The tragic story of a 13-year-old traveller girl made pregnant as a result of rape has been described in some quarters as a re-run of the X case of 1992.
Both cases involve young girls, innocent victims of sexual assaults which made them pregnant. After some consideration, both sets of parents chose to bring their daughter to Britain for an abortion. In the present case, the anti-abortion and pro-choice lobbies are already squaring up to each other in a manner that recalls the venom generated by the 1992 case.
There the similarities stop, however. The legal and constitutional backdrop to the current case is very different to that which applied when the X case erupted.
In 1992, the State, through the Attorney General, tried to prevent the young girl at the centre of the X case from travelling to Britain with a parent for an abortion. Since then, a subsection has been added to the Constitution specifically to uphold such a right to travel.
In the X case, the State opposed the family's wishes, and intervened to prevent the daughter obtaining an abortion. Because the goalposts have since been moved, the State - through the Eastern Health Board - is now likely to facilitate the wishes of the family in the current case, or at least to stay neutral on the case by leaving the decision up to the High Court.
The controversy lays bare the failure of politicians to deal with abortion through legislative or constitutional changes. All the parties have promised action, but in the five years since the X case judgment, virtually nothing has been done.
In the present case, the 13-yearold girl has been taken into temporary care. The health board is in loco parentis, though it is still required to consult with the parents on important matters. But if the parents want their child to travel for an abortion, does the health board need to seek a direction from the High Court?
Here the lawyers differ. The 1992 constitutional amendment stated that the anti-abortion amendment of 1983 could not be used to limit the freedom to travel. The parents in the X case judgment were given the freedom to travel, so what is the difference in this case where the health board is in loco parentis? "There is no conditionality about the right to travel. The health board can take it upon itself to act in the girl's best interests and allow her to travel to England," says Prof Ivana Bacik, Reid professor of criminal law in TCD.
The opposing view was set out yesterday by former attorney general Mr Harry Whelehan. In his opinion, the health board cannot assume the responsibility for making a decision between, on the one hand, the conflicting rights of the mother to travel for an abortion and, on the other hand, the right of the unborn child to life.
"It's precisely for that reason that we have courts in this constitutional democracy to decide on issues where conflicting rights arise."
Seeking a direction from the High Court might leave the health board less exposed to a legal challenge from a group such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. But legal sources doubt whether SPUC could mount a successful challenge as it would find it difficult to prove a direct interest in the case.
There is also the consideration that the health board would not only be facilitating someone in its care to travel to Britain for an abortion, but it might also end up paying for it. The Eastern Health Board currently incurs substantial costs for up to 20 young people who have travelled outside the State, mostly for medical operations.
This case shows that although the legal situation may have changed, the economic and social factors which give rise to violence against women are still pervasive.
The family in the X case was stoutly middle-class; the girl at the centre of today's controversy comes from a traveller family which lives by the side of the road. But neither money nor the legal system provided any protection when male violence was visited upon two defenceless children.