Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this most important Bill. I am very aware of the different views it has brought up and the sensitivity of the issues involved. I fully respect the right of individuals to hold different and opposing views on the detail of the Bill and have welcomed the opportunity to speak to many constituents, colleagues and friends about the issue in recent months.

I have spent much time thinking about the issues raised by this Bill in the past six months, while deciding on how to exercise my vote. I have considered the current legal position and past referenda and the view of the medical professionals. I have also taken into account my Catholic faith and beliefs and, as a newly married man, I have considered what challenges might face my wife and me if we decide to start a family in the future.

I have tried to consider the issue from the woman's perspective - as best a man can - while thinking about those closest to me. I have challenged myself to consider what my perspective would be if my wife or sister or even a future daughter faced a risk to her life during a pregnancy. I know I would want her doctor to have the legal clarity to protect her life.

I welcome clarification on the process to be followed in the case of a risk of loss of life from a physical illness in emergency or non-emergency cases. This should provide medical practitioners with more certainty in these difficult situations.

The Bill does not introduce any new provisions into Irish law. Any change to existing law would require a decision of the people in a referendum. The Bill is no more or no less than a means of putting a structure around existing law in order to give greater clarity and certainty to medical practitioners.

A judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the land, becomes law and cannot be overruled without a referendum decision. The Supreme Court in the X case decision interpreted Article 40.3.30 of the Constitution to determine that a termination was lawful when there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct to the health, of the mother and which could only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy. Subsequently, referenda were held in 1992 and 2002 to amend the Constitution by excluding the threat of suicide from the meaning of a real and substantial risk to the mother's life and to remove suicide as a ground for abortion. In both cases these amendments were rejected by the people.

The X case ruling was applied in the C case which arose in 1998. While no termination took place in the X case as the lady miscarried, a termination was carried out in the C case as a result of the X case judgment. This shows that the X case has relevance in law today and to do nothing with this judgment has implications.

In the C case, the District Court judge ruled that an abortion was lawful if based on the report of psychiatrist. This Bill provides that such a case would require reports from two psychiatrists, one obstetrician and the woman's GP. A unanimous decision of the psychiatrists and obstetrician as to the existence of suicidal intent would be required before a termination could take place. Following the two referenda on this issue, it is necessary to respect the views of the majority of people in this country. I welcome the restatement in the Bill of the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland. I also welcome that this Bill upholds the equal right to life of the unborn and confirmation of the obligation on the medical profession to save both lives where possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context