Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

There has been an unbelievable disconnect between the real lives of citizens in this State and the discussion that has been conducted here in this House and in many elements of the media. It demonstrates how disconnected this House is from society. The reality is that the Bill and the discussion that has been held over the past while represent little more than substantial grandstanding, posturing and abstract debate which is out of sync with the real lives of citizens in this State.

It is fair to say never has so much been said by so many about so little. The Minister could not have made the Bill any more restrictive and limited than it is. Not only that, but it has deviated from what it should have been and it is shifting the emphasis away from the protection of women's lives which was the basis of this issue being looked at to a sort of fudge.

I agree with other Deputies who have said the root of this inequity lies in the appalling constitutional provision which equates the life of a woman with the life of an unborn. This is ludicrous and it has put a Chinese wall between women's lives and their health and means that the medical profession is faced with a choice in waiting until a woman is almost at death's door before doctors can intervene to save her life. That will continue, a situation which was so eloquently described by the Minister for Justice and Equality when we introduced our Private Members' Bill the second time around, and will still be the case after today. It can truly be said the right of pregnant women to have their health protected under our constitutional framework is a qualified right, as is their right to bodily integrity and that will remain the position. This is a republic in which we proclaim the equality of all citizens, but in reality some citizens are more equal than others. The rancid hypocrisy of exporting women from this country in their thousands will continue, as will the intolerable cruelty of people being forced to carry to full term or travel to England in cases in which there is a fatal foetal abnormality. That is the root of this issue and what we want tackled. We are adamant that it will be tackled and that there should be a repeal of the eighth amendment.

Like any other civilised society, we should deal with this issue of women's health and human rights as a matter which is not even for legislation because regulation would be sufficient, as is the case in other countries. The fact that the provision is included in the Constitution is ridiculous. The Supreme Court interpreted that constitutional provision as indicating that abortion was permissible where the life, as distinct from the health, of a woman was in danger. That is a false distinction and the Bill perpetuates it and, in our opinion, ensures a case like that of Savita Halappanavar will happen again. It does nothing to address that issue. The Government heaping rights on the unborn and defining it in a manner which was not done previously actually means the medical profession will be curtailed and most definitely will have to wait until a woman is essentially at death's door and demonstrably her life is in danger before it can take action. That is regrettable. The legislation fails to take into account what the Supreme Court said, that the threat to a woman's life did not have to be immediate or inevitable. Nowhere is that factored in to the Bill.

I fully respect people's private views; everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion and there are many very different views. However, there has been a concerted effort to enforce a Catholic ideology and viewpoint on all citizens of the State which is out of kilter with the opinions of people in our society. We received communications from religious leaders of other religions supporting the idea of wider provision of abortion services but also from people who, like me, are of no religion and many Catholics who do not agree with their church's teaching on these issues. I fully respect the rights of all Catholics. I would go out of my way to defend their right to practise their religion and stay true to their beliefs, but people who do not want access to abortion services are already looked after. Thankfully, we do not live in a country which compels people to have an abortion against their will. We are not talking about such persons. If because of an ideological viewpoint, some people do not want to have an abortion, frankly, it is great that they are not forced into having one. We are talking about people who need access to abortion services for a whole number of other reasons.

Not only are those victims impregnated in rape or incest case or those cases involving a fatal foetal abnormality not being addressed in the Bill, but the very limited provisions of what the Minister could do are not being catered for. It is ironic that when we introduced our Private Members' Bill previously, Labour Party Deputies, in particular, told us that they could not support it because it did not go far enough. We were apologetic about our Bill because it was so limited, but it now looks like a positive, brilliantly progressive Bill by comparison with this narrow vehicle. It is highly questionable whether anyone will gain any protection from it. All of the motions we have tabled have tried to elevate and put this discussion back to where it was supposed to be, a discussion on protecting women's lives. That is what it was about and that is why we were here. That is what the Supreme Court said and that was the problem in the Savita Halappanavar case - the lack of clarity. This Bill provides no more clarity. In that sense, it is really regrettable that the Government has chosen to pander to some people who have mysteriously discovered a conscience and an interest in the consequences of their decisions here. They do not care about the lives of born citizens and who have unleashed almighty cutbacks and terrible conditions on people's living standards. They have reinvented themselves as some sort of saviour which is completely out of kilter with the real world.

The amendments we have tabled attempt to address within the constitutional limits some of the worst aspects of this very narrow Bill. We also signal our intent - like most citizens of the State - that we will not stop until we have the issue of abortion fully addressed for all of the other important reasons mentioned.

See this speech in context