Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome that the Legislature is finally reacting to the 20 year old Supreme Court judgment in the X case. This subject can be broken into two parts, the constitutional element and the substantive issue. In respect of the constitutional element, no other parliament in the world would be allowed to disregard a judgment of a supreme court and the decisions of the people in two referendums. It is clear that the legislation only goes as far as the Constitution permits. I implore the Minister for Health to regard this Bill as the beginning of a discussion on a new constitutional amendment which would remove Article 40.3.3° in order to enable women to protect their health during pregnancy and deal with issues of rape and incest, as well as the sensitive issue of fatal foetal abnormality. These issues cannot be addressed in the Bill before us because of the constitutional constraints under which we must operate.

It is outrageous for anybody to suggest that we should not legislate. We are required to legislate if we take our Constitution and this Republic seriously, regardless of the substantive issue at hand. We have a Supreme Court and constitutional referendums for a reason. I reject the suggestion by Deputy Martin - I listened to him but he does not appear interested in listening to me - that the previous Government should be congratulated for suggesting that a suicidal victim of rape should be forced to go through with her pregnancy. Supposedly it was a compassionate gesture to put that to the people in 2002. Thankfully, people's opinions have become much more nuanced. Those who argue that we should not legislate for the X case or the referendums of 1992 and 2002 imply that we should stage a constitutional coup. We are being asked to disregard the basis of this Republic. We cannot do that.

It has been suggested that the Bill should not be allowed to become a political football but, as a member of a party that has been on the receiving end of political kicks on this issue for the last 20 years, I find that difficult to accept. Every other political party in this House has used it to score political points against the Labour Party. It has been thrown at every Labour Party candidate and canvasser in local, European and general elections in order to distort our party's views and label us as pro-abortion. I do not even know what the term "pro-abortion" means. Our election manifestos for the past 20 years have committed to legislating for the X case. That commitment has been manipulated by others. Hushed conversations have taken place on doorsteps questioning what the Labour Party really wants to do in Government and suggesting that we cannot be trusted on this issue. We have been accused of supporting abortion on demand. Thankfully, the position of my party, which has been consistent for the last 20 years, is finally in the political mainstream. People now accept the need to legislate for the judgment in the X case. That is what the people want and the Supreme Court demands.

On the substantive issue, all of us have received correspondence arguing that the Bill does not go far enough or that it goes too far. We have been intimidated and put under pressure. Our personal space has been invaded. I cannot understand why somebody would argue that a woman who is suicidal as a result of a crisis pregnancy should not have options. I do not understand the mentality of somebody who believes that a woman should be forced to go through with her pregnancy even though it means she will kill herself. As a society, we are still saying that in respect of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. If a woman's health is at risk or if she is a victim of rape or incest she has no options if she is not suicidal. Tragically, nothing in this legislation will change that. Who can honestly say it is justifiable that someone we love would be denied options if she is pregnant due to rape or incest? Representatives of a pro-life group suggested to me in my constituency office that a woman in that situation would have the option of going to England.

The central issue in this debate does not pertain to the unborn or to abortion; it pertains to abortion in Ireland. We have no difficulty with 4,000 women travelling to England every year but when it comes to upholding a woman's constitutional right to protect her life in this State through medical intervention, the national debate continues for 20 years. That is outrageous. When people from other jurisdictions are told that our debate is about situations where a woman's life is the risk, they are given to wonder whether this Republic is still in the dark ages. We have come a long way in terms of realising the debate is more nuanced than trenchant pro-life or pro-choice arguments would suggest. The debate has been used to blacken people and score political points. There was no political advantage in the stance my party has taken. We were the only party in the last general election to refer to the issue in our manifesto. However, it is a question of doing what is right rather than what is popular. When one knows something is right, one must stand up for it. Thankfully, it appears we are on the verge of legislating for this issue.

We must revisit the Constitution in order to provide for those women whose health may be threatened by pregnancy. We should ask ourselves whether such women have options and choices.

Should a woman who has been raped, or a woman who has been the victim of incest, have options? Alternatively, as a State and as a Republic should we demand in all cases that such a woman should be always forced to go through with her pregnancy? I wish cases of fatal foetal abnormalities were covered in this legislation, but unfortunately they are not. I understand that constitutional restraints mean a referendum would be possibly required. As a Republic, how can we force women in each of these circumstances to go through with their pregnancies? How can we do that and call ourselves civilised? Until we have a proper conversation about having a constitutional referendum that would potentially allow these things to take place, we will remain a Republic only in name and we will continue to rely on the UK to help our citizens. These women go to England feeling like criminals. Their health can be at risk. They may have been raped, or be victims of incest. They may be carrying pregnancies that suffer from fatal foetal abnormalities. This State makes 4,000 women a year feel like criminals. All we are providing for in this legislation is that a woman whose life is at risk will be protected and the appropriate interventions will be made. The Supreme Court said it should be so 20 years ago. The Irish people said it should be so ten years ago.

This has been a long, lonely, difficult and emotional road. It has not been a popular road to take. People in my party and others who have taken this road have had their points of view distorted, poisoned or misrepresented when they have been trying to save women's lives. Under this legislation, which I hope will be passed even though it is possibly the most restrictive abortion legislation anywhere in the civilised world, this State will continue to tell women whose health is at risk that they have to go through with their pregnancies or go to England. I suggest that from a constitutional perspective, we have no option other than to proceed in this manner. This debate has never been about whether to legislate - it has been about how we should legislate. There has been a conversation around suicide, but we have to legislate for suicidal ideation because that is what the X case was all about. The people said in 1992 that they wanted to retain this provision. I find it remarkable that Fianna Fáil has tried to congratulate itself in some perverse way on the action it supposedly took in 2002. It is bizarre to suggest to the people of Ireland that they should stand back and laud Fianna Fáil for trying to ensure a suicidal woman who wants to kill herself should be forced to go through with her pregnancy. It is monstrous to suggest that this measure was progressive, or that it progressed this argument along. All we are saying now is what the people have said twice, and what the Supreme Court said 20 years ago. The Constitution is quite clear. Anybody who does not stand by this proposal does not stand by the Constitution or by the Republic.

On the substantive issue, we should ask ourselves again whether we are really serious about forcing women to go through with pregnancies that would kill them. Are we seriously talking about forcing women to go through with pregnancies that would kill them, or do we just want them to go to England like criminals? I am almost tired of this debate. I am looking forward to the conclusion of the debate on the X case and the enactment of legislation that has been promised for so long. I hope we can then move on in a compassionate and non-party political way and start talking about a constitutional referendum that would ensure women whose health is at risk, women who are victims of rape or incest and women who are carrying foetuses with fatal abnormalities are not forced to go through with their pregnancies. Otherwise, this is not a Republic.

See this speech in context