Ms Jennifer Schweppe:

I thank the committee and the Chairman again for an opportunity to express my views on the current legal situation as I see it. I will briefly reiterate three points in my final summation. First, what we are doing at the moment is legislating for the law; we are legislating for the current legal situation. There is no question to answer in regard to whether suicide should justify the termination of a pregnancy where that suicide, as Ms Staunton said, is linked to the pregnancy. To question its justification is to both stigmatise mental health and to diminish our respect for medical practitioners who work in this incredibly difficult area every day.

The second issue is in regard to fatal foetal abnormality. I believe that the law as it currently stands is that unviable foetal life is not life for the purposes of Article 40.3.3o and that a declaratory section should be included to that effect in the legislation. Where the life is viable, a constitutional referendum would be required to allow for termination in those circumstances. There is no requirement of certainty in either the X case test or the viability issue. It needs to be established only as a matter of probability. There is not a 99%, 80% or 60% requirement. It simply needs to be established as a matter of probability in accordance with the views of the relevant medical practitioners.

I would also echo Ms Staunton's recommendation that we use this as an opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive in regard to this issue as a whole. Academics and the courts have come up with scenarios where we are still not entirely clear on what the law is and we have spent huge amounts of money commissioning reports which have simply been ignored. The Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction would be the most obvious one which requires immediate incorporation.

There are still some straggling issues regarding travel and information which must be addressed. For example, can the husband of a pregnant woman be entitled to know that his partner is seeking to travel to terminate her pregnancy or is seeking information in regard to that pregnancy? Do asylum seekers have a right to leave this jurisdiction to terminate a pregnancy in circumstances which would not be constitutional?

I have already talked about the issue regarding consent for those individuals who by reason of age or capacity require proxy consent to be made for them. In certain circumstances this will be made by a guardian; in other circumstances it will be made either by the District Court or the High Court. On the question as to whether the High Court can allow an individual to travel to terminate a pregnancy in circumstances which are unconstitutional, Mr. Justice Geoghegan said that should not be allowed and that issue requires clarification.

The issue of third party foetal assault remains entirely open in this jurisdiction. It is not terribly complicated to legislate for that but it needs to be included in the Bill. I thank the committee once again for its attention.