Dr. Maria Cahill:

I will start with the question posed by Deputy Kelleher on the constitutionality of the legislation. I am sure the Deputy is aware that it is the duty of the Legislature, under Article 15.4, not to legislate in a manner that is incompatible with the Constitution. It is not a duty of the Attorney General but of the Legislature itself. None the less, there are two options provided under the Constitution whereby, if the Legislature fails in that duty, the legislation in question can be challenged, under Articles 26 and 34. I am not a legislator so I do not start with the assumption that the Bill is constitutional. Certainly, all of these issues can be raised. I raised the Cosma decision to illustrate that what the Government is doing under head 4 is not compatible with what was done in the High Court in 2006. That must be taken seriously in order to be sure that the Legislature wants, in this instance, to trust the advice given.

On the question of late-term abortion, the Deputy is right that abortion fails to vindicate the right to life of the unborn under Article 40.3.3˚ in all circumstances, including pre-viability and post-viability. I am sure the Deputy, and indeed most people, would like to prevent the possibility of late-term abortions or partial-birth abortions and that is also indicated in the explanatory notes. However, when it comes to interpreting the section, the Supreme Court is not going to ask for the personal views of Deputies or look to the explanatory notes. It will look to the text of the legislation as provided. The text allows, under the definition in head 1, that an unborn is a person post-implantation until the moment that he or she has been successfully delivered from the mother's womb. That is what we are dealing with as a matter of law. I just wanted to make it clear that, as a matter of law, that is where we stand.

On the question posed by Deputy Ó Caoláin, I am not calling into question the integrity of psychiatrists or the care that they would give. What I am saying is that under head 4, there is no provision for an ongoing psychiatric relationship between the person who is being certified as suicidal and the professional who can help her with that suicidality. Again, perhaps that is something that has been overlooked, but there is no provision in head 4 for an ongoing treatment plan or for ongoing counselling and care of that woman. That is my concern as a woman and as a lawyer.

Finally, I will refer to the human element, because it has been raised a number of times. It just so happens that I am not much younger than the girl who was at the centre of the X case. It was, in fact, the first time my parents had to explain to me both what had happened to her and what she wanted to do. I am in no way impervious to the gravity of her situation and to the human element involved in her life and the lives of many other women in this country.