Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

From a legal perspective, if the Oireachtas were to pass legislation providing clinicians with full legal clarity, excluding suicide - by which I mean not prescribing for suicide but leaving it as case law - is it possible the Supreme Court could deem it to be in line with Article 40.3.3° having regard to the up-to-date evidence from the psychiatric profession? Former Chief Justice Cearbhall O'Dálaigh said a point not argued is a point not decided, and this doctrine goes for constitutional cases. Mr. Justice Brian Walsh, the best Chief Justice we never had, according to Dr. Cahill, said therefore the court decision can only bind the particular case as it was based on the conceded and unargued construction. The Government is arguing that women are currently entitled to abortion under the X case, so it is obviously not taking that position, and that it is only codifying the law, which is currently allowed. Is the Government correct in that presumption?

The unborn has, inter alia, a constitutional right, the equal right to life. Head 4 deals with suicide. All the evidence before us from the psychiatric and medical professions is that it is very difficult to predict suicide. The heads allow for a review where abortion is refused and that review is confined to the mother making the application for the review. Given the equal constitutional right of the unborn to life, is the constitutional right of the child not entitled to advocacy in that scenario, or are we in fact depriving the child of its constitutional right by allowing for no advocacy on behalf of that child in that process?