Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to thank the Technical Group for facilitating me with speaking time on this important matter. It is indeed a pleasure to be afforded an opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech within the national Parliament. The raison d'être of this debate for both sides is to object immediately to the other person's position. It is the position on either side merely to oppose. There has been a general failure to engage with the fundamental first principles of either side of the debate. Many on the pro-life side of the debate have as their fundamental starting point a profound respect for human life and believe that life starts at conception. It is unsurprising that people holding this belief cannot yield in respect of their resistance to the proposals in this legislation. Many on the pro-choice side of the debate have as their fundamental starting place a profound respect for the liberty of the individual and the right of a woman to autonomy over her own body and believe the unborn is not, up until a point in its development, of sufficient moral status to override the individual liberty and the right of that autonomy and the autonomy over one's body.

Both of these views are sincerely held but it is rare that either side recognises the sincerity of the other person's position, preferring instead to ascribe motives that are unacceptable about the others. Pro-life people are not motivated by a desire to control women or to impose a theocracy on the State. Pro-choice people are not motivated by a desire to murder babies and nor do they suffer a callous indifference to human life. It may be, given the different starting points of both sides in this debate, that no reconciliation of both positions is possible and this is an explanation I can only offer. It has become clear to me that this debate has become a dialogue of the deaf. It is marked by invective, insults and a reluctance to even understand the other side's position or views. It is an explanation but not an excuse. Passions have run hot in this debate and rightfully so. However, some restraint is needed and ought to be governed by an acceptance of the motivations of the other side, respect in the debate - and indeed within this Chamber - for a civil discourse in this Republic.

The Government has had its hand in encouraging a respectful debate on some occasions. However, since coming into office, it has become increasingly clear that it is disconnecting from the debate. I have argued that the Government has read Naomi Klein's, The Shock Doctrine, not as a warning but as a standard operating procedure. I argue that it is using the current crisis, where many in society are distracted by the economic circumstances and their struggle to secure the welfare of their children, to alter our society in a way that would not be tolerated in less fraught times. It has sought to engage in this debate by attacking the character of those who oppose it. This pattern is typical not just on this matter, but of its general approach. As a result, it has degraded public discourse, stripping back the status of persons and groups in society and making electoral might the only measure of status. Is this how civic discourse ought to be conducted in a secular society, a republic or even in any republic worthy of its name? I do not believe so.

Other Members have entered into the debate in a way that emulates the Government's approach by attacking the character of their opponents, rather than engaging with the arguments.

In the recent past there was a disgraceful attack on one faith community here that, if it had been directed at another faith community, most likely would have been condemned by the very people and Deputies making that attack.

Many parts of this Bill are to be welcomed. They provide legal clarity for the medical professionals who are faced with a situation where a woman's life is at risk and action is necessary to save her life that may result in the unintended consequence of the death of the unborn. However, I would argue that the Bill contains some serious flaws. Once again we find ourselves in the mystical belief of Irish exceptionalism.We somehow believe that we alone, as a jurisdiction, have an opportunity to approach this legislation in a way that is different from any other jurisdiction in the world. Both the United Kingdom and California believed that in the 1960s. They never envisaged, in the introduction of their legislation, that they would reach a situation where thousands of crisis pregnancies would arise in their systems.

We have not learned from other jurisdictions. In this and many other areas we have been determined not to learn from their mistakes, but rather to copy them and fail to learn. As a society we chose to learn the hard way. That determination flows from our odd belief in Irish exceptionalism; it may have happened in another country but we will do it differently. I do not believe we will do it differently. The current economic calamity we are enduring was caused by that same odd belief. We were told that property prices would continue to rise as the fundamentals here are different. They were not. It is truly said that the six most expensive words in the English language are that "It will be different this time". I do not believe it will be different.

Section 9 of the Bill will lead to abortion becoming far more widely available than its supporters, some of them disingenuously, now claim. Many of the supporters of the Bill should be honest, first to themselves and then to the public. Some supporters of the Bill know and hope - we heard it earlier in the Chamber - that things will change in the context of progressing further legislation. Perhaps they are being honest to themselves but they are failing to be truthful with those they represent.

I raised these objections frequently in the past. The usual response to people who critically analyse legislation was to attack them with the slogan, "I don't trust women". In general, people are trustworthy. People occasionally lie to achieve a purpose. Some people are women, and I am sorry to have to reduce the discussion to this ridiculous level to spell out that but I am forced to do so.

We have all seen interviews with Lord David Steel, who introduced the Abortion Act of 1967 to the UK Parliament, in which he expressed regret at the way the operation of that Act eventually worked out. He has stated that if he had known then what he knew now, he would not have proposed it. Lord Steel has some excuse; he did not know then what we know now. Twenty years from now many of those who intend to support this Bill will make a similar statement. They will express regret for their support and it will be too late. It will leave them feeling guilty - some may be foolish - for not looking at the evidence around them or, even worse, dishonestly lying about it in this Chamber.

The rhetoric being deployed by supporters of this legislation contains much that is dishonest. I hope those people who continue making the utterings to which I referred earlier are aware of their dishonesty. For example, this is not a pro-life Bill, and Ministers who state that it is know that. I am old fashioned enough to believe that those of us in this House have a duty to be truthful. Opinion polls ask people if they support legislation to protect the life of the mother during pregnancy and then present the result as if it is indicative of support for all aspects of the Bill. It is not. Most people would say, as I would say, that they support the legislation.

It is important that medical professionals have clear legal clarity on the circumstances in which they can intervene to save a woman's life, even when such interventions may result in the unintended death of the unborn baby.

What would be the answer if people were asked in an opinion poll if they support legislation that allows for abortion in the case of suicidal ideation, knowing that in every other jurisdiction where that has been brought in, it has led to abortion on demand? What would people's answer be if they were asked in an opinion poll if they supported legislation that provided for abortion up to the final week of a pregnancy? What would be their answer if they were asked in an opinion poll if they supported legislation that provided for a baby to be prematurely delivered into disability and pain and a lifetime of State care? I must ask myself about the kind of society in which we want to live. Do we want one that mandates and supports these types of actions? I have a concern about significant aspects of the latter observation in regard to the State having any hand, act or part in the precipitation of the conclusion of a pregnancy where a baby would be born prematurely, without any benchmark in terms of pain, hurt or our responsibility as a State for that child.

I know of many people who would describe themselves as pro-choice who would oppose abortion without time limits as there is no other civilised society on earth that allows for abortion up to delivery. There is little doubt that the majority of Irish people would oppose that.

The Bill is a matter of significant national importance. It concerns many important issues with respect to the welfare and health of a mother, a matter that has been subject to lively and ongoing debate for more than 20 years and one on which there is still division within Irish society. Only one of the four large parties committed to legislation in this area in their manifestos, namely, the junior party in Government. Neither the Government nor the House has a mandate to pass this legislation. It is my firm belief that the only appropriate course of action is that outlined by Deputy John Paul Phelan earlier, namely, to put this Bill before the people in a referendum to ascertain their point of view. Opinion polls with loaded questions are not sufficient in this respect.

We have been lumbered with a vast volume of rhetoric on the need for a new way of politics and the need for reform. We were promised a democratic revolution. We need to see evidence of that with respect to this Bill.

I welcome the presence of the Minister in the Chamber. I have outlined my views with respect to section 9, many of which are on public record. However, I refer to a matter that was brought to my attention recently by the Irish Independentlegal correspondent, Dearbhail McDonald, who wrote questioning the way the Bill, if enacted, would interact with the Mental Health Act 2001. The Minister has given many reassurances that the belief that the numbers making use of section 9 of the Bill would be, to use his words, only a handful. We might quibble on why he believes that but I ask him to give the House some assurance that it is not envisaged that any women seeking to have an abortion under section 9 would be automatically involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act. I would like the Minister to give that assurance to the House tonight. Under the Mental Health Act persons may be involuntary admitted where they are suffering from a mental illness and where there is a serious likelihood that they may cause immediate and serious harm to themselves or to others.

Only one medical practitioner will be obliged to make such an assessment in order for someone to be involuntarily admitted to a hospital.

Under section 9, two psychiatrists will be required to certify that a woman's life is at risk from suicide and that an abortion is required as part of her treatment. This standard appears to exceed the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001. I ask the Minister to clarify how the latter and the Bill before the House will be reconciled.

There are many who describe themselves as pro-choice and many others who describe themselves as pro-life. Both groups hold genuine views. It is important that in this debate we should respect each other's positions. As legislators, we must try to reconcile both position in this very challenging legislation.

I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on the provisions in the legislation under which a woman who attempted to secure an abortion in this country outside of the provisions of the legislation could potentially be liable to serve 14 years in prison. I ask him to reflect long and hard about the prospect of visiting further damage upon a woman who might find herself in a crisis situation and who would be living in fear of the threat of the State pursuing an action against her. I am of the view that the provision in this regard is unacceptable and that it dates from a bygone era. It is a punishment and the legislation before the House should not set out to punish.

See this speech in context