Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and thank them for attending. One of them mentioned that in his work in the Department he was preparing for various scenarios, depending on what the Government and the Oireachtas eventually proposed. I ask him to direct his mind to another scenario when a referendum is held and the people decide to uphold the status quoto protect both babies and their mothers during pregnancy. I ask him to consider whether there are changes that will be required in that regard.

According to the figures presented to us many times, our birth rate is approximately one tenth of that in Britain. Were we to have an abortion rate one tenth of that in Britain, there would be 19,000 or 20,000 abortions per year. On the best evidence available from British figures for the number of Irish women having abortions in Britain, the very small number who do so in the Netherlands and if one were to allow for 1,000 or 2,000 people importing abortion pills, one is talking about between 3,000 and 5,000 abortions, which is one quarter of the rate in Britain. Do we have any knowledge of what has contributed to this? Is there evidence that the provision of State funded counselling, for example, is a contributory factor? Has it to do with the increased use of contraceptives? The figure has been declining, on the basis of the information available on the number of women having abortions in Britain. Has it to do with increased awareness? The emergence of 4D ultrasound scans has increased awareness of the wonder of life in the womb and its complexity and development from its earliest stages. Is there a new awareness of it? Any information in that regard would be helpful.

I wish to ask about non-directive counselling, about which I asked questions on a previous occasion when representatives of the crisis pregnancy programme appeared before the committee. I am operating from the understanding non-directive counselling is one of the many approaches that can be practised and is respected in the general area of counselling. Obviously, where one does not give an instruction on how to proceed, non-directive counselling clearly has its limitations. For example, I cannot imagine that it would be appropriate when counselling a person who is suicidal.

My question is in the context of the Constitution pledging that the State, as far as is practicable, will defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and there being a great deal of public messaging on matters such as obesity, drink driving and so forth which is directive in seeking to protect not only oneself but also potential third parties who could be hurt by one's actions. In addition, I note what the 1995 Act states, as discussed on a previous occasion. There does not appear to be a definition or a requirement in law that counselling be non-directive. The 1995 Act states counselling must not take a form or manner which advocates or promotes the termination of pregnancy. Interestingly, as far as I am aware - I am subject to correction - there does not appear to be a counterbalancing injunction that counselling must not take a form or manner which encourages the protection of the unborn. Has any consideration being given to whether what clearly appears to be the preferred mode of non-directive counselling, in the context of the provision of State funding, is actually constitutional, having regard to the fact that the Constitution states in law and policy that there are two human beings to be protected? Has there ever been any discussion about whether the requirement for undefined non-directive counselling in some way offends the spirit of the Constitution? Having regard to the fact that some State funded pregnancy counselling organisations have a strong stated agenda to promote legalised abortion, it appears to be tilted in the other direction. On a previous occasion I drew the attention of the committee to how counsellors with the Irish Family Planning Association and other organisations, as reported in the Irish Independent, had been found in some circumstances to have been giving women dangerous advice which included telling them to lie to their doctor if they suffered complications after an abortion and to say they had had a miscarriage. In some cases women had been given information on how access the abortion pill. I wonder whether non-directive counselling has been used as a cover, if anything, to push women towards having an abortion. Clearly, there is a block on counselling to encourage, not coerce, the taking of the life saving option. Will the delegates tell me if the provision of non-directive counselling has been considered in terms of its constitutionality and whether there are other ways by which it could be done?