Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As others have said, it would have been far more comfortable for the Government to do as six of its predecessors did by simply ignoring the need to address the constitutional position on abortion. However, the European Court of Human Rights has pointed to our obligation to give certainty on that position either by way of legislation or regulation. We have had neither since the approval of the eight amendment to the Constitution in 1983. Last night we voted on the legislation which paves the way for the referendum to be held on the 31st amendment. In the years since the approval of the eight amendment, 22 other amendments have been put to the people and, where necessary, acted upon by way of legislation or regulation. If the Supreme Court had determined in 1992 that suicidality was not a ground for abortion, I am in no doubt that there would have been demands for legislation to that effect from some of those who claim this legislation is not necessary today. Moreover, I am sure that such demands would have been met.

The purpose of the Bill is to reflect and restate the general prohibition on abortion and uphold the eighth amendment. In addition, however, it must reflect the fact that the Government is duty bound to provide legal certainty for the medical profession as to the circumstances in which it is permissible to perform an abortion. The Constitution provides that a termination is permissible where the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother is at risk. Taking account of the decision of the Supreme Court in the X case which arose from the provisions of the eighth amendment, the Bill includes provision for abortion where there is a risk to the life of the woman arising from suicide. Several commentators have argued that the decision in that case was based on insufficient evidence. Section 9 of the Bill offers assurance in that regard in its stipulation that an abortion will only be permitted where it is found to be the only possible treatment for suicidality. That is a condition which is very difficult to ascertain beyond all doubt. There may be cases where a history of mental illness and perhaps threatened or attempted suicide will make it possible to state unequivocally that there is such a risk. In general, however, it will be difficult to arrive at that conclusion. The Government was duty bound to reflect that reality in these provisions.

We can assess the Bill on the basis of whether it achieves these basic requirements. Everything else flows from them. The Bill is short, given the scope of the issues it is attempting to address, issues which were not dealt with by previous Governments. Even if no Member of the House was subject to the Whip on this proposal, it falls to every one of us to examine whether the control measures that surround the basic principles of the Bill can be reconciled with our personal views. For me, the Bill satisfies that test of conscience. If I had my way, suicidality would not be included as a ground for abortion. As the Minister of State observed, however, that is not a luxury open to us. We are duty bound as legislators to reflect the constitutional position.

I would also have preferred if provision were made in the Bill to address the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities. As I understand it, the current position is that early induction can take place, at 35 or 36 weeks, where a foetal abnormality, which means the foetus is totally incompatible with life outside the womb, is diagnosed beyond all doubt. Other Members and I have met parents who went through that experience and their anguish is palpable. They are making a case for legislation in this area, not for themselves - one hopes they will never go through the same experience again - but for the benefit of those who will go through the same ordeal in the future. As I said, I would have liked to see the matter dealt with in this legislation. I understand, however, that the Attorney General's advice is that it cannot be done because it would contravene Article 40.3.3°. I accept that position reluctantly. In any case, it is an issue that should be dealt with outside this debate.

I do not accept the argument that the Bill represents the wedge that will allow the abortion floodgates to open. It has been clearly articulated that any change to the existing constitutional position would require a referendum. Even if we decided tomorrow to abandon these proposals and allow the next Government to deal with the issue, those people who are seeking a more liberal abortion regime and greater choice for women would not cease their efforts. That push will continue, regardless of what happens today, tomorrow or next week. We must put our trust in the people if at some time in the future they are asked to make a decision in that regard. It is not for us to tell them what to do. It may be a matter for the Government to decide to hold a referendum, but after that, it is up to the citizens of the State. When people refuse to put their trust in this legislation, they are effectively refusing to put their trust in what others, their fellow citizens, will choose to do in the future. We must keep that context in sight when considering these proposals.

It is unlikely that a more divisive Bill will come before any of us during the course of our careers, whether long or short, in this House. I absolutely respect the opinions of others and recognise that they are heartfelt and sincerely held. I hope everyone would do the same. I do not like the labels of pro-life and pro-choice. I consider myself to be as pro-life as anybody. I do not want to see a regime in place which allows abortion on demand, but I recognise that there are some who are up-front in supporting exactly that. On the other hand, some are of the view that anybody who would attempt even to introduce legislative provision to reflect the current constitutional position on abortion cannot call themselves pro-life. I reject that assertion.

People have found plenty of scope to complain about the Government and this Dáil. In this instance, however, there is reason to commend the conduct of the debate. There is certainly an element of divisiveness, but, in general, people are concerned to articulate their firmly held beliefs rather than to score political points. That is most welcome. It is important that as many Members as possible put their view across in this debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context