Groups on either side of the abortion divide reacted strongly yesterday to the decision of the parents of the pregnant rape victim not to take further legal action. While the Pro-Life Campaign condemned the Eastern Health Board for what it said was a failure to consider the 13-year-old's unborn child, the Irish Family Planning Association has called for the introduction of abortion legislation.
In a statement yesterday, the PLC said the medical profession was clear in its rejection of abortion as a medical treatment.
In this context, the EHB's decision that abortion was a medical treatment, and its refusal to allow an independent medical opinion, demanded an explanation.
As a result of the EHB's departure from Irish medical practice, the 13-year-old girl would almost certainly undergo an abortion and the life of her unborn baby would be ended, it stated.
The PLC claimed there was no medical need for this to happen and abortion carried its own risks, both psychological and physical, especially for such a young child.
Furthermore, the wishes of the girl's parents had been overruled and an unseemly stand-off had developed about access to her, the group claimed.
In its statement, the IFPA called last night for the introduction of abortion legislation.
The IFPA said the rejection of the proposed 1992 12th Amendment to the Constitution had been cited as one of the main reasons for the persistent failure of successive governments to legislate following the X case.
The rejected amendment sought to exclude the risk of suicide from the definition of a "real and substantial risk to the life" of the pregnant woman.
Given that the resolution of the C case had not relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the X case in 1992, it was clear that five years ago the electorate had saved the State from the appalling scenario of a suicidal rape victim being compelled to carry an uninvited and unwanted pregnancy to full term.
IFPA chief executive Mr Tony O'Brien said: "It is now apparent that the proposed `substantive' amendment in 1992 would have been a monumental error and that the electorate was wise to reject it. It is now clear that there can be no rowing back on the X case judgment.
"The only credible course of action is to bring in the required legislation immediately, not in response to current events, but in response to events more than five years ago.
"There are no grounds for further delay," he said.
Youth Defence, which has so far funded the parents' legal case, said the parents were being denied unsupervised access.
The child-care order was not against the parents: it had happened for the child's safety for fear of actions by the alleged rapist.
The parents wanted to explore every avenue for the safety of their child and their unborn grandchild and wanted to have a final talk with their daughter before she went to England, the organisation said.