Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is important to realise that this is a human rights issue and that is the way I look at it. With respect to all religions and none, this is immaterial. In many respects, these amendments go to the heart of the differences people have because, with the exception of Deputy McGrath’s amendment, there is a failure to recognise the position of the unborn human life. That failure causes a difficulty for me.

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Peadar Tóibín. Whatever medical assistance and so on is available should be made available, about which there should not be any doubt. However, with regard to the amendments, I did not hear at the hearing a demand from the medical profession - perhaps with the exception of one gynaecologist subliminally - for such an action. The amendments demonstrate a lack of recognition for the existence of unborn human life. They probably are also contrary to Article 40.3.3°, which is why they will probably be ruled out of order. One can argue about the pros and cons of this article, but it is difficult to interpret and history has shown this to be so. I read Mr. Justice Flaherty’s contribution in the Supreme Court over the weekend. Perhaps we might seek to legislate for that article as opposed to legislating for the X case judgment. That is the false premise on which the Government is operating. There seems to be a liberating concept of legislating for the X case judgment when it is anything but. One of the reasons the Government has drawn my wrath, that of others close to me and that of some on the Opposition benches is the mixed message that has come from it.

I agree with one aspect of the Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett’s contribution. This legislation will do nothing to address the situation in the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar and to maintain that it will does an injustice to everybody involved in the process. The gynaecologist – I do not whether it was an expert opinion or a personal opinion – Peter Boylan stated if there had been an intervention on the Monday or the Tuesday, her life could have been saved, but at that stage the diagnosis was there was just a threat to her health. That goes to the kernel of why thee amendments have been tabled. The threat was to her health, not to her life.

It would not have made one iota of difference to her tragic situation. For Members of Government to seek to endorse the emotion of that case to support the legislation they are bringing in, which I believe to be flawed for other reasons, is disingenuous.

I disagree with the point raised by Deputy Higgins about opinion polls, and the public being ahead of us. It would be a poor Parliament or Government that would legislate on the basis of opinion polls which, in respect of social issues, are highly unreliable, as evidenced by the poll on the children's referendum.

See this speech in context