Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. There has been much discussion and debate in society and within the House on this issue for many generations. However, on this occasion the debate has been conducted in a different way from the way it was conducted in the past. It is more respectful and there appears to be a better and greater tolerance of people who have an entirely different viewpoint, not just on aspects of this Bill but on matters of principle, be they pro-choice or pro-life.

I do not want to get into the label debate because there is nobody in this House who would not say he or she is pro-life. It is a question of whether Deputies believe in a more liberal approach to the termination of pregnancy or have a complete inability to countenance any actions, medical or otherwise, that would interfere with the life of the unborn. All of those positions are valid and must be respected by all concerned. I certainly respect them, and I recognise the change in the way people have decided to debate.

A small number of politicians seem to believe it was not right that they should have been lobbied on this matter. It was appropriate that people of all viewpoints lobbied their local Deputies. I received a considerable amount of information, some points of which were more novel than others, perhaps in an effort to grab my attention or change my viewpoint, but I never felt there was anything disturbing about any of it. I would vindicate the right of all to lobby, respectfully and in whatever way they wish, those whom they elect to make the laws on their behalf. That is important.

With regard to labels, it was stated this matter is an issue of conscience. It has been inferred that those who are opposing the legislation are those with a conscience and that those who support it are either without conscience or have not referred to their conscience. It is a matter of public record that I am supporting this Bill. I am doing so based on my conscientious belief that it is the right thing to do. This is in line with my duties as a legislator, cognisant of the current constitutional position. For me, the constitutional position is very clear. Article 40.3.3° was interpreted by the Supreme Court in line with that court's role as set out in the Constitution. The interpretation of the court has made it very clear that where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, the termination of pregnancy is legal. That is the law irrespective of whether one likes it. Some have argued, albeit respectfully, that the judgment is flawed. When the Supreme Court makes a finding, it is the law until such time that the electorate decides to change it.

On two occasions, the people were asked whether they wanted to remove the threat of suicide as constituting a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. On both occasions, in 1992 and 2002, they said "No".

I wish to dispel the myth that seems to have developed during the course of this debate, namely, that nothing has been done in regard to this issue for 20 years, since the X case. An effort was made earlier by one of the Labour Party Deputies to give all the credit for action taken on this matter to the Labour Party and castigate former Governments. Over the past 20 years, previous Governments have attempted to clarify the position on the X case. In 1992, there was a constitutional referendum in which the people were asked three questions. They were asked whether a woman has the right to travel to avail of a service or facility in another jurisdiction and they said she does. They were asked whether the State has the right to provide non-directive information on abortion to citizens seeking to have a termination carried out in another jurisdiction and they said "Yes". They were asked whether they wanted to exclude the threat of suicide as a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother from the constitutional provisions set out on foot of the X case and they said "No". They said "No" again in 2002 when they were asked the question. This demonstrates an effort by successive Governments over the 20-year period to try to bring clarity to the issue. In 2002, the then Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, introduced comprehensive legislation, much of which is part of the current Bill. It was a genuine effort by politicians of all hues at the time to bring some clarity to the issue that bedevilled society in dealing with the outcome of the X case.

The most important aspect of this legislation is that it gives clarity to the medical profession in the pursuit of its duty under Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution on the protection of the life of the mother and the unborn. There is a conflict in these very words and this is the reason for the Supreme Court issue. The legislation brings certainty to men and pregnant women, the objective being that every available intervention will be in place to protect the mother's life.

There should not be a hierarchy of mother and child. That is set out in Article 40.3.3° but it is a fact that if the mother does not survive, the child certainly will not either, unless it is in the late stages of gestation. While it is nice for some to live in an obscure world in which they do not have to deal with issues such as this daily, the reality is that, from the perspective of a medical professional or pregnant woman, the truth is different. I listened with interest to the submissions to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. I understand that between 25 and 30 terminations of pregnancy take place annually for medical purposes. Some seek to make this a grey area and suggest it is an unintended consequence, and that the terminations do not constitute an abortion as defined wherever they derive their definition. In many cases, it is a direct intervention and not the side-effect of some tablets that are taken or an injection given. It is the direct and intentional disruption of a pregnancy to save the mother's life. That is acceptable and legal and this is clarified in this Bill. For me, all the Bill does is set out how the decision is made. It puts in place a proper procedure for taking the decision to end a pregnancy to save the mother. This seems to be medically acceptable to many.

The main issue in this legislation that has divided us in this House and perhaps outside it concerns suicide. In the debate on suicide in this House and outside it, it is stated nobody really understands suicide and can get inside the head of a person who has committed suicide. This is why the matter has bedevilled legislators and medical professionals for so long. It has prevented the capacity to intervene at an early stage to prevent the loss of life through suicide; yet, in the debate on the termination of pregnancy for a woman at risk of losing her life by suicide, some in this House and many outsiders seem to have all the answers. We have heard the phrase, "Abortion is not a cure for suicide." It is a meaningless statement but it has common currency. It is used as a standard defence in arguing why we should not consider the threat of suicide and why we should not clarify, for the woman in question and medical professionals, the methodology for establishing whether there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother through suicide. Some say there is no test, and there is none. I was taken by the Minister's medical adviser, Tony Holohan, who said understanding or determining whether a pregnant woman is suicidal does not involve a hocus-pocus method.

Some of the commentary that has sought to cast aside the threat of suicide as a real and substantial risk has been damaging to the general debate on suicide. It is hurtful to those who have gone through an episode of suicidal tendencies and to the families of those who have died by suicide. On the one hand, people say that does not constitute a real and substantial risk but we all know families left in the wake of a death by suicide and that is disturbing. If we want to distil this further, is it the case that some people are saying they do not trust Irish women and that they will somehow present themselves as suicidal before three doctors in an effort to procure a termination? That would be illegal under this legislation because it would mean attempting to use it for a purpose for which it was not established. People are unfairly casting judgments about the suicide issue. The fallout from the debate will be the impact it has on the families of men and women who have lost their lives through suicide and I hope once the passage of the Bill has been dealt with, the Minister will take a strong leading role in attempting to put in place a framework in which the issue of suicide would be addressed more comprehensively by the State and its agencies.

It is also the case that the Medical Council guidelines recognise that abortion is legal in Ireland as set out in the X case but some have sought as a reason we should not have legislation to offer a number of alternatives, including another referendum. I have set out my views on that clearly. I do not think, based on the opinion polls and research I have seen, that if we were to ask the people again whether suicide should be removed from the Constitution as a ground for abortion, there would be a different result. It would go much more the other way. There are some who oppose this legislation who say the wrong question was asked in 2002 because there were ethical and moral issues around when life began under that legislation and whether it was at conception or implantation. Some suggest that if we went back to conception that would address their concerns and they would be able to vote in favour of such a referendum but that would exclude a much larger cohort of people for whom the morning-after pill is an acceptable course of treatment. There is no alternative but to legislate and that is why I support the legislation.

I would like to dispel the myth that the State does not have to legislate as a result of the A, B, C v. Ireland case and that it could somehow do what needs to be done through guidelines. The Medical Council has been offered as the means by which that would happen. However, it is difficult to get on record the facts as they pertain to the council's guidelines. Many people on the extreme side of the pro-life movement put their stake in the Medical Council guidelines, but paragraph 21.1 states:

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life ... of the mother. ... [T]his exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide.

That is simple and it sets out the framework under which a termination can take place currently. This guideline for medical practitioners further states: "You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue". That is the only principle that guides a physician in the termination of a pregnancy arising from the threat of suicide. As previous speakers said, Professor William Binchy recognised this in 2000 when he said that the decision of the Supreme Court effectively made abortion legal in Ireland and the regime could be wide open and liberal.

My support for this legislation is based principally and wholly on a pro-life stance. Like others, I do not believe we should have liberal abortion laws in this country, but we have to be consistent with the Constitution and we have to limit the potential for a more liberal abortion regime, which is possible depending on the way the Supreme Court decision is interpreted within the provisions of the Medical Council guidelines. It is clear there are virtually no restrictions on the capacity of clinicians, from whatever angle they might be coming, to terminate a pregnancy. We think it does not happen, but there is no reporting system in place similar to that which will be introduced under this legislation. All the legislation does, therefore, is to codify and clarify the overarching provision in the Constitution. It tries to set out a system by which decisions are taken in order that they are traceable and to ensure consistency among clinicians and pregnant women. We need to pass this legislation without delay for that reason.

I am pro-life, and abortion will not necessarily solve problems. It may seem like the obvious way out during the immediate shock, confusion or crisis a women goes through when discovering she is pregnant and does not want to be. Those of us who have met women who have had abortions and were deeply hurt as a result know it is not the solution. Other women take that decision and they are fine with it afterwards. That is a fact of life, which must be recognised as well. However, the gaping hole in our approach to abortion in this State is that 5,000 women still travel silently to the UK on an annual basis and they will continue to do so following the passage of this Bill.

I am disheartened by the attention focused on us, as legislators, by some who seek to protect the unborn. They have every right to do that but when this debate concludes, will attention turn to trying to assist those women for whom there does not seem to be an obvious way out? It is sad that both the political system and civil society do not make a greater effort to prevent these abortions, many of which could be prevented if there was an appropriate level of support and non-directive counselling and a genuine belief among women facing a crisis that there was somebody they could to go to seek assistance and guidance. For some, the pregnancy is a crisis. They cannot talk to their families or friends and they feel excluded and isolated. I have no doubt that, were it not for the fact that there is access to a liberal abortion regime in England, there would be a greater number of deaths through suicide among pregnant women in this State.

I appeal to the Minister on the passage of the Bill to undertake a comprehensive review of the issue of women who travel to have an abortion to ensure that for those who have made a conscious decision they believe is right, it is respected and accepted. Assistance must be given to those who are not thinking clearly, who are not in a good place and who are not a position to make a rational decision because of the crisis in which they find themselves. They become deeply hurt and traumatised as a result of the decision they took and they come to us at a later stage.

I support the Bill, which is right and appropriate. I do so believing it is consistent with my pro-life stance. I respect the right of others to have a different opinion but I ask them to set out clearly their solution to the X case judgment and to recognise the decision the people have taken on two occasions.

See this speech in context