CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 Claims under article 19 4.11 The author has not substantiated her claim that her right to receive information under article 19 was violated. Non-directive information on termination services in other countries is available under Irish law, in accordance with the abortion information act. The author states that the consultant’s remark at the hospital in Wexford (mentioning that in another country, she would be offered a termination of pregnancy, whereas this was not possible in Ireland) was an informal way of telling her and her husband that they could travel to terminate the pregnancy. Further, at the hospital in Dublin, the author was given the name of a hospital in the United Kingdom. The author also states that she felt she could not even raise the issue of terminating the pregnancy because it was illegal. She further states that she called several crisis pregnancy agencies, and that none was able to assist because her pregnancy was over 13 weeks along. She also states that she obtained the name of a private clinic in London, though she did not feel comfortable calling the clinic. The full nature and context of the discussions between the author and these services is not at all clear, and the Committee is not in a position to evaluate factual issues. The legislative framework in place entitled the author to certain information. The author does not specify how exactly this framework was not respected. Any failure to ascertain information she was clearly legally entitled to seems to have been based on misapprehensions on the author’s part as to the effect of Irish law. In making available to the author, on a public basis, appropriate organizational information from where the author could ascertain all of the relevant information she required, no censorship can be said to exist. Further, the crisis pregnancy programme of the Health Service Executive provides to the public a rich resource of free online information concerning crisis pregnancies and abortion. At the website of Positive Options, for example, it is explained that it is legal under certain specified conditions for a woman to be given contact information on abortion services outside Ireland.13 This information was available to the author at the relevant time. 4.12 The affidavit provided by the representative of the Irish Family Planning Association refers to certain opinions that are not supported by empirical evidence. These include the statements that many health-care professionals assume or fear that they are precluded from discussing abortion; and that they avoid using the word “abortion” in favour of euphemisms that are entirely inappropriate and insensitive in doctor-patient communication concerning crisis pregnancies. Similarly, in the affidavit of the general practitioner, additional statements of personal opinion are made without reference to empirical evidence (concerning the alleged uncertainty of Irish doctors about how much information and support they can give to a patient who wants an abortion). Claims under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 4.13 The State party did not subject the author to discrimination. If there were any discrimination, it should be considered a reasonable and objective differentiation to achieve a purpose that is legitimate under the Covenant. There can be no “invidious discrimination” in relation to a pregnant woman, as her physical circumstances are inherently different from those of a man. This differentiation is a matter of fact and can only be accepted as axiomatic. 4.14 The challenged legal framework, namely article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Offences against the Person Act does not discriminate against women on the ground of sex. This framework is gender neutral. If a man procured or carried out an abortion in circumstances not contemplated by the Constitution, he may be guilty of an offence. Even if the legal framework did discriminate on the ground of gender, any such discrimination would be in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the fetus and would be proportionate to that aim. The measures at issue are not disproportionate, as they strike a fair balance between the rights and freedoms of the individual and the general interest. Again in this area, in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights, the State party enjoys a margin of appreciation. Therefore, the differentiation is reasonable and objective and achieves a legitimate end. 13 GE.17-10463 The State party refers to www.positiveoptions.ie/abortion-the-law/. 9