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

I compliment Deputy Martin and the Fianna Fáil party for allowing a free vote on this important issue. The Taoiseach made a mistake in not allowing a free vote in his party and the same applies to the Labour Party. Every person should have a free vote because they should be allowed to take this important decision from their heart. I highlighted earlier that in 1967 when the laws were amended in England, nobody could have foreseen or imagined the number of abortions that would take place. If politicians had their time back, they would seriously reconsider what they did.

I would like to strengthen my challenge to the myth that we are compelled to legislate for abortion on foot of the X case judgment and ECHR judgement in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. There is no legally compelling argument to do this. Dr. Maria Cahill of the faculty of law in UCC proved this beyond doubt when she argued before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children that while head 4 was faithful to the detail of the test laid down in the X case, it was not faithful to the later development of that test in the Cosma case of 1999. In that case, the reading of the X case test under head 4 would fail to meet the necessary standards because the proposed legislation does not require evidence of a treatment plan or consideration of other means of avoiding the risk to life and because it does not take into account, as the Minister insisted we should, the public policy arguments that are relevant in addressing claims of suicidality.

An advocacy procedure on behalf of the unborn child is absent from the proposed legislation. This blatantly contradicts the Taoiseach's endless assertions that the Bill is faithful to the constitutional parameters of Article 40.3.3°. How can there be even the appearance of equality under the law when one of the parties involved, namely the unborn child, has no right to have its interests protected? I believe in my heart and soul that this is an important point.

As the Bill stands, it will introduce a right to termination of pregnancy up until birth. There are no time limits within which the abortion must take place.

This is a provision which even countries with the most liberal of abortion regimes have resisted as a step too far. In Britain, for example, the cut-off point is 28 weeks.

The Bill will inevitably place the Health Service Executive and the Government, on the one hand, in conflict with those hospital facilities, on the other, for which the provision of abortion is in direct contravention of their established ethos. We are already witnessing this scenario in the United States where the forced implementation of Obamacare has resulted in a flood of legal cases being brought against the federal Government as it forcefully imposes its own agenda on health care providers without any regard for their ethos.

It is the experience of jurisdictions throughout the world that where a right to a termination is granted, even on the sole ground of a mental health exception and where that standard is apparently very restrictive, such a right cannot be contained or limited to genuine cases under the mental health provision. An American legal scholar has proved this through rigorous research, with particular reference to an analysis of the consequences of California's Therapeutic Abortion Act 1967. In Britain, likewise, it is estimated that more than 70% of all abortions are carried out on mental health grounds. As the people involved in Women Hurt have demonstrated, abortion has devastating effects on women and their families. Many of these women remain silent because of the hurt and shame they feel and, as a consequence, do not register in statistics about the negative impact of abortion on women's mental and physical health.

I attended a briefing organised by Senator Rónán Mullen some time ago where we were given the statistics from the three main maternity hospitals for the number of suicides by pregnant women. The figure was minuscule out of the totality of pregnancies in this country every year. The suicide clause is the main cause of my deep concern about the Bill. It leaves open the possibility that we will find ourselves in a situation which many of us do not want to see happening in this country. I totally respect the opinions of those with a different view from my own. We are fortunate to live in a democracy where it is possible to have a reasoned and rational debate. I would question some of the accusations of nasty behaviour made against elements in the pro-life campaign. I have seen no evidence of this and genuinely hope it is not happening.

As I said, we must have a reasonable and plausible debate on these issues. Every Member of this House must consult his or her own intelligence and conscience before deciding how he or she will vote. I am all in favour of protecting the health and safeguarding the rights of pregnant women, but my sense of moral duty tell me that it is of paramount importance to stand up and do everything I can to protect the unborn child who is defenceless and cannot speak for himself or herself. I have always been of that opinion and I am not for changing now or in the future.

I once again thank my colleagues in the Technical Group for allowing me the time to contribute.

See this speech in context