Seán Conlan (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The constitutional position on the legality of abortion has been clear for 20 years. The Supreme Court, in the X case, established that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution permits lawful abortion in Ireland in circumstances where the life of a pregnant woman has been established as a matter of probability to be at real and substantial risk and that risk can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C v. Ireland confirmed that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is not inconsistent with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. In this case, the court found, however, that there had been a violation of C's right to a private and family right contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. C had been treated for cancer for three years. When she became unintentionally pregnant she was in remission and, being unaware of this fact, went for a series of follow-up tests related to her illness. She was unable to obtain clear medical advice as to the effect of the pregnancy on her health-life or as to the effect of the medical treatment on her foetus, and feared the possibility that the pregnancy might lead to a recurrence of the cancer. She decided to have an abortion and travelled to the UK for that procedure. The court held that there was no accessible and effective procedure to enable her to establish whether she qualified for a lawful abortion, defined as a lawful termination of pregnancy, in accordance with Irish law.

Ireland has signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 46 of which states that signatories agree to abide by any judgment of the court in any case to which they are parties. Therefore, Ireland is under a legal obligation to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C v. Ireland. This is the factual position and it is up to all of us to deal with the implications of this. I believe we should not rush to a decision on this matter, but I accept the reality that it must be dealt with and the public wants it dealt with. Irish society is much divided on the issue of the circumstances in which abortion should be available, but I believe everybody deserves clarity on the issue.

There have been a number of referendums to try to deal with the implications of the X case. In 1992, the proposed 12th amendment, which was designed to exclude the risk of suicide as a ground for lawful abortion, was defeated. In 2002, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill 2001 was also defeated. It aimed to prohibit abortion except in circumstances where there was a risk to the life as distinct from the health of the mother. Under the proposed legislation, a threatened suicide would have been excluded as a risk to life and would thereby have limited the effect of the X judgment.

I believe that a substantial majority of the public does not want to see abortion on demand made available in Ireland. For the record, I do not want to see abortion on demand made available in Ireland. I believe that most people in this country feel that the physical act of aborting a foetus is abhorrent. Many feel that the decision in the X case, in particular the inclusion of risk of suicide as a legitimate ground for seeking an abortion, will be open to widespread abuse and will lead to the situation that exists in England. Many of those who argue this point would have a lesser objection if they could be assured that strict safeguards were put in place to ensure the risk of suicide was real and substantial. Many of these same people would have less of an issue with the availability of abortion for those who are victims of rape or incest and believe, notwithstanding their general objection to the availability of abortion, that a termination should be available in those circumstances. Others believe that the long-term health of the mother is also of paramount importance. It is not a black and white issue and legislating for the X case will not deal with these situations.

I have been contacted by many constituents who believe that the long-term solution is another referendum to seek once again a removal of the inclusion of risk of suicide as a ground for obtaining a lawful abortion while, in the interim, introducing non-statutory guidelines. Many others have contacted my office by e-mail. In fact, it is probably the biggest issue I have faced since I was elected as a Deputy. There have been a substantial number of e-mails and letters, both for and against legislating on this issue. Many have contacted me demanding legislation for the X case immediately. I am conscious that the Cabinet has decided to agree on a course of action before the end of December. My preference would be the introduction in the interim of clear guidelines for the medical profession. This has the advantage of being speedy and it would allow time to debate fully the implications of legislating for the X case and explain fully to the people how safeguards could be put in place preventing the introduction of abortion on demand and preventing the real potential for abuse which could result in legislating for the X case. Whatever the final decision reached, I believe the medical profession and pregnant women deserve clear guidelines on this issue from politicians.

See this speech in context