Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Donohoe.

I am glad that I had the opportunity to hear Deputy Naughten, a man whom I respect and whose knowledge of matters in this House is fairly extensive, but I must say, with no disrespect to the point of view that he expressed, that when one resorts to the minutiae of Supreme Court interpretation in a Second Stage debate, it would appear that many on the other side of this debate recognise that the country has moved on in this matter and a rearguard action is being engaged in.

I welcome the Bill to the House. As the second longest-serving Deputy in this House, I have for many years witnessed first hand the division, pain and political reluctance to deal with the sensitive issue of abortion since the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill was passed in 1983. That referendum was an inspired political stunt to win the support of the so-called pro-life lobby during one of the most tumultuous periods of our democracy. Prior to the calling of the 1982 general election, the then Taoiseach, the late Mr. Charlie Haughey, published the wording of an amendment to protect the life of the unborn that had been imposed upon him by the pro-life lobby. Immediately and sadly, former Taoiseach, the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald, endorsed it and promised a referendum on it in April 1983. I have always been of the personal view that the wording in that amendment was flawed from the outset. While it may have been an astute political tactic to win votes in elections, the wording of the amendment was anything but astute.

The pro-life lobby had become exercised by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in the 1970s, which, the lobby claimed, had begun to find unenumerated rights within the wording of the Constitution. The case which generated most concern in this regard was McGee v. Attorney General, where the Supreme Court held that the imprescriptable rights of the family conferred a broad right upon spouses to privacy in marital affairs and, in effect, legalised the import of contraceptives. The fear that the courts may introduce abortion rights through the back door was what led the pro-life campaign to amend the Constitution. The irony is that once they extracted a pledge from intimidated politicians to do just that, the wording of the eighth amendment actually gave rise to the very situation which they sought to avoid. If we are to learn anything from this episode, it is that the Constitution is not something to be tampered with lightly.

Indeed, I recall the Attorney General of the Fine Gael-Labour coalition of that time, Mr. Peter Sutherland, providing legal advice which stated that the proposed wording would essentially pit the rights of the mother against the rights of the unborn child. In the event, with Deputies under intense pressure from the pro-life lobby, the alternative Sutherland wording was rejected, yet that alternative wording was endowed with accuracy and foresight. The X case, in 1992, to which many in the House have referred already, shocked and appalled Ireland. It also led the Supreme Court to rule that the Eighth Amendment meant the right to life of the mother had to be balanced against the right to life of the unborn child.

Ever since, we have known what is the constitutional interpretation of Article 40.3.3⁰. There is, of course, a right to life for the unborn child, but there is also a constitutional right for the mother to have her life protected. However, that fundamental, constitutional right has never been vindicated in real and practical terms by these Houses. Instead, over many years we have had to watch a steady stream of women travel to Britain to access abortion services to uphold their health. I hope the stream will be reduced somewhat by this legislation.

I want to put on the record of the House my personal appreciation and admiration for the three brave women who took A, B and C v. Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in recent years. I want to reflect for a moment on the different personal circumstances of these three women because they are sad examples where, in 21st century Ireland, the human rights of women to have an abortion here may have been accepted in theory but were denied in practice. They are good examples of why we need this legislation.

The first applicant was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty. She became pregnant unintentionally, believing that her partner was infertile. She had four young children, all at that time in foster care as a result of problems the applicant had experienced as an alcoholic. During the year preceding her fifth pregnancy, the applicant had remained sober and had been in constant contact with social workers with a view to regaining custody of her children. She considered that a further child at this critical moment in her life would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family. She decided to travel to Britain to have an abortion. The United Kingdom's National Health Service refused to carry out the operation at public expense and she had to borrow the money for treatment in a private clinic from a moneylender. Her difficulty in raising the money delayed the abortion by three weeks. She had to travel to England alone, in secrecy and with no money to spare, without alerting the social workers and without missing a contact visit with her children. On her return to Ireland she experienced pain, nausea and bleeding for eight to nine weeks, but was afraid to seek medical advice because of the prohibition on abortion.

The second applicant was single when she became pregnant unintentionally. She was advised by two different doctors that there was a substantial risk that it would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the uterus. The applicant was not prepared, either to become a single parent or to run the risks associated with an ectopic pregnancy. She travelled to England for an abortion. On her return to Ireland she started passing blood clots and, since she was unsure whether this was normal and could not seek medical advice in Ireland, she returned to the clinic in England two weeks after the abortion for a check-up. The impossibility for her to have an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and highly traumatic.

For three years, the third applicant was treated with chemotherapy for cancer. The cancer went into remission and the applicant unintentionally became pregnant.

When she discovered she was pregnant she was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life, not her health, would be at risk if she continued to term or to give her clear advice as to how the foetus might have been affected by the tests she had undergone. Given the uncertainty about the risks involved, the applicant decided to have an abortion in the United Kingdom.

These cases are all incredibly sad and damning indictments of our long reluctance as a country to legislate for the X case. For too long, our democracy has been cowed by vested interests into fear and submission and into not legislating for the constitutional rights of pregnant women to have their lives protected in a medical emergency. I very much welcome the fact that we are, for the first time, dealing with this issue in a way that might make some of these cases a thing of the past. I am impressed by the reasoned and mature contributions from Deputies on all sides of the House. I welcome that this Parliament is dealing with this matter not on strict party lines but as legislators with one common goal, to ensure the constitutional rights of women in Ireland are upheld and vindicated. In doing so we must have regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in its entirety.

For over 20 years, successive Governments have dodged this issue. I am proud, as a Labour Party Deputy, a social democrat, a feminist and a father, to be at last speaking on this Bill. We have waited so long. I believe it will give women access to the rights they are entitled to under the Constitution of this Republic. However, I would like us to be able to go further. We should be able to legislate for abortion in the cases of the health of the woman, fatal foetal abnormalities and other reasons as well. In essence, I believe it is the woman's right to choose and that we, especially men, should both respect and support their decisions. Many hold the view that our Constitution does not allow us to go beyond what this Bill proposes to do, but that is no reason that it should not be supported. The best should not drive out the good, so to speak.

Finally, this Bill will not be compulsory when enacted. People who abhor abortion in any form whatsoever will not be compelled to avail of its provisions. Ninety-seven years ago in this city the Proclamation of the Republic proudly proclaimed a new kind of Ireland. In a republic, different faiths and moral points of view should be both heard and respected but no faith, however dominant and however sincerely held by those who profess it, should be allowed to prevail over the wishes of minorities of citizens, particularly when it is intended to enshrine those beliefs into law. At one time the dominant church in this country held the view that it could impose its belief system on the law of this land in the name of the Republic. That day is over, and the enactment of this legislation will ensure that we arrive to a point where women in the Republic of Ireland do have the right to choose.

See this speech in context