{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025102159953298307, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02276707530647986, 'mean_word_length': 5.014035087719298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Attorney General (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ltd.) v. Open Door Counselling Ltd., 16 March 1988.

The defendants were clinics providing pregnancy counselling, including information about the availability of abortion in England. The Attorney General took over prosecution of the suit from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from providing counseling. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling granting the injunction and held that the defendants' activities violated Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, which guarantees that the State will respect, defend, and vindicate the rights of the unborn as far as is practicable. It concluded that the defendants were assisting in the ultimate destruction of life through abortion, that there was no constitutional right to information about abortion (that would be in conflict with Article 40.3.3), and that the Attorney General had standing to bring the proceedings, even though there was no particular pregnant woman represented who might be affected by the injunction. The ruling of the lower court was reported in Annual Review of Population Law, Vol. 14, 1987, Section 240. On 7 September 1988, a judge of the High Court refused to issue an injunction directed against printing, publishing, and distributing a welfare guide providing information about the availability of abortions. The judge ruled that the Attorney General was the proper person to make an application for such an injunction, not the plaintiffs, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. See Irish Law Reports Monthly, 1989, p. 526. This judgment was reversed in 1989 by the Supreme Court.