CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 3.10 The Act does not prohibit health-care providers from imparting information about abortion, including the likely benefits and potential adverse effects and alternatives; the limited circumstances in which abortion is legal in Ireland; and information about legal abortion services abroad. Consequently, the author should have received such information. However, in practice, the existence of the Act effectively censored her health-care providers from imparting even legal information, thereby exacerbating her mental distress and violating her right to information. While the Act prohibits health-care providers from advocating or promoting the termination of pregnancy, it lacks any definition of such conduct. That has a chilling effect on health-care providers, who experience difficulty in distinguishing between “supporting” a woman who has decided to terminate a pregnancy and “advocating” or “promoting” abortion. 3 3.11 The author indicates that after receiving the information that her baby might not live the doctor “only stated when we asked what would happen if the condition was fatal … ‘terminations are not available in this jurisdiction. Some people in your situation may choose to travel’”. Some days later, upon receiving the amniocentesis results, the midwife confirmed that the fetus would die in utero or shortly after birth and provided the author with two options: she could continue with the pregnancy or she could “travel”. Rather than providing the author with accurate, evidence-based information about abortion, the midwife avoided even accurately naming the abortion procedure, using the euphemism “travel” instead. She refused to discuss this option in any way, failing to provide the author with information about legal abortion services abroad. Instead, the midwife referred the author to a family planning organization. Thus, in the absence of clear guidelines in the Act about permissible or impermissible speech, the health-care providers with whom the author interacted were hindered from imparting information to her about the medical aspects of abortion, its legal availability in Ireland and legal abortion services abroad. 3.12 The State party’s interference with the author’s access to information is not a permissible limitation on her right to information under article 19 on the grounds of protection of morals. The State party’s understanding of public morals, as enshrined in the Abortion Information Act, and as clear from its application, effectively led to the denial of critical information to the author, was discriminatory and cannot withstand scrutiny under article 19 of the Covenant. Furthermore, the refusal of the State party to provide the author with information was irrelevant to the aim of protecting the “unborn”, as the “unborn” in this case had no prospect of life. 3 The author provided a report by the Irish Family Planning Association, a non-governmental organization that provides sexual and reproductive health consultations in 11 centres nationwide. The report indicates that “health-care professionals are acutely aware of the possible repercussions, including damage to their reputation and career prospects, of a complaint alleging negligence, malpractice or breach of the law or of the Irish Medical Council’s Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics. … They are also aware of the stigma and opprobrium that attaches to abortion in much political and media discourse. Doctors working in small and, especially, rural communities may fear that publicity linking them with abortion in any way will affect their livelihood and reputation … and lead to personal harassment. Many health-care professionals evade the potential or perceived repercussions of falling foul of the law by declining to discuss abortion or to provide information to their patients. … In the absence of binding guidelines, protocols and processes of accountability … the attitudes of health-care professionals are influenced by a complex set of factors. These include the personal values and beliefs of health-care practitioners, their training, their understanding of the law, their level of knowledge about abortion and the ethos and culture of the institutions in which they train and work”. 5