Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I had a chance to speak briefly on this issue on the night of the legislation put forward by Deputy Clare Daly.

This issue, as has been stated, is the single most divisive one in Irish politics. Every politician who talks about abortion always says it is a very sensitive issue, and then nothing happens. Effectively, this issue has seen the greatest amount of political cowardice and hypocrisy of any in Irish debate.

I was not politically active in any way - I was only a child - in 1983 when the pro-life amendment was made to the Constitution. It was introduced by the same people who were against contraception, divorce and all other supposed social ills that would bring Ireland to its knees. In my view, and that of others, the 1983 amendment effectively reduced the status of a woman to that of a vessel, effectively, to that of a womb.

Inevitably, regardless of those who warned against the actions of the group which was intent on pursuing that course of action, the X case arose in 1992. I need not go over the details of the case but it is sometimes convenient when we call a teenage rape victim X rather than give that person a name. It is sometimes easier for us to merely call a person by an initial rather than discuss a human being. The Supreme Court determined that a constitutional right to abortion existed when there was a real and substantive risk to the life of the mother and the constitutional right was vindicated in a referendum by the votes of the people that year. As it stands, that is the position. There is no legislation.

The 2002 referendum - let us not recast what happened - was a cynical attempt to remove the threat of suicide by a Fianna Fáil Party in pre-election mode, and it also was rejected by the people. Where are we? There is a constitutional right which is left without any legislation. The 2002 referendum was not an attempt to legislate. It was an attempt to pander to pro-life voters and to subvert the X case judgment, and they failed.

We are all told to be calm and respectful and Ministers make reference to a free vote so that Members can wrestle with their consciences. I was surprised at the speech made earlier by an Independent Member. I remember canvassing during the general election an hour after that gentleman and being confronted with the issue of the Labour Party and abortion at every door. It is amazing how the wind changes and people's positions change.

I looked through the pre-election manifestos before I came into the Chamber. There was no reference to legislating for the X case judgment in the manifestos of the Fine Gael, Sinn Féin or Fianna Fáil parties, or in the manifestos of any of the members of the United Left Alliance. Only one manifesto mentioned the X case. It was my party, the Labour Party. We have had a consistent approach to this matter because we understand law and we understand the responsibilities of legislators.

I am bewildered by some of the contributions made in this House today and last night. Reference was made to a "herd mentality" and a "rush to judgment". A Member, only a short time ago, spoke about people "exploiting the death of Ms Halappanavar" - I find that quite offensive. How can one have a herd mentality and a rush to judgment after 20 years?

The expert group makes it clear that legislation and regulation is needed. The pro-life stance states Ireland is the safest place in the world to have a baby - if I have heard that one time in the past couple of weeks, I have heard it a thousand times. If that is the case, if there is never a case when a woman's life may be at risk, then what is the problem with legislation? Of what are they afraid?

The reality is when there is a problem, women simply travel to England. I have asked those who have experience of this to contact me in the past couple of days and some of them have. I will not name these women. I have an e-mail before me. In it, the lady writes that she found out she was pregnant on 11 November, the day of her partner's birthday. She gave the pregnancy test to him as a surprise birthday present, and he was doubly delighted as they had only been trying for three months. She then discovered that her baby's condition was incompatible with life. She writes that they travelled to Liverpool to the women's hostel where they talked her through the procedure, gave her the tablet to stop her body supporting her baby, and told her to go and rest in a hotel for two days. She writes that this was the hardest part. She did not want to leave the room, she felt as if she was going to die, and all they did was watch the clock for the next 48 hours until they returned to the hospital. Fortunately, the reserves arrived in the form of her aunt and mother who helped distract her from her partner. She writes that the hospital was great in accommodating all four of them with beds and food. That same morning they induced her and she went into labour by lunchtime, which went on until 10 p.m. that night when they finally had to give her painkillers.

Junior, as the lady calls her baby, was born asleep after 10 o'clock. She writes that they asked those taking care of them to hand him to her partner first so he could check that he looked okay and he sadly stated he was perfect. They then got to hold him and look at his hands and feet which were all perfect, and then they were able to have him blessed by a priest, and that during the blessing even the midwife cried with them. She writes that the midwife then gave them an imprint of his hands and feet and although she initially refused photographs in her dazed state, the midwife kindly took them anyway and informed her they would be put on file and she could collect them at any time, for which the lady is now very grateful.

In addition to the emotional cost, the lady writes that financially, she and her partner were set back €3,500 as well as her extended time off work, that though the necessity of terminating a child would be no less traumatic in any situation, the fact that they had to slink off under a cloak of lies and guilt is unacceptable, and that she personally felt an overwhelming desire to explain to everyone she came across, even a taxi man, that she wanted her baby, she did not want to be doing this but she had to so that her baby would not suffer. Such a case will not be dealt with under X case legislation.

Another lady wrote to me about her sister. She writes that after further scanning, her sister and her husband were told that the baby had severe abnormalities. The brain of this baby was never fully developed and it had other abnormalities, and they were sent home to be brought back the next day to have further scanning. She writes that she will never forget this day as long as she lives, seeing the devastation on her sister's face as she curled up on the sofa with her lip shaking while she tried to fight back the tears as she felt like her world was falling apart. She writes it was so hard to watch. The following day, after detailed scanning, doctors came to the conclusion that the baby was, in fact, incompatible with life and would not survive outside the womb if the pregnancy even managed to reach full term. She writes that both her sister and her husband booked flights to London, that when her sister went in for the procedure, she was devastated and kept explaining to the nurses that she really wanted this baby, that it would not survive once it was born, and that she was trying to justify herself. She felt like she was doing something wrong because her own country had made her feel this way by not providing this service.

The person who wrote the e-mail continued that it is absolutely disgusting that in this day and age, women are forced to leave their own country to have terminations in cases where their much-wanted baby would never survive.

A lady named Siobhán wrote about a condition called anencephaly, in which the brain and skull do not develop fully. She wrote that on the day of the scan, she found that her baby would not live. While that was devastating enough, she and her husband were then told she could continue on with the pregnancy for a further 20 weeks to her due date and, if she did not wish to do so, she would be obliged to travel to the United Kingdom to terminate the pregnancy as the law in Ireland would not allow anything to be done here. She writes that, consequently, she travelled with her husband to Liverpool and spent a few surreal days carrying on as if all was well with their world while it actually was turning upside down. They met the team in Liverpool's Women's Hospital, who were kind, gentle and compassionate and were sorry Siobhán and her husband had to be there with them. The hospital team gave her a tablet to take and then she and her husband were obliged to leave the hospital for 48 hours before returning. She writes these were 48 hours of trying not to think about what was happening and trying to act normally in a city they did not know while separated from their families and friends, including their two children, aged four and two.

On returning to the hospital, she was given further doses of a tablet every few hours to induce labour and eventually, after 12 hours, her baby was delivered. Siobhán writes that she and her husband held him, named him and cried together for the death of their son. The hospital chaplain came in and blessed him for them. She writes he and all the staff were so sympathetic, caring and understanding at the horrible predicament in which she and her husband had found themselves. She concluded by stating this was her story, which she was sharing in the hope it would bring about change in our country, as the women of Ireland deserve better.

A woman called Ruth, whose child unfortunately had the same condition, wrote she could never have been prepared for what she and her husband were told that morning, as the experts scanned her. Their baby had anencephaly, a neural tube defect that results in the absence of a major part of the brain and skull. The consultant explained that Ruth and her husband had two choices, that is, she could continue with the pregnancy and their baby would die as soon as she was born, or shortly thereafter if the pregnancy got that far, or they could terminate. Ruth wrote that ringing her dear mum and being obliged to break this news to her was utterly heartbreaking. She recalls her mother being so shocked, not by her awful news but by the fact that she and her husband would be obliged to travel to the United Kingdom for termination. Ruth wrote she does not really remember the days that followed, other than the amazing support from her husband, family and close friends. She wrote that she cried and cried and was so angry. The anger was not about their baby's diagnosis, as she had nursed for long enough to realise that bad things happen to people every day, but she just felt so angry that she and her husband were obliged to travel. She wrote she had thought that surely under these circumstances, termination was allowed in Ireland. She wanted to have the chance to stand up in front of a judge and plead her case to allow her to be looked after in her own country, but instead she and her husband were obliged to travel to the United Kingdom with all their grief, feeling like criminals. She then goes on to outline precisely what happened to them but she concludes with the damning statement that although they felt no shame about the decision they had made, this journey made them feel like criminals.

The cases of none of the aforementioned women will be dealt with under X case legislation and Members are only discussing the risk to the life of a mother. Much now has been made of the issue of suicide but it is dealt with under the X case judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, it has been reinforced in the referendum results of 1992 and 2002. One cannot come into this Chamber and talk about mental health and suicide ideation or complain about budgetary measures in respect of mental health if one does not, in one's gut, trust a woman when she is suicidal as a result of a situation that brought about her pregnancy for whatever reason. One cannot do this if one simply does not trust her and simply thinks she is telling lies. Despite all the wind expended in this House about mental health and suicide, obviously Members do not trust women because, clearly, they will not be telling the truth. All of the e-mails I received came from devastated women, because they know that abortion is always a tragedy. It is as though women wilfully wished to discard their babies and pregnancies because they are so callous. Members must be clear about this suicide issue. It is part of the determination of the Supreme Court of this land in 1992. It was reinforced by the votes of the people in 1992 and 2002 and it must be part of this legislation. Members cannot walk away from this issue. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, when people stop being so cowardly and hypocritical, Members might return to the amendment that was introduced in 1983 and listen to what I consider to be the wise words of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, in this regard.

The time has passed for talking any further on this issue. I do not want legislation to be introduced to this House via a Private Members' Bill as it must come from the Government and must come from the Office of the Attorney General. Moreover, the idea of a free vote is an absolute nonsense in a modern parliamentary democracy that must deal with issues of conscience every single day. Members deal with issues of conscience each day. Each day they pass laws and budgets that potentially will hurt people but Members know in their guts that sometimes it is for the greater good. Consequently, this idea of a free vote, mentioned earlier by an Independent Deputy and previously by a Minister of State, is a nonsense and cannot be allowed to happen in this situation because the women of Ireland need to know the Government of the day is on their side.

See this speech in context