Case Brief
Parties : A, B & C v Ireland
Facts : The three women in question in this case ( A,B & C ) each wanted to get an abortion in Ireland for different reasons. Each of these women had obtained an abortion abroad but had suffered complications after the procedure. A did not want to keep her baby as she had already had 4 children who were not in her custody and in foster care so she did not see herself capable of caring for another child, she had also suffered problems with alcoholism and depression. B had become pregnant after the morning after …show more content…
They presented the issue as they believed to be in this case in court that the right to life of the foetus can be balanced against the right to life of the mother and this would be the case in most European States under the consensus as [ the right to life of the mother and in some countries her well being would outweigh the right to life of the unborn foetus ]. This case, noted in the dissenting opinions was the first time the court had disregarded the existence of the European consensus due to the Irish people having profound moral views. These Six judges had strongly disagreed with the Courts decision to disregard the European consensus which is rare in the Courts case law as it had shifted the focus of the case away from the core issue. They argued that the consensus exists and that it gives a greater precedence to the life of the mother over the life of the foetus. The dissenting judges saw this disregard for the consensus as “a real and dangerous new departure in the Court’s case law”. Judges Lopez Guerra and Casadevall noted in their concurring opinions that the Court had failed to take into account the personal suffering of applicants A and B due to the restrictive abortion laws of the State
Parties : A, B & C v Ireland
Facts : The three women in question in this case ( A,B & C ) each wanted to get an abortion in Ireland for different reasons. Each of these women had obtained an abortion abroad but had suffered complications after the procedure. A did not want to keep her baby as she had already had 4 children who were not in her custody and in foster care so she did not see herself capable of caring for another child, she had also suffered problems with alcoholism and depression. B had become pregnant after the morning after …show more content…
They presented the issue as they believed to be in this case in court that the right to life of the foetus can be balanced against the right to life of the mother and this would be the case in most European States under the consensus as [ the right to life of the mother and in some countries her well being would outweigh the right to life of the unborn foetus ]. This case, noted in the dissenting opinions was the first time the court had disregarded the existence of the European consensus due to the Irish people having profound moral views. These Six judges had strongly disagreed with the Courts decision to disregard the European consensus which is rare in the Courts case law as it had shifted the focus of the case away from the core issue. They argued that the consensus exists and that it gives a greater precedence to the life of the mother over the life of the foetus. The dissenting judges saw this disregard for the consensus as “a real and dangerous new departure in the Court’s case law”. Judges Lopez Guerra and Casadevall noted in their concurring opinions that the Court had failed to take into account the personal suffering of applicants A and B due to the restrictive abortion laws of the State