Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I listened with interest to what some of the previous speakers had to say and it is fair to state that even those who are supporting the Government in this regard have concerns about the possible ramifications of the Bill and are seeking Committee and Report Stage amendments. I ask the Minister to consider good practice in this regard in respect of legislation that probably has caused the most soul-searching for Members in many a long year and ask him not to rush the legislation. I ask him to agree that the legislation be brought into the House for Committee Stage or in other words, that Committee Stage be held in plenary session, as well as Report Stage, that adequate time be given in the House for both Stages and that Members not rush the legislation only to regret later there were aspects of the Bill that were not teased out. I note the serious concerns in this regard raised by Deputy English and I believe he is reflecting a wide view of opinion around the House, even among those who support the Bill, which is that one must be very careful regarding every word and every comma included in this Bill. Members should never give into arbitrary deadlines and in this case, rushing the Bill would be dealing with an arbitrary deadline.

I accept there are many conflicting views on the proposed legislation and that there are few topics that cause as much debate and soul-searching as this one. I also accept the bona fides of all Members of the House on this subject. Many Members have thought long and hard before coming to a decision as to whether to support this legislation. At the outset, I wish to set out that I, like all Members present, believe in the absolute importance of protecting the life of the mother during pregnancy and that I am concerned that Ireland will continue to maintain the very high standards of maternal care that have been provided in the past. That our maternal mortality rates are low by international comparisons is widely acknowledged. However, it must also be recognised that constant vigilance is needed.

In particular, the case of the death of Savita Halappanavar, and the subsequent finding of the Coroner's Court and the Health Service Executive inquiry, raise worrying questions that must be addressed. I extend my sympathies to Savita's husband and to her family on her death, which was tragic.

In ensuring the protection of the life of the mother, we are also constitutionally bound to protect the life of the unborn. The Constitution, which is written in layman's language, can only be changed by the people and it states our obligations clearly in this regard. It 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."

Along with all here, I believe there is an imperative to defend and vindicate the right to life of the mother, and all the parts of this legislation that seek to do this without impairing the equal right to life of the unborn have my support. There are amendments that can be made to the sections dealing with a physical threat to the right to life of the mother to improve them. These can be made in committee, and I hope the Minister will be open to suggestions in this regard. However, we must not forget at any time that we also have duties to the unborn and that the fulfilment of that obligation should not be seen in conflict with our obligations to the mother.

Regarding the unborn, our Constitution acknowledges the right to life and requires us, in regard to this right, to "guarantee[s] in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". The question is whether this legislation does that. Before I address that issue, however, I wish to address the fundamental issue of the reason for such a provision in the Constitution and the core values of our society.

In this debate there has been reference at times to the beliefs of certain churches in this regard. I believe the issue is much more fundamental than that and goes to the core of our beliefs as a modern 21st century developed society. Most societies in the world have a core set of individual or human rights, and that is particularly strong in Europe where we have the European charter of human rights. At a world level the concept of human rights is well developed at United Nations level, and more fundamental human rights are being defined all the time. The European Union would claim to be founded on a set of human values and includes among those a prohibition on capital punishment or the judicial taking of life irrespective of how heinous the crime perpetrated by the convicted person. Our Constitution has a comprehensive set of fundamental rights, including personal rights, that in all runs to 11 pages in a text of 90 pages. In other words, more than 10% of the Constitution is given over to fundamental rights.

One of the personal rights enumerated in the Constitution is the personal right to life of all citizens. Article 40.3.1o of the Constitution states: "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." Article 40.3.2o states: "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen." The Constitution clearly vindicates the life of every citizen.

I do not know of anybody who disagrees with those rights or who claims they represent the beliefs of any one religion. They are in my view universally accepted rights of our people, and these rights extend to all citizens irrespective of anything they may or may not have done. Any examination of Article 40.3.3o must take place in the context of the above, and the question we must ask ourselves is whether the right to life of the born citizen should extend to the unborn. That was the issue the 1983 amendment sought to clarify.

This leads to the fundamental question as to whether unborn human life is human life, and if it is, whether it deserves the same protection as all other human life. I accept there are fundamental differences in opinion in this regard with many in our society believing that unborn children are not fully human and not deserving of fundamental independent legal protection, and that their right to life is totally at the discretion of the mother. I understand that is the position of the group in society who would label themselves the right to choose group. I recognise that they hold their beliefs sincerely and that they see the unborn as being totally dependent on the mother and, essentially, her property. Just as I can accept their bona fides, can they not accept that there is another way of looking at this issue from a human rights perspective? That is that the unborn is a human being and the fact that it is in the womb does not change that fundamental fact, and that, as such, it is deserving of the protection of the law and human rights. Science would seem to indicate that this is so and to believe otherwise creates other dilemmas, particularly because as medicine develops it will be possible to deliver babies and sustain them outside the womb at ever earlier stages of development. I also believe that as society develops into the future the human view of preborn life will grow, as will its protection, just as the vindication of other born human rights has developed enormously over the past 100 years.

I examined this legislation believing as I do in the humanity of unborn human life and agreeing fully with the injunction in the Constitution to vindicate that right, balanced against the equal right to life of the mother. In regard to the provisions where there is a physical threat to the life of the mother, I have no principled difficulty if at all times the objective is to vindicate her right to life while at the same time, as far as is practicable, seeking to protect the unborn. If a termination of pregnancy takes place in such circumstances that the child is viable outside the womb, all must be done to nourish and protect that life. If it is necessary to carry out a procedure before the unborn can live independently outside the womb, I accept that this is acceptable on the premise that saving one life is better than losing two. We must ensure that this legislation does that totally in conformity with the Constitution.

I cannot accept section 9 of the Bill in regard to suicide ideation. The arguments in this regard are well-rehearsed and well known.

I am of the view that this section does not protect the right to life of the unborn for the following reasons: it will allow for the first time in Irish law the intentional killing of the unborn; it is generally accepted among experts in the field that abortion is not a recommended treatment for suicidal ideation in pregnant women; there are well established and evidence-based treatments for people who are suicidal as a result of mental illness in pregnancy; it is widely accepted that it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether a person who states they are suicidal is likely to commit suicide; there is no obligation on the person presenting under section 9 - which deals with suicidal ideation - to accept any other medical treatment that is recommended; it is accepted that suicide in pregnancy is very rare and there is no evidence that a provision such as this will reduce the risk of suicide in women and some would argue it could have the opposite effect; and there is no provision in this Bill, as pointed out by a retired Director of Public Prosecutions, to guarantee, and, as far as is practicable for the State - by its laws - to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn under this section. I hope I am wrong but I am of the view that this legislation will open the floodgates to widespread abortion.

Unfortunately, my time is limited so as I conclude my remarks I will state that I cannot support this legislation and I will be voting against it on Second Stage. Those across party lines who will join me in doing this will be making the correct decision. In many cases, they will be punished by their parties for doing so. I hope those who are pro-choice will respect the views the minority and accept that their stand is being made from a human rights perspective. I ask those who are fundamentally pro-life but who are of the view that they must support this Bill and that it will not open the floodgates to work with those who oppose it in order to strengthen and improve it to ensure the latter will not happen. My fundamental objection to the Bill will not change, but I recognise that the Government has the numbers. The Taoiseach has repeatedly stated his pro-life credentials. Let him now prove these credentials by at least tightening up many of the provisions of the Bill that are open to abuse and wide interpretation and that are likely to have consequences contrary to those outlined by him.

My own preference, however, is that the section dealing with suicidal ideation would be deleted from the Bill in its entirety and that the Bill would be passed after the inclusion of amendments to deal with outstanding issues. In such circumstances, the so-called X case dilemma could then be dealt with in isolation in a way that would retain the fundamental meaning of article 40.3.3o as understood by any layman or laywoman and as originally passed by the people. It must be remembered that it is the people who own the Constitution and not anybody else.

Is dóigh liom go mbeidh an tseachtain seo thar a bheith tábhachtach ó thaobh bun caighdeán agus bun luachanna an phobail seo - muintir na tíre - a leagaint amach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh deis againn plé iomlán a dhéanamh ar an mBille istigh sa Teach seo, go mbeidh Céim an Choiste istigh anseo sa Dáil seachas i seomra choiste agus go ndéanfar plé ar Chéím na Tuarascála anseo freisin. Tá súil agam nach gcuirfear aon srian ama ar an mBille seo. Chomh maith le sin, tá súil agam nach ndeifreoidh muid ar aghaidh ón Dara Céim den Bhille go Céim an Choiste agus nach ndéanfar iarracht ansin deifriú ar aghaidh ó Chéim an Choiste go Céim na Tuarascála gan deis labhartha a thabhairt do na daoine ar fad atá ag tacú leis an mBille seo, ach atá, duine i ndiaidh duine, tar éis a rá go mba ceart leasuithe a chur leis agus go mba ceart é a dhéanamh níos láidre agus go mba ceart cosaint i bhfad níos fearr a thabhairt do saol daonna an phaíste sa mbroinn.

See this speech in context