FAQ — Mother and Baby Homes
- Were children murdered in mother and baby homes?
No. Infanticide continued to occur within families while the mother and baby homes were in operation. Several mothers were convicted of killing their infants and sentenced to death, though all sentences were commuted. If we ask what possible benefit the women managing these homes would have gained from such crimes, the entire narrative collapses into a conspiracy theory. Not only was there no incentive, but there were also significant deterrents and unacceptable risks.
First, while the Irish legal system and juries were notably lenient toward mothers convicted of infanticide, they were far less forgiving of others. Second, even if the threat of a death sentence was not enough, religious women faced an even greater deterrent—the risk of excommunication, which would have destroyed their life’s work and standing within the Church. Third, all deaths were legally certified, and any unexpected or unexplained fatalities triggered a coroner’s inquest. Fourth, the diseases that claimed the lives of infants in these homes were the same illnesses that killed c. 250,000 children who were born to married parents across Ireland. Finally, no historical case of mass murder involved issuing death certificates for its victims.
- Did the protestant women starve children to death in Dublin?
No. This is a complete falsehood, repeatedly echoed by politicians in parliament and beyond. The claim stems from a misinterpretation of the medical term ‘marasmus,’ which appears on many infant death certificates. Marasmus is a form of malnutrition caused by the body’s inability to absorb sufficient nutrients, not deliberate starvation. If a doctor believed an infant had died of starvation, they would explicitly record ‘death due to starvation’ on the certificate.
Marasmus was a common cause of death in maternity hospitals across Ireland. If it were truly an indication of starvation, why was no commission of investigation launched to examine potential cases of murder in these institutions? The answer is simple: marasmus was not starvation. Yet, troublingly, no politician has acknowledged this mistake or issued an apology. On this issue, the commission itself concurred, relying on the advice of a paediatrician.
- Were women abused in mother and baby homes?
No and kind of! Women were not abused in mother and baby homes, full stop. However, the commission interpreted some of the living conditions as ‘dire’. The misinterpretations within the report — and there are many — are due to a lack of knowledge of past social conditions and invalid comparisons with the social conditions of today. The poor living conditions of yesteryear are unimaginable to the affluent generations of today. Consequently, they are shocked when they find records of people living in these conditions and write with emotion rather than reason. Properly educated historians are taught to interpret events in their correct context. In this case the appalling living conditions of the poor in other counties, including wealthy countries, would have provided a good historical context, but that was avoided.
- Were women imprisoned in mother and baby homes?
No. This is a complete falsehood. Women had to apply for admission to mother and baby homes—none were forcibly placed there by the authorities. As part of a successful application, women were required to commit to staying for one to two years to help rear their child. Breast milk was only available through wet nurses, who were scarce. Even today, despite ‘breast is best’ campaigns, many infants die from the world’s deadliest infant killer—bottle-feeding. Mothers were expected to give their babies the best possible start in life, though the majority did not remain in the homes for the full term as promised.
In recent years, many homes have been mischaracterized to fuel conspiracy theories. Some were actually refuges for women and children, and not all children residing there were illegitimate, nor were all mothers unmarried. In Tuam, for instance, the institution was known as ‘The Children’s Home,’ officially St. Mary’s Children’s Home. Records show that in some cases, courts directed mothers and their children in crisis to stay temporarily at these refuges. Some commentators have exaggerated this practice into claims of incarceration, yet such claims are easily debunked. Even today, courts issue similar protective orders for vulnerable individuals. These measures were neither unusual nor a form of informal imprisonment.
- Was Ireland a “deeply misogynistic society”?
Emphatic no. If anything, Ireland was a deeply philogynistic society, intent on protecting women. While modern feminists dismiss old-world philogyny as patriarchal condescension, a more troubling development has been the fabrication of false historical narratives to evoke pity and advance a victimhood agenda. In reality, women were often afforded a level of leniency and respect that men and boys did not receive.
For example, women who killed their infants were frequently spared harsh punishment, with judges and juries reducing their charges to ‘concealment of pregnancy.’ When a lighter charge was not possible—either due to the mother’s admission of guilt or irrefutable evidence—juries were still reluctant to convict, and when they did, they almost always pleaded for mercy. Judges, bound by law to impose the mandatory death sentence, tempered their rulings with sympathetic remarks. In practice, despite several death sentences being passed, all were commuted, and the women served only short sentences before being released. Had a man or boy been convicted of the same crime, there is no doubt he would have faced the hangman.
- Did the Taoiseach read the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes final report?
Micheál Martin operated under the assumption that the commission would deliver the conclusions predetermined by politicians. However, the commission did not fully comply, as including such fabrications would have damaged their individual credibility.
While he may have read parts of the report, he seemingly relied on imagination to fill in the gaps rather than engaging with its full 3,000 pages. He claims that crimes were committed, yet nowhere in the report are the women running mother and baby homes accused of any criminal acts. No Garda investigation has been conducted because there is no evidence of a crime. The report does mention cases of rape and incest, but these occurred outside the homes, leading to pregnancies that resulted in women being admitted to care facilities.
- Were most illegitimate children born outside mother and baby homes?
Yes – only a fraction of the total number of illegitimate births took place in mother and baby homes. Moreover, many children were reared by their grandmother or aunt.
- Did anybody — outside of a few medics — give a damn?
Yes. The commission of investigation were of the opinion that outside of a few medics, no one gave a damn about high infant mortality rates. This is a mistaken view due to a lack of medical knowledge on behalf of the commission of investigation. Had they any knowledge of medicine or science, they would have looked up the current scientific literature.
Science, noting the correlation between poverty and high infant mortality rates — but only in recent decades —has established a causal link between poverty and high rates of infant mortality. Had the commission been aware of such evidence, they would not have made so many elementary errors.
Paragraph 5.7 states.
Dublin experienced a long and severe epidemic of gastroenteritis. In 1941 a total of 1,293 infants died from the disease in the Dublin County Borough. The epidemic continued until 1944, ‘before anyone kicked up a row about it’.
The commission’s conclusion is embarrassingly incorrect. Concerns about enteritis were widely discussed in newspapers at the time, and public health authorities actively investigated its causes. It appears the researcher relied on an unfounded assumption, presuming there was no evidence to contradict it and that it would go unchallenged. It did until now!
Report in Irish Independent, Saturday 13th June 1942
- Did many politicians read the 3,000 page commission of invesigation report?
Many politicians, including those responsible for current child welfare, did not read the report. Astonishingly, numerous members of Dáil Éireann repeated the same false narratives circulated in the media, seemingly assuming the commission would validate them. Since the commission was restricted by its terms of reference from conducting a thorough investigation, politicians’ comments suggested they had already predetermined the outcome they expected.
For more…
- Did the commission of investigation make major mistakes?
Yes! The commission made several blunders due mainly to a lack of knowledge of medicine and current scientific research. Even their historical interpretation was often amateurish, rife with presentism. While they did not get everything wrong, their failures highlight broader issues of poor educational standards within Irish academia. Despite their misinterpretation of historical evidence, the report contains enough detail to reveal many inconsistencies between their conclusions and the actual evidence.
The Commission were aware that their report contained errors, but couldn’t be bothered to fix them. Paragraph 71 states.
71. The Commission tried to be as objective, rigorous and thorough as it is possible to be. However, it recognises that the volume of material and the numbers of records analysed mean that it is highly likely that some mistakes were made.
