Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

This debate and this legislation are at least 20 years too late. Given the tragic circumstance surrounding the X case, when a 14 year old rape victim was denied the right to have an abortion in this country, and initially denied the right to travel to Britain for an abortion, who then became suicidal, and only as a result of public outrage was the Supreme Court finally forced to acknowledge she had the right to an abortion because her life was threatened as a result of suicide, it is shameful that 20 years on we still have not acknowledged the legal right to termination in those circumstances, which was decided by the Supreme Court.

That 20 year delay, a result of the cowardice of successive Governments, contributed substantially to the tragedies of the A, B, C and D cases and, most recently, the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. Let me say before dealing with the specifics of the Bill, whether it passes or not - it probably will pass - it will still leave us with the disgraceful situation where, if a 14 year old is raped but not suicidal, she will be denied the right to have an abortion in this country and will be forced to travel abroad. It will deny huge numbers of other women in crisis pregnancies where their mental or physical health might be threatened the right to terminate those pregnancies. Thousands more women, irrespective of whether the Bill passes, will be forced to travel in the dead of night, with all the stigma associated with abortion, which this legislation sets out to reinforce with its continuing criminalisation of abortion, will continue. Disgracefully, where the health of women is threatened, they will be forced to leave the country and their support and family networks to seek abortions elsewhere because the Constitution maintains an utterly false distinction between the life and the health of a woman.

Any doctor will tell the Minister there is no such distinction. There is no distinction between the life and the health of a woman. Whatever happens with this legislation, as soon as it is passed, as it probably will be, the campaign to repeal the eighth amendment, and to remove the prohibition on abortion that exists that results in a situation where thousands of women every year in tragic and difficult circumstances must travel abroad, must begin immediately. That, in a way, is a campaign and a debate for another day.

I accept that the Government must deal with the current constitutional framework set down in the X case judgment. However, this legislation is the absolute most minimal possible interpretation of the X case judgment and needs to be radically amended if it is not to leave us in a situation where many of the injustices and the ignominies that are inflicted on women in this country as a result of our laws on abortion will continue.

First, let me address the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities. Here the Government has no excuse. There is no reason whatsoever this legislation should not contain the right for women who are pregnant in situations where the foetus has fatal abnormalities which are incompatible with life to terminate those pregnancies. As someone who had a daughter with fatal foetal abnormalities, I am aware that the diagnosis that one is given when one gets that terrible news from the doctors is that the condition is "incompatible with human life". Therefore, as a series of professors of law, barristers and solicitors have testified in a letter to The Irish Timesthis week, because such conditions are incompatible with life, to allow for terminations in that circumstances does not run foul of the Supreme Court judgment and of the current constitutional position. The Government could legislate for that in this legislation and it should. Its failure to do so is really quite reprehensible and will lead to a situation where people who have wanted pregnancies but get this terrible news that the foetus has fatal abnormalities will continue to be forced to have to travel to Britain where they do not have their family and support networks, etc.

Added to that, they will still have surrounding their actions in seeking terminations abroad the stigma that the terminations they seek will in this jurisdiction be considered criminal actions, and it is absolutely incomprehensible to me that the Government could include in this legislation a 14-year prison sentence sanction, for example, for somebody who had a pregnancy with fatal foetal abnormality and sought a termination in this country, and that she could be criminalised and, potentially, imprisoned for 14 years. It is unbelievable that such a sanction would be included. I seriously ask anybody on the Government side if he or she really believes that a woman in those circumstances who seeks an abortion in this country is a criminal and should be subject to a 14-year prison sentence? Does any of them really believe any woman in a crisis pregnancy situation who, for example, takes an abortifacient should be criminalised? Nobody in all of the committee discussions stated that should happen or such women should be jailed, yet it is included in this legislation. It is simply unbelievable. It means, with the stigma surrounding abortion, that the thousands of women who under whatever circumstances still have to travel abroad to Britain for an abortion will be under a veil of criminality that what they are doing is shameful and criminal according to the law of the State. That is absolutely unacceptable and that section of this Bill should be removed.

Furthermore, in the situations of suicidal intent, it is unacceptable that a distinction is made in this Bill between mental health and physical health. For doctors in the medical world, no such distinction exists. The idea that there should be a higher threshold for someone whose life is threatened as a result of suicidal ideation or mental health issues and somebody whose life is threatened as a result of physical health issues, that any distinction of that sort should be made, is unacceptable.

The requirement that women who are suicidal should face interrogation by up to seven doctors is simply inexplicable. There is no medical justification for it whatsoever. For example, why do we need an obstetrician? An obstetrician has no role whatsoever to play in assessing whether somebody is suicidal. An obstetrician is simply not required in this equation. There is only a requirement for one psychiatrist and for a GP, as in other cases where the life of the woman is threatened as a result of a physical threat. Why make this distinction? The only reason the Minister is making that distinction is to assuage the opposition of Members in this House who believe they have the right to impose their morality on the bodies of women in such a way as, potentially, would threaten the life and the health of those women, and that is unacceptable.

This legislation must be radically amended and I would appeal to the Government to accept the amendments that will come forward on those issues.

See this speech in context