The truth on abortion history in Ireland

Protection for the unborn in Ireland has remained strong since the defeat of a divisive referendum in 2002 that would have allowed abortion until implantation. The prolife forces defeated what would have been legalization of abortion for the first time in Ireland. In recent months, some of the Irish groups involved in the current abortion debate have been promoting the idea among American prolifers that somehow the current crisis and near legalization of abortion in Ireland today, is to be blamed on the prolifers who, alongside the majority of the Irish people, defeated the insidious 2002 referendum.This is pertinent at the moment, because the groups that have led in this retelling of history to American prolife supporters are unwilling to tell the truth about the matter. And it is important for America’s prolife organizations to be aware of the facts.

Prominent among these unreliable groups is the Pro Life Campaign (PLC). This group was instrumental in secretly negotiating with the government in 2002 and then campaigned for the 2002 bill that would have not only allowed abortion for the first time in Ireland but would have also repealed the law that until then had criminalized abortion—the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. This law has been enormously helpful in keeping Ireland abortion free. Also adding its voice to the chorus telling the fictitious story that authentic prolife organizations are to blame for today’s push by the abortion industry is the Iona Institute.

This is all crucial to the current struggle in Ireland. For this month, Mr. Enda Kenny (Prime Minister), made public his legislation to introduce abortion in Ireland. As expected, once again, the center of the pro-abortion campaign is the repeal of the law that criminalizes abortion in Ireland—the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. Kenny’s proposed legislation, not only violates fundamental human rights, international guarantees given to Ireland in the European Union, and the Constitution of Ireland, but it also would allow abortion up to nine months under certain circumstances. The government is holding hearings, and attempting to co-opt Catholics to bless the proposal.

I state from the outset that the facts about the 2002 referendum need to be told, because the two groups rewriting history about that battle 11 years ago—the PLC and the Iona Institute—are doctrinally and politically unreliable. The PLC are mostly paid lobbyists, who have proven completely ineffective (and expensive), in swaying any of their political friends to defend the culture of life.

In their efforts to promote themselves and retell the facts, these groups unfortunately enlisted Mr. Austin Ruse, of the New York City-based Christian Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM). Ruse’s assigned role, it seems, has been to simply regurgitate the false claims of the Iona Institute and the PLC, regarding the 2002 referendum. He did this in the pages of Crisis magazine On March 1, 2013. His article, Lord, Save Us From the Purists, was factually incorrect, irresponsible, and damaging to the people who are really doing the prolife work in Ireland. In it Ruse attempts to blame the current crisis in Ireland on the prolife groups that defeated the 2002 attempt to legalize abortion in Ireland.

Austin Ruse Acted Irresponsibly

As to the facts of the matter: I talked to Austin on the phone just weeks ahead of his foray into the Irish abortion question. When we spoke, he told me he did not know the ins and outs of the abortion situation in Ireland. With this I fully agree.

The first line of his article exhibits a tremendous lack of balance and objectivity: “Ireland is on the verge of making abortion legal in some circumstances and the fault can be laid on the doorstep of a tiny handful of misguided prolifers ten years ago.” What a remarkable accusation. In fact, the prolife groups he blames—the so-called purists—have been tirelessly working to keep Ireland abortion-free.

As is obvious to anyone with common sense, the drive for legalized abortion continues to be a problem in Ireland, because the pro-abortion forces will not relent. Austin claims that ultimately allowing the pre-implanted human being (as the 2002 referendum required), to have been sacrificed was necessary and was the correct prolife position, in order to prevent the greater evil of more abortions down the line. This theory is philosophically and theologically incorrect and opposed to reason and the Catholic faith. The easy deal Austin proposes is the precise reason why, prolife benefactors in America ought to closely watch the Iona Institute and the PLC for doctrinally erroneous and politically unreliable activity.

Austin argues vigorously that the No vote against the 2002 referendum is the cause of the current crisis. His forceful attack on the prolife forces for defeating the abortion referendum is at best misleading. He fails to tell the reader that he was among the seven international prolife leaders that at the time of the referendum (2002), signed a scathing letter claiming it was immoral to vote for the referendum. Now, he adamantly supports it.

The PLC and their new found friends in the U.S. have been approaching benefactors, telling false stories about the work that they do and the problem of the “purists,” who are to blame for the abortion crisis in Ireland. Scorched earth tactics such as these are not how we in America raise funds. Austin needs to cease lobbying for these groups and be honest.  His incredible attack on the “purists” who voted No on the 2002 referendum is deceptive. In February of 2002, a group of international prolife leaders wrote a scathing letter objecting to Cardinal Connell’s decision to agree to the Yes vote in the 2002 referendum, and it accused the referendum of opening the door to abortion on demand. The letter stated, contrary to Ruse’s most recent claims, that, “Catholics informed of the bishops’ views on the issue were free in conscience to vote differently,” Ruse’s letter at the time also states that the Irish bishops were wrong on the referendum.  It stated, “We believe that Christians cannot in good conscience support either the Bill’s specific proposals or the bill as a whole” (emphasis added).

Amongst the signators of the very direct and “purist” letter was Mr. Austin Ruse, himself.

Austin has accomplished a 180 degree flip-flop. Please note that the interpretation of Evangelium Vitae No. 73, which Ruse now uses to attack the prolife movement, is the same exact argument he used in 2002 to attack the Yes vote on the referendum. His attack on prolifers today in Ireland is incredible when in 2002 he was writing to support the No vote. Notice another irony: The man he attacks in his recent Crisis article, John Smeaton, is the name on the 2002 letter right below Austin’s own signature as the president of Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) (Readers may review the full text of the letter, posted at the web site of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, here.)

More ironic, Crisis also signed the letter for a No vote in 2002.

I believe Austin should consider apologizing publicly, and retract what he said in his Crisis article. What he wrote in my view was unbalanced, factually incorrect, and completely unnecessary. His present position is quite contrary to his own “purist” position at the time of the referendum.

The Facts About the 2002 Referendum

But Austin is also completely misinformed about the 2002 Referendum on abortion and how it relates to the present debate. He writes today, “The last national referendum happened in 2002 that would have put unambiguous protection for unborn children in the Irish Constitution.” He further claims, that “…all mainstreams prolife groups enthusiastically supported the referendum.” Facts matter and Ruse ignores what actually took place.

Ruse had not read the 2002 Referendum bill in question, when we spoke recently. The bill was intended to amend the Irish Constitution, which according to Irish law can only be done by national referendum. The Yes vote, which Ruse laments did not take place, would have for the first time introduced abortion into Ireland, as a constitutional right. The referendum wording, states this as plainly: “1.–(1) In this Act, ‘abortion’ means the intentional destruction by any means of unborn life after implantation in the womb of a woman” (emphasis added).

This past May 13^th, at the Prolife March in Rome, Ireland’s delegation from the Life Institute, addressed the crowd on the current crisis and the fight to defend both woman and child from the moment of conception to natural death. This “purist” position that Austin Ruse scorns in his article was ratified that same day, when the christians made a surprise visit among the prolife “purists”, to urge them to stay focused on the protection of life. His words in part,should leave no doubt that Austin Ruse’s position (today), in the Crisis article is doctrinally incorrect. Ruse claims that voting to permit the death of the embryo in its first days was philosophically and theologically the correct “deal,” for the Irish people in 2002. The Christian words yesterday, were quite unequivocal, “I greet the participants of the March for Life which took place this morning in Rome and invite everyone to stay focused on the important issue of respect for human life, from the moment of conception…I am pleased to recall the petition that today takes place in many Italian parishes, in order to support the initiative European ‘One of Us’ to ensure legal protection to the embryo, protecting every human being from the first moment of its existence (emphasis added).”

Austin recommends the Iona Institute and the PLC but the latter was single handedly the most vociferous force trying to put pressure on prolifers in Ireland to vote Yes on the 2002 Referendum abortion bill. For years, these two organizations have been blaming the prolifers for the current crisis and their refusal to concede on abortion if even at the expense of human life in its most early stages. Now, Austin seems to agree with them.

The referendum was not enthusiastically supported, as Austin claims by, “… all mainstream prolife groups…” In fact, only one group was chosen by the Fianna Fail government, as a negotiating partner at that time, the PLC. This was undoubtedly because PLC, known as a lobby group, has at its head a paid politician, who at the time was a member of the same political party that was introducing abortion into Ireland. Undoubtedly, Austin realizes that moral freedom to defend life gets blurry when political ambitions come into play. The government knew PLC was quite malleable. The majority of the prolife groups opposed the referendum and in fact met with PLC leadership ahead of the referendum, to make clear that in no way was PLC speaking on behalf of the prolife community in Ireland. A member of the PLC executive board resigned as soon as he understood the “deal” PLC was prepared to make on life issues.

The current legislation requires a sounding rejection by the Irish people, not another negotiation about who will be sacrificed and up to what time period.

Austin also fails to mention that even the pastoral letter of the Irish bishops at the time, was not designed to trade lives in an easy “deal” as he claims. Doing what Austin and PLC wanted, a deal that would allow the killing of some in the hope that more lives would be preserved, was not the intention of the Irish bishops.

This facile “deal,” and the trivialization of the issue by Austin, is astonishing. In fact the bishops’ letter at the time stated, “… But even if the proposal is enacted, outstanding issues remain…in particular we are concerned that adequate and clear legal protection be offered to the unborn prior to implantation. This is urgent in view of what is happening and what is likely to happen in the area of cloning and research on human embryos, and also in the area of assisted reproduction where particular problems arise regarding the storage and disposal of human embryos. It is of vital importance that embryos are never treated other than as human persons whose inherent dignity are valued and vindicated” (emphasis added).

The Irish government had given guarantees that would be made explicit after the referendum, regarding destructive embryo research. The prolife community felt this was not enough, and that the government, with all the European pressures, would eventually collapse and not protect the pre-implanted embryo. The Christians never affirmed, as Ruse, claims, that the “deal,” was morally acceptable to the bishops. Much information and the true intentions of the government became clearer as events unfolded. Even at the time of their letter, the bishops stated, “In this regard, we are about to make a substantial submission to the Government Commission on assisted Human Reproduction, setting out in detail our moral concerns in this area.” Years after the referendum, the above commission produced its results, and it was then clear that the bishops’ substantial moral concerns had indeed, (as the prolife community had predicted), been ignored.

The prolife community ran out of time because, by the time the PLC revealed the wording of the amendment offered in the referendum, the deal was non-negotiable. It is largely believed that, had the PLC worked on the side of the prolife community, the changes in the constitutional amendment wording could have been accomplished. But they did not. PLC refused to make the wording of the referendum available to the rest of the prolife community and even to a member of the European Parliament, prolife leader Dana Scallon. This until it was too late.

The Iona Institute and PLC have repeatedly peddled the false “purist” narrative that had they won the referendum all would be swell in Ireland. They have to this day been blaming the majority of Irish people and the prolife community for the problem of abortion. This is a fantasy to justify their poor rationale for pushing the Yes vote.

The Christians Did Not Back the Yes Vote

Mr. Ruse falsely states that the whole Christians was enthusiastically for the Yes vote. The pastoral letter of the bishops of Ireland, as well as individual bishops, gave assurances that Catholics could in good conscience vote No. The bishops wrote, “… We share the concern of many groups and individuals, (hardly the “tiny minority” Ruse describes as purists), that the new proposal strengthens legal protection for the unborn only after implantation in the womb (emphasis added). We understand the reluctance… to vote for a measure which does not seem to vindicate the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception.”

Roderick J. O’Hanlon, as former High Court Judge in Ireland, and President of the Law Reform Commission, described the proposal at the time, as “intrinsically evil,” adding that the Yes vote would have “definitely liberalized Irish abortion law…” Mr. John Rogers, who was Attorney General in Ireland from 1984-1987, wrote in a 2002 open letter to caution Mr. Desmond Connell that his belief that pre-implanted embryos would be protected was not solid in law. He wrote, “Would the protection extend to the unborn prior to implantation in the womb as Mr. Connell contends?” (Note that the Connell was not striking deals of lesser evils, or voting for laws that would sacrifice the unborn before implantation to secure further prohibitions on abortion down the line. This may be Austin Ruse’s position and that of his friends, but it is an error in fact and a falsification of the Church’s position at the time. The Christian agreed that the non-protection of the pre-implanted embryo was unacceptable, but believed perhaps, it would not happen.)

Experience in the prolife movement teaches that strict wording is essential to prevent abortion on demand from infiltrating a nation. Attorney General Rogers, along with many in the prolife community and the majority of the Irish people, did not buy the government’s assurances. Ruse’s position is not Christian doctrine, by a long shot. In the 2002 open letter to Christian continues, “… it cannot be stated with any confidence that the Constitution, as amended by the addition of article 40.3.4 will protect ‘the life of the unborn in the womb’ before implantation, which is what Christian contends to be the case…Accordingly, I feel I must say that the Christians assurance to those opposed to abortion on this issue is unconvincing and one which it would be unwise for them to rely.”

The support for the 2002 Referendum was anything but an “enthusiastic” majority. In fact, most Irish citizens did not even vote. Ruse paints what I can only describe as a fictitious picture of what took place. The medical and political community were also completely divided. Moreover, Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University also warned against the proposal.

By February of 2002, plans for the referendum to take place in March 2002 already had produced signs of the ominous dangers that were coming to Ireland. One month before the vote, the government had assigned 30 hospitals where the “procedures” would be taking place. The “procedures” would require the “reasonable opinion” of one practitioner and furthermore, medical records of the “procedure” would not be subject to any sort of scrutiny. It would be helpful to recall that in the UK two signatures were required, but none of that prevented what is today virtually abortion on demand in England. It is utterly naive of Ruse to believe that once abortion has its foot in-the-door, it can be halted forever. Where has he been all these years? Please.

Battle Against Destructive Embryonic Research

Austin Ruse also fails to understand the other complications attached to the bill. Besides introducing abortion in the early stages as a constitutional right and decriminalizing the practice of abortion in Ireland, the other big battle that was being fought was against the IVF industry and the embryonic destructive research lobby, which were seeking access to pre-implanted embryos. The European position allowed destructive research of the human embryo up to 14 days (that is, before implantation). Mr. Ruse is surely unaware that the European Parliament had voted the use of $17.5 billion of tax payers’ funds (this despite it being illegal not only in Ireland but other member states), for embryonic stem cell research. Of this colossal amount, $300 million was to be dedicated, in a budget line item, to destructive embryo research.  Ireland’s legal protection had always been interpreted as protecting life from conception, and in this regard stood incompatible with the European Union’s policy for the destructive embryo research industry to have access to human life in the first 14 days.

At the time of the 2002 Referendum, lobby groups had also tried to pass an amendment for “therapeutic cloning.” The European Union was also pushing to decriminalize the use of “supernumerary” embryos. This was illegal in countries such as Germany, Austria, and Italy, who were asking the Irish to support blocking the legislation. Clearly, failing in Ireland to protect the pre-implanted embryo would have had greater consequences than Austin’s shallow commentary explains. The Irish government, which was pushing the referendum with the help of PLC, did not join the coalition to block funding for destructive embryonic research and clearly the stakes at the referendum were getting even higher. Three days before the referendum, it was reported that one of the major hospitals in Ireland, would have access to EU funding for human embryo research, if the referendum were to be passed. Congressmen in the United States were fully aware of the push for a Yes vote from the embryo research industry. All that Ruse needs to do is ask, people such as Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) who was working with Dana Scallon and others to stop the mad rush to destroy human life in Ireland and in Europe. The bishops’ position was never the position that Austin Ruse proclaims, to do evil, that greater evils may be avoided.

Instruction from Dignitas Personae

Doctrinally amongst the “purists,” the troublesome prolifers, with the “fundamentalist view,” which Austin derides, we have the Christian.

In the instruction Dignitas Personae, the pesky “purists” again rear their ugly heads for Ruse & Company. States Dignitas Personae: “It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion… in order to evaluate all moral questions which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence… from the moment the zygote has formed, demands unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being…the human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized…”. Furthermore, Dignitas Personae states, “… This ethical principle, which reason is capable of recognizing as true and in conformity with the natural law, should be the basis for all legislation in this area.” (emphasis added).

It seems the Irish majority is indeed quite “purist.”  The christians, stated recently that, “2013 is an incredibly important one for the sanctity of human life in Ireland… Peoples of conscience from all religions and no religion need to work vigorously and courageously to protect and nurture human life from conception to natural death.” The Evangelical of Ireland had this to say: “The dignity of the human person and the common good of humanity depend on our respect for the right to life of every person from the moment of conception to natural death.”

Decriminalizing Abortion Via Repeal of 1861 Act

But there are more, crucial particulars about the 2002 Referendum that must be understood. The referendum, which Ruse praises, would have also repealed a crucial item of Irish law, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. This statute forbids abortion, making it a criminal offense. This 1861 law has been ridiculed by some of the groups which lobbied to vote Yes on the referendum, principally the Pro Life Campaign, which derides it as Victorian and outdated.

The particular articles in the 1861 Act that would have been repealed by the 2002 Referendum are exactly what Prime Minister Enda Kenny wants repealed in his current abortion legislation. Included, for the present legislation is the repeal of the same articles that would have been abolished in 2002. Which reads: “Every woman being with child, who with intent to procure her own miscarriage (abortion) shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whomsoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman…shall administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument…shall be guilty of felony.

The Article of the 1861 Act was intended to punish not only the person procuring an abortion and those who perform abortions, but also to punish those who supply the means for an abortion. These persons, according to the 1861 Act, “…shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Ruse fails to see what he saw clearly in 2002, that voting to decriminalize abortion is not the proper application of voting for an imperfect law and the claim to prevent the greater evil by voting for a lesser evil, does not apply when voting to decriminalize abortion.

Dana Scallon, who is one of the targets of Austin’s scathing criticism, was at the time of Austin’s article, unveiling a new coalition between North and South, Protestants and Evangelicals, united in the defense of life from the moment of conception and the 1861 Law. The impressive coalition, had letters of support from Lord David Alton, Lord Nicholas Windsor (member of the Academy for Life), the government of Malta (the only other nation in Europe where abortion is criminal, from the moment of conception), and Mr. Luca Volentè, one of the champions in Europe of the prolife cause. These “purists” who Ruse claims are causing a crisis in Ireland, are known to those of us who work for the prolife cause in Europe, to be unimpeachable defenders of life in the international public square and leaders who have stood squarely against the onslaught of the pro-abortion lobby.

It should be telling for Mr. Ruse to know that recently in Knock, Ireland, a majority of prolife groups met under the leadership of an Irish bishop to affirm the defense of the 1861 Act and the protection of life from the moment of conception.

It should also give Mr. Ruse pause to consider two things. The repeal of the 1861 Act, which would have happened ten years ago, if Ruse (by his thinking today), and some of the groups he recommends would have had their way, one day before the parliamentary hearings in Dublin this year. I was in Dublin at the time.  “…dismay that, in various countries, even those of Christian tradition, efforts are being made to introduce or expand legislation which decriminalizes abortion” emphasis added. Voting or legislating to decriminalize abortion is contrary to Christian doctrine.

Austin’s trusted advisor on all things Irish, Mr. David Quinn (Iona Institute)—would have no problem with much of this doctrinal divergence from Chritianism. Quinn is on record as having no issue with contraception and a host of other things. Quinn, has been evolving doctrinally (I admit), but I submit he is still unreliable. Writes Quinn, “O’Toole’s problem is with prolife Evangelicals, or ‘fundamentalists’… About some such Christians he is right, but they are a dwindling minority. I am an orthodox Christian, but I supported the decriminalization of homosexuality. I was for divorce…I believe if people want to use contraception, that is their right. More recently I opposed those who were against the provision of a vasectomy service in Donegal hospital I also supported removing churches form state-funded schools…” (emphasis added).

Why is Mr. Ruse recommending these individuals to the American prolife community? I certainly do not. I respectfully disagree, and think the American prolife community needs to be aware. I hold for the reasons stated in this article and others that these groups, although well-connected in politics and the Church Evangelical, are in fact doctrinally and in action not reliable.

Real Prolife Leaders in Ireland

The national campaign being waged against the Irish government’s efforts to legalize abortion has been led by two other groups which opposed the 2002 Referendum. The January 20, 2013 rally that took place in Dublin was organized and led by Youth Defense and Life Institute, more “purists” by Ruse’s calculation. These groups are holding weekly town hall meetings to defeat candidates who are willing to vote for abortion. They have funded a media campaign in newspapers and direct mail appeals to the Irish nation, asking citizens to oppose abortion on grounds of suicidal ideation in pregnant women.

This coalition is now in the process of collecting 100,000 pledges of Irish citizens who vow never to vote for the majority party Fine Gael, if it brings abortion legislation forward.

Mr. Ruse, ten years after the referendum he writes about, still fails to grasp the teaching of the Church, regarding the doctrine on imperfect laws, explained in Evangelium Vitae. On September 18, 2002, just months after the 2002 referendum in Ireland, provided the needed clarification.

When explaining what is unjust about pro-abortion laws, Professor Luño stated, “ Not only are those laws seriously unjust which allow the state to attack a human right, but also those through which the state fails in its duty to prohibit and punish…the violation of fundamental human rights by others…” The evil is not merely in the promotion of abortion but in the decriminalization of abortion in law, “…there is a moral obligation not to follow the provisions, to oppose them civilly… But there is, above all, the duty of doing everything legitimately possible to repeal such laws” (emphasis added).

Defeating the 2002 Referendum in Ireland, which was trying to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in Ireland, was the existing moral duty at the time.

Only after repeal of an unjust law has failed can one consider lessening the impact of the “law” by voting for imperfect legislation, and this only under certain conditions. States Luño in newspaper, in explaining the doctrine, two key principles need to be maintained: “The first states, that “although it is true that it is at times lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater… it is never lawful, even for the greatest of reasons, to do evil that good may come of it… even though the intention is to promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of a society in general” (emphasis added). Writes Luño: “No one may licitly carry out the command to kill ten innocent people in order to prevent the killing of thirty. What is intrinsically evil cannot be the direct object of the will, no matter what the cost” (emphasis added).

But there was another prohibition, which the Irish people were able to understand, thanks to the “purists” who Austin derides. Writes Luño: “The second principle concerns cooperation: ‘it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil.’|” This is defined as, ‘… a direct participation in an act against innocent human life, of a sharing in the moral intention of the person committing it’. Explains Luño, “It is not morally possible to collaborate in the creation or application of a seriously unjust law, for example, those which permit abortion or promote abortion… You cannot vote to introduce abortion, hoping to avoid further problems in the future. It’s that simple.

Professor Luño then presents a discussion, of three scenarios to aid in understanding the issue of support for morally imperfect legislation and guide in a proper application of Evangelium Vitae. 

The situation of a country where abortion is illegal. Changes in public opinion, the position of political groups, and other factors make it reasonably certain that within a short period of time it will be impossible to prevent the approval of a very permissive law on abortion. The following problem then arises: would it be morally licit to take the initiative, with the intention of forestalling a further worsening of the situation, by promoting a law which depenalizes abortion in just a few cases — rigorously defined — and which would also contain serious provisions aimed at preventing abortion?”

Luño explains why the answer to this question should also be negative, and why it does not meet the requirements of proper philosophical and Christian doctrine: “The fundamental reason is that, in this case, the backers of the law would be morally responsible for a seriously unjust law and one which also represents a worsening of the prior legal situation, even if it might be relatively positive in comparison with a possible or probable future legal situation. One should not take the initiative of making oneself responsible for something in itself morally wrong in order that others do not do something worse.  Furthermore he wrote, “…Public statements by persons who in some way represent the Church , call for particular prudence, so that certain criteria or prudential positions are not interpreted erroneously as doctrinal positions in favor of laws which do not guarantee complete protection for human life” (emphasis added).

Austin Ruse, a respected person in the prolife movement and a friend, lamentably paints a distorted picture of the Referendum 2002. It is also quite unclear why Austin is trying to litigate after ten years these issues, at this critical hour.

Everyone can judge for themselves. But we do our duty to correct Mr. Ruse’s misleading and aggressive article in Crisis magazine, as it is factually incorrect not only about the 2002 Referendum in Ireland but also about the current situation and who the players working to keep abortion out of Ireland really are. It conceals the facts of his own position on the 2002 Referendum. One hates to publicly contradict a friend who normally is more accurate and careful, on prolife matters. But on the Irish question, Austin proves to be an unreliable guide.