Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The issues before us in this legislation are complex and sensitive. For more than 30 years there has been much debate on all aspects of these issues. Unfortunately, at times, a small number of those on both sides the argument have engaged in a debate that was neither rational nor fair. What I have heard of the debate on this legislation thus far has been, as is appropriate, respectful and considerate of divergent views. A small element on both sides of the debate outside the Oireachtas has not been constructive. The means of advocacy chosen by this group does not promote its cause. Some actions and behaviour are deplorable.

Some weeks ago I stated on radio that it was the content of an e-mail, letter or telephone call that would influence me, rather than the volume of e-mails or letters or tone of such correspondence or telephone calls. It is the content and argument that matters. Promoting one's views in a fair and rational way is an important and necessary part of our democratic process that enables all of us to be better informed through dialogue with relevant representative and advocacy groups. Such groups play an important role in the public realm.

The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party had detailed discussions when the heads of the Bill were published and following the publication of the legislation. Following our deliberations, it was decided to have a free vote for Deputies and Senators to allow each of the party's Oireachtas Members to vote in accordance with his or her conscience. This was the correct decision and one which I fully supported. This approach also enjoys considerable support in all parties and groups in the Oireachtas. The debates in my party were respectful of divergent views. In this day and age, it is wrong that members of a parliamentary party should lose the Whip for voting in line with their conscience on a fundamental issue of life.

I do not envisage that any other issue will come before the Oireachtas that is of such importance to individual Members of the Dáil and Seanad in terms of their conscience and personal beliefs.

Abortion, as we know, is literally about life and death. Surely the parliamentarians in this House and in the Upper House tasked with dealing with this legislation should not be straitjacketed by a party Whip system. There are plenty of examples of parliaments throughout the world allowing free votes on matters of conscience. Free votes are allowed in the neighbouring jurisdiction in Britain on fairly routine and normal political matters. I recall a free vote relatively recently on a motion about a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. I do not believe any of us in this House would regard that as a matter of conscience - it would be a matter of ongoing political policy for parties or for Government.

In a parliamentary democracy, party discipline is needed and there are major advantages and a need for the benefits and practical workings on a daily basis that accrue from the Whip system. However, this is not normal political business where a Member of Parliament or indeed a member of the public fully understands the reasons for the application of a Whip and the imposition of party discipline. When the party is dealing with normal routine political business, it is fully understandable why the party Whip system has to be invoked.

Section 17(1) states that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as obliging any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife to carry out, or to assist in carrying out, any medical procedure referred to in section 7(1)or 9(1)to which he or she has a conscientious objection". It is ironic that the people tasked with putting this legislation through the Oireachtas are not being allowed the same consideration.

There has been some commentary - fuelled by some Members of this House - that this issue had been ignored for more than 20 years. Such commentary is very wide of the mark. As we know there was a referendum in 1983 which resulted in the insertion of Article 40.3.3° in to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

In the referendum on the issue of abortion held in 1992, three issues were put before the electorate. The first proposed amendment sought to remove the risk of suicide as grounds for a termination. The second proposed amendment sought to establish the right to travel abroad, including travel for the purpose of procuring an abortion. The third sought to establish the right to disseminate and obtain information within Ireland on procuring an abortion abroad. As we know the first proposed amendment was rejected and the second and third were passed resulting in the 13th and 14th amendments to Bunreacht na hÉireann.

A further referendum was held in 2002 and the Referendum Commission stated at that time stated:

The intention of the referendum is to;- remove the threat of suicide as a ground for a legal termination of pregnancy

- provide for a law on abortion that can only be changed by another referendum

- give constitutional and legal safeguards to existing medical practices where interventions are made to protect the life of the mother

My recollection is that particular proposal and draft legislation which was published before the holding of the referendum followed extensive public consultation, hearings and an all-party committee report. Much preparatory work was done at that time.

Many years ago the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency was a very important development in regard to providing support to women with unwanted pregnancies. Relatively recently I received an e-mail from a consultant psychiatrist and one of the suggestions in that correspondence stated: "[P]lease consider diverting energy and resources to supporting people with unwanted pregnancies, not pushing them down a path that may be detrimental to their mental health later when it is too late." Such support must be forthcoming and available at all times in all parts of the country where women have unwanted pregnancies and are facing a crisis in their lives. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency was established in 2001 and its functions were transferred to the HSE in 2010. Its overall mandate is very important and must be adequately supported. I believe its work through all aspects of its remit is critical to many women.

I mentioned earlier the work done in dealing with the abortion issue over the years. The Constitution review group, which was established in 1995, dealt with the abortion issue. A Green Paper on this issue was referred to the all-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in September 1999. A huge amount of work was carried out by that committee and its fifth progress report in 2000 outlined its deliberations on this difficult issue. The members of that committee, some of whom are no longer Members of the Oireachtas, did outstanding work, covering many areas in addition to abortion.

All of us welcome sections 7 and 8 which help to bring legal clarity to the treatment of a pregnant woman whose life may be at risk arising from a physical illness. My recollection of the committee hearings was that there was no disagreement on such provisions, and indeed we must ensure in every possible way the protection of the life of the pregnant mother and the unborn baby. Where a threat is posed to the life of the mother, all the clinicians must be enabled to do what is necessary to save her life.

Section 9 is the part of this legislation that causes difficulties for so many people, including for me. Apart from the correspondence we received from different groups, for and against the legislation, and from many individuals I deliberately sought out views and advice from medical practitioners, particularly GPs and psychiatrists. I will quote two paragraphs from correspondence signed by a number of GPs and consultants in different medical disciplines. I am sure this correspondence went to all Members of the Oireachtas. It stated:

As practising doctors, we know that there is no evidence to support abortion as a solution for this or any other psychological symptom. Psychiatrists are virtually unanimous on this point, and Obstetricians agree that this lack of evidence presents a dilemma for their members.

Any changes to medical practice should be based on good scientific and clinical evidence. Ireland, with one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, is among the safest countries in the world for maternal care.

Earlier the Taoiseach referred to the good maternal care that is thankfully available here. That was also the clear message from the Oireachtas committee hearings to which I had the opportunity to listen some weeks ago.

On receipt of other correspondence I spoke to the psychiatrist who had written the letter. There were clear messages in that correspondence which need very serious consideration. The correspondence may have been widely distributed, but some of the contents are worth putting on the record of the House, as follows:

Suicidality is not an easy 'diagnosis' to make. It is dynamic, not static, with the matters contributing to the suicidal state constantly changing. There is absolutely no test one can make to predict whether someone will die by suicide.

Finding out one is pregnant for all the wrong reasons is a devastating life altering thing, but as human beings we try to help people adjust and make decisions in a clear frame of mind. Abortion has never been a treatment for suicidal ideation and a completed abortion may end up being one of those dynamic factors that pushes someone to contemplate suicide. There is nothing so devastating as guilt to the depressed mind. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The author of the correspondence pleaded for more resources on an ongoing basis to support people who have unwanted pregnancies.

In the course of the debate, many of my colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party have referred to many issues. Reference was made by several contributors to the contribution at the hearings of Dr. Maria Cahill from the school of law in University College Cork. She made a compelling case with regard to the particular issues before the House and advocated reasons there was no need for this legislation to be proceeded with. Another issue raised by colleagues relates to the difficulty of no term limits on abortion in the Bill. That is another serious issue for many people. It is clear from all the correspondence we have received and from the public utterances of people in psychiatry that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.

Another issue raised by colleagues on all sides of the House, in particular some of my colleagues on this side, relates to the need to ensure there is robust monitoring and that if the legislation is passed and enacted, there is an absolute need for robust monitoring. Other Members have spoken of the need to provide adequate support for people who present with suicidal intent and that adequate support should be in place immediately to support such people through that difficult period in their lives. We should give due cognisance to the comments of Mr. Barnes, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who outlined the need to ensure there was an advocate for the unborn. These are among some of the critical issues.

I sought out and spoke to a psychiatrist who made the point to me forcefully in correspondence that suicidality is less of a problem in the population of pregnant women than in a similar population who are not pregnant. In the case of most people who are unhappy with the proposed legislation, it boils down to section 9. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the inclusion of suicidal ideation is wrong. I heard my colleague, Deputy Seamus Kirk, refer to Lord Steel, who introduced the first legislation in Britain and whose comments were to the effect that Ireland would making a mistake to introduce such legislation. Unfortunately, the figures for abortion numbers in Britain have risen dramatically over the years.

I wish to highlight in particular my concerns and total opposition to section 9. I welcome the fact that there has been clarification and that there will be no impediment to clinicians doing their work to protect the life of the mother where difficulties arise. All Members on every side support that absolutely. I trust women to do the right thing and I strongly advocate that the work of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, established in 2001, should be in place to help women through crisis pregnancies. Whatever additional resources the agency needs to ensure there is a good spread of the work throughout the country should be provided. Resources should not be found wanting at any stage to support women who face these particular difficulties. However, I will be voting "No" to this legislation. Like many colleagues on all sides of the House, section 9 dealing with suicidal ideation has determined my decision.

See this speech in context