Dáil debates

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

6:15 pm

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Members of the Technical Group for allowing me some of their speaking time on this most important subject. The Government has repeatedly claimed that this legislation, entitled the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, is designed solely to enhance and promote the best possible care for pregnant women in order to ensure no woman dies because of her pregnancy. If I believed that were true, no Deputy would be more supportive of the Bill. I am firmly of the view that Irish women are entitled to the very best standards of health care during their pregnancies. Moreover, I am certain that in the vast majority of cases that is precisely what they receive. I acknowledge and very much respect both sides of the argument in the abortion debate. That being said, it is my personal view that from the time of conception, the unborn child is a human being and should be fully protected. It is of vital importance that all right-thinking politicians support that viewpoint. The unborn child cannot speak for itself and so we should speak on its behalf.

Aside from my view on the broader issue, there are several points that should be highlighted in the context of these provisions. We have been repeatedly told that this legislation is required because of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The reality, however, is that the court merely stated a requirement for us to clarify existing law. That could have been done and could still be done by way of guidelines. There is no need to legislate. I challenge the myth that legislation on this issue must be based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case and the finding of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C case.

The X case lacks psychiatric evidence, that is, there is no evidence. No studies have indicated that abortion is a treatment for suicidal intent. The decision in the A, B and C case involved a pregnant patient looking for what treatment was available to her. As she was not suicidal, an abortion based on mental health grounds would not have applied. In a modern republic people are supposed to be equal before the law. Under the Constitution, as written, the unborn child has an equal right to life, but as the former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, have pointed out, the Bill does not give the unborn child an equal right to life. It directly discriminates against the unborn. Where is the republican ethic in this?

The complete lack of a justification for the procedure for the unborn child is not equal or just. The Bill has no provisions stating an option for the child to be delivered prematurely in cases based on mental health grounds, suicidal intent. If the child would be able to live if delivered prematurely, why is that option not considered? The Bill also does not state it is the duty of medical professionals to take into account the welfare of the unborn child when deciding on intentional termination of the pregnancy. Equality, clearly, is not present in this legislation.

The legislation does not set a time limit for the termination of the pregnancy making it unsafe for the mother. Even the most pro-choice of individuals believe terminating a pregnancy after 28 weeks is dangerous and not medically smart. Furthermore, if abortions are only granted on mental health grounds, the likelihood of a restrictive and rigorous assessment on which the decision will be based is very questionable. Who says the two high threshold tests to determine the decision will be satisfied? The fact that there must be a real and substantial threat to the life of the woman and that the risk involved can be avoided only by a termination of the pregnancy is not enough on which to base the granting of an abortion. The guidelines are not enough. They will only widen through time and future circumstances. The woman has a right to withhold consent to any medical treatment in which termination of the pregnancy can be the only option remaining to save her life. She might find a loophole, but it does not reflect the Government investing in the interests of women's health.

The Government's fine words about women's health have a very hollow ring when we look at its total failure to follow up on the revelations of the disgraceful conduct of staff at certain Irish Family Planning Association, IFPA, clinics where women were told to lie to their GPs and say they had had a miscarriage, not an abortion. That was disgraceful and it was highlighted here a few days ago by Deputy Mattie McGrath when he spoke on this very important matter. It was disgraceful. They were told to do this if they had had complications following an abortion. The Master of the Rotunda Hospital said this advice could threaten women's lives. What IFPA counsellors were engaged in is an unbelievable scandal. If the Government was really concerned about women's health, it would have ensured such reckless behaviour was rooted out of a service which the taxpayers funded. Instead, after promises of an inquiry, little if anything has been done by a standards investigation set up by the Health Service Executive, headed up by the former head of the IFPA. I raised this matter by means of a parliamentary question a few days ago when I asked whether it was an inquiry or what type of investigation was taking place because it changed from one thing to another. As far as I can see, it was only a cover-up.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.