Law on Conditions for the Termination of Pregnancy (Dziennik Ustaw, No. 12, 1956, Entry 61; 9 International Digest of Health Legislation 319 [1958]). Ordinance of the Minister of Health of December 19, 1959 (Dziennik Ustaw, No. 2, 1960, Entry 15; 13 International Digest of Health Legislation 140 [1962]) and Instruction No. 11/81 of September 21, 1981 of the Ministers of Health, Transport, National Defense, and Interior Affairs (Dziennik Urzedowy Ministerstwa Zdrowia i Opieki Spolecznej, No. 11, 1981, Entry 42).Google Scholar

Ordinance of the Minister of Health and Social Welfare of April 30, 1990 (Dziennik Ustaw, No. 29, 1990, Entry 178; 42 International Digest of Health Legislation 463 [1991]). This approval is required for abortions performed for “difficult living conditions,” the indication most commonly relied upon by women seeking abortions. The Ordinance also contains other requirements and allows physicians to refuse to approve abortions. For a full discussion of the Ordinance and the status of abortion in Poland until 1991, see See R. Boland, “Recent Developments in Abortion Law,” 19 Law, Medicine & Health Care 267 (1991).Google Scholar

Id., Boland, at 268.Google Scholar

Mary Battiata, “Pope Links Abortion, Holocaust as Destruction of the Defenseless,” The Washington Post, June 5, 1991, p. A21; Stephen Engelberg, “Which Way Poland; Pope Sounds a Call to Reclaim Lands from Both Communism and the West,” The New York Times, June 11, 1991, Section A, p. 12.Google Scholar

Tarnowski, Andrew, “Pope Denounces Abortion again Before Leaving Poland,” The Reuter Library Report, June 9, 1991.Google Scholar

“Polish Bishops Bring Abortion into Election Campaign,” The Reuter Library Report, September 18, 1991; Patricia Clough, “Church Struggling to Win over Polish Voters,” The Independent, October 21, 1991.Google Scholar

“How Many Polish Parties Does it Take to Make a Cabinet,” The Economist, November 2, 1991, p. 43.Google Scholar

Ibid.; Mary Battiata, “New Code in Poland Prompts Doctors to Refuse Abortions,” The Washington Post, Sec. 1, p.A26, May 29, 1992.Google Scholar

“Physicians Congress Adopts Ethics Code,” PAP News Wire, December 15, 1991.Google Scholar

Kodeks Etyki Lekarskiej, Warsaw, 1991; Batyzel, D.J., “Abortion Debate: Healers of the Soul,” The Warsaw Voice, Jan. 5, 1992.Google Scholar

“Parliamentarians Pro-Abortion,” Polish News Bulletin, December 18, 1991; “High Court Asked to Strike Anti-Abortion Medical Code,” United Press International, January 8, 1992.Google Scholar

Id., United Press International; “Ombudsman Explains Referral of Medical Code to Constitutional Tribunal,” The British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, January 10, 1992, p. EE/1274/B/1.Google Scholar

“Zielinski as Sole Candidate for Ombudsperson,” Polish News Bulletin, January 30, 1992.Google Scholar

“Zielinski Meets the Press,” Polish News Bulletin, May 14, 1992; P. Clough, “Polish Ombudsman Takes Action over Abortion Ban,” The Independent, May 15, 1992, p. 10.Google Scholar

“Tribunal Fails to Decide on Physicians Code, Deputies File Bills,” PAP News Wire, May 6, 1992; “Ombudsman Contra Medical Ethics Code,” Polish News Bulletin, May 5, 1992.Google Scholar

Id.,Polish News Bulletin.Google Scholar

Ibid.; “New Doctor's Code Incompatible with Current Law,” PAP News Wire, May 4, 1992; “Polish Ombudsman Vows to Defend Abortion Right,” The Reuter Library Report, May 13, 1992.Google Scholar

“Doctor's Code Provisions Violate Constitutional Order—Ombudsman,” PAP News Wire, May 5, 1992.Google Scholar

“Zielinski Meets the Press,” Polish News Bulletin, May 14, 1992; Clough, P., “Polish Ombudsman Takes Action over Abortion Ban,” The Independent, May 15, 1992, p. 10.Google Scholar

“Sejm Examines Three Bills on Abortion,” PAP News Wire, July 24, 1992.Google Scholar

Ibid.;Lindemann, M “Polish MPs Vote for Ban on Abortion,” The Independent, July 25, 1992, p. 10; “Ban on Abortion Sustained,” Polish News Bulletin, September 25, 1992:Google Scholar

Bartyzel, D.J., “Abortion Bill: A Never-Ending Controversy,” The Warsaw Voice, August 2, 1992; Bartyzel, D.J., “Abortion Debate: The Meaning of Life,” The Warsaw Voice, April 19, 1992.Google Scholar

Id., Bartyzel, , The Warsaw Voice, August 2, 1992; “ZChN Abortion Bill Submitted to Sejm Commission,” Polish News Bulletin, July 27, 1992.Google Scholar

Bartyzel, supra, note 22.Google Scholar

Polish News Bulletin,supra, note 23.Google Scholar

Ibid.; Lindemann, M., “Polish MPs Vote for Ban on Abortion,” The Independent, July 25, 1992, p. 10; “Sejm Discusses Christian National Union's Abortion Bill,” BBC, Summary of World Broadcasts, p. EE/1445/B/1.Google Scholar

“Constitutional Tribunal Issues Cautious Ruling on Doctor's Code,” PAP News Wire, October 7, 1992;Koza, P., “High Court Refuses to Rule on Abortion Issue,” United Press International, October 8, 1992.Google Scholar

“No Ruling on Doctors' Ethical Code,” Polish News Bulletin, October 8, 1992.Google Scholar

Koza, P., “Parliamentary Committee Approves Anti-Abortion Bill,” United Press International, November 20, 1 992; “Democratic Union Warns against ‘Extreme’ Abortion Legislation,” PAP News Wire, November 20, 1992.Google Scholar

“Polish Deputies Demand a Referendum on Abortion,” Reuter Library Report, November 9, 1992; “Suchoka against Referendum on Abortion,” Polish News Bulletin, November 16, 1992; “780,000 Signatures for Motion to Hold referendum on Abortion,” PAP News Wire, December 12, 1992; Waldoch, A., “Abortion Shakes the Coalition,” The Warsaw Voice, January 3, 1993.Google Scholar

Fletcher, P., “Polish Deputies Approve Compromise Abortion Bill,” Reuters, January 7, 1993; “Sejm Changes Title of Abortion Bill,” PAP News Wire, January 7, 1993.Google Scholar

Id.; an English translation of the bill was provided to the author by the WHO.Google Scholar

Sciller, B., “Strict Limits on Abortions Approved by Polish Senate,” The Toronto Star, January 31, 1993, p. A2.Google Scholar

“President Signs Anti-Abortion Act,” Polish News Bulletin, February 16, 1993.Google Scholar

Majman, S., “Troll under the Bed Cover,” The Warsaw Voice, May 17, 1992; Battiata, M., “New Code in Poland Prompts Doctors to Refuse Abortions,” The Washington Post May 29, 1992, p. A26.Google Scholar

Nowakowska, A. and Wielowieyska, M., “Dispute about Abortions Continues,” Polish News Bulletin, May 11, 1992; “Ombudsman Contra Medical Ethics Code,” Polish News Bulletin, May 3, 1992.Google Scholar

Zalewska, E., “Abortion: Ethics vs the Law,” The Warsaw Voice, May 17, 1992; “Medical and Religious Affairs in Brief: Doctors Stop Performing Abortions as Ethical Code Comes into Force,” The British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, May 8, 1992, p. EE/1375/B/1.Google Scholar

“Number of Abortions Falling, According to Statistical Office,” The British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, January 9, 1993, p. EE/1582/B; “Reports on Abortion Issue in Brief,” The British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, December 10, 1992, p. EE/1560/B1.Google Scholar

Zalewska, , supra, note 37; Sherwell, P., “Doctors Feel Pinch from Polish Priests,” The Sunday Telegraph, May 31, 1992, p. 16; “News Conference on Prenatal Tests,” Polish News Bulletin, November 25, 1992.Google Scholar

Engelberg, S., “Polish Limits on Abortion Create a New Clandestine Movement,” The New York Times, December 28, 1992, Section A, p. 10.Google Scholar

Ibid.Google Scholar

It appears that the Government has the same fears, since during the last week in January it deposited the instruments for ratification of the Convention with the exception of those accepting the authority of the Commission on Human Rights and the Court of Human Rights over human rights disputes in Poland. L. Kowalska, “Convention Incomplete,” Polish News Bulletin, February 3, 1993; “European Convention Waiting for Sejm Decision,” Polish News Bulletin, January 27, 1993. The reason for the exception was reportedly pressure from the Christian National Union, which believes that if the Government delays in accepting the authority of these bodies until after the new abortion law comes into effect, the Court will have no jurisdiction to decide any challenge brought against the law by Polish citizens. Parliament members from other parties have written the Prime Minister of Poland for a clarification of the situation.Google Scholar

Fletcher, P., “Catholic Poles Rebel over Tough Anti-abortion Bill,” The Reuter Library Report, December 15, 1992; “Health Ministry Takes Controversial Step; Anti-Conception,” The Warsaw Voice, May 19, 1991; Kissling, F., “The Church's Heavy Hand in Poland,” Chicago Tribune, June 22, 1991, p. 22;Mrugula, G., Influence “Polish Family Planning in a Crisis: The Roman Catholic,” Planned Parenthood in Europe, Vol. 20, 1991, p. 5.Google Scholar

“Poles for Referendum on Abortion,” Polish News Bulletin, May 5, 1992; “Public Opinion on Abortion,” Polish News Bulletin, March 17, 1992.Google Scholar

Bartyzel, D., “Church vs State: Power and the Glory,” The Warsaw Voice, May 10., 1992; Engelberg, S., “Poland Faces a New Battle on Abortion,” The New York Times, April 21, 1992, Section A, p. 3; Koza, P., “Polish Passions Flare over Religious Classes,” United Press International, April 19, 1992.Google Scholar

Kissling, supra, note 43.Google Scholar

“President Walesa Signs Controversial Radio, TV Bill,” PAP News Wire, January 13, 1993.Google Scholar

“Clericized Poland,” Polish News Bulletin, May 21, 1992; Bartyzel, supra, note 45.Google Scholar

Sherwell, P., “Doctors Feel Pinch from Polish Priests,” The Sunday Telegraph, May 31, 1992, p. 16; Majman, S., “Troll under the Bed Cover,” The Warsaw Voice, May 17, 1992; “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” The Warsaw Voice, December 6, 1992.Google Scholar

Majman, S., “A Return to the Kitchen,” The Warsaw Voice, March 22, 1992; “Conference on Equality of Sexes,” Polish News Bulletin, April 1, 1992; “Poland; No Place to Be a Woman,” The Economist, December 12, 1992, p. 60.Google Scholar

“Women Facing Discrimination in Post-Communist Poland,” Inter Press Service, March 19, 1992; “Gender Discrimination Increases in Poland—Helsinki Watch,” The Reuter Library Report, March 12, 1992.Google Scholar

See note 43, supra.Google Scholar

Ordinance No. 76 of the Council of Ministers of November 3, 1988 on the termination of pregnancy (Magyar KöoUzlöoUny, No. 52, November 3, 1988, pp. 1185–1186; Summarized in International Digest of Health Legislation, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1989, p. 595); Ordinance No. 15 of the Ministry Of Social Affairs and Health of December 15, 1988 (Magyar KöoUzlöoUny, No. 62, December 15, 1988, pp. 1379–1387; summarized in International Digest of Health Legislation, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1989, pp. 595–596); Penal Code of December 22, 1978.Google Scholar

Ordinance No. 1040 of the Council of Ministers of October 18, 1973 (Magyar KöoUzlöoUny, No. 71, October 18, 1973); Ordinance No. 4 of the Ministry of Health of December 1, 1973, as amended by Ordinance No. 3 of February 2, 1982 and Ordinance No. 3 of July 23, 1986 (Magyar KöoUzlöoUny, No. 80, 1973; No. 3 of 1982; and No. 12 of 1986). An English translation of the changes effected by the Ordinance of July 23, 1986 appears in 38 International Digest of Health Legislation 56 (1987).Google Scholar

Williams, C.J., “Regional Outlook; An Abortion Debate Divorced from Morality,” Los Angeles Times, July 31, 1990, Part H, p. 2; Sarkany, V., “To Have or to Have Not,” The Hungarian Observer, November 1990; “Hungarian Catholic Episcopacy on Abortion,” MTI Hungarian News Agency, MTI Econews, July 17, 1991.Google Scholar

Id., Williams, and Sarkany, ; “Hungary's Abortion Opponents Depict a Nation on the Wane; Foes of Abortion Depict a Country in Decline,” The New York Times, January 5, 1992, Section 1, Part 1, p. 7.Google Scholar

“Hungarian Parliament Asked to Draft New Abortion Law,” Agence France Presse, December 16, 1991; Pullella, P., “Pope Takes Stand on Abortion Issue in Hungary,” The Reuter Library Report, August 18, 1991.Google Scholar

Constitution of the Republic of Hungary, Section 54(1) (Blaustein, A.P. and Flanz, G.H., Constitutions of the Countries of the World, 1990).Google Scholar

“Chronik der Rechtsentwicklung,” Recht in Ost und West, 1992, p. 78.Google Scholar

Ibid.Google Scholar

Ibid.; KöoUzlöoUny, Magyar, No. 139, 1991; “Abortion Legal Measures Termed Anti-Constitutional,” MTI Hungarian News Agency, MTI Econnews, December 17, 1991; “Hungarian Parliament Asked to Draft New Abortion Law,” Agence France Presse, December 16, 1991.Google Scholar

Under Hungary's Penal Code all abortions are illegal (Penal Code of December 22, 1978). Thus if the two Ordinances making exceptions to the Penal Code cease to have effect, the restrictive provisions of the Penal Code will be the only existing legal provisions governing abortion.Google Scholar

“Court Rules Hungarian Abortion Regulations Unconstitutional,” The Reuter Library Report, December 17, 1991; MTI Econews, supra, note 61.Google Scholar

Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Europa Publications Limited: London, 1992, p. 180; Nagy, C., “Hungary: Debate on Abortion Sharpens on Eve of Pope's Visit,” Inter Press Service, August 14, 1991; “Hungarian President against Induced Abortions,” MTI Hungarian News Agency, MTI Econews, February 27, 1992.Google Scholar

“Abortion—Opinion Poll,” MTI Hungarian News Agency, MTI Econews, May 14, 1991; “Hungary Opts for Liberal Abortion Law,” The Reuter Library Report, December 17, 1992; “Free Democrats Consider a Referendum on Abortion Possible,” BBC, Summary of World Broadcasts, May 2, 1992, p. EE/1370/B/1; “Parliament,” MTI Hungarian News Agency, MTI Econews, March 23, 1992.Google Scholar

“Spokeswoman's Briefing: Abortion, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros,” MTI Econews, September 4, 1992.Google Scholar

“Parliament Approves Law on Protection of Fetal Life,” MTI Econews, December 17, 1992; “Hungarian Parliament Approves Relatively Liberal Abortion Law,” The New York Times, December 18, 1992, Section A, p. 5; “National Assembly Approves Law Changing Abortion Regulations”, The British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, December 19, 1992, p. EL71568/E/1. The text of the law appears in Magyar Kozlony, No. 132, December 23, 1992; a German translation was provided to the author by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law.Google Scholar

Klinger, A., “Hungary,” in International Handbook on Abortion, Sachdev, P., ed. (Greenwood Press: Westport, Conn., 1988), pp. 226–227; David, H.P., “Abortion in Europe, 1920–21: A Public Health Perspective”, Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1992, p.9.Google Scholar

Varkonyi, A., “Moves towards Easier Abortion in Hungary,” People (IPPF), Vol. 19, No. 2, 1989, p. 28.Google Scholar

Penal Code, Act No. 5591 of June 15, 1977, as amended by Act No. 6300 of March 27, 1981 and Decree No. 7251 of September 15, 1988, Sections 95 and 178. A translation of these provisions appears in 16 Annual Review of Population Law 25 (1989).Google Scholar

United Nations, Abortion Policies: A Global Review (United Nations: New York, 1991), Vol. 1, p. 20; United Nations Fund for Population Activities, Survey of Laws on Fertility Control (UNFPA: New York, 1979), p. 43.Google Scholar

Order No. 1765 of June 17, 1989 on permission for prevention and eventual interruption of pregnancy.Google Scholar

David, H.P. and McIntyre, R.J., Reproductive Behavior: Central and Eastern European Experience (Springer Publishing Co., New York, 1981), p. 303; Fowler, B., “Women Go Last,” The Times (London), April 8, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoxha, E., “Albania is Forging Ahead Confidently and Unafraid,” New Bulletin (Albania), November 8, 1978.Google Scholar

David, H.P. and McIntyre, R.J., supra, note 73, at 302.Google Scholar

Beattie, M., “Albanian Women Bear the Burden of Communism, Social Prejudice,” Reuters, April 15, 1991.Google Scholar

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Albania, (UNFPA: New York, 1991).Google Scholar

David, H.P., “Abortion in Europe, 1920–91: A Public Health Perspective,” Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1992, p. 14; “Albania: ‘Many Illegal Abortion Deaths,” Abortion Report, August 14, 1991; Parmelee, J., “Language: Albanians' Instrument of Revolt,” The Washington Post, July 15, 1990, p. A22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ibid., David, at 14.Google Scholar

Fowler, B., “Women Go Last,” The Times (London), April 8, 1992.Google Scholar

United Nations, supra, note 71.Google Scholar

Directive, dated June 8, 1991, as an addition to Directive No. 3 of June 17, 1989 “On legalizing the prevention and the medical termination of pregnancy.”Google Scholar

Decision No. 226 of May 27, 1992 on approval of activities concerning family planning in Albania.Google Scholar

United Nations, supra, note 71.Google Scholar

Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (Europa Publications Limited: London 1992), p. 79.Google Scholar

Ibid.Google Scholar

David, H.P., supra, note 68, at 14.Google Scholar

Treaty between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany on Bringing about German Unity (Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Part I, September 28, 1990, p. 1627). See Boland, supra, note 2.Google Scholar

Law of March 9, 1972 (Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Part I, March 15, 1972, p. 89) and Regulations of March 9, 1972 (Gesetzblatt der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Part II, March 20, 1972, p. 149).Google Scholar

Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code), § § 218–219, as amended by the Law of May 18, 1976 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, May 18, 1976, p. 213).Google Scholar

See supra, note 88.Google Scholar

Fisher, M., “Pressing Problems Quickly Dim Kohl's Reelection Afterglow,” The Washington Post, December 4, 1990, p. A19; Murray, I., “Opposing Camps Dig in for German Battle over Abortion,” The Times (London), May 14, 1991;Eisenhammer, J., “Kohl's Coalition Threatened by Abortion Row,” The Independent, September 21, 1991, p. 9; Murray, I., “Abortion Debate Opens Divisions in United Germany,” The Times (London), September 27, 1991.Google Scholar

“In der Abtreibungsdebatte des Bundestages Mahnungen zu Kompromissbereitschaft und Toleranz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 27, 1991, p. 1; “Titel—Titel noch Titel; Unterzeile noch Unterzeile,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 27, 1991; “Wille zum Absprung,” Der Spiegel, No. 46, 1991, p. 41.Google Scholar

“Zur Neuregelung des Abtreibungsparagraphen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 20, 1991; “Die Feigenblätter der Union,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 20, 1991; “Unions-Kompromiss ohne Verbesserung,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 20, 1991; “Ein unbedachter Gesetzentwurf der Union,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 6, 1991.Google Scholar

Judgment of December 3, 1991 (Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, No. 7, 1992, p. 328); “Früherer Frauenarzt Theissen; Urteil von Memmingen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, December 4, 1991; “… ordnungsgemüaUss abgewickelt,” Der Spiegel, No. 50, 1991, p. 63.Google Scholar

“Hexenjagd in Bayern,” Der Spiegel, No. 38, 1988, p. 24; M. Pitzke, “West German Doctor Jailed for Illegal Abortions,” The Reuter Library Report, May 5, 1989; “West German Doctor Admits Illegal Abortions,” Reuters, September 12, 1988.Google Scholar

The lower court decision is printed in Ulrich Vultejus, ed., Das Urteil von Memmingen: Von Elend der Indikation (Volksblatt Verlag: Cologne, 1990), p. 79.Google Scholar

Theissen Dr. also argued that the statute of limitations had lapsed with respect to his prosecution for many of the abortions. Because the Court accepted this argument, holding that 20 of the convictions were invalid, it returned the case to a lower court to determine new penalties.Google Scholar

Morris, N., “Daily Briefing: A Tough Challenge for Germany—A Unified Abortion Law,” The San Francisco Chronicle, February 11, 1992, p. A10; Der Spiegel, supra, note 95; H. Kerscher, “Memmingen und Kein Ende,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, December 4, 1991.Google Scholar

Der Spiegel, supra, note 95.Google Scholar

This aspect of the decision was particuarly disturbing because there had been numerous signs at the first trial that some of the judges were seriously biased against the defendant. See Ulrich Vultejus, ed., supra, note 97.Google Scholar

Dr. Theissen's appeal of the decision has been accepted by the Constitutional Court. “Entscheidung über Section § 218 wahrscheinlich noch 1992,” Süddeutscher Zeitung, February 26, 1992.Google Scholar

“Antrag vorgelegt; Kompromiss zu 218; Abgeordnete wollen Fristen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, May 9, 1992; M. Fisher, “German Legislators Reach Compromise on Abortion,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1992, p. A30; “SPD, FDP, and Some Conservatives and Alliance ‘90 Members Reach Compromise on Abortion Issue,” The Week in Germany, May 15, 1992.Google Scholar

Graupner, H., “Teuer ist die Reform schon jetzt; Vom neuern Abtreibungsrecht hat Karlsruhe das Sozialpaket Gesetz werden lassen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, August 7, 1992. Estimates of the cost of these measures ranged up to 60 million marks.Google Scholar

“Streit um Fristenlöosung mit Pflichtberatunggeht weiter,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, June 27, 1992; “Catholics, Conservatives Dismayed at Pro-abortion Vote in Parliament,” Agence France Presse, June 26, 1992; M. Fisher, “Abortion Law Faces Fight in Germany; Both Sides Forecast Victory in Court,” The Washington Post, June 27, 1992, p. A15.Google Scholar

Fifth Statute to Reform the Penal Law of June 18, 1974 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, 1974, p. 1297). Judgment of February 25, 1975 (39 BVerfGE 1). An English translation appears in 9 John Marshall Journal of Practice and Procedure 605 (1976).Google Scholar

“Conservative MPs Take New Abortion Law to Constitutional Court,” Agence France Presse, July 14, 1992.Google Scholar

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, West German Press and Information Office, 1981, p. 14.Google Scholar

“Karlsruhe setzt eine knappe Frist für Anträge,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, August 6, 1992, p. 1; H. Kerscher, “Karlsruhe: Das 218-Verfahren; Eine Frage fürht auf die rechte Spur,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, August 5, 1992; M. Fisher, “German Court Blocks Liberal Abortion Law,” The Washington Post, August 5, 1992, p. A25.Google Scholar

Decision of May 28, 1993, reproduced in 20 Europaisches Grundrechte Zeitschrift 228 (1993).Google Scholar

Article 40.3.3., Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1983.Google Scholar

Attorney General (S.P.U.C.) v. Open Door Counselling, [1989] I.L.R.M. 19; Society for the Protection of the Unborn (S.P.U.C.) v. Grogan, [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 689. See Boland, supra, note 2, at 408.Google Scholar

Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (213 U.N.T.S. 222).Google Scholar

Open Door Counselling Ltd. and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd. v. Ireland, [1992] 14 E.H.R.R. 115. The Commission had issued a preliminary ruling in May 1990 in favor of the clinic.Google Scholar

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd. (S.P.U.C.) v. Grogan, [1991] 3 C.M.L.R. 849.Google Scholar

The case had been referred to the Court by the lower Irish court that had originally heard the case and had responded to the questions of Treaty of Rome violations raised by the student groups. Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (S.P.U.C.) v. Grogan, [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 689.Google Scholar

GB-INNO-BM v. Confederation du Commerce Luxembourgeois, [1990] E.C.R. 667.Google Scholar

See [1990] 8 I.L.T. 1.Google Scholar

Attorney General v. X, [1992] 2 C.M.L.R. 277.Google Scholar

A. Murdoch, “Rape Victim's Case Softens Irish Attitudes to Abortion,” The Independent, February 24, 1992, p. 1; B. Johnson, “Euro-MPs Furious over Irish Opt-out Clause on Abortion,” The Daily Telegraph, February 28, 1992, p. 8; J.F. Clarity, “Irish Court Says Girl Can Leave to Obtain Abortion in Britain,” The New York Times, February 27, 1992, Section A, p. 1.Google Scholar

Attorney General v. X, [1992] 2 C.M.L.R. 277.Google Scholar

Bourne, R.V, [1939] 1 K.B. 687.Google Scholar

Murdoch, M, “The Irish Myth of a Blinkered Society; Ireland May Be Undergoing a Sea Change over Abortion but What Do Most Really Think?” The Independent, March 8, 1992, p. 8; Coone, T., “Irish ‘Want Change’ in Abortion Legislation,” Financial Times, March 3, 1992, p. 4; “Ireland; Battle of Maastricht,” The Economist, February 29, 1992, p. 55.Google Scholar

Treaty on European Union and Final Act (31 I.L.M. 247 [1992]).Google Scholar

Riding, A., “The European Summit: Europe at Crossroads,” The New York Times, December 12, 1991, Section A, p. 1.Google Scholar

For a discussion of the Treaty see Riding, R, “The European Summit; Europeans Agree on a Pact Forging New Political Ties and Integrating Economies,” The New York Times, December 11, 1991, Section A, p. 1; Riding, R, “The European Summit: Europe at Crossroads,” The New York Times, December 12, 1991, Section A, p. 1; “What They Agreed,” The Times, December 12, 1991.Google Scholar

31 I.L.M. 247 (1992), at 362. See, LaFranchi, H, “Irish Abortion Case Tests European Legal Standards,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 26, 1992, p. 6; “Ireland's European Dilemma, The Independent,” February 24, 1992, p. 18.Google Scholar

Murdoch, A and Marshall, A, “Irish Abortion Ban Could Jeopardise Maastricht Treaty,” The Independent, February 20, 1992, p. 2; Johnson, B, “Euro-MPs Furious over Irish Opt-out Clause on Abortion,” The Daily Telegraph, February 28, 1992, p. 8.Google Scholar

Johnson, B., “Ireland Fighting to Keep Abortion Ban,” The Daily Telegraph, November 20, 1991, p. 12.Google Scholar

See supra, note 123.Google Scholar

Parkin, C., “Abortion Decision Brings Legal Confusion,” Press Association Newsfile, February 26, 1992; LaFranchi, H, “Irish Abortion Case Tests European Legal Standards,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 26, 1992; Clarity, J.F, “Irish Court Says Girl Can Leave to Obtain Abortion in Britain,” The New York Times, February 27, 1992, Section A, p. 1; “Ireland's European Dilemma,” The Independent, February 24, 1992, p. 18.Google Scholar

Clarity, J.F, “Irish Leader Will Try to Ease Abortion Law,” The New York Times, March 15, 1992, Section 1, Part 1, p. 15; Ryder, C, “Treaty Move by Irish,” The Daily Telegraph, March 12, 1992, p. 2.Google Scholar

Gorman, E, “Irish to Issue Guidance on Abortion,” The Times, March 27, 1992;Majendie, P., “Dublin Offers to Change Abortion Clause in EC Pact,” The Reuter Library Report, March 26, 1992; Ryder, C., “Irish to Lift Travel Ban on Abortion,” The Daily Telegraph, March 27, 1992, p. 2.Google Scholar

Wolberg-Stok, A., “EC Rubberstamps Declaration to Solve Irish Abortion Row,” The Reuter Library Report, May 1, 1992.Google Scholar

Murdoch, A., “Abortion Clouds Irish EC Poll,” The Independent, April 24, 1992, p. 2; Majendie, P., “EC Treaty Rejection Means Second-Class Ireland, Irish Told,” The Reuter Library Report, April 23, 1992.Google Scholar

Murdoch, A., “Irish Abortion Crisis Forces Referendum,” The Independent, April 8, 1992, p. 3; Gorman, E., “Irish Government Agrees to Referendum on Abortion,” The Times, April 8, 1992.Google Scholar

Majendie, P., “Feminists, Anti-abortionists in Unholy Irish Alliance,” The Reuter Library Report, June 16, 1992; Frankel, G., “Irish Vote on European Unity Pact amid Abortion Dispute,” The Washington Post, June 19, 1992, Section 1, p. A29; Goodman, P., “The Yes and the No of it All,” The Daily Telegraph, June 17, 1992, p. 21.Google Scholar

Clarity, J.F., “Irish Vote Backs European Treaty, Giving New Life to Plan for Unity,” The New York Times, June 20, 1992, Section 1, p. 1; Parkin, C. and Meade, G., “Irish Vote by Massive Margin for Maastricht,” Press Association Newsfile, June 19, 1992.Google Scholar

Majendie, P., “Ireland's Reynolds Hails EC Abortion Breakthrough,” The Reuter library Report, April 16, 1992.Google Scholar

Wolberg-Stok, A., “EC Rubberstamps Declaration to Solve Irish Abortion Row,” The Reuter Library Report, May 1, 1992.Google Scholar

As if to underscore this fact, shortly following approval of the Treaty, student groups were back in court after continuing to distribute information about the availability of abortion services in England. A. Murdoch, “Students Defend Right to Abortion Information,” The Independent, August 7, 1992, p. 6.Google Scholar

“Ireland to Stage Referendum on Abortion,” Reuters, October 6, 1992; A. Mac Eoin, “Ireland to Hold Three Votes on Abortion,” United Press International, October 6, 1992; “Irish People to Vote in December on Whether to Legalise Abortion,” Agence France Presse, October 6, 1992.Google Scholar

Craig, C., “Ireland: A Bitter Campaign Likely for Abortion Referendum,” Inter Press Service, October 7, 1992; Majendie, P, “Reynolds Backs Some Cases for Abortion in Ireland,” The Reuter Library Report, October 7, 1992; Majendie, P, “Reynolds Promises Flexibility on Irish Abortion Vote,” The Reuter Library Report, October 8, 1992.Google Scholar

Craig, C., “Ireland: Abortion Debate Heats up as Referendum Date is Announced,” Inter Press Service, October 16, 1992.Google Scholar

“Bishops Accept Both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ Votes,” The Irish Times, November 6, 1992, p. 16; Clarity, J.F., “Leader Defeated, Irish Government Collapses,” The New York Times, November 6, 1992, Section A, p. 9.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G., “Archbishop Calls for Three Amendments to Be Opposed,” The Irish Times, November 13, 1992, p. 1; Tuohy, W., “Next Step; Irish Voters Gird for Pivotal Election,” Los Angeles Times, November 24, 1992, p. 2; Serjeant, J., “Irish Agonise Over Abortion Referendum,” The Reuter Library Report, November 25, 1992.Google Scholar

Clarity, J.F., “Ireland Renews Abortion Debate,” The New York Times, October 27, 1992, Section A, p. 8; Craig, supra, note 144.Google Scholar

Majendie, P., “Abortion Referendum Nightmare Scenario for Irish Doctors,” The Reuter Library Report, October 20, 1992.Google Scholar

Case No. 64/1991/316/387–388. Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland.Google Scholar

An adverse ruling by the European Court of Human Rights entails serious consequences since under the Convention a conflicting State law may not be used as justification for failing to uphold treaty commitments. See F. Matscher and H. Petzold, eds., Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension (1988). If Ireland had not approved the referendum on allowing the distribution of information on the availability of abortion services, as discussed below, it would have been faced with the alternatives of amending its constitution again, or at least enacting legislation defining more narrowly the scope of the Amendment, or withdrawing from the Convention.Google Scholar

Coghlan, D., “Election, Abortion Vote Set for November 25th,” The Irish Times, November 6, 1992, p. 1; Parkin, C., “Irish Election Brought Forward,” Press Association Newsfile, November 5, 1992; Clarity, J.F., “Leader Defeated, Irish Government Collapses,” The New York Times, November 6, 1992, Section A, p. 9.Google Scholar

Majendie, P., “Irish to Reject Abortion Reform—Poll,” The Reuter Library Report, November 21, 1992; “Irish Government Faces Two High-risk Votes,” Agence France Presse, November 24, 1992; Kennedy, G., ‘No’ Vote Likely on Abortion Question,” The Irish Times, November 21, 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G., “Amendment on Abortion is Facing Heavy Defeat,” The Irish Times, November 28, 1992, p. 1; Clarity, J.F., “Women in Irish Parliament Vow a Fight over Abortions,” The New York Times, November 28, 1992, Section 1, p. 4; Serjeant, J, “Irish Voters Reject Proposal to Lift Blanket Ban on Abortion,” Reuters, November 28, 1992; “Irish Voters Reject Abortion,” Agence France Presse, November 28, 1992.Google Scholar

Holland, M., “Where Each Side Believes that the Other Lost,” The Irish Times, November 28, 1992, p. 9.Google Scholar

Serjeant, J., “Ireland Faces Weeks of Coalition Wrangling,” The Reuter Library Report, November 28, 1992; Coghlan, D., “Bruton Calls for ‘No’ to Referendum,” The Irish Times, November 19, 1992, p. 1; Coghlan, D., “Proposed Law to Specify Which Doctors Can Order Abortions,” The Irish Times, November 18, 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

“Yes and No,” The Economist, December 5, 1992, p. 17; Serjeant, J., “Irish Women Wage Velvet Revolution for a Better Deal,” The Reuter Library Report, November 30, 1992; Israelson, D., “Both Sides Claim Win in the Irish Abortion Vote,” The Toronto Star, November 28, 1992.Google Scholar

“Leading Article: A New Spirit in Ireland,” The Independent, January 13, 1993, p. 20.Google Scholar

Law of 3 April 1990 (Moniteur belge, April 5, 1990, p. 6379). An English translation appears in 41 International Digest of Health Legislation 447 (1990).Google Scholar

This was the second opinion of the Court on a challenge to the law. The first had been dismissed approximately one year earlier. Journal des Tribunaux 29 (1991). For a discussion of this case see Boland, R., “Recent Developments in Abortion Law,” 19 Law, Medicine & Health Care 267 (1991) at 270.Google Scholar

Crabb, J.H., ed., The Constitution of Belgium, 1982, p. 26.Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 8 and 12 (213 U.N.T.S. 221); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 17 and 23 (999 U.N.T.S. 171).Google Scholar

See, for example, comments on the Court's decision made by Philippe Coenraets in Journal des Tribunaux 364 (1992).Google Scholar

Orders of December 21, 1990. Revue française de droit administratif 208 (1991). For a discussion of these Orders, see Boland, R., “RU 486 in France and England: Corporate Ethics and Compulsory Licensing,” 20 Law, Medicine & Health Care 170, 1992.Google Scholar

McKinsey, K., “Croatia Seeks Ways to Boost Birthrate,” The Gazette (Montreal), June 22, 1992, p. B1; “Un hospital croate cesse de son propre chef de pratiquer des avortements,” Agence France Presse, September 23, 1992.Google Scholar

“Today's Press Survey,” CTK National News Wire, June 30, 1992; Ketting, E., “Transition: For Better or for Worse,” Planned Parenthood in Europe, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar

Acozar, P., “Spain: Women Protesting against Abortion Laws,” Inter Press Service, March 24, 1992; Grant, K., “Spain Faces Heated Debate over New Abortion, Terrorism Laws,” The Reuter Library Report, February 28, 1992.Google Scholar

See Cook, R.J., “International Protection of Women's Reproductive Rights,” 24 New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 401 (1992).Google Scholar

See Boland, , supra, note 2.Google Scholar

Tietze, C. and Henshaw, S.K., Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1986 (New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1986); Henshaw, S.K., “Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1990,” 22 Family Planning Perspectives 76 (1990).Google Scholar

See Boland, supra, note 163; Kolata, G, “Morning-After Use for Abortion Pill,” The New York Times, October 11, 1992, Section 4, p. 2.Google Scholar