Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This issue is about rights and responsibilities - the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the unborn child. These are rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court and confirmed by the people in two separate referenda. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place legislation which vindicates both. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place the very best where the perfect may not be available to us. It is our responsibility as legislators to act in good faith, having listened to those representing all interests, and to understand that the vehemence of argument and action on this issue comes from deeply held beliefs and values.

Let us remind ourselves that this Bill deals with women whose very lives are threatened by pregnancy either physically or through the possibility of suicide. It is narrow in its focus and precise in its measures and carefully articulates the commitment in Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution to the right to life of the mother and the right to life of the unborn child. For 21 years, we have been in a situation as a result of the Supreme Court judgement in the X case where there was no legislative framework and no clarity for medical professionals or women. When that is the situation, doing nothing is not a moral possibility for legislators. Doing nothing has put us in a situation where the master of one of our major maternity hospitals can be left in real fear of going to prison were a hospital consultant to take action to terminate a pregnancy for a medical reason, as was outlined in the hearings.

The urgent imperative to act is the culmination of two decades of difficult cases, Irish and European case law, reports, green papers, deliberations by an Oireachtas committee and periods of intense public debate. However, the anonymity of the individuals in the X case or the C case protected us from a full and painful understanding of what the absence of legislation meant for women. The courage of Praveen Halappanavar changed that. Our nation was appalled by the death of Savita Halappanavar and a new realisation developed that we must have legislation that removes the fear from medical professionals when they believe they should take action to save a woman's life. The bravery of Praveen in relentlessly seeking absolute transparency suggests to me that any future case will not be conveniently ticked anonymously behind the next letter of the alphabet.

I hope the discussion around the Bill has helped to develop a new realisation that pregnancy can sometimes cause emotional, physical and mental trauma and can, when a woman seeks her own death, add to her determination to die. I also hope that it has helped us move further in our understanding of mental health and the requirements on us as legislators to deal with the few - very few, thankfully - vulnerable women who despair of life to a point where they determine to end their own life and that of their unborn child. Let us be clear that right now, one medical professional can authorise a termination based on suicidal ideation.

After the Bill becomes law three separate medical professionals must agree before a termination on such grounds. What could be a clearer example of our determination to vindicate the rights of the unborn and the rights of the woman?

Action is required and the Government is acting. It has rejected the easier option and listened to women and medical experts. It has set out to repair the gap which has developed between the people, us as legislators and the maternity hospitals with regard to pregnancy. We are making explicit the standards and regulations guiding the delivery of one of the best maternity services in the world. We are acting on expert advice to provide clarity for pregnant women and their medical practitioners. We are introducing legislation which adds protection and checks and balances to a situation where no such protection or no checks and balances exist. What the legislation does is change this for the better. It ensures, as I have mentioned, that not one but three medical experts will examine the mother's situation and that of her unborn child. This is not the situation at present. This is a radical improvement in how the rights of the mother and the unborn are safeguarded. Article 40.3.3° remains a constitutional imperative, interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case and now to be framed in legislation where the rights of the unborn will continue to be vindicated. This point seems to get lost again and again in the discussion. It is worth noting the Bill has support from Members on all sides of the House.

It makes me angry to hear suggestions that pregnant women cannot be trusted and that they would seek to manipulate medical professionals to achieve terminations. These suggestions are rooted in a view of women which is contemptuous and disrespectful. Since when has it become permissible to make assertions that pregnant women are duplicitous and untrustworthy? Since when has it become permissible to make such bald and dismissive statements about people presenting with mental health issues?

Our goal must always be to reduce the demand for abortion. It is important that we foster a culture where women feel supported and enabled to continue with pregnancy even when stressful. We have made welcome progress in this country in reducing the levels of unplanned pregnancy and in providing better support and encouragement to women in difficult circumstances to continue with their pregnancy. I commend the work of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency. It needs to be supported and developed further.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, mentioned the excellent document produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service on the Bill we are debating. This document tells us that between 1980 and 2011 152,061 Irish women travelled to the UK for a termination. They go every day, every week and every month. They have gone every year decade after decade. They have gone secretly and anonymously, very often hiding the purpose of their journey under a cover story. They are our friends and our daughters. They are Irish women. Over a 20 year period more than 150,000 women travelled to have an Irish abortion in England. On average 4.1 per 1,000 Irish women choose to make the journey. This is more than some European countries which have the legalised abortion and fewer than others. The numbers have reduced in recent years, but the journey continues and will continue. We may believe we do not have abortion in Ireland, but we are just pretending a termination in the UK is not abortion in Ireland.

The Bill does not address the sufferings, issues and lives of the women who take the plane to Britain every week, and it is important to acknowledge it does not address their problems. Most of the anonymous women who travel will continue to do so because of this fact. Reflecting on these figures raises questions about the phrase "opening the floodgates" because the numbers have been decreasing not increasing year on year. The document provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service further highlights how 25 of the 27 European Union member states permit termination to preserve a woman's mental health and in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. I have spoken about this previously. The exceptions are Ireland and Malta. Taking the figures on Irish women who travelled to the UK for termination in 2011 we must realise some European countries have lower rates of abortion than Ireland. This is the reality.

We are elected to serve and not to control. We are elected to craft the best law we can to deal with human frailties and realities which are painful, contentious, complex and infinitely challenging. The legislation gives doctors, whether they be gynaecologists or psychiatrists, clarity on their responsibilities. It requires them to work together to bring to bear different disciplines on very difficult cases. It requires them to vindicate the right to life of the mother and of her baby. It requires them to acknowledge that she may take her own life and the life of the baby she carries. When such cases happen we must be confident we have put in place the best possible legislation to provide as much protection as possible for mother and child.

This issue is a matter of conscience for those supporting the legislation. I state this because of an underlying assumption in the debate that conscience is an issue only for those opposing the legislation. I will not stand to have the hard work, compassion, resolution and decisions on one side of this issue to be presented as lacking in conscience. Throughout the Chamber and the spectrum of opinion people of conscience care about this issue. They care passionately based on life experience, clinical encounters with women in crisis pregnancies, the views of experts and abstract data. It is a matter of conscience and morality for us all just as it will be a matter of conscience and personal morality for the pregnant woman and for medical professionals in the years to come.

It is important to stress the Government is responding to existing legal realities. We are doing what no previous Government had the resolution to do, taking a tragic reality and bringing clarity to it; putting expertise and care around a woman who is determined to die and have her unborn baby die with her; and providing a clear framework for medical professionals and for women in their care whose lives are at risk. As I stated at the outset, the Bill sets out to save a very small number of women and their unborn children. It is narrow in focus and precise in its provisions, but what it does above all else is ensure checks and balances and protection and concern around two lives.

See this speech in context