Professor William Binchy:

I would accept that there was no need to have introduced that clarity because it was already there. If we were to have a long historical discussion, I would say that the decision in the A, B and C case was mistaken because its factual premises, on the basis of which certain legal conclusions were made, were quite cloudy. I accept that the 2013 Act reiterated exactly that a woman's life should be protected. I would have concerns, however. I opposed the 2013 legislation not on that basis, but on the basis of the suicidal ideation ground, which is an entirely separate issue that I am more than happy to discuss with the committee. Deputy Durkan has asked me about cases in which clear physical conditions are affecting the mother. As I have said, that matter was dealt with quite clearly by the decision in the X case.