Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

When listening to Deputies Michael McGrath and Dara Calleary, I noted the traditional political approach of dividing the coalition parties by saying the Labour Party had always made one point, while Fine Gael always made another, thereby implying they were totally divided on an issue. We are not divided; this legislation was agreed as part of the programme for Government and we agree that it is to pass through this House. We heard the old canard from both Deputies that the floodgates would open and that this really was the thin end of the wedge.

This legislation will carry out the wishes of the people as expressed in several referendums which are part and parcel of the Constitution. That is our duty as legislators. We do not have the privilege of exercising our conscience on matters of this nature. We had the privilege of exercising our conscience when we voted in the referendums, but once something is an integral part of the Constitution, we, as democratically elected legislators, must implement the will of the people. This legislation reflects this. That is expressed in the Constitution and we must enable it through legislation. That is why after so many years we are grasping this nettle which was not grasped by many Governments. We are providing clear regulations in order that the medical profession, the responsibility of which is to deal with this issue, has direction. It has had no direction until now and it is operating in a vacuum. We cannot allow that to continue forever because there is a constitutional imperative that we must address.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I am pleased this long overdue legislation is finally before the Oireachtas. Six successive Governments have failed to address this crucial issue. The Government knew it was intolerable to avoid dealing with such an important issue any longer. It is more than 20 years since the X case and medical practitioners must finally be given the legal clarity they require to act in the best interests of their patients. This is essential to ensure the lives of pregnant women are protected. For many years the Labour Party was the only party calling for legislation to deal with the X case judgment and a commitment was made in the programme for Government in 2011 to establish an expert group to establish the best way to proceed. The group which reported earlier this year offered clarity on the options available to deal with the implications of the Supreme Court ruling in the X case and the ECHR judgment in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. The Government has acted as quickly as possible to introduce legislation, while allowing ample time for debate. No guillotine will apply to this legislation.

It is difficult to fully comprehend what it must have been like for the 14 year old girl at the centre of the X case. Following two years of abuse by a man known to her family, she was raped and became pregnant. Her parents tried to help and protect her in any way they could, but the State intervened to prevent a suicidal rape victim from leaving the country to obtain a termination. She found herself the "defendant" in a High Court case. The court ruled that she should be prevented from travelling to protect the life of the unborn child. In March 1992, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the High Court should be set aside and that the threat of suicide was grounds for an abortion. The referendum in November 1992 clearly showed that the people supported the freedom to travel outside the State for an abortion and the freedom to obtain or make available information on abortion services. Moreover, the constitutional amendment that would have resulted in the Supreme Court ruling on the X case being rolled back was rejected. The rejection of the 2002 referendum also ensured the risk of suicide continued to be sufficient grounds to allow an abortion.

On two occasions referendums have attempted to remove suicide as lawful grounds for a termination and on each occasion the people rejected the proposed changes to the Constitution. Article 40.3.3° states: "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state". Clearly, the context was that the termination would be made available in another state. The people spoke on this issue and we have to recognise that was the wording put before them and that it is the law of the land. Enabling legislation is needed to elaborate on it to allow the medical profession to carry out its business properly, yet even with these referendum results, previous Governments continued to prevaricate. In the A, B and C v. Ireland case in 2012 the ECHR found that Ireland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide a clear procedure by which a woman could have established whether she qualified for a legal abortion under current Irish law.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in October last year again highlighted the urgent need to legislate. This heartbreaking case drew attention to the problems medical practitioners could face when acting to save the life of a women during pregnancy. A common thread running through each of these cases is that the women involved found themselves in desperate situations and were then failed by the State and legislators. This cannot be allowed to continue. A great deal has happened since the X case, but until now no progress has been made in dealing with the clear need to legislate for it. The provisions in the Bill address scenarios where a woman's life is at risk from either a medical emergency, a medical condition or a risk of suicide. They are workable and it is welcome that they closely reflect the expert group's recommendations.

Legislating for the X case is a serious and legally complex issue. However, it is primarily about protecting the life of the woman. We cannot continue to put the lives of women at risk. It is essential that we finally face up to our responsibilities as legislators and obey the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution to ensure this legislation is enacted.

See this speech in context