CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 related lack of clarity as to what is permissible under the Act deterred both the author’s doctor and midwife from providing the information she sought. 5.9 The author rebuts the assertion that through directing her to the Irish Family Planning Association, the State party discharged its obligations under article 19. The euphemistic advice given by State employees to contact the Association represented a breach in the continuum of doctor-patient care that was not based on her health needs, but was the result of prevailing stigma and fears or uncertainty as to the consequences of providing the information directly. 5.10 As to the crisis pregnancy programme, according to its own website it does not provide counselling or medical services directly to the public. Instead, it funds other organizations to provide counselling or medical services that are in line with its objectives. The programme is mandated to work towards a “reduction in the number of women with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering services and support which make other options more attractive”. 5.11 The restriction on the author’s right to information did not comply with article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The State party has not justified the restrictions. The restrictions were not prescribed by law, since the Abortion Information Act does not meet the Covenant requirement that a restriction of article 19 must be “formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly”. 7 Furthermore, the restriction was neither necessary nor proportional to a legitimate aim. There was no purpose other than to impair the author’s enjoyment of her right to information related to abortion services abroad and was disproportionate in the light of the detrimental impact on her dignity and well-being. Claims under articles 2, 3 and 26 5.12 Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not “balance” the right to life of men, or their enjoyment of other rights. In this way, the State party’s assertion that the provision is gender-neutral cannot be supported. Furthermore, the first part of section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act applies to women only and is therefore not gender-neutral. The legal framework has a distinct and specific impact on women and the consequences of the legislation on the personal integrity, dignity, physical and mental health and well-being of women are severe. 5.13 State parties to the Covenant cannot invoke women’s biological difference to men and their reproductive capacity as a basis for permissibly restricting their rights. Ireland has failed to discharge its burden to disprove a prima facie case of discrimination on sex and justify differential treatment as proportionate to a legitimate aim. It did not explain how the withholding of abortion services from the author in the circumstances of a fatal fetal impairment and the adverse impact that had on her was proportionate to the aim of protecting “the unborn”. The aim of “protecting the rights of the unborn” was placed above the author’s dignity and well-being. She was treated as inferior and subjected to wrongful gender stereotyping. The prohibition of abortion in cases of fatal fetal impairments and non-viable pregnancies cannot be considered proportionate to the aim of protecting the fetus. 7 14 See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 25.