Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Relating to children's rights | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012[n 1] (previously bill no. 78 of 2012) amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012,[1] and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%.[2] Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum.[3] The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015.[4] It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.[5]
Background
[edit]According to Aoife Nolan, "The limited consideration of children (and of children as right‐holders, specifically) in the 1937 Constitution is undoubtedly largely attributable to the contemporary societal perception of children as objects of parental rights and duties rather than autonomous right‐holders."[6] The Constitution's framing of family and education rights in Articles 40 to 44 reflected Catholic social teaching as in Quadragesimo anno.[7] Over the 1990s and 2000s, a political consensus developed in Ireland that children's rights needed to be strengthened in the Constitution to counterbalance family rights.[8] Numerous contemporary and historical cases of child abuse and neglect came to light, including many involving the Catholic Church. Reports, including that of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and another by Catherine McGuinness, found that state agencies' hesitancy to act was partly from fear that hasty intervention might violate the parental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There were other controversial constitutional judgments in court cases involving minors: "Baby Ann" was placed for adoption by unmarried parents aged one week and returned to them after two years when they married, despite having bonded with foster parents in the interim; and a man found guilty underage sex, after his defence of mistaken age had been ruled inadmissible under strict liability, had his conviction overturned when the strict-liability provision was ruled unconstitutional.[7]
The 1996 Constitution Review Group recommended:[8][9]
- an express guarantee of certain rights of the child, which fall to be interpreted by the courts from the concept of 'family life', which might include
- a) the right of every child to be registered immediately after birth and to have from birth a name
- b) the right of every child, as far as practicable, to know his or her parents, subject to the proviso that such right should be subject to regulation by law in the interests of the child
- c) the right of every child, as far as practicable, to be cared for by his or her parents
- d) the right to be reared with due regard to his or her welfare
- an express requirement that in all actions concerning children, whether by legislative, judicial or administrative authorities, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
The All-Party Oireachtas Committee's 2006 report on the family proposed inserting a section into Article 41:[8][10]
- All children, irrespective of birth, gender, race or religion, are equal before the law. In all cases where the welfare of the child so requires, regard shall be had to the best interests of that child.
A children's rights bill, the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007, was introduced by the Fianna Fáil–PD government. The bill sought to replace section 5 of Article 42 with a new Article 42A, which had five sections; the first four broadly matched the amendment eventually enacted in 2015, while the fifth was:[11]
- 1° Provision may be made by law for the collection and exchange of information relating to the endangerment, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse, or risk thereof, of children, or other persons of such a class or classes as may be prescribed by law.
- 2° No provision in this Constitution invalidates any law providing for offences of absolute or strict liability committed against or in connection with a child under 18 years of age.
- 3° The provisions of this section of this Article do not, in any way, limit the powers of the Oireachtas to provide by law for other offences of absolute or strict liability.
The 2007 bill lapsed when the 29th Dáil was dissolved for the 2007 general election.[12][13] All main parties' election manifestos promised a children's referendum.[12] After the election, the 30th Dáil and 22nd Seanad passed parallel resolutions establishing a joint committee to consider the 2007 bill as the basis for a new amendment proposal.[14] The committee requested public comment,[15] held hearings,[16] and issued reports.[17] Its final report in February 2010 proposed a complete rewrite of Article 42 of the Constitution.[18] The Fianna Fáil–Green Party government finalised the wording for an amendment bill in January 2011, just before the Green Party left government precipitating the 2011 general election. The bill which eventually passed was introduced by the new Fine Gael–Labour government in September 2012, substantially differing from the 2010 recommendation.
Changes to the text
[edit]Section 5 of Article 42 was deleted. A new Article 42A was inserted after Article 42. The changes to the text are as follows (the differences between the old 42.5 and the new 42A.2.1° are highlighted):[19]
- Text deleted
Subsection 5 from Article 42:
In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
- Text inserted
| 1 | The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights. | ||
| 2 | 1° | In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. | |
| 2° | Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require. | ||
| 3 | Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child. | ||
| 4 | 1° | Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings— | |
| i | brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or | ||
| ii | concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, | ||
| the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration. | |||
| 2° | Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child. | ||
Supreme Court ruling
[edit]Two days before the referendum was held, in McCrystal v. Minister for Children the Supreme Court ruled that the government had breached the constitution by using public funds to publish and distribute information concerning the referendum that was biased in favour of a yes vote.[20] In 1995 in the case of McKenna v. An Taoiseach, the Supreme Court had ruled that public funds should be used for explaining referendums in an impartial manner. While a statutory Referendum Commission fulfilled the latter role, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs had published a separate booklet and webpages which were found to be non-neutral.
Result
[edit]| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes
|
615,731 | 58.01 |
| No | 445,863 | 41.99 |
| Valid votes | 1,061,594 | 99.56 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 4,645 | 0.44 |
| Total votes | 1,066,239 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 3,183,686 | 33.49 |
| Constituency | Electorate | Turnout (%) | Votes | Proportion of votes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| Carlow–Kilkenny | 103,243 | 34.0% | 20,687 | 14,270 | 59.2% | 40.8% |
| Cavan–Monaghan | 103,024 | 27.5% | 15,193 | 13,016 | 53.9% | 46.1% |
| Clare | 79,905 | 32.3% | 15,868 | 9,846 | 61.8% | 38.2% |
| Cork East | 81,483 | 33.7% | 15,351 | 12,006 | 56.2% | 43.8% |
| Cork North-Central | 74,599 | 33.4% | 12,428 | 12,381 | 50.1% | 49.9% |
| Cork North-West | 61,513 | 35.1% | 12,354 | 9,152 | 57.5% | 42.5% |
| Cork South-Central | 90,457 | 36.2% | 19,424 | 13,211 | 59.6% | 40.4% |
| Cork South-West | 59,659 | 35.1% | 11,778 | 9,038 | 56.6% | 43.4% |
| Donegal North-East | 58,503 | 24.5% | 5,749 | 8,504 | 40.4% | 59.6% |
| Donegal South-West | 63,229 | 23.8% | 6,523 | 8,463 | 43.6% | 56.4% |
| Dublin Central | 57,008 | 32.4% | 10,800 | 7,615 | 58.7% | 41.3% |
| Dublin Mid-West | 64,657 | 35.3% | 12,550 | 10,183 | 55.3% | 44.7% |
| Dublin North | 69,880 | 35.6% | 16,066 | 8,717 | 64.9% | 35.1% |
| Dublin North-Central | 54,042 | 42.0% | 14,328 | 8,304 | 63.4% | 36.6% |
| Dublin North-East | 58,355 | 38.9% | 13,569 | 9,009 | 60.1% | 39.9% |
| Dublin North-West | 48,352 | 36.1% | 8,607 | 8,744 | 49.7% | 50.3% |
| Dublin South | 102,508 | 40.9% | 30,528 | 11,276 | 73.1% | 26.9% |
| Dublin South-Central | 79,599 | 34.6% | 15,057 | 12,375 | 54.9% | 45.1% |
| Dublin South-East | 57,346 | 33.4% | 13,717 | 5,368 | 71.9% | 28.1% |
| Dublin South-West | 70,003 | 35.9% | 12,997 | 12,029 | 52.0% | 48.0% |
| Dublin West | 62,066 | 35.5% | 13,338 | 8,586 | 60.9% | 39.1% |
| Dún Laoghaire | 79,660 | 41.5% | 23,593 | 9,370 | 71.6% | 28.4% |
| Galway East | 83,945 | 29.6% | 14,606 | 10,143 | 59.1% | 40.9% |
| Galway West | 95,035 | 28.0% | 16,456 | 9,999 | 62.3% | 37.7% |
| Kerry North–West Limerick | 62,684 | 29.2% | 9,778 | 8,449 | 53.7% | 46.3% |
| Kerry South | 57,294 | 29.5% | 9,570 | 7,202 | 57.1% | 42.9% |
| Kildare North | 76,974 | 35.0% | 17,807 | 9,062 | 66.3% | 33.7% |
| Kildare South | 58,319 | 33.4% | 11,213 | 8,190 | 57.8% | 42.2% |
| Laois–Offaly | 108,495 | 32.0% | 18,563 | 16,029 | 53.7% | 46.3% |
| Limerick | 66,230 | 30.3% | 11,784 | 8,185 | 59.1% | 40.9% |
| Limerick City | 66,204 | 31.6% | 12,701 | 8,124 | 61.0% | 39.0% |
| Longford–Westmeath | 85,600 | 30.6% | 14,288 | 11,748 | 54.9% | 45.1% |
| Louth | 101,794 | 32.5% | 17,453 | 15,423 | 53.1% | 46.9% |
| Mayo | 95,890 | 32.1% | 16,252 | 14,407 | 53.1% | 46.9% |
| Meath East | 16,252 | 32.5% | 12,563 | 8,445 | 59.9% | 40.1% |
| Meath West | 63,274 | 31.4% | 10,532 | 9,244 | 53.3% | 46.7% |
| Roscommon–South Leitrim | 61,117 | 33.8% | 10,889 | 9,688 | 53.0% | 47.0% |
| Sligo–North Leitrim | 61,270 | 31.4% | 10,754 | 8,364 | 56.3% | 43.7% |
| Tipperary North | 62,106 | 37.2% | 12,818 | 10,173 | 55.8% | 44.2% |
| Tipperary South | 55,773 | 35.2% | 10,581 | 8,951 | 54.2% | 45.8% |
| Waterford | 75,470 | 35.1% | 14,722 | 11,593 | 56.0% | 44.0% |
| Wexford | 107,268 | 33.1% | 19,382 | 15,966 | 54.9% | 45.1% |
| Wicklow | 94,956 | 39.7% | 22,514 | 15,015 | 60.0% | 40.0% |
| Total | 3,183,686 | 33.5% | 615,731 | 445,863 | 58.0% | 42.0% |
Court challenge
[edit]On 19 November 2012, two women, Joanna Jordan and Nancy Kennelly, brought petitions to the High Court challenging the referendum result, claiming that the unlawful use of public funds by the government had materially affected the outcome.[22] Kennelly, who claimed she had voted Yes based on misleading advice in the government campaign,[22] withdrew her petition the following week.[23] The case of Jordan, who was active in the No campaign, was adjourned pending the handing down of written judgements in the McCrystal case,[22] which occurred on 11 December 2012.[24] Jordan's case was heard in April and May 2013, with expert witnesses differing on the interpretation of a Behaviour & Attitudes survey of voters carried out for the Referendum Commission after polling day.[25][26] Judgment was reserved on 16 May 2013.[27]
On 18 October 2013, judge Paul McDermott rejected the petition, ruling that Jordan had failed to prove the government's advocacy had "materially affected" the referendum result.[28][29] McDermott ordered a two-week stay on the delivery of the final referendum certificate, to give Jordan an opportunity to appeal his decision to the Supreme Court.[3][30] An appeal was duly lodged on 24 October.[3] Jordan's original challenge to the referendum was made and processed by the procedure prescribed in the Referendum Act 1994; after the High Court case, she launched a separate challenge to the constitutionality of those provisions, arguing they placed too high a burden of proof on the petitioner.[31] This challenge was also rejected by McDermott in the High Court, on 19 June 2014.[32][33] Jordan was allowed to appeal against both High Court decisions at the same time; her case was heard by the Supreme Court at the start of December 2014.[34][35] On 24 April 2015, the Supreme Court upheld both High Court decisions.[4][36]
In June 2018, Joanna Jordan was one of three petitioners challenging the validity of the Referendum to legalise abortion.[37]
Subsequent legislation and interpretation
[edit]Prior to the 2012 referendum, the government published the general scheme of an amendment to the Adoption Act which it promised to enact after the constitutional amendment.[3][38] After the 2016 general election, the new Fine Gael–led government introduced the bill in May 2016.[39]
In September 2015, Alan Shatter introduced a private member's bill to amend the Referendum Act 1994 such that any referendum petition would be heard immediately in the Supreme Court.[40] This was intended to prevent recurrence of such a long delay between a referendum and the enactment of the concomitant constitutional amendment.[41]
In 2016, Justice Richard Humphreys ruled in the High Court that rights of the unborn were not limited to the right to life specified in the Eighth Amendment, but rather included others such as those specified in the 31st Amendment.[42][43] This contradicted a 2009 ruling by Justice John Cooke.[43][44] An appeal to the 2016 decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Ireland in 2018.[45]
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ Although the act was not signed into law until 2015, its short title has 2012, as specified by section 2(2) of the act itself.
References
[edit]Sources
[edit]- "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012". Irish Statute Book. 28 April 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
- "The Children Referendum". Past Referendums. Referendum Commission. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
- "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012". Oireachtas. 17 September 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
- Nolan, Aoife (2007). "The Battle(s) over Children's Rights in the Irish Constitution". Irish Political Studies. 22 (4): 495–516. doi:10.1080/07907180701699240. ISSN 0790-7184.
Citations
[edit]- ^ "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012". Houses of the Oireachtas. 17 September 2012. Archived from the original on 23 September 2012. Retrieved 24 September 2012.
- ^ "Children's Referendum amendment passed by 58% of voters". RTÉ News. 11 November 2012. Archived from the original on 14 November 2012. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
- ^ a b c d FitzGerald, Frances (14 November 2013). "Written Answers No 185: Proposed Legislation". Dáil Éireann debates. Oireachtas. Archived from the original on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
- ^ a b "Court rejects appeal on Children's Referendum". RTÉ.ie. 24 April 2015. Archived from the original on 25 April 2015. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
- ^ "2015 Legislation". President of Ireland. Archived from the original on 18 April 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
- ^ Aoife Nolan, 'The Battle(s) over Children's Rights in the Irish Constitution' (2007) 22 Irish Political Studies 495
- ^ a b Nolan 2007, "Children's Rights in the 1937 Constitution"
- ^ a b c Nolan 2007, "Previous Amendment Proposals and Events Leading up to the Proposed Amendment"
- ^ Constitution Review Group (1996). "Articles 40–44" (PDF). Report of the Constitution Review Group. Dublin: Stationery Office. pp. 336–337. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
- ^ All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. The Family (PDF). Progress Reports. Vol. Tenth. Dublin: Oireachtas. pp. 88–96, 123–4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
- ^ "Twenty-eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 as initiated". Bills. Oireachtas. 16 February 2007. Archived from the original on 26 June 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
- ^ a b Nolan 2007, "Introduction"
- ^ Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 Archived 10 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine Oireachtas
- ^ "Orders of Reference". Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. Oireachtas. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- ^ "Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - Submissions - Tithe an Oireachtais". Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- ^ "2007 Proceedings". Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. 6 December 2007. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- "2008 proceedings". Committee proceedings. Oireachtas. pp. Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- "2009 proceedings". Committee proceedings. Oireachtas. pp. Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- ^ "Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children - Reports - Tithe an Oireachtais". Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- ^ "Third Report: Proposal for a constitutional amendment to strengthen children's rights; Final Report" (PDF). Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children (in English and Irish). February 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- ^ "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012, As passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas". Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
- ^ "Children's referendum set to proceed despite court ruling". irishtimes.com. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ a b "Referendum Results 1937–2015" (PDF). Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. 23 August 2016. p. 87. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 December 2017. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
- ^ a b c Healy, Tim (19 November 2012). "High Court challenge to Children's Referendum 'yes' result". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 21 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ "Woman withdraws from constitutional challenge to Children's Referendum". Irish Independent. 27 November 2012. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
- ^ McCrystal -v- Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & ors [2012] IESC 53 O’Donnell J Archived 26 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine Denham CJ Archived 26 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine Murray J Archived 26 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine Fennelly J Archived 26 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ O’Loughlin, Ann (20 April 2013). "Referendum booklet increased yes vote, says advertising expert". Irish Examiner. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
- ^ Healy, Tim (7 May 2013). "No evidence of effect of campaign on Children Referendum voters". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
- ^ "Written Answer No. 601: Constitutional Amendment on Children". Dáil debates. Oireachtas. 28 May 2013. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
- ^ "High Court rejects challenge to Children's Referendum". Irish Independent. 18 October 2013. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 18 October 2013.
- ^ "[2013] IEHC 458: In the Matter of the Referendum on the Proposal for the Amendment to the Constitution contained in The Thirty First Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012, Held on 10th November 2012". Judgments. Dublin: Courts Service. 18 October 2013. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
- ^ Waters, John (25 October 2013). "Racism is not the most obnoxious aspect of these child snatchings". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 25 October 2013. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
- ^ "High court dismisses woman's challenge to laws governing the challenging of referendum results". Irish Independent. 20 June 2014. Archived from the original on 4 November 2014. Retrieved 11 July 2014.
- ^ Carolan, Mary (20 June 2014). "Woman loses challenge to referendum laws". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
- ^ "Jordan -v- Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & ors". Judgments. Courts Service of Ireland. 20 June 2014. Archived from the original on 4 November 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ "Children's Referendum should be re-run 'due to Constitution breach', Supreme Court hears". Irish Independent. 1 December 2014. Archived from the original on 22 December 2014. Retrieved 22 December 2014.
- ^ Carolan, Mary (1 December 2014). "Supreme Court urged to re-run Children's Referendum". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 21 December 2014. Retrieved 22 December 2014.
- ^ [2015] IESC 33 Re: Referendum Act & re: Jordan and Jordan -v- Minister for Children and Youth Affairs & ors MacMenamin Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine Denham Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine O’Donnell Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine Clarke Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Three court applications to challenge referendum result". RTE.ie. 5 June 2018. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
- ^ "General Scheme Of Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2012". Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs. 2012. Archived from the original on 16 December 2013. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
- ^ "Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2016 Explanatory Memorandum" (PDF). Bills. Oireachtas. 3 May 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 June 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2016.
- ^ "Referendum (Amendment) Bill 2015 [PMB] (Number 75 of 2015)". Bills. Oireachtas. 16 July 2015. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015. Retrieved 30 September 2015.
- ^ Mac Cormaic, Ruadhán (30 September 2015). "Bill to expedite legal challenges to referendum results". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015. Retrieved 30 September 2015.
- ^ Humphreys, Richard (29 July 2016). "I.R.M. & ors -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors". Judgments & Determinations. Courts Service of Ireland. [2016] IEHC 478. Archived from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
In my view, an unborn child is clearly a child and thus, protected by Article 42A. Any other conclusion would fly in the face of the ordinary meaning of language, the use of the term "child" in numerous statutory contexts prior to the adoption of Article 42A, and the sheer social, biological and human reality that an unborn child is, indeed, a child. […] For the reasons stated, I would propose not to follow X.A. or Ugbelase, and would instead follow the approach set out by Irvine J. in O.E.
- ^ a b McGarry, Patsy (9 September 2016). "Government has 'taken note' of ruling on the unborn, Zappone says". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 10 September 2016. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
- ^ Cooke, John (17 December 2009). "Ugbelese & ors -v- Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform". Judgments & Determinations. Courts Service of Ireland. [2009] IEHC 598. Archived from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
In the court's judgment, accordingly, the only right of the unborn child as the Constitution now stands which attracts the entitlement to protection and vindication is that enshrined by the Amendments in Article 40.3.3 namely, the right to life or, in other words, the right to be born and, possibly, (and this is a matter for future decision) allied rights such as the right to bodily integrity which are inherent in and inseparable from the right to life itself.
- ^ "Supreme Court: Unborn has no constitutionally protected rights independent of Article 40.3.3". Irish Legal News. Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
