birth, her eyesight might have been damaged by the strain. She had an application under Polish law, which allows abortions in cases of serious threat to the health of the mother. She was denied an abortion simply because she could have had a caesarean section and because a specialist disagreed that the level of threat was really as grave as that. When the court heard that case, it decided that her way was obstructed because there was no procedure for an appeal beyond the ordinary medical opinion and second opinion. One of the dissenting judges in that case, Spanish judge, Javier Borrego Borrego, said that he found what the court had done frightening because, basically, it had said that there was a six-year-old boy alive in Poland whose birth was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As for a specific and separate article that recognises the right of unborn children to be born, that is not separate; it is encompassed because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted to encompass everyone. It does not separate out any particular class or person due to the stage of their development, their age or any other status. The term "any other status" covers everything that is left unsaid in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I agree that there is no separate instrument that recognises the right to life of the unborn child in exclusion to the human right to life. I have to agree that that is the case. The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically did not want to separate out particular groups; they wanted something all-encompassing. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is very clear on what I have pointed out to you. Again, the American Convention on Human Rights specifically recognises the right to life from the moment of conception. Without knowing precisely what was said, I agree; yet I say that it is not a problem. The right to life is recognised in all the major international conventions.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): CEDAW, which you touched on briefly was cited as well. You are saying quite clearly that CEDAW has no jurisdiction.

Mr Gibson: Yes. It is not incorporated into UK law; it can serve as an aspiration, but no one could seek redress of their grievance under CEDAW. Abortion is not mentioned at any point in the text of the convention. Most of the articles covered by the CEDAW convention will be covered in a country like the UK anyway. Discriminating against women is already unlawful, so it is not really a problem. A number of cases have tried to say that the fact that abortion is unlawful is discrimination against women and to get the European Court to back them up on that, but it has never worked.

Mr McCartney: Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of brief points. I realise that you are separate, but, obviously, the presentation is very much the same. Your document, Liam, is very explicit where it says:

Is that shared by all three of you?

Ms Smyth: Yes, because the evidence shows clearly that there is no medical necessity. We are not opposed to medical treatment. I outlined clearly in my presentation that, sometimes, life-threatening conditions can present in pregnancy: for example, a mother may have a cancerous uterus or be diagnosed with breast cancer or pre-eclampsia. There are conditions, but, in 2014, it is very rare. As was presented in the evidence during the debate in the Irish Republic, there is no medical necessity. No woman will be denied medical treatment to save her life, but, at the same time, treating her unborn child as a second patient. In some very rare cases, for example the cancerous uterus, where, in the removal of that uterus, the child may die as a secondary effect, the intention was not to take the life of the unborn child.

I am sure that I speak for the three of us when I say that we want to make sure that all women are given the medical treatment, and that is the case in Northern Ireland. I have worked with women for 17 years through crisis pregnancy support, dealing with cases where I have had to refer them for second opinions. In all those cases, there has always been life-affirming medical care for the woman. For example, every mother who presents with pre-eclampsia will always be given the appropriate drugs, bed rest and whatever may be needed to protect her health. The majority of doctors who are treating two patients will take a pregnancy as far beyond viability as possible to safeguard the life of the mother and the child. Sometimes, the baby may have to be born prematurely, and that was the case recently in Dublin where a woman presented. It was the suicide case. The doctors made a decision to take her beyond viability to safeguard the life of the unborn child but also to help to treat her psychological condition. Looking at the psychological well-being of women, Patricia Casey clearly outlined that those women must be cared for in the same way as we would care for another person who is not pregnant and may be suicidal.

Mr Gibson: Abortion is abortion, no matter whether it happens in the private sector or the public sector. One of the main dangers that we see and one of the principal reasons why we support the amendment is the possibility of something developing along the same lines as the experience in Canada. Until 1969, Canada's law was very similar to ours; it was then replaced by a more liberal law, supposedly on health grounds. It quickly ran into the courts and arguments over what exactly "health" means. At what stage of health is an abortion lawful? Within 10 years, the new law was totally undermined by the actions of an abortionist, Henry Morgentaler, who opened up clinics and presented himself for prosecution. We are worried that the very same situation could happen here, where the best way to change the law would be to break the law. The amendment would reinforce the current situation and put things back to how they were before Marie Stopes arrived. Hopefully, it will prevent an escalation. If they are left to sit there, they will keep moving gradually with incremental steps towards their ultimate aim: full-blown abortion along the same lines as the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): They say that that is not the case, to be fair.

Mr Gibson: They would say that, wouldn't they?

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Why not just accept that they will act within the law and take their word for it? What is wrong with that approach?

Mr Gibson: If they were the Boy Scouts of America, you might believe them. However, they have a terrible record of breaking and transgressing the law, not only in Kenya, Zambia and South Sudan but even in the United Kingdom, where they have performed sex-selective abortions.

It just undermines the credibility of an organisation. If their conscience is clear about performing an abortion then telling an expedient lie is not beyond them.

Ms Smyth: Can I just refer to that? In 2012 there was an international symposium on maternal health in Dublin. I attended, as did Liam, and there was a very clear agreement from doctors throughout the world — international doctors who had been involved in maternal care. Some of those doctors were cancer specialists; all were involved in the care of women. They all came together, and the statement was very clear:

That evidence continues to be presented throughout the world. The American obstetricians and gynaecologists have also made a similar statement to say that there is no medical necessity to destroy the life of a child in order to save the mother's life.

Mr McCartney: The amendment that we are considering states that:

You would be opposed to that as a defence as well.

Mr Gibson: No —

Ms Smyth: It may be.

Mr Gibson: That is just basically saying what the law is now.

Mr McCartney: That is what I am asking. Are you opposed to that? Do you think that is a good law or a bad law?

Mr Gibson: Are you asking whether I approve of the existing defences in Northern Ireland law?

Mr McCartney: Yes.

Mr Gibson: No. Aleck Bourne, who is basically the founder of the case law that we have now — it was his action — regretted it, and I regret it. It is a tragedy that the law in Northern Ireland does not protect all children. Having said that, the mechanism there is based on actual threat. There was no threat, really, to mental health. It is well established now that abortion does not save a woman's mental health. It does not save her from becoming a mental or physical wreck. It is actually more likely to drive a woman to suicide.

I have statistics here, if you want to have a look at them, from recent studies on the mental damage that abortion does to women. Considering the time, I think I will just give you the paper rather than start listing them. There are 18 different studies. We think that the law should be applied and, if it is applied, there are going to be practically no real grounds, because of the advances in medicine since 1967. There was an excuse for the House of Commons in 1967, because they did not know what the effects of abortion were on women. They did not know half of what we know about embryology and fetology. They did not have any 2D scans, let alone 3D scans. We are in a much better position, and we should learn from the mistakes that have been made.

The clause does not actually specify any particular defence. That clause could allow abortion in a much more liberal regime than there is at present if the law changed, or it could be more restrictive if the law changed in that way. It is a very neutral clause. It is not going to change very much on its own. If you are asking me if I approve of abortion in some circumstances, I do not.

Mr McCartney: In general terms, what I am trying to say is that, whereas the clause deals with whether or not they should be carried out in a public facility versus a private facility, I just want to be clear. Your position is clear, but I just want it for the record, that it would not matter whether it was private or public: you would still be opposed.

Mr Gibson: The private/public distinction is not part of our objection.

Ms Smyth: It is clear that the sole purpose of the law is to protect the unborn child and the mother. A woman is safer in the NHS if her life is in danger. I know that this is a different issue from abortion, but, for example, if a woman had an ectopic pregnancy and went to a private facility like Marie Stopes, her life would be endangered through Marie Stopes. They would not have the facilities or the emergency back-up that we have in NHS hospitals. The law says that a doctor may have a defence, but that the doctor must exhaust every available avenue under the existing law to protect the mother and the child. Marie Stopes' sole purpose is not to protect an unborn child. It is to provide an abortion — to take the life of an unborn child for a fee. As Liam has said, we are a pro-life organisation, and we want to protect both mother and child. We are presenting evidence here today because Marie Stopes has never got the intention. Their sole purpose is to abort unborn children, whereas the NHS in Northern Ireland will work within the law that clearly protects mother and child. We present the evidence that the NHS is the best place to protect mothers and their unborn children.

Mr Poots: Mr Gibson, you made a claim that in some instances Marie Stopes were carrying out abortions on the basis of sex.

Mr Gibson: Yes. Let me see if I can find the name of the woman. Tragically, this came to light because the woman died. It was Sarbjit Lall, age 29, from Bradford. She died after an abortion was arranged by Marie Stopes in Leeds in 1993. Mrs Lall wanted an abortion when she found out that she was expecting a baby girl. Strangely enough, the coroner blamed the poor woman, calling her deceptive and manipulative and saying nothing about the abortionists. That seems to be very unjust. Obviously, there are moves afoot to try and curtail abortions on the ground of sex in Britain. We will have to wait and see what happens. At the moment, it is unlawful, but that is not being respected.

Ms Smyth: It was debated recently at Westminster, and evidence was given. I think there was a Bill making an amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 calling for clarification on sex selection, as BPAS and Marie Stopes were providing abortion for baby girls. That was exposed by the media.

Mr Poots: It clearly fits with what Amnesty International told us last week. They said that the reproductive rights of the woman always trumped the child's right to life. The length of time was not an issue for them when terminating a pregnancy. There was no reason that was strong enough to count against termination, where that was the desire of the woman. I suppose that that is what some people believe.

I have had debates, Chairman, with people who described the unborn child as just a cluster of cells. Last week, Mr Dickson posed a question on the rights of the woman and referred to the right of the woman to have cancer removed from her body. I thought that was an absolutely appalling comparison to make with the removing of an unborn child. It is shocking if Marie Stopes is engaging in that type of activity.

Mr Dickson: I am not pleased, but I am content that Mr Poots has raised the issue of my comment last week. I need to nail the lie of the permutation that has been put on that comment. The comment was made in the context of a comparison of paid-for medical services and NHS services. I set out the circumstances where someone has been given a diagnosis of cancer and is told that they can have their operation perfectly safely in a number of weeks in the NHS, or they can opt to have that operation instantly, or in a short period of time. Likewise, and let me be quite clear about this, when women exercise their very restricted legal right to have an abortion in Northern Ireland, the question is whether they should be in a position to make exactly the same decision. For many people, there will be very strong emotional requirements to deal with the situation as soon as possible. That was the context in which the comment was made, and I bitterly resent it being twisted in the way it has been.

Chair, can I ask the witnesses one question? I welcome the comments that they have made. Maybe you have a collective view, but, as organisations, do you have a view on the morning-after pill?

Mr Gibson: Certainly, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is opposed to it. As I said in my submission:

Mr Dickson: I just want to be absolutely clear about this: you are opposed to the use of the morning-after pill.

Mr Gibson: It is an abortifacient. That said, it has several effects. It can actually prevent ovulation. We are opposed to its use as an abortifacient.

Mr Dickson: That was the view of the Evangelical Alliance. They were not necessarily promoting the view, but they were questioning that last week. Do all of you share the same view?

Ms Smyth: We are pro-life representatives. If a chemical or a surgical method — whatever it may be — is used to destroy the life of an unborn child, we are opposed to that. We recognise that, as Liam said, it has a number of mechanisms, but the main intention is to stop the implantation of the already conceived embryo. We are here to speak about the wellbeing of mothers and unborn children — that is what I think is very important — and whether Marie Stopes should offer care to women in a crisis pregnancy or can meet their medical needs. We believe that the NHS is the best place.

Mr Dickson: Just for confirmation?

Ms C Forde: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Regardless of whether the provider is Marie Stopes or Boots the chemist or a GP, you are opposed to the morning-after pill.

Ms Smyth: Marie Stopes' sole purpose is to wreck the law, or change the law here. The majority of people — indeed, every woman who uses Marie Stopes — is not using it for the morning-after pill, but in a crisis pregnancy. We would not need Marie Stopes to provide just the morning-after pill, because we have Boots, Brook Advisory and others.

Mr Dickson: My question was not about Marie Stopes. It was aimed at getting a very clear answer from you that it does not matter who the supplier is.

Ms Smyth: Life begins at conception. We want to protect it from conception.

Mr Dickson: In those circumstances, as three organisations you do not believe that the morning-after pill should be prescribed.

Ms Smyth: We believe that life should be protected from conception.

Mr Gibson: We make no apology for that. We are not trying to —

Mr Dickson: I just want to be absolutely clear.

Mr Gibson: If you are going to say that life begins at conception, then you have to defend it from conception. That is only consistent.

Mr Dickson: I want to be absolutely clear about that, because concerns have been raised that the amendment could lead to a legal challenge to the morning-after pill. The Human Rights Commission, for example, raised that issue with us today.

Mr Gibson: I do not think that will happen. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children brought a case some years ago, and the courts rejected it. It is unlikely that —

Mr Dickson: I hear what Mr Poots says, and, indeed, I think the Human Rights Commission made reference to the same case, although they were not quite sure of the exact citation. I am not taking sides: I am simply putting the point to you. I think the argument that they were making was that the law in England has been determined in that regard. They suggested that the widely drawn context of this amendment could include the morning-after pill.

Mr Gibson: They are looking for some argument against it.

Mr Dickson: OK, that is helpful.

Mr Gibson: Legal advice would probably tell people not to take a case if it had already been taken and lost.

Mr Dickson: All that I have been trying to do is test that theory and see whether there is a genuine view that it is a fear for some people who support the morning-after pill that this would have that effect or whether you are genuinely satisfied that that is not really a runner.

Mr Gibson: Certainly, it is not on our cards, because it has been tried. It is too late now to go back and look for an appeal.

Mr Dickson: I understand.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you very much for coming this afternoon — this evening as it is now. It is much appreciated.