Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. I also welcome the generally restrained and constructive tone in which the debate has been conducted so far in this House. I have said from the start that Fianna Fáil will not treat this issue as a political football. It is a complex, sensitive and personal issue which has been actively debated for over 30 years. We should have no tolerance for personal or political grandstanding on the issue.

There is no more fundamental issue for a society than its attitude to life. It is an ethical issue which goes to the very heart of our values. Ireland is far from unique in having an ongoing public debate about issues to do with life. It is very positive and one which I hope remains. I would much rather live in a society which has lengthy and sometimes emotional debates about the issue of life than in one which ignores it completely. This is not to say every contribution to the public debate has been constructive. There is an extreme fringe which recognises no boundaries of basic decency in promoting its view. Many of us in this House have had personal experience of this fringe's behaviour. They must, however, not be allowed to distract us or drown out the much more significant campaigns of other groups which are also against this legislation but which promote their views in a fair and democratic way. They have a right to be heard without being linked with the actions of a tiny minority. I have no doubt that a strong majority is against us in moving towards any liberal abortion regime. These views are not reactionary and not the result of blindly doing what religious or other leaders instruct. We should all reject any attempt to caricature or dismiss such sincerely held views. They are based on a profound respect for all aspects of humanity.

During my time as a public representative, I have what I believe is an absolutely clear record in supporting measures which respect the protection of human life. For example, I am proud to have voted for and helped to enact legislative and constitutional change which first abolished and then banned the death penalty. Regarding life during pregnancy, I have been a pro-life legislator. I understand this label annoys some, but it is a term which is widely understood. I do not use it to set it in contrast against other opinions. In approaching this legislation my position remains as it has been in the past. We have a constitutional and moral duty to protect human life in pregnancy. My vote will, I believe, be fully consistent with this, although it will displease some whose views I respect. I will be voting for the legislation because I believe it is tightly drawn and respects the provisions of Article 40.3.3^o of the Constitution. It is as restrictive as it is possible to be within the terms of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and the decisions of the people as reflected in two referendums. I do not believe it is possible to find completely uniform professional opinion on any proposal in this area. However, the Bill fairly represents what appears to be the predominant opinion about how we should proceed.

It is not true that this is an issue which has been ignored for 21 years. It is not the first time any legislation has been produced concerning abortion. The 2002 proposal that was defeated by the people followed extensive public consultation, expert hearings and an all-party committee report. With the major exception of the suicide provision, much of that legislation was similar to what is before the House today. I actually introduced that legislation in 2002. What was also done at the time was the development of a range of extra policy proposals to try to help women in crisis pregnancies. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency was established to provide free, non-judgmental help and also to undertake extensive education work. It is now part of the Health Service Executive and has undertaken its work professionally. Independent reviews show it has provided a service valued by the thousands of women who have come into contact with it.

Before addressing the specifics of the Bill, we must consider what the current legal position is and whether we need legislation. Article 40.3.3^o was enacted by the people at a time when there was already a legal prohibition on abortion. It did not change the then situation. Its purpose was to ensure there could be no replication of the situation in Britain and elsewhere where a combination of the courts and the abuse of moderate legislation had allowed the effective end of all restrictions on abortion. While there are those who attack the very idea that a referendum should decide such matters and claim that Article 40.3.3^o has been divisive, there is evidence that it has led to a far more honest debate. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court justice, Ms Ruth Ginsberg, who is viewed as being very liberal and in favour of allowing abortion services, has spoken about how American society has never had a proper debate on abortion because the US Supreme Court cut it off in the Roe v. Wade decision. America has had, she believes, a longer, more divisive and negative public debate on abortion as a result.

While the constitutional text is short and direct, it does not and cannot provide the detailed guidance required in all situations. It refers to two rights and, by definition, involves significant personal and medical decisions. The 1992 X case showed this with great force. In our system and in any country which respects rights the law is as the independent courts clarify it to be. In the X case the Supreme Court explicitly addressed how the right to life of the unborn and the mother was to be vindicated. The then Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Finlay, concluded on behalf of the four to one majority that "where it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40.3.3^o of the Constitution." There is no doubt emerging from this finding. The law of the land has been clarified by the Supreme Court and it is and has been for 21 years that there are circumstances where the termination of a pregnancy is legal.

As it stands, there is no legal framework to regulate terminations in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. For medical professionals and, more importantly, women, there is uncertainty. In other countries this uncertainty and the wide scope of the X judgment could have led to the opening of the floodgates which many have feared. It has not done so here. This strengthens the justification for the framework outlined in the Bill. Irrespective of how one reads the recent European judgment in the A, B and C case, I have no doubt that the facts show that legislation is required to provide a framework within which the right specified in Article 40.3.3^o can be vindicated.

The late Mr. Justice McCarthy who was renowned as a jurist, motivated by his commitment to classical republicanism, made this point in concurrence with the Xcasejudgment. He said "the failure of the Legislature to enact the appropriate legislation is no longer just unfortunate, it is inexcusable."

When I was involved in drafting the 2002 proposal, the overwhelming view of groups was that there should be legislation, with some adding the need for a constitutional amendment. Today there are many people and groups arguing that no legislation is required, that we can simply deal with this matter through medical guidelines. This is inconsistent with their past position. First, it was previously argued by many of the Bill's opponents that the Xcase judgmentwas extremely liberal and open to abuse. For example, Professor William Binchy wrote in November 2000, "as a result of the holding in X abortion is lawful." If one looks at the debates on the 2002 proposal, one finds that many people who are today arguing that guidelines are sufficient then argued the exact opposite. I acknowledge the difference between this proposal and the one made at the time, but the fact remains that until now there has been wide acceptance that some form of legislation on the circumstances of medical intervention to save the life of a mother is required.

Opinion polls should not guide our judgments on issues such as this. I take as a guide the many discussions about this issue that I have had with people in their homes and communities throughout the country during the past two months. I have found wide acceptance of the view that doing nothing is not an option. Simply leaving it to medical guidelines is not good enough. I have not met a single person who disagrees with the basic point that we must make sure everything is done in every situation to protect the life of women in pregnancy.

Regardless of whether there is explicit provision for situations involving potential suicide, there is a need for the core of the Bill. This is very similar to the approach followed in the 2002 proposal. A review framework is proposed within which it can be determined if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. It removes any potential for those involved to be prosecuted under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. In addition, provision is to be made for hospitals which will be covered by the legislation. The Bill is explicitly set within the context of the obligation to do everything possible to save the life of both the mother and the unborn child, even when there is a medical emergency which endangers the life of the mother. The Medical Council, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland have welcomed the Bill. They believe it will strengthen the Medical Council guidelines which have been covering this area without the security of legislative backup and which also include the issue of suicide.

In section 9 of the Bill provision is made for situations where it is presented that a termination may be required in order to prevent the loss of the mother's life through suicide. This is the part of the Bill which has caused the most concern and deserves to be fully examined. Those who are scared that it might be abused base their concerns on the fact that there are other jurisdictions in which provision for mental health justifications for abortion have led to complete liberalisation. This is the very reason that in 1992 and 2002 proposals were put to the people to explicitly exclude the threat of suicide as a justification for a termination. Both proposals were defeated. The 2002 proposal was comprehensive and balanced and detailed not only a revised constitutional text but also the exact legislation which would be enacted if a majority voted for the amendment.

There are those who believe there should be a further referendum to remove the risk of suicide as a ground for a termination. I do not believe this is credible; in fact, any new proposal would be defeated by a much larger majority and met with anger by a public who would rightly see it as a way of avoiding legislation. The current law, as clarified by the Supreme Court, explicitly allows for the risk of suicide as the basis for terminating a pregnancy. It does so with no statutory framework to regulate situations or prevent them from being abused. The provisions of section 9 provide for a review panel and a clear process for deciding on these cases. This is a much stronger protection against abuse than the current one where there is no requirement for a review process. I accept that there has been conflicting evidence presented on whether a threat of suicide is ever addressed by a termination, but this does not allow us to ignore the issue. The reason the Bill is reasonable on this point is that, as I have said, it actually introduces a procedure to prevent the potential that this ground could be abused to widen the availability of abortion. For 21 years the risk of suicide has been a lawful ground for the termination of a pregnancy and it has not been abused in that time. I see no evidence of any type to suggest we should now mistrust women and doctors.

The argument that the suicide ground marks the opening of the floodgates to abortion in Ireland does not stand up. The principal alternative offered by opponents to the Bill is for medical ethics, in the form of professional guidelines, to be the determining factor in regulating all situations in the protection of life in pregnancy. In effect, this is arguing that we should leave everything in the hands of medical professionals, yet at the same time we are being told that the more restrictive regulation proposed by the Bill should be opposed because it could be abused by medical professionals. Equally, it asks us to believe women will be inspired by the law to claim to be suicidal in order to have a termination in an Irish hospital. I simply cannot accept this. Fundamentally, if it is the case that the termination of a pregnancy is never justified to address a risk of suicide, the safeguards proposed by the Bill, based as they are on core medical ethics, will prevent this taking place.

Opponents of the Bill have repeatedly claimed that its provisions are similar to laws in other countries which did open the floodgates. What they fail to acknowledge is that Ireland is unique in having an explicit constitutional provision establishing the right to life of the unborn. As such, this places a direct limit on any action which can be taken as a result of legislation we pass in this House. By requiring that interventions under the Bill be "notifiable", this is not a case of legislation which will be left unsupervised. We, as legislators, and the people as a whole will be able to see if the legislation is being abused and in a position to amend it, if necessary. From what I have studied, I believe the Bill respects the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court. Quite the opposite from opening the floodgates, it will actually prevent the potential that the finding in the X case could be abused.

As I have announced previously, my party will take what is for it a unique step in allowing each of its Oireachtas Members to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. My colleagues and I had a respectful debate and agreed that it would simply not be right to threaten the loss of the Whip for voting in line with one's conscience on the fundamental issue of life. The party's position remains clearly that we are against liberalising the abortion laws. Individually, we are not in agreement on whether the Bill meets that standard. Parliaments around the world regularly allow free votes on matters of conscience. There are many good reasons we need a strong system of party discipline, but there has to be some limit to this and I believe the issue of human life is something which must not be treated like normal political business. More than any other legislation that has come before this Dáil, I have examined the Bill and the debates on it in great detail. I am convinced that it is a measure which deals with a difficult issue in a comprehensive and just manner. It does no more than provide a framework to ensure everything that can be done to save the life of a woman during pregnancy will be done. It does not change the fundamentals of the law, as it stands. As much as is possible on such a divisive issue, it adheres to the available medical advice. Vitally, it includes a mechanism to ensure the law will not be misused.

I will vote for the Bill because I believe it is true to the core objective of ensuring every necessary procedure is available to save the life of a woman during pregnancy. The legal and ethical obligation to do everything possible to save the life of the unborn remains; in fact, it will be strengthened because of the safeguards inherent in the procedures contained in the Bill.

See this speech in context