Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank in particular to Mr. Callanan and Mrs. Justice McGuinness for their comments on head 19. I share their concerns about the over-broad drafting of that criminal offence. Could I ask them both specific questions about this Bill being conceptually conservative, in particular in head 1 in respect of two definitions? I agreed with Mrs. Justice McGuinness when she said she regretted that the proposed legislation does not exclude a situation where a foetus is already dead or has no capacity for life outside the womb. In that instance it seems overly conservatively drafted compared to Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution and it should at least exclude that situation. Also under head 1, the definition of "reasonable opinion" is probably too conservative in that it makes no reference to the right to life of the pregnant woman, only to the need to preserve unborn life. Some balance is required there.

I am amazed to hear Dr. Cahill suggest the Cosma v. Minister for Justice case is in any way relevant to an interpretation of the X case. Cosma was a 2006 decision of the High Court in the context of deportation proceedings in which the High Court did not accept that the evidence established a risk of suicide. I utterly refute the suggestion that it is relevant to an interpretation of the X case. Professor Binchy raised the issue of time limits, and that was dealt with very clearly in Friday's hearings. Mr. Callanan's submission points out that when a foetus is viable, or on the cusp of viability, it is constitutionally mandatory that every effort must be made to protect the life of the unborn. That is very clear and it is current clinical practice.

I have a final question for Professor Binchy. As one of those responsible for drafting Article 40.3.3°, the amendment from which this derived, does he not accept that the amendment was flawed? In 1983 Mary Robinson and others predicted that a case like the X case would arise and that ultimately we would be left with a situation where this matter is in the Constitution, where it does not belong, and the Legislature is therefore, as Mrs. Justice McGuinness has said, utterly constrained in its ability for legislate for the real needs of the thousands of Irish women who are travelling abroad every year for abortion, as Deputy Maloney has said.

Under head 4, do Professor Binchy and Dr. Cahill have any compassion for or trust in the young women and girls who are actually going to be affected by this, in particular the girls who are unable to travel because they are in the care of the HSE? It was accepted in yesterday's evidence that these are the real people who will be affected because any other woman is going to travel rather than put herself through these utterly restrictive procedures. Do they have any compassion for those girls or trust in them and their psychiatrists?