Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

I welcome and support this legislation which is limited and restrictive. This is a sensitive issue which is very difficult for some people to deal with - indeed for many people. The expert report expressed this well when it stated that abortion is a difficult, painful issue in this country and elsewhere. It also observed that the reasons are not hard to understand; intense ethical, religious, social, political and intimate personal issues coincide. That is quite correct. The issue must be dealt with in a compassionate and understanding way. However, it has to be dealt with urgently. We cannot continue a situation where women's lives are at risk or where the medical profession is unclear about the legal position. As legislators, 21 years' later, we must accept our responsibilities in this area.

In my view there is an overwhelming middle ground, a very significant majority of the public, who are in favour of the provisions in this Bill. That overwhelming middle ground would be prepared to go further to include in the Bill provisions to deal with fatal foetal abnormality, inevitable miscarriage, pregnancy arising from rape and incest. Many polls in the recent past and earlier have shown that this is the view of a significant majority.

The history includes the 1983 referendum, the X case in 1992, the two referenda of 1992 and 2002 and the European Court judgment in the A, B, C, and D v Ireland in 2010. It is clear that the Supreme Court found that a termination is lawful in Ireland where it is a matter of probability that a woman faces a real and substantial risk to her life and where that risk can only be averted by a termination.

The late Mr. Justice Niall McCarthy said at the time that the delay which had taken place at that stage was not only unfortunate, it was inexcusable. Remember, we are now 21 years further down the road. It is inexcusable now. We have had both court cases and the people have spoken on the issue on two occasions in 1992 and 2002, respectively. They supported the contention that suicide as a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother should be included. It is now necessary for the Oireachtas to legislate based on the X case judgment and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

Some people have indicated that the legislation is very liberal. We must remember that it is governed by the Constitution, the 1983 amendment thereof and the X case judgment, in which the court referred to a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman which could only be averted by a termination. To say the legislation is liberal and to refer to the situation in Britain is, at best, misleading. The British legislation refers to the health of a woman, whereas the Bill refers to a real and substantial risk to her life.

A number of issues in the legislation which should be dealt with have been referred to in other contributions. One to which I want to come back is the question of fatal foetal abnormality, which issue has been put clearly on the agenda by the group, Termination for Medical Reasons. It has spoken to Members in a briefing in the AV room in Leinster House. This is a sad, tragic issue which many families find themselves confronted by. There are almost 1,500 cases of fatal foetal abnormality in Ireland annually. These are real people with real stories of the injustice of having to travel to seek a medical termination and treatment. These families feel the denial of treatment in Ireland and the requirement to go abroad is very unfair and unjust. A number of eminent legal people have argued that termination in a case of fatal foetal abnormality is constitutional. This view is supported by the Government's submissions in the D case before the ECHR. The judgment in the D case states:

Accordingly, although it was true that Article 40.3.3⁰had to be understood as excluding a liberal abortion regime, the courts were nonetheless unlikely to interpret the provision with remorseless logic particularly when the facts were exceptional. If therefore it had been established that there was no realistic prospect of the foetus being born alive, then there was "at least a tenable" argument which would be seriously considered by the domestic courts to the effect that the foetus was not an "unborn" for the purposes of Article 40.3.3⁰or that, even if it was an "unborn", its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb. In the absence of a domestic decision, it was impossible to foresee that Article 40.3.3⁰clearly excluded an abortion in the applicant's situation in Ireland.

The Government argued that the D case could have been dealt with in the Irish courts and that such terminations could be found to be constitutional. That issue must be revisited in the legislation to provide that fatal foetal abnormality is covered.

Section 22 of the Bill also falls to be addressed. The provisions of the section criminalise a pregnant woman. There is a legal precedent whereby a pregnant woman affected in a situation such as that under discussion may be excluded from committing an offence and facing a 14 year sentence of imprisonment. There is a widespread view that this is an unusual situation and that the legislation should be amended. There is a view across the House that this is, in fact, a provision which should not be contemplated.

The time limits in the legislation also fall to be addressed. The time limits in respect of reviews must be shortened from three days to one and seven days to three, respectively.

Another matter which must be addressed is the omission of provisions on the duty of care owed by institutions to persons availing of the services provided for in the Bill. We must also include a provision to protect women and doctors from harassment.

I have tabled amendments on fatal foetal abnormality, time limits, the duty of care and protection from harassment which will I hope be discussed on Committee Stage. I hope we can enact legislation which covers these areas.

I welcome and support the Bill. It is limited and restrictive in scope.

See this speech in context