Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I fully endorse and agree with the points raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. I am sure that does not come as a shock because we both, like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and others, have been around this House for quite a while.

In issues of this nature, we should remember one or two points. First, this is a question of conscience. Many have conscientious concerns and there is provision made in the legislation in respect of conscientious objectors. Conscientious objection is recognised nationally and internationally as a reason for adopting a particular position.

However, legislators also have another problem, that is, the point raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. We have a responsibility to do what is deemed to be right, having regard to all of the citizens, having regard to all of the opinions and having regard to circumstances that emerge at a particular time. Those circumstances may not be the ones that were in the public arena one year ago, ten years ago or 30 years ago, but we must do the best we can and presume that we are doing right. We must do right, by ourselves and by the Constitution.

I do not propose to lecture anybody else in this House as to what one should do in these circumstances. I do not want to be told by anybody that I face the threat of excommunication unless I proceed in a particular fashion. Like everybody else, I am as good as I can be and probably not as good as I should be. For those who want to sit in judgment, they should judge everybody - there are many judgments hanging in the balance in this country over the past 50 years.

This also gives us an opportunity to come out of the valley of the squinting windows and come into the light and recognise some of the debate which has been targeted at some of us over the past six months for what it is, and the undercurrents displayed therein. In particular, I would posit to the House tonight that there is an undercurrent of disrespect for women, suspicion of women, and suspicion that women are liable to do wrong and opt for, in this particular case, abortion virtually in every circumstance. That is an injustice we should not do. The male population of this country should recognise the significant contribution women have made to our society in difficult times, economically, socially and of every kind, when many of them were condemned to oblivion and were restrained and restricted in where they could go and what they could do if they did what was seen as wrong by society at the time. Let society stand up now and be counted, individually and collectively. Let us, as Members of the House of Parliament, recognise that we also have a duty to the women of this country as well as to those who would seek to divert our attention in a different direction. This is important at this time.

In particular, I want to address the issue, suggested in some posters, to the effect that this Bill was a deliberate attempt to kill babies up to the time of birth. That is incorrect. There is no such proposal in the Bill. Anybody who can within reason read the English language should recognise that. It is wrong to suggest that. It is disingenuous and misleading the people, and those who say that know full well that is wrong.

As we know, the only provision in the legislation is for situations where the life of the mother, as opposed to her health, is in danger and then only after careful consideration and reference to professionals in the field at the time and cross-checking and double-checking.

I have heard it suggested that the Supreme Court is wrong in its decisions. This is a common complaint against court decisions from people who have a decision made against them. The Supreme Court decided on the case as presented to it at the time. The judges of the Supreme Court had to make a decision. They could not shilly-shally. It was a convincing majority decision rather than a split decision. They made their decision based on the evidence presented to the court. There is not much sense in suggesting now that if they had more evidence they might have made a different decision. That is pure hypothesis and it does not stand up. They made the decision in good faith. It may be that this does not set a precedent but if a similar case is presented again tomorrow or next week the judges of the Supreme Court will have to make a decision again. They cannot opt out. They will make a decision on the basis of the legislation and the evidence before them.

It is alleged the present Government is legislating for abortion, to create a situation that did not exist before. This is not true. It has been suggested to me and to other Members in recent correspondence that there was no need to legislate. That is not true because if there is no clarity in the legislation and no legislation other than the decision of the people as interpreted by the Supreme Court, then it will be a defence in some cases, at some time in the future that there was no clarity, no statute law to support what was done or not done. The result would be disaster.

I am totally opposed to abortion, as I am sure is virtually every other person in this House. I do not regard it as a remedy for anything. However, there are tragic circumstances arising from time to time where an intervention might have to be made in order to save the life of the mother. I did not hear a great deal of emphasis on the need to ensure that the lives of mothers must be protected in many of the submissions we received and listened to over the past six months. The lives of mothers are important as well. The mother is an adult and in full control of her circumstances and surroundings but this may not always be the case. She may have a condition that has gone past the point at which she is able to contribute. Then it rests with those professionals around her to make a decision. It had better be the right decision in the case of both the mother and the unborn child because if the decision is not made or if the condition is ignored and tragedy ensues, there is no good saying that these things happen. We are in the business of ensuring that there is clarity for those professionals on one side or the other who may decide to prescribe a particular procedure.

I fully realise that people with conscientious objections may say - rightly so - depending on their own preference, that they do not wish to be involved in such procedures. This applies in the UK and in most other jurisdictions. However, the patient or patients - mother and the unborn child - have a right to clarity and to know that justice is being done and that some particular course is applicable and will be followed. Otherwise, it will be at the behest of whoever has the particular preference, depending on the side of the argument. I attended the hearings in their entirety. It is not true to say that there was unanimity in respect of psychiatric or even medical evidence. There was a difference of opinion. Nobody suggested for one moment that abortion would be a cure for suicide but it was not suggested that a situation would never arise where this did not become a possibility. In a society that has been beset by suicide as much as our society, it would be very remiss of any professionals to avoid or overlook the issue. To be fair to them, they did not do so. They were not as judgmental as people predicted. There is a tendency for people to quote those whose opinion coincides with their own. There is a certain pattern running through the system and I can predict the likely response in the event of a particular question. Legislators understand this to be the case. However, in the case of a woman who has a crisis in the pregnancy such as an issue of physical or mental health, if nothing is done the woman will die. The Constitution protects the life of the unborn and it also protects the life of the mother. It is a question of what is the right thing to do. In my view, we need to legislate for this situation in order to ensure some uniform response in hospitals and among professionals and some uniformity in the way the patients are treated. Otherwise it will depend on which hospital a woman elects to attend when pregnant or whether she decides to go to the UK where she will receive a different type of treatment. We have a duty to legislate which is not intended to liberalise the availability of abortion. It is a legislative procedure to inhibit and to proof the basis and the grounds under which a termination could occur. That is for the benefit of both the mother and the unborn child and I strongly support it.

I have to be somewhere else in a couple of moments. Reference has been made in the debate to other jurisdictions. I do not understand why such references are made. We have our own Constitution, independent of other jurisdictions. We can decide ourselves and the people have decided. I remind any of those who have any doubts that the people decided twice about the suicide clause. If once was not enough they decided twice. The argument will be that they did it for different reasons. The reasons are not important. The people made their decision and they did so in good faith and knowingly, in the full and clear knowledge of the effect of that decision.

Those of us who have been in this House for a number of years should be aware, as should newer Members, that it is an issue of who governs. Do the legislators govern or someone else? Are we controlled from inside the country or outside the country? Are we influenced by people from other jurisdictions who have their own views? Do we make up our minds based on our own knowledge and on the Constitution? As legislators we must legislate for all of the people, fairly and without fear.

See this speech in context