PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Society for Protection of Unborn Children”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1987

Attorney General (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) v. Open Door Counselling, 27 April 1987.

The plaintiff/relator, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, applied for costs against the defendants for its part in a case in which the defendants were ordered to cease counseling women that they could go to England to obtain an abortion. In the earlier case the Court had not decided the issue whether the plaintiff/relator had standing to bring the case since the Attorney General had taken over prosecution of the case. Here the Court ruled that the plaintiff did have standing and that as an organization established to defend the right to life of the unborn there was a substantial controversy between the Society and the defendants. Nonetheless, the Court did not award costs to the Society.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1988

Attorney General (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ltd.) v. Open Door Counselling Ltd., 16 March 1988.

The defendants were clinics providing pregnancy counselling, including information about the availability of abortion in England. The Attorney General took over prosecution of the suit from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from providing counseling. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling granting the injunction and held that the defendants' activities violated Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, which guarantees that the State will respect, defend, and vindicate the rights of the unborn as far as is practicable. It concluded that the defendants were assisting in the ultimate destruction of life through abortion, that there was no constitutional right to information about abortion (that would be in conflict with Article 40.3.3), and that the Attorney General had standing to bring the proceedings, even though there was no particular pregnant woman represented who might be affected by the injunction. The ruling of the lower court was reported in Annual Review of Population Law, Vol. 14, 1987, Section 240. On 7 September 1988, a judge of the High Court refused to issue an injunction directed against printing, publishing, and distributing a welfare guide providing information about the availability of abortions. The judge ruled that the Attorney General was the proper person to make an application for such an injunction, not the plaintiffs, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. See Irish Law Reports Monthly, 1989, p. 526. This judgment was reversed in 1989 by the Supreme Court.

Abortion, Illegal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Trials on mistrial.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1998

"Pro-life" absolutes, feminist challenges: the fundamentalist narrative of Irish abortion law 1986-1992.

This article asks how Irish abortion law developed to the point of stopping a young pregnant rape victim from travelling abroad to have an abortion in 1992 (Attorney General v.X). The author argues that this case, which ultimately saw the Irish Supreme Court overturn that decision and recognize the young woman's right to abortion, was the last chapter of the fundamentalist narrative of Irish abortion law. The feminist critique of that law needs to consider its particular fundamentalist aspects in order to clarify the obstacles posed to the struggle for Irish women's reproductive freedom. The author argues that a fundamentalist narrative ordered the post-colonial and patriarchal conditions of Irish society so as to call for the legal recognition of an absolute right to life of the "unborn." The Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitutional right to life of the fetus in three cases during the 1980s is evidence that Irish abortion law was constructed through a fundamentalist narrative until that narrative was rejected in the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v. X.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

C.A.S., Belleville v. L.T., 2 April 1987.

The Court held that, under Section 37 of the Child and Family Services Act, in certain circumstances an unborn child can be considered a child in need of protection. It ruled that such a finding is justified when the evidence establishes that the mother is suffering from a mental disorder of a nature and quality that will likely result in serious bodily harm to herself or the child. It ordered the unborn child in question to be made a ward of the Children's Aid Society for three months.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1986

[Abortion according to paragraph 218ff. of the German penal code and life support of premature infants from the viewpoint of the pediatrician].

The actual reality of abortion in the Federal Republic of Germany is shocking: in 1984, 100 000-340 00 abortions took place. In contrast to the goals established in the reform of criminal law in Para. 218ff. (StGB) from 1976, unborn life is not protected. Moreover, for "social indications" abortion is being carried out more and more frequently, which results in the killing of new life. Even if the basic laws seem to provide unborn life with a high measure of protection, court decisions regarding abortion according to Para. 218ff. (StGB) indicate that in practice, there is very little protection. The so-called "test-tube baby" enjoys more legal protection than the child begotten in the natural manner. To a certain extent, the paediatrician is confronted with demands to save life. Prematures with a very low birth weight should be kept alive. According to the 1984 records of the Federal Office for Statistics, in the Federal Republic of Germany an average of 147.9 abortions were performed per 1000 children born. For the most part the abortions were performed on account of social indications. Since life begins when the sperm and egg fuse, which is also recognized by basic law 14 days after conception, the paediatrician in particular must feel himself responsible for life yet unborn. However, the paediatrician must also stand up for the disabled child and its right to life, because Para. 218ff. did not intend to eliminate disabled children from society.

Abortion, Induced↗