Anti-conscientious objection article in Irish Times very misleading
The Iona Institute,
30 May, 2017
Reproduced with permission
Introduction
In March, 2017, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations
criticized Italy for failing to provide adequate access to abortion,
citing high rates of conscientious objection by physicians as a
"barrier" to access. News articles appearing earlier in the month
made or referred to the same kind of claim [Mirage
News,
The Daily Beast,
Crux]. The
Irish Times column to which Dr. Bottone refers, appearing at
the end of May, repeated the claims, apparently for the purpose of
persuading Irish readers that the law or state policy should override
the freedom of conscience and religion by compelling participation in
abortion. Dr. Bottone uses Italian language sources to effectively
counter the claims made by abortion advocates. [Administrator]
An article in The Irish Times this week presents
Italy as an example of how granting
doctors the right not to perform abortions can harm women. However,
the writer bases her case on some very erroneous information, never mind the
substance of her argument.
Laura Fano
Morrisey, an Italian pro-choice activist, begins her article with the story
of Valentina Miluzzo who in 2016 died of sepsis after the doctor, for
reasons of conscience, "refused to perform a termination following
complication in her twin pregnancy." This is totally untrue. He did perform
an abortion and she died anyway. (See an Italian source
here). Morrisey did not inform her readers of this fact.
Fano Morrisey
failed to mention that two investigations carried out by the Minister of
Health and by the public prosecutor established that the death of the woman
was not due to the fact that the doctor was a conscientious objector. The
first of the two twins was spontaneously miscarried while the second one was
aborted by the same doctor who, in that particular circumstance, did not
object to perform an abortion as the life of the mother was in imminent
danger. So, an abortion was carried out but it didn't prevent the death of
the woman. Can this be blamed on conscientious objection? Obviously not. So
Exhibit A in Fano Morrisey's case against conscientious objection collapses.
Laura Fano
Morrisey goes on to claim that the right to have an abortion "is often
denied by the practical impossibility of finding a doctor and a facility
what would provide one". While it is true that a big majority of
Italian doctors will not perform abortions, there is no evidence that any
woman has ever been denied an abortion because of conscientious objectors
(leaving aside for the moment the fact that abortion is wrong in itself).
Then she
mentions the story of a woman from Padua who had to visit 23 hospitals in
three different regions before being able to have an abortion. This is also
false. An inquest has established that she had an appointment for an
abortion but then had an anxiety crisis and made 23 phone calls to around
ten other hospitals to find out if she could have an abortion in one of
those. (Italian source
here) Eventually the abortion was performed as planned and according to
the law that prescribes a time limit of 28 days from the first visit. In any
event, in this particular region more than 5,000 abortions are performed
every year so why would someone have to call so many hospitals to find a
suitable one?
Before the
inquest established the truth, this story had been used by Italian
pro-choice activists to attack conscientious objectors, blaming them for the
delay. The author of the Irish Times article should have known that.
Laura Fano
Morrisey also claims that abortion doctors are "so overloaded with the
number of surgeries that sometimes they cannot keep up". However, according
to an
official report presented by the Minister for Health in December 2016,
the average number of abortions carried out by non-objecting doctors is 1.6
per week, in a working year of 44 weeks. Even in Molise, the Italian region
mentioned in the article, the number of abortions per week per doctor is
4.7. Hardly an overload.
In 1983 the
average number was 3.3 all over Italy, which is more than twice the current
value. The absolute number of non-objectors has not changed significantly
since then (from 1607 to 1408, a 12% drop) while the number of abortions
went down from 233,976 to 87,639 (- 62.5%). This means that the workload has
constantly decreased.
The percentage
of objectors among doctors has increased but this does not affect the
general provision of abortion.
Moreover, the
official report notes that there is no correlation between the percentage of
conscientious objectors and the waiting time for abortion. Which is to say
that even in regions with a high number of objectors the waiting time can be
high or low, depending on other circumstances. Molise, with the highest
percentage of objectors, has a waiting time lower than the national average.
(See Table 21 of the
report)
It is not true,
as Laura Fano Morrisey says, that there are not enough doctors performing
abortions. According to the Minister for Health, 11% of non-objecting
doctors are employed in other areas, which means that the abortion service
is already fully covered in their hospitals.
The author of
the article mentions a worrying trend in the increase of clandestine
abortion, linking this to the growing number of objectors. Again, this
claim, which is common among pro-choice campaigners, has no correspondence
to reality.
Official data
from the National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanità )
estimates that 'backyard' abortions in Italy are decreasing even as the
number of conscientious objectors is increasing. In 2012, it estimated that
between 12,000 and 15,000 'unofficial' abortions took place among Italian
women. The estimate was 100,000 for 1983, 72,000 for 1990 and 43,500 for
1995.
If conscientious
objection is the problem here, then why the big decrease in so-called
'backyard' abortions?
In her article,
Laura Fano Morrisey takes aim at conscientious objection but badly misses
the target. Upon close examination of the facts, her case collapses
completely.