Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I do not believe, as has been alleged by one contributor, that abortion is the divisive issue it once was. Many people in Irish society have very different views on the subject, as is their right, but they also recognise it is a private health matter that primarily is one for the woman herself, as well as her doctors. Repeated opinion polls have revealed the fact that the overwhelming majority of Irish citizens support the need for legislation for abortion where a woman's life is in danger, where she has been raped and impregnated as a result of the rape, in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases where a suicide risk occurs. Many citizens also recognise that the choice should be the woman's, no matter what the circumstances.

I am aware that because of the constitutional restrictions it would not have been possible for the Government to legislate for all of those circumstances but the Minister could have done a lot more, even within the confines under which he was operating. I do not agree the legislation provides the necessary legal clarity and neither do I believe it makes the situation safer for women. For me, it really is the absolute minimum with which the Minister could get away, to in part satisfy the European Court of Human Rights and to pacify some Government backbenchers.

The deep irony is that the Labour Party which, when Members on this side moved our legislation previously, criticised us for not going far enough and told us it could not support our legislation because it did not make enough provision, is now putting forward this legislation, which could have gone further even within the constitutional restrictions.

Other Members have explained why we are here. Successive Governments have failed to legislate for the X case, to provide for abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman. That has been the legal position in this country for decades but because it was not legislated for and did not have an Act to back it up, no woman could avail of the provision. I do not think the legislation clarifies the situation sufficiently. In fact, the point made by the Chief Justice in the X case ruling, that the risk need not be immediate or inevitable, has not been addressed in the Bill.

That is something on which greater clarity could have been given.

We have had a good deal of discussion in the media but much of that has been a false debate. It is as if what we are discussing is a way of minimising or restricting abortion in Ireland or providing for abortion in Ireland. The reality is that Irish abortion exits. We are just in a hypocritical situation in that we provide for it legally. If she is Irish, a woman has an absolute legal right to have an abortion. We have enshrined her right to travel but we do not allow her to have an abortion here at home. That is not good enough. That is a denial of the rights to more than 150,000 Irish women who have been forced to leave these shores in past decades. All of the reasons those women had to travel, and none of them were easy, were invalid in my opinion. The problem is that against the backdrop of increased austerity, the option to travel will be removed for many women on low incomes and will jeopardise women from non-national backgrounds. I would look at this debate from a starting point of it being a basic human rights and health issue.

In some ways it is not the Minister's fault that this Bill is so limited. The problem rests with our inadequate Constitution, a Constitution his colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, previously characterised as ensuring that not all our citizens are treated equally. Under our Constitution, while there are no impediments to medical treatment for men when their health is in jeopardy. That is a qualified right for women and means that some citizens are not equal to others. That is not good enough. The 8th amendment of the Constitution should be repealed. It is something we have called for and will be pushing for beyond this, but I realise the Minister is operating within the confines of the Constitution as it stands.

I will refer to some points in that regard which we will tease out on Committee Stage through amendments because serious problems arise in this Bill. It criminalises women and doctors. The restrictions in it will continue to put the lives of women and girls at risk, and that is something we cannot stand over. We intend to move a huge number of amendments to the Bill.

A major problem with the Bill is that it continues to pose abortion as a criminal offence, with a fine or imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years for women or doctors, including those who would use abortion pills to end an unwanted pregnancy. It raises the spectre that a women who presents herself as suicidal and seeks an abortion potentially could face a period of imprisonment longer than the perpetrator of her rape would endure. That is not good enough.

This legislation brands thousands of Irish women as criminals. They have to sneak away or secretly get abortion pills, and in that sense it does not eliminate the chilling effect described by the European Court of Human Rights where women seek to get this treatment. It will deter women from seeking aftercare where they have used abortion pills or where they travel abroad to seek an abortion. As we know, criminalisation will not reduce the abortion rate. It simply puts the lives of women and girls at risk, and that is something on which we will table an amendment because it is not good enough that it remains in the Bill.

The Bill does not overcome the difficulties outlined in the case of Savita Halappanavar and highlighted in the Health Service Executive report where it was clear that under law, as one of the consultants stated, if there is no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied as long as there is a foetal heartbeat. That is a problem that is being enshrined in this legislation as well because what we are seeing is that medical conditions due to pregnancy are not, of themselves, life-threatening. A miscarriage, for example, must be allowed to become life-threatening before a woman can legally get the necessary termination of pregnancy. We will have the scenario of medical practitioners having to wait and see if their patient's health deteriorates to the point where their life is in danger before the matter can be addressed.

One of the issues the Minister's expert group dealt with was that under any circumstances, the opinion of only two medical practitioners should be sufficient. We went to the trouble of convening an expert group. That was its call on the matter for either mental health issues or medical issues, yet this Bill contains a requirement for up to four practitioners - an obstetrician, two psychiatrists and possibly the woman's own general practitioner. They have to examine the woman, they must agree that she is suicidal and so on. There is no doubt that will deter despairing women from even asking for an abortion in Ireland, especially when they have to face that type of tribunal. It will drive them further overseas, and that is not good enough. We could have done more.

One of the biggest problems with this Bill is the definition of the unborn. Government Deputies will have to examine this matter. We have all been struck by the tragedy of the families who have come forward with their very difficult stories where their foetus had a fatal abnormality and how those people had to endure the torture of either being faced with bringing that pregnancy to full term, with all the questions being asked of them such as when they are due and how they are getting on, or travelling to England like outcasts. The existing legislative provision could have allowed the Minister to provide for cases of fatal foetal abnormality, but he has not done that. That cannot be allowed to stand. Not only has he not done it but by defining unborn human life, as he proposes to do in this legislation, as existing from the moment of implantation in the womb until delivery, and giving that an equal right to life as the woman or the girl, the Minister is removing the very possibility of legislating to deal with fatal foetal abnormalities. He is closing off the D case ruling where the State argued that a fatal foetal abnormality could be grounds for a termination, even within the confines of the Constitution. This is a cruel blow to the 1,500 women and couples who face that situation every year. As an absolute minimum, that part of the Bill has to go.

We will have a debate over the coming weeks. It is important that this Bill is before the House. I am glad we have some legislation, but it could have been much better. I hope we will amend it to ensure it is improved.

See this speech in context