Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I want to state that I am in favour of legislating for the X case. Not only do I think we should legislate, I believe that, as democrats, we have a duty to legislate. The only question for me is whether the legislation goes far enough.

In 1992 and 2002 proposals were put to the people in a referendum to restrict further the right of Irish women to abortion by removing the right to abortion on grounds of suicide. The people of Ireland rejected these proposals on both occasions. The Supreme Court found it inexcusable that the Oireachtas had not legislated - it is the job of the courts, after all, to interpret laws whereas it is our job to make them. We have had our instructions from the people and we have a responsibility to stand up and take responsibility. I cannot think of another case of a constitutional amendment where the people gave their instructions and those instructions were ignored not for years but for decades.

The legislation is the bare minimum, in my opinion. The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar could unfortunately happen again even after this legislation is passed.

The Savita Halappanavar case demonstrated in a way that was readily understood the kind of risk a pregnant woman can be exposed to, even in very limited circumstances. That was readily understood and many people were very scared as a consequence of that case. We are expecting people to abandon their anonymity, as her family and Deirdre Conroy did, so that people can understand and that understanding can help us make laws. Deirdre Conroy went through four years of legal wrangling in the European Court of Human Rights although the issue could have been considered by our courts.

It is inexcusable not to include the heartbreaking issue of fatal foetal abnormalities. There are TDs on the Government side who also believe that. To force a woman to continue with a pregnancy to term when there is no prospect of giving birth to a baby that is compatible with life is barbarous. For most women and couples who find themselves in this unfortunate situation it will have followed the great joy of being told there was a pregnancy. They will have looked forward with great hope to the birth of a live, healthy baby. They will have considered names, shared the news with family and friends and been asked if it is a boy or a girl. They will be looking forward with great hope. They will then have received the devastating news that there will be a pregnancy but no baby at the end of it. To force any woman to continue with such a pregnancy to almost full term is horrific. There is a compassion in Irish people that finds that unacceptable. Irish people would not want to put a woman or a couple - very often it is deeply felt by both - through that. Instead of fulfilling a duty of care to that woman, which is where the focus should be, we force so many of them to seek that compassion and care in hospitals in Liverpool, Manchester or London. That is shameful.

Pregnancy may be a natural occurrence but it is not without risk. Only yesterday I met a young woman who was so damaged by such a pregnancy that she cannot physically have a baby and will have life-long adverse health consequences. Yesterday I also met a GP who talked about the experience of his daughter Ruth. Her baby was diagnosed with fatal anencephaly at 13 weeks and she travelled to England for a termination. He said:

If she had continued with the pregnancy, she would have effectively been a life support machine. Every day in hospitals, doctors and families have to make decisions to switch off machines. Is this not a similar position?

I ask that today on behalf of him and Ruth.

I understand that neither rape nor incest can be included in this legislation because it would be unconstitutional. That would require a further referendum, which we should commit to and which I would support. We occasionally meet people who have experienced incest or rape recently or in the past. People who have experienced incest will often talk about the guilt they still feel, even though they were only children. The only role people such as myself can play is to encourage them to go for counselling. So many rapes go unreported, often because the victims have no expectation that the courts will dispense justice or they want to be sure they can remain anonymous. Instead, they seek support from organisations such as the Rape Crisis Centre. In many cases it takes great courage to walk up that street, up those steps and through that door. On many occasions women feel they have themselves been put on trial when their cases go to court. They know the Rape Crisis Centre will deal with them in a confidential, compassionate and sensitive way. This morning, some woman may well visit the Rape Crisis Centre. Whether the rape is recent or historic, it has taken great courage for her to get there. This morning, disgracefully, a van belonging to the Pro Life Campaign pulled up outside the door of the Rape Crisis Centre in Leeson Street. The photograph is there. There is no traffic around the van. It is sitting outside the centre with a sign that reads, "The abortion bill won't make women safer." The confidentiality that women looked for was breached this morning by this. It is completely unacceptable that this should have happened. It screams at them that women would be safer if this Bill were not passed. It interferes with the confidentiality they thought they were going to have in visiting the Rape Crisis Centre. It shows the lengths to which this organisation will go. The Pro Life Campaign is trying to dismiss the incident by saying the van got stuck in traffic. The photograph shows there is not a car, bike or bus anywhere near it. It was deliberate. It is disgraceful. These women were violated by a rape, they often feel violated by the fact that they cannot get justice, and now they are being violated again by this. It is outrageous.

See this speech in context