Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Private Members' Bill. It is a pity, however, that it has come before us again. We are stampeding over the rights of different people and the procedures and rules relating to the Technical Group. The United Left Alliance, ULA, has tabled 37% of the Private Members' motions and Bills brought forward by the Technical Group to date. There are 16 members in the group, only four of whom are in the ULA. I will leave that matter to people's judgment.

The pro-life perspective is founded on the equal right to life of all human beings, regardless of age, sex or any other attribute. There is no worse discrimination than disregarding the right to life of an entire class of human beings on account of their being too young. According to official United Nations and World Health Organization statistics, Ireland, without abortion, is among the top three safest countries for pregnant women, that is, it has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. In the context of Savita Halappanavar's tragic death - her family must have our complete sympathy on their loss - it must be remembered that in Britain, where abortion on demand is legal, 13 women died as a direct result of sepsis in pregnancy between 2006 and 2008. We do not know the full facts of Savita's case and yet pro-choice activists are using it to bring abortion into Ireland. I am concerned that the Government appears to have bought into their deception but I hope this is not the case.

A recent internationally acclaimed obstetrics and gynaecology conference in Dublin affirmed that direct abortion is never necessary as a form of treatment to save a woman's life in pregnancy. The ruling made by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 in the A, B and C v. Ireland does not require the authorities of this country to legislate for abortion. The court simply asked for legal clarity in the area and it has consistently said that there is no such thing as a right to abortion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the court's concern was to ensure that women will be provided with an effective procedure by which to determine what treatment is lawfully available to them. This mechanism should include an appeals process. Importantly, the court has consistently stated - it affirmed this in the A, B and C judgment - that it is not concerned with the means by which states vindicate convention rights and that it is merely concerned with whether they are vindicated. This means that the court is not concerned with whether we implement legislation, regulations or guidelines. In that context, in its report the expert group erred in suggesting that guidelines may not suffice for the European Court of Human Rights.

Ireland can introduce clarity without introducing abortion. We can ensure that medical and professional guidelines relating to necessary medical treatment are strengthened. We can also ensure that these guidelines provide for an appeals process for women who have had their requests for terminations refused. To comply with the decision in the A, B and C v. Ireland case, such guidelines must also allow for a woman to make her case in person and for a written explanation of the decision to be given. We can also hold a referendum - we are good at holding these - to clarify matters by overturning the decision in the X case and protecting the right to life of unborn children and their mothers. There is no question that holding a referendum on abortion is compatible with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Previous referendums on the decision in the X case failed because both pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates voted against the measures put forward for various and conflicting reasons.

It must be acknowledged in any debate on this matter that major studies in the past ten years have shown that abortion has a negative psychological impact on women. It is utterly irresponsible to claim that abortion somehow protects women's mental health. No psychiatric textbook available in the British Isles, the United States or anywhere else claims that abortion is a treatment for suicidal thoughts. This fact undermines the ruling in the X case. What undermines it even further is the emerging consensus that abortion can actually harm women's mental health in some instances. The 20 year old X case judgment is a very poor basis for abortion law and it completely disregards the equal right to life of the unborn child.

It had no medical evidence to support the view that the abortion is a treatment for suicide. It is badly out of step with the recent research which shows that abortion has a negative impact on women's mental health. It made no mention of time limits and would allow for abortion up to birth. Providing for abortion on mental health grounds would allow for a very liberal abortion regime similar to that in the United Kingdom.

We should be aware of what happened when abortion was legalised in the UK. It was introduced on very limited grounds but now, sadly, one in five pregnancies end in abortion. Abortion on demand is available up to 24 weeks and up until birth in cases of disability, including the disability of a cleft palate. According to official British Government figures, every year dozens of children survive abortion and are left to die in British hospitals. Some survive for hours outside the womb before they die.

A total of 95% of Britain's 190,000 abortions in 2009 were performed on mental health grounds. We have passed the children's rights referendum. It would be a tragedy if we enacted legislation allowing for unborn children to be directly killed. Abortion is the direct and deliberate destruction of the unborn child. Abortions are not currently carried out in Irish hospitals. The rare case in which necessary life-saving treatment is given to a woman in pregnancy and which results in the death of her unborn child is not an abortion because the death of the child is not the purpose, intention or aim. Even if the death were foreseen as a possible or likely outcome, unlike abortion, every effort is made to preserve the life of the child if at all possible. I am totally opposed to this untimely Bill.

See this speech in context