Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I rise to speak on this issue with a heavy heart. I acknowledge the great difficulty and no little effort on the part of everyone associated with the preparation and consultation in the writing of this legislation. I am particularly mindful of the Minister for Health and his staff, the Government as the Executive, the health committee chairperson and its members and those who made contributions to the committee, as well as the vast numbers of members of the public who sought to advise, educate and solicit information from Members.

I also acknowledge members of the public who sought and continue to seek to persuade, to guide and to direct Members in a certain direction. The majority of them did so and are doing so in a respectful and dignified manner. Many of my constituents have discussed the proposed legislation with me. Some had preconceived opinions, some opinions evolved as the process developed, some had opinions based on religious beliefs and faith. I respect their stance and their views. I respect their rights as constituents to engage with me and others who they elected to legislate.

That is, of course, the essence of democracy. That is democracy at work and, ultimately, we will all be elected or defeated on our ability to listen, to learn, to engage, to advise, to draw conclusions and to decide and legislate. Having decided to support or reject this legislation, it is incumbent on all Members to explain their actions and set out their reasons. To that end, I welcome this prolonged debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation and to explain the reasoning and methodology behind my motivation and intention to support the legislation. I implore all Members to do likewise and to explain one's reasons for voting in favour or against the proposed legislation.

Some may say they are obliged to vote in favour of the legislation because of the imposition of the Whip. They may want to explain they are not necessarily in favour of it but are voting for it or vice versa. It is only right, fair and proper that such duplicity is explained to their constituents. Some Members wish to sit on the fence and check the way the wind is blowing through opinion polls. They may have a preconceived idea that because their constituency is perceived to be conservative, they then should not support the legislation. It may sound crazy to think that this might be the way some Members perform on many issues, particularly this one. Unless all Members avail of this opportunity afforded to them in this debate, then that perception and accusation may well follow such Members for many years to come.

One of the most abiding conversations that has stayed with me over the course of recent months is one I had with a priest in my constituency, not my parish in case people draw the wrong conclusion. We discussed the legislation briefly, its contents, its ramifications and its merits or otherwise as the case may be. I explained I felt compelled and torn by virtue of one's obligation to adhere to the Supreme Court decision. Whether we agree with that decision, it obliges this House and its Members to act on its instructions as legislators and provide legislation which reflects its interpretation of Article 40.3.3⁰ of the Constitution.

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C case obliges us also to provide legal clarity for medics to carry out their duties, without fear of retribution, in their efforts to adhere to the constitutional right of the mother at the unfortunate expense of the unborn in limited circumstances. The priests' response and contribution to that conversation was to say that one had to be firm and true to one's beliefs and interpretations specifically in this regard. Any member of the public would be cognisant of the sincerity of that viewpoint and of that stance. Any effort to stray from that or to court popularity or the popular persuasive influence of others within one's constituency would be rightly exposed.

Termination of pregnancy in these limited and most awful of circumstances, no matter how limited the occasions, and in the case of the threat to life by means of suicide - which has only been once as per the X case in 30 years - is a very sensitive and complex issue, and I continue to respect all views in the regard.

Like the Taoiseach and many others here, I am a Catholic; I was reared and educated in what I believe to be the best Catholic traditions. I espouse its principles and beliefs. I cannot claim, no one can, to always adhere to much of its teachings and so forth, but I am confident, comfortable and at ease with the decision that has to be taken. I almost wish that it could be that I was of a different mind or had drawn different conclusions or opinions of my constitutional obligation to legislate according to the Supreme Court decision. That decision has become very controversial and many people disagreed with it at the time it was taken and people still disagree with it. It was for that reason that there were two constitutional referenda seeking to reverse the decision by excluding the right to termination on the grounds of self-destruction, referenda in which I voted "Yes".

When the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, in his efforts to pronounce and exaggerate a soundbite - I am sure he was very sincere in his own right - said that doing nothing, as had been the case for 20 years, was no longer an option, that was disingenuous and untrue. It was possibly an effort, as was the case recently and since the election - because the election was fought and won fairly and squarely by the current Government and it wants to rerun it on numerous occasions - to slur and sully Fianna Fáil. That is a trait, I might add, and I hate to bring this into this debate, that is now shared by the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, who this week, in response to the Anglo tapes, could not resist the temptation or the obligation that he feels to accuse Fianna Fáil of collusion with Anglo. No matter how wrong or how obscene that allegation was and is, let it be known that that statement alone has the potential to put the deathknell on the credibility of an Oireachtas inquiry into the banks.

To return to the issue at hand, the reason for those referenda was that there was no doubt but that the law in the country, as a result of the interpretation of Article 40.3.3^oby the Supreme Court in the X case, was that a woman was entitled to a termination of her pregnancy if there was a real and substantial risk to her life, including a risk from self-destruction. If that was not the law then there would not have been any need for two referenda, so the law stands. If a pregnant woman presents herself at a maternity hospital today claiming to be suicidal, the law and the medical guidelines have at their disposal the right to termination.

If the proposed legislation excluded termination on the grounds of self-destruction, such a right would still exist in Irish law, and women would still be legally entitled, as they are now, to seek a termination on the grounds of self-destruction, notwithstanding that it is not contained within the legislation. If the proposed legislation expressly excluded a right to termination on the grounds of self-destruction, it would clearly be in conflict with the Supreme Court decision in the X case and, consequently, would be unconstitutional.

This is the reality of the situation that I face as a legislator and that is the basis on which I will be voting on the legislation. The constitutional reality is inescapable. I believe that the prevailing law, which has been set by the Supreme Court, needs to be defined in legislation. My personal opinion is that the Bill is a good faith measure. It is very restrictive, more restrictive than the status quo. I would not support any legislation which I believe would open the floodgates to an unrestricted abortion on demand regime.

As I have repeatedly said, I respect all views, even if I differ in my own. It is essential that all views are aired in this our republic. With regard to this matter, views have been aired twice in national referenda. We now have to legislate in compliance with the Constitution.

See this speech in context