Professor William Binchy:

I think the reason is the one I gave already, which is that these treaties are inherently political. They are negotiated politically in New York or in Europe as the case may be, or in whatever region we are talking about, and they have this conscious diplomatic, ambiguous language which is used. It is precisely to allow for ratification by states that have had wide-ranging abortion going back many years and states that are against legalised abortion and that protect the unborn child. That is the whole strategy that is used by those who are formulating the treaties. Believe me, that is absolutely on record. It is not an opinion but an absolute acknowledged fact by everybody who is involved in the negotiation of treaties. The Deputy can read it and see it for herself. When it comes to the area of abortion, there is high alert in the discussions and tiptoeing. Those who are formulating these treaties want them to be implemented. If they were to have what might be regarded as a pro-life treaty, they would have relatively few ratifiers in the present international climate. The Deputy is absolutely correct to say that in the international climate, particularly in certain quarters, there is wide-ranging support for legalised abortion. That is obvious. We would not dispute that.

I think the Deputy said I mis-described the Citizens' Assembly recommendations. I actually said there were recommendations based on disability. I did explain at the time that they did not use that word at all but they used the words "foetal anomaly" and "serious anomaly". Are we going to be discussing whether Down's syndrome, spina bifida, blindness, or cleft palate are serious enough? Would some doctors say "Yes" and some "No" in those circumstances?