Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the members of the expert group which drafted the report on the judgment in the A, B, and C v. Ireland case. The report has been eagerly awaited by members of the public and I am pleased the Government will decide before Christmas which of the options it will pursue. This issue has been ongoing for too long and it is important that the Legislature makes a decision on it.

It is important to note that this debate is solely on the report of the expert group. Bearing this in mind, we must be cognisant of the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the rights of mothers and their babies, the findings of the Supreme Court in the X Case in 1992 and the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010.

I do not agree with the labels of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and they do not have any place in the House. In recent weeks, Ireland has been gripped again by an abortion debate, which was reignited following the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. The loss of this mother and her child in such circumstances has touched the hearts of everyone in the country. As with every Member of this House, I have been inundated with correspondence from members of the public outlining their views on this matter. What I have found is that many of the issues being raised fall outside the remit of the report and that any action taken by the Government will not impact on the scenarios raised.

After more than 20 years of inaction, the Government needs to legislate on the Supreme Court ruling. Such legislation will not only protect our medical professionals in their decision making, but also give mothers and, indeed, fathers certainty about their rights. This is an emotive issue, but it is vital that it be debated in a calm and measured manner. I do not believe that any Deputy present wants to see abortion on demand in Ireland. It is not what the Irish people voted on in three referendums.

We must be aware that, by legislating for the X case, we are merely maintaining the status quoin terms of the availability of terminations for medical reasons. It is necessary because it will provide legal footing for the medical profession. Regulations must be introduced along the current medical guidelines to assist the profession further.

From a personal perspective, I would also like to see the terms of the Supreme Court ruling extended to the health of the mother, not just the risk to her life. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of C. It found that while there was not necessarily a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman due to the pregnancy, her health could have been affected by the pregnancy due to the cancer treatment she was undergoing. This matter is worth considering.

Having listened to my constituents, members of the public and other Deputies who have spoken in the House on this matter, the element of suicide appears to be one of serious concern. I understand how these concerns can arise but I remind the House of what my colleague, Deputy Neville, stated, namely, that the risk of suicide decreases during pregnancy and, therefore, this risk, although real in the sense that it can occur in very rare cases, is not likely to increase the number of terminations undertaken.

Furthermore, I must agree with Deputy Neville, in that we must put our faith and trust in our mental health psychiatric services and their ability to diagnose correctly a genuine suicidal case over someone who dishonestly claims to be suicidal in order to obtain a termination. The expert group report sets out a number of options in this regard and I tend to agree with the suggestions regarding two psychiatrists and one obstetrician assessing the woman before a decision on termination is made.

The issue of suicide was put to the people in 1992 and 2002 and we must listen to their voices. As Deputies, we need to put our personal and moral beliefs aside and act as legislators by correcting this anomaly, which has existed for the past 20 years.

See this speech in context