Scottish midwives who lost their fight to conscientiously object to supervising abortions in a Supreme Court battle last week have been denied a “basic human right”, a senior bishop has said.
Bishop of Paisley John Keenan said that the women lost their jobs because they were pro-life.
“We should be in no doubt that this was a battle between competing proposals of the kind of country we want: a project propping up a culture of death by means of oppressing any legitimate opposition to it or a vision promoting respect for the life and freedom of all people,” he said in an article for the Scottish Catholic Observer.
He called the women, Connie Wood and Mary Doogan, “the most genuinely unlikely heroes”.
“They will, without doubt, some day be seen as pioneers of a fresh start, as inspirational staging posts for a new generation determined that it does not have to be this way,” he said.
Last week the Archbishop of Glasgow has expressed his dismay at the the UK Supreme Court decision to overturn an earlier ruling by the Court of Session in Edinburgh in favour of Ms Doogan and Ms Wood.
Ms Doogan and Ms Wood argued they should be excused from delegating, supervising and supporting staff involved in terminations and care of women afterwards on the grounds of conscientious objection.
The 1967 Abortion Act states that “no person shall be under any duty ... to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection.”
The case hinged on the definition of this clause with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde arguing that it did not cover supervising staff involved in terminations.
Last year an Edinburgh court took a broad view of what objecting could entail saying it pertained “not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose.” That decision overturned an earlier ruling in 2012 in favour of the health authority.
But the Supreme Court judges have now ruled in favour of a narrower definition saying that the scope of conscientious objection simply includes the right not to be involved in procedures or treatment that lead to a termination. It also rejected the midwives’ claim that their freedom of religion right under the Human Rights Act had been breached.
In the judgment Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said that to participate in an abortion means to have a “hands on” role.
“It is unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts,” she wrote.
The midwives are labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, and raised their objections after abortions started taking place on the labour ward.
Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, who has been supporting the midwives, said: “I am dismayed and disappointed at this decision of the Supreme Court which fundamentally impacts on the right of every citizen in this country to follow their conscience in the workplace. This was never a case about the rights and wrongs of abortion. Nor was it a case about religion. Rather it was a case which centred on the right of ordinary citizens to have their conscience respected in society and at work. All of society is a poorer, less respectful and less tolerant place as a result of this decision.”
Loading ...
