Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As a father of six and a grandfather of 11, ten living, I am opposed to abortion on demand. I believe this to be the majority view in the country and I share the concern that whatever legislation is introduced should strictly limit the circumstances in which terminations can take place. In light of the 1992 judgment, the legislation would need to be restricted to circumstances in which a pregnant woman's life was in danger.

The key issue is that the Legislature must act to address the issues that have been tragically highlighted once again by the death of Savita Halappanavar. Unfortunately, her death has brought attention to the fact that successive Governments have failed for 20 years to act upon the 1992 Supreme Court's X case judgment. Therefore, there is a clear imperative on the current Government to act quickly and to put legal measures in place to ensure that the life of a pregnant woman is protected in so far as is possible.

As highlighted by RTE yesterday, similar situations have arisen. There is a likelihood that more will arise. I appreciate that many problems are connected with this issue and that there are genuine sensitivities and strong feelings on all sides. Every Deputy will have received numerous telephone calls, e-mails and personal contacts on this issue. Those contacts will intensify when concrete proposals are made.

While some people oppose our motion on the basis of a fear that any legislation will open up the possibility of abortion being widely available or, indeed, make it a certainty, the opposite argument can equally be made. Currently, it is essentially left to medical practitioners to decide whether to allow a termination. It could be argued that there is scope for a more liberal approach to allowing abortion than is strictly defined in legislation. This was attempted in the proposed Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution, which was put to the electorate in November 1992. The proposal was to allow abortion in circumstances where there was a threat to a woman's life, not including the danger of suicide. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.

It could be argued that there is no basis to put a similar proposal now and it is understandable that the State might not wish to take the chance, given the possibility of a similar defeat. On the other hand, Savita's tragic fate may have focused minds and attitudes may be different.

One thing is clear - the option of not doing anything is no longer open to us. There are strong feelings in the country, and the Legislature needs to address the issues as a matter urgency. Indeed, before this tragedy, a Sunday Times poll in September found that 80% of those polled supported the option of termination in circumstances where a woman's life is in danger. There are strong grounds for believing that legislating to give effect to termination in those strictly defined circumstances could win a majority approval. One thing is for certain - the State must act with urgency to address the current situation and attempt to ensure no more situations, such as that which has given rise to this current issue, can reoccur.

I appreciate there will be an inquiry into the death of Savita Halappanavar and our motion states that final judgment must wait until that inquiry report is forthcoming. However, that must not be an excuse for again putting resolution of the doubts that exist in this area on the long finger.

I stated at the outset that I had 11 grandchildren. In the case of my first grandchild, my son and his wife were told when she was six months pregnant that the child would have no independent life and that most of the brain had not developed. It was suggested to them that they had two options. One was to go outside the jurisdiction to terminate the pregnancy and the other was to go through with it and to see what happened. They took the latter option. The child was born but died moments after birth. My daughter-in-law was very ill. I speak from a personal perspective.

We have an obligation as legislators. We are elected to legislate. For 20 years, those elected to legislate, successive governments, have refused to do so on this issue. If we continue to refuse to legislate, we are putting the lives of more women in danger. We must legislate for a pregnant woman's right to live.

See this speech in context