Patrick Nulty (Dublin West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to contribute to this debate on the profound issue facing us. I wish to clarify my opinion so as to remove doubt. A referendum to repeal the 1983 eighth amendment to our Constitution is necessary. It has caused significant problems since it was made.

It is a woman's right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy. The great 20th century feminist Rosa Luxemburg stated that the most revolutionary thing one could do was to proclaim the truth. The difficult and tragic truth, particularly for the women involved, is that 150,000 Irish women left this country between 1980 and 2011 for safe abortions abroad. This is an indictment of Ireland. Since its foundation, a misogynistic streak has run through the State, reflected in the failure of the mother and child scheme, the dreadful abuses suffered in the Magdalen laundries and the issues that gave rise to the Private Members' motion a few weeks past on symphysiotomies. This streak must be challenged and overcome.

The Government is preparing to hold referendums on a range of issues in the autumn. It should grasp the nettle and call a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. Let us have that campaign. We should not be afraid of robust and difficult campaigns that test us all. If we are in politics for just one thing, surely it is to transform our society for the better, regardless of our political views.

As demonstrated in recent opinion polls and previous referendums, the majority of Irish people, including me, would like to see a certain type of reform, but it cannot be delivered in its entirety by this legislation. For this reason, a referendum is required. However, there is scope to amend and strengthen the legislation to make it more pro-woman.

I listened to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald. She was right to claim that the undertone of this discussion was that women could not be trusted or that they would try to deceive the system when their lives were at risk. Her claim is particularly true in the context of the suicide debate. Those who have made this implication should reflect on their remarks.

It is worth pausing for a moment to remember how we got into this difficult situation. It started with the X case more than 20 years ago, when the High Court sought to prevent a young suicidal girl from leaving the country to have a termination. The massive and sustained outpouring of sympathy and solidarity across the country put pressure on the State. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. I was young when that debate occurred, but I remember discussing it with family and friends. No one who lived through the time would not remember it.

The next step in this whole process was the A, B and C case. That case was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in August 2005. The challenge was heard at a full hearing before its grand chamber in December 2009. The case was taken by three women, supported courageously by the Irish Family Planning Association, who had travelled abroad for abortion services. They argued that the criminalisation of abortion services in Ireland jeopardised their health and well-being in violation of a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The first applicant had children in the care of the State as a result of personal problems and considered that a further child would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family. The second applicant was not prepared to become a single parent. The third applicant was in remission from cancer when she became pregnant. Unaware that she was pregnant, she underwent a series of check-ups and claimed that she could not obtain clear advice about the risk to her health and life, and to the foetus, if she continued to full term.

The three applicants, who all became pregnant unintentionally, told the court that the impossibility of obtaining an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, complicated and particularly traumatic. They argued that Ireland's restrictive abortion laws stigmatised and humiliated them, risked damaging their health and, in the case of C, her life.

In January 2012, the Government established an expert group to advise on the implementation of the A, B and C v.Ireland case. In late November 2012, the expert group finally reported after much delay. The report states: "The X case is clearly the law of the State, as declared by its highest court. It is binding on all courts and generally."

That is why it is particularly appalling to hear some people pronounce that they are going to vote against this legislation and that somehow they think they have a right to prevent legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights of other citizens in this country. How dare they make such an assertion when the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this most important of issues.

On 18 December 2012, the Government announced that legislation and regulation would be introduced to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling. Since then we have seen the publication of the legislation and a detailed discussion and debate at an Oireachtas committee where experts in the field have been able to articulate their views. Most succinctly and clearly, the views of Dr. Rhona Mahony, the master of the National Maternity Hospital, crystallised this discussion. She said:

It is very disappointing that 20 years after the X case we do not have legislation. Women need to know that they are going to get the appropriate health care that they need, and doctors need to be protected to do their jobs.

This minimalist legislation is the very least the Government could do - no more. It is simply providing a framework for people's existing constitutional rights. Like others, I believe there is scope for further reform, in particular, concerning fatal foetal abnormalities. Legal experts have said they believe there is scope in this legislation to make that provision by way of amendment on Committee Stage. The Government should seriously examine that possibility. If it has been given legal advice to say that is not possible, it should publish the advice and make it absolutely clear why not. All of us across the House have listened to, and could not help but be touched by, the experiences of women and their partners in this situation. If there is any prospect that this legislation can cater for them to prevent it from happening again, such an amendment should be made.

Some Deputies have touched on the issue of conscience in today's debate. Above any other issue, this is one of conscience. It is a simple, straightforward piece of public health legislation to ensure that 50% of our population get the medical treatment they require. This is, above all else, an issue of conscience. This morning, we had to listen to a Government Minister wrestling with her conscience in public for nearly half an hour because she cannot support this most basic legislation to protect people's constitutional rights.

I find it ironic that, particularly within the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties, certain people's consciences will not allow them to vote for this Bill. Yet their consciences are quite happy to take money from the pockets of Irish mothers through reductions in child benefit and back-to-school payments. Their consciences have no problem in cutting the respite care grant, taxing maternity benefit or slashing funding to our health services. All of those things are economic necessities according to some positions taken in this debate. However, for them, this most simple, straightforward and essential piece of health care reform legislation is a matter of conscience. That needs to be challenged and people need to be called to account in that regard. At the end of the day, all of us here, regardless of our divergent political views and analyses, will cast our votes in what we believe is the appropriate way for the future of the country and the people whom we represent. However, no vote is more a matter or conscience than any other.

I would be the first person to argue for more free votes, having been in a political party when I entered this House and having voted against the draconian Whip system. This issue is, however, no different from any other. If people do not agree with their party's position, they should vote against it. It is as simple and straightforward as that. I think they would be respected more for doing that, rather than trying to imply that they are being coerced into voting for legislation.

I also wish to discuss the campaign surrounding this legislation. Last Friday, we saw the shocking behaviour of a minority of people within the anti-choice campaign, when large billboards were placed across from the Rape Crisis Centre. What an appalling thing to do. I know that many decent and reflective people, who might disagree with my position - or the position of others - on this legislation, would really question the motives of those participating in that act and ask what they are trying to do. In many ways, it relates to section 9 of this Bill, which is what a lot of people seem to have a problem with. Whether or not it is implied, what they are really saying is that some women somewhere may seek to manipulate this legislation and pretend they are suicidal when they are not in order to avail of a termination. That is absolutely appalling and demonstrates an underlying misogyny in those analyses. We have all dealt with people facing difficult mental health challenges. I am sure that some people have dealt with a range of issues related to this debate, but it needs to be dealt with in a sensitive, compassionate and caring way. The idea that anybody would pretend that they are experiencing suicidal tendencies is awful. It demonstrates either a deliberate misrepresentation of people's experiences or a dangerous lack of understanding of mental health in this discussion.

On Report Stage, I will seek to see if there is scope for amendments to the legislation to make it more pro-woman and stronger where possible. I do not think a higher bar is needed for section 9 and I think that the number of three doctors could be reduced. I am not sure why the Bill provides for three doctors in the case of suicidal ideation, rather than two for example. I would have thought that in such a crisis situation one would want to be able to make decisions in the best interests of the woman as swiftly as possible. I will therefore seek to amend that provision.

I will also seek to amend the legislation regarding fatal foetal abnormalities.

If the Government has legal advice that this Bill cannot provide for cases of fatal foetal abnormalities under any circumstances it should publish it. I cannot understand why we would not do everything in our power at this point to ensure this legislation is as comprehensive as possible. I will be voting in favour of the legislation, which, as I said earlier, is the minimum we can do. However, it is the right thing to do. I welcome that the Bill is, by and large, being discussed in a robust but respectful manner. I hope the Government, having passed this legislation, will move in the autumn to hold a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and to ensure that we bring forward in the medium to long term a regime in Ireland which permits any woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy because it is not right for her to do so. Every reason why a woman has a termination is valid. It is her body and her choice.

I have no doubt that following enactment of this legislation I and others from across the House will be campaigning for a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and to vindicate the rights of 50% of our citizens to have full autonomy over their bodies and to ensure that no State can coerce them into continuing with a pregnancy that they do not want.

See this speech in context