Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I place on record my appreciation of the work done by Mr. Justice Ryan and the other members of the expert group.

They have done the State a great service, not just in terms of the way in which the report was written, but also the way in which the options were clearly set out therein. I encourage everyone to read the report. As the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated, it is written in clear language and people both inside and outside the Houses will understand the full import of its contents.

I will outline where our responsibility lies. The Houses of the Oireachtas comprise the elected representatives of the Irish people. As legislators, we have a duty under the Constitution to act when the situation demands it. We have delayed for far too long. Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court outlined what needed to be done. Over the years, many medical professionals working in this area have also called for legal clarity. Most recently, the European Court of Human Rights has demanded action.

The failure of successive Governments to act has put the lives of women at risk. Too often, we only respond when a crisis develops. This generation of legislators is now called upon to exercise its duty. We must not be afraid to do so. Legal clarity and a full, proper legislative response to the issues contained in the X case ruling of more than 20 years ago are required.

We are faced with the complex work of drafting a legal framework. Our work must be guided by the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. We have a duty of care to this and future generations of women. Women are not some abstract concept. They are our wives, partners, daughters, mothers, sisters and neighbours. They are the ones who must take on the joys and burdens of child bearing. I sometimes believe that, if men had the responsibility, there would be few children in the country. We must do everything possible to lessen the fear and risk for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant. In this debate on these complex issues, I will give greater weight to the opinion of women in all of its diversity.

We also have a duty to provide greater legal clarity to doctors and other health professionals. We must accept that it will never be possible to provide for each and every eventuality. In a real life risk situation, the wishes of the person carrying the risk must be given the greater weight.

We must also be guided by a thoughtful, ethical approach and by respect for human life in all of its forms. Science and medicine should inform our thinking, as should our cultural and belief systems. Science informs us that life is a continuum. Human life has its beginning during the process of fertilisation, during which each of us obtains a unique genetic heritage. However, on an ethical and philosophical level, it is important to distinguish between potential and actual. That new beginning is not yet an actual human being, but it has the potential to be so. A human being is a process of becoming, through gestation, birth and beyond into a full adult life. Article 40.3.3° on the unborn's right to life expresses the strongly held view of the people that all human life deserves respect and protection.

The abortion debate in Ireland and other countries has been characterised by extremes. At one end of the debate is the absolute right of the mother to choose irrespective of the stage of pregnancy or the development of the unborn. At the other extreme is the view that a full human being is created at fertilisation and that its life must take precedence over the health of the mother irrespective of the circumstances. Indeed, it is one of the great ironies of recent Irish history that the so-called pro-life campaign and its refusal to listen to others facilitated the introduction of abortion to Ireland.

I reject both extremes. I reject absolutes. Life is not lived in some kind of ideal world of platonic absolutes. Life is not lived in black or white. Life is lived by real people in real time. In the midst of enjoying the pleasures and happiness that life brings, we must also deal with the mess that comes from being human.

Where a pregnancy is not sustainable for medical reasons, the decision to end the pregnancy must rest with the woman in consultation with the medical team. Where a pregnancy triggers a new serious medical condition because of an existing medical condition and where those conditions pose a real and growing threat to the health and possibly to the life of the mother, decisions on termination must rest with the mother in consultation with the medical team.

The expert group is correct in its interpretation of the Constitution that where it is proposed to terminate a pregnancy, every effort must be made to save the unborn. Obviously, important and difficult clinical decisions may must be made surrounding the viability of the unborn and the associated issue of the timing of termination. The insertion of Article 40.3.3° into the Constitution had unintended consequences. It is important that the legal framework being considered is open to maximum scrutiny and debate. That is why it is right that the Government's proposals in the first instance will be discussed at the relevant Oireachtas committee and in the plenary session of this House.

Many thousands of Irish women have terminations every year, as stated by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald. They have them in Britain. It is estimated that perhaps 150,000 Irish women may have had terminations. We also have a duty to consider how the numbers might be reduced. Unwelcome and unwanted pregnancies are always going to happen. Women need effective and practical support in such situations.

In all the recent coverage on this issue, a letter by Canon Stephen Neill in The Irish Timeson Thursday, 3 November most accurately reflected my views. He wrote in that letter the following:

The only hope for a reasonable debate and a mature and responsible approach to this issue which we have never faced up to as a nation is for the middle ground to find its voice. It is possible to be both pro-lifeand pro-choice. We can simultaneously respect the right to life of the unborn and the life of the mother.

That is the challenge facing us as legislators, to find that middle ground, where we can show reverence for all human life and respect the lives and difficult decisions faced by real people as they live their lives in ever-changing times.

Six weeks before Dr. Garret FitzGerald's passing, I had an opportunity to meet him for a lengthy lunch and conversation. It was a great privilege to discuss with him a range of issues that we faced at the time but also issues that arose during his time in politics. At the end of our discussion I asked Dr. FitzGerald the issues on which he made mistakes during his time in politics. He spoke honestly and eloquently about his deep regret in agreeing to the demands for a constitutional referendum on this issue in the early 1980s. The issue became, as he described, entangled in party politics and in the fervent political atmosphere of the time, where there were three general elections in 18 months.

Dreadful mistakes have been made on this issue since the early 1980s. I believe, however, that the majority of people, while opposing an abortion regime, want this issue resolved within the context of the Supreme Court ruling on the X case and the legal and regulatory certainty that follows that for women and their doctors. The Constitution is the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the sole right of interpretation. Ignoring its interpretation of more than 20 years is no longer an option for the Government and the House.

See this speech in context