Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As a man, speaking in a male-dominated Parliament and a room in which not a single woman is present, I find commenting on and adjudicating the most sensitive and difficult decision that any woman could make to be a difficult experience. Any difficulty I may experience would be meagre in comparison with the emotions any woman who has attempted to reconcile her desire for life and that of her unborn child would feel as she looks at this debate. Such a woman would be looking at mostly men talking about a terrible choice that only women face. As legislators and public representatives, we often use empathy to bridge the gap between the decisions we make and the people who live with these decisions. However, even the most developed sense of empathy will flounder in the face of the sadness and grief that women face when the joy of carrying life is accompanied by the risk of their own death. That this only happens to a small number of women should not allow a diminishment of the horror of this predicament.

A philosopher once observed in a very different setting that when one cannot speak of a matter, one must be silent. Despite the massive difficulty I face in imagining this choice as a man, as a legislator and a public representative I am required to speak, make known my views and act. Amid this turmoil I have looked to retrace the main decisions made by our people and our institutions of State on the issue. I do so conscious that in my nine years as a public representative, this is the first time as a Member of the Oireachtas I have dealt with an issue that has riven our nation.

What are the key public events that have defined this debate? In 1983 the people voted to introduce Article 40.3.3° into Bunreacht na hÉireann, including the key phrase "with due regard to the equal right of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". In 1992 our Supreme Court interpreted our Constitution to allow for lawful termination if there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to health, of the mother.

In 1992 and again in 2002, people voted against measures that were designed to exclude suicide as a ground for lawful termination. Everything that has occurred since is defined by the contours of these decisions.

Two other points must also be made regarding the role of European institutions in this deeply sensitive matter. First, in July 2006, the European Court of Human Rights rejected an application from a woman referred to as "D" on the grounds that Irish courts offered sufficient remedy and procedure for deciding on her application. The court recognised that Irish institutions provide the first and proper public space within which decisions are to be made. Second, it should be noted that the decision made in December 2010, again by the European Court of Human Rights, was in respect of compliance with decisions made by Irish people and institutions.

The expert group report states that "the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international agreement which Ireland has signed and ratified and which is consequently legally binding upon Ireland". However, in accepting this we must acknowledge that what is required of us is coherence between our laws and courts. No one is seeking to foist a decision upon us. What we are required to do is be consistent with decisions we took in the past. What we cannot do is second guess those decisions. The right to decide the interpretation of law is not open to everyone. If that were the case, it would instigate the gradual but inevitable erosion of the foundations of legitimacy and authority upon which the State and institutions, including the Oireachtas, depend. This competence is, therefore, exclusively reserved for our courts and if we disagree with an interpretation of the courts, it is open to us to change the constitutional framework within which they make such interpretations. This has not occurred.

Having made forays into the world of the abstract, the world of our laws and institutions and a world in which women are referred to as initials, let me address the handful of tragedies to which we are seeking to respond. In a case where the life of a mother is threatened, the State has two responsibilities, namely, to do everything possible to keep mother and child safe and alive and to ensure that those medically involved in any such dilemma are protected by the law when they stay within the law. By omission, I cannot accept that when the life of a mother is threatened the State should make a decision for her or reduce the choices open to her. It should be recalled that in such circumstances, the life of a woman, who could be a neighbour, friend or someone we have not met, is at risk. In the solitude conferred by the horror of such a choice the State should not be present beyond meeting the two responsibilities I have outlined.

I am against the introduction of abortion for social or economic reasons. What we must do is clarify our law as it stands. Having had the honour of seeing my own children brought into this world, I will not yield to anyone in my recognition of the rights and lives of the unborn and born. Perhaps because of this experience I am also deeply aware that the law is not always successful in governing by absolutes. We all live our lives in the space between absolutes. Sometimes we are aware of the right thing but on other occasions we fumble forwards and hopefully do the right thing. Our fragility and vulnerability to chance and events beyond our control defines our humanity.

For these reasons, I believe the option of advancing legislation or regulation to deal with the consequences of the X case should be pursued by the Government in a careful and deliberative manner. We must be particularly careful on the issue of mental health and risk of suicide. We must also remember that threats to mental health already cause deaths at substantial cost to society. This issue is not about changing the law but about making it clearer for those who depend upon the law for their lives or exercise duties upon which the most vulnerable depend.

This will be a difficult debate. I have already been the victim of comment and behaviour that gives me a taste of what is to come. Francis Bacon once made the following observation: "It is as hard and severe a thing to be a true politician as to be truly moral." I have certainly felt this when considering this issue.

The separation of powers is sacred to our Republic. While the courts cannot make Parliament act, the Oireachtas is obliged to consider the views expressed by the courts. In giving such consideration, we must recognise our obligation to support a woman in circumstances where her life is threatened but we must not make a decision for her.

See this speech in context