Cristina Odone writes:
The journalist who broke the story about Savita Halappananvar's tragic death
now admits that the facts were "a little muddled".
In
an astonishing radio interview, Kitty Holland of The Irish Times admits
that her report was based on the husband's version of events, but that in fact
there may have been "no request for a termination". Her earlier
account stated that Mrs Halappananvar, an Indian in Ireland who was expecting a
baby, had begged for a termination when complications arose with the birth;
hospital staff denied her the abortion, allegedly saying: "This is a
Catholic country".
Holland's exclusive tale of the
tragic death made headlines around the world. Pro-abortion groups seized
upon the story to condemn any
review of abortion laws. Protesters chanting "Never
again!" marched in Irish cities. Holland's report ensured that
abortion was hailed as a life-saving operation; that it should be cruelly
denied a young woman was further proof (if any were needed) that the Catholic
Church was backward and barbarian.
Except that none of this may be quite as it seems. "I'm not
satisfied of anything," Holland says in her radio interview. She
maintains, perhaps a tad disingenuously, that Savita Halappananvar's death
would have received the same kind of media attention even if it had not been
linked to a termination. Yet she admits that Savita was only
healthy "as far as we know" before going into the Galway
University Hospital. In other words, the young woman might have been suffering
from a fatal condition even before her hospital admission. But in their rush to
make a pro-abortion point, journalists and editors did not check their facts.
What a tragedy – twice over: a young pregnant woman's premature death; and
an account of that death that, if the facts are indeed muddled, does no justice
to her memory.
It's a real pity that the Labour Party has the vociferous and publicly pro-abortion MP Jon Cruddas as its policy chief. They could have taken a stand over this. Alas, how we long for an actual Catholic in public life who stands up for orthodox Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteWhere might one ever come from?
He's persuadable on an issue-by-issue basis. Not brilliant, but there are far worse. The Minister presently responsible, for example, a close ally of David Cameron's. And Jon would never suggest whipping the vote on something like this. He leaves that to the other side on same-sex "marriage".
ReplyDelete