Noel Grealish (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for sharing her time with me.

This is one of the most controversial Bills ever to come before the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State. I have never seen such a campaign by all sides to get their point across in trying to convince Members of both Houses to support their case. I want to put on the record of the House my absolute disgust with the content of some of the material that I have received in the post. Having to view this material has been very stressful for me, but particularly for the two ladies who work in my office. That type of campaign must stop now.

As an opponent of this Bill, and I will not be voting for its passing in the Dáil, I commend Deputy Micheál Martin on allowing a free vote in Fianna Fáil and I call on the leaders of Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin to allow the same. This is a conscience vote and a Whip system must not be put in place. It is very wrong to force Members of both Houses to vote on something that goes against all they believe in, and I admire those who have the courage and conviction to stand up to the party Whip system, vote against this Bill and suffer the consequences of doing so. All I can say to them is "well done".

Last week, I attended a meeting in the audio-visual room in Leinster House, which was attended by Sr. Consilio. I commend Sr. Consilio on the tremendous work she does in her centres throughout the country, which I have seen at first hand in my constituency in Galway West. Sr. Consilio told us that in excess of 30% of the women she treats in her centres for some form of addiction, be it alcohol or drug abuse, have had an abortion. Emily, a woman who had an abortion 33 years ago, was also at that meeting and she told us her story. Thirty-three years ago she went to the United Kingdom as a young lady and had an abortion. She told us that she has regretted it every day since, asking herself if it would have been a boy or a girl, the path the child would have taken in life, where he or she would be working now, and whether she would be a grandmother. She put forward a very strong case on the effects of an abortion, and I compliment and commend her on coming in to meet us that day. I can vouch for that as I have met numerous ladies who have gone through the same turmoil after having an abortion. If one were to study the facts, one would see that women who have had an abortion are more likely to have suicidal tendencies than women who find themselves pregnant.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and outline the reason I cannot support this Bill. Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women, and the latest studies from the UN and the World Health Organization confirm that fact. I understand that an element of the Bill is to give certainty and clarity to medical professionals on when they can intervene to save the life of the mother where there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life due to medical complications. Clinicians must have clarity on how they can intervene and to ensure they do not face criminal sanction as a result of an intervention designed to save a mother's life. I do not have a problem with that as it is based on fact and medical evidence.

However, I cannot support this Bill due to section 9, which allows for termination of pregnancy on the grounds of suicidal ideation. I share the view of the psychiatrist who came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children earlier this year who stated that abortion is not an appropriate course of action or a cure for suicidal ideation. That seems to be a widely held view among mental health professionals. The largest ever study of the effects of abortion on mental health, which was published by the British Journal of Psychiatry, confirms clearly that abortion is associated with a moderate to high risk of mental health problems following the procedure. That report also links abortion to a 155% greater risk of trying to commit suicide. A Finnish study published in the European Journal of Public Health states that women who had abortions are six times more likely to commit suicide compared with women who had their babies. Unfortunately, this Bill proposes to legalise a situation whereby the life of an unborn child can be destroyed in an attempt to address the suicidal ideation of the mother. Taking the life of a child is not the answer and will not stop suicidal ideation. The experts in this field have confirmed that.

I am also very concerned that this Bill does not include a time or term limit beyond which abortion could not be carried out. That poses the risk of late term abortions under section 9 or, potentially, the induced delivery of a premature baby to a physically healthy mother, which could result in that baby surviving but suffering lifelong and very serious health problems including brain damage, learning difficulties or respiratory problems.

The Government's explanation for bringing forward this Bill is to legislate for the Supreme Court decision on the X case in 1992. However, this is not necessary. The X case is in a separate category of judicial decisions because of what was not decided. I wish to quote from an article by Dr. Maria Cahill, lecturer in constitutional law in UCC, who, in The Sunday Business Poston 23 June last, stated:

In the X case, the attorney general did not contest whether abortion was an appropriate treatment for suicidality. That is why neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court heard any legal arguments or medical evidence on the question of whether suicidality should be treated by abortion. The point was entirely overlooked or conceded without argument and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, no precedent exists on that point.

The latter is important and, as a result, the legal reality is that there is no obligation on the Government - deriving from the Constitution or the Supreme Court judgment - to propose legislation for abortion based on the threat of suicide. Similarly, the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case does not require the State to legislate for abortion on the grounds of suicidal ideation. While I have no difficulty with the elements of this Bill which provide clarity and certainty for clinicians on when to intervene in pregnancies - when it is based on clear facts and medical evidence - I do not believe that the threat of suicide should ever be grounds for abortion.

It is 21 years since the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the X case. In the intervening period a wealth of psychiatric research and knowledge confirming that abortion is not the answer has become available. It would be wrong for us, as legislators, to pass a Bill based on a 21-year old court decision without considering the most up-to-date research. This is an issue of moral conscience and personal belief. I am of the view that by opposing this Bill I am acting in the best interests of our citizens. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society and no one is more vulnerable than the unborn child.

See this speech in context