Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, earlier suggested the six avidly pro-choice Deputies voting "No" might be explained by some kind of political posturing. I want to make it clear to him and to the Government that it is a mistaken judgment. Some of us feel we must, reluctantly, vote against the Bill. There is nothing in it for us to vote "No". We wanted a Bill that legislated for the X case and went as far as it could go. We were conscious of the limitations on how far it could go. We do not expect things that cannot be given within the framework of the X case judgment but we do want everything that could be given within the framework and limitations of the X case judgment to advance the welfare and the rights of women to terminations where they need them. We have already discussed a couple of the issues we are particularly concerned about, which are unnecessary, too restrictive and erode the rights given to women under the X case. I refer to the requirement for more doctors than necessary or prescribed by the X case judgment, which does not prescribe a particular number of doctors. Similarly, we are deeply concerned about criminalisation.

For me and for many of the Deputies forced to vote "No", this issue is the dealbreaker. It is unacceptable that the Government passes up an opportunity to deal with the most terrible circumstances. If the Government could not deal with it, we would accept it, although we would ask for, and expect, an assurance and a commitment that it will deal with the matter forthwith. The Government has not provided a commitment, despite the fact that the Government said it agrees pregnancies with fatal foetal abnormality are terrible and tragic and that no woman should have to be put through a situation where she must travel to Britain for an abortion and not be able to avail of the service here with the support of family and friends. Members on all sides of the House accept that the situation is unacceptable and that something must be done yet the Government has made no commitment to do something about it. That is of deep concern and is unacceptable if anything could be done, as we believe is the case.

At least 20 eminent legal experts, barristers, law lecturers and solicitors have said that in situations where a wanted pregnancy is diagnosed as involving fatal foetal abnormality, because the conditions are incompatible with life, allowing a termination does not clash with the imperative in the Constitution to protect the unborn child. A condition incompatible with life is not a viable life. It is not an unborn child because we are talking about a foetus that cannot live, where there is no prospect of life or viability and therefore there is no clash. We believe it is entirely compatible and that there is legal evidence to support the view that it is compatible with the X case judgment and the current constitutional limitations. The Government has said that it could be subject to legal challenge and that the legal advice of the Government runs counter to the view. That may well be the case and those who support our view accept that our viewpoint is not cast-iron in respect of the potential compatibility with the Constitution of allowing for terminations in these cases.

However, they go on to say something the Minister of State, Deputy White, acknowledged on Committee Stage, that nothing is certain in law until it is tested. It has as good a chance of passing legal muster as many elements included in the Bill. Saying that it could be legally challenged is not a reason to exclude it because it is so important and everyone agrees it is unacceptable that the situation should persist if it does not need to. We have an obligation to include it in the legislation and to try to deal with it. If it is struck down, we can do something afterwards to deal with that. The Government should give a commitment to do so but it has not done so.

When that is combined with the criminality clause providing for a potential 14 year prison sentence if terminations are carried out or procured outside the terms of the Bill, it maintains a stigma of criminalisation over women in these tragic circumstances who are forced at a rate of 1,500 a year to travel abroad where a pregnancy they wanted is not viable because of fatal foetal abnormality. It is unacceptable that women forced to travel abroad in those circumstances, which they have a legitimate right to do, are doing something that is treated as a criminal offence in this country subject to 14 years imprisonment. That is terrible. It is bad enough that women should be put through this. To be put through it in circumstances where the State describes what they are doing as criminal and subject to 14 years in prison is appalling. To how much extra anxiety, horror and cruelty does that subject women faced with that appalling situation? It is unacceptable to allow that to persist.

Even if the Minister did not accept those first two points, the third point is unanswerable. The definition of "unborn" included in the Bill sets it down for the first time in law. It states that the unborn child begins at the moment of implantation. That means the Minister is not only failing to deal with the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities in the Bill and maintaining the stigma of criminality over it, he is putting into law something that will prevent him dealing with the situation of fatal foetal abnormalities in the future. Under that definition of the unborn child, a woman who seeks a termination of a foetus with a fatal foetal abnormality will be guilty of killing an unborn child as defined in the legislation. That is unacceptable. We have proposed an alternative wording. I think I speak for the other six Deputies sponsoring the motion in saying that if the Minister changes the definition, we will vote for the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that we want it to go much further and that we have major problems with its regressive characteristics. If he just conceded this unanswerable plea for compassion and action, we could support the Bill.

Families in the Terminations for Medical Reasons group said they did not want any more compassion, they wanted action. We appeal to the Minister on their behalf and on behalf of all those families who will go through this terrible situation and who have gone through it, for action. The action the Minister could take is to change the definition of "unborn" to ensure that terminations in these circumstances will not be equated with the taking of the life of an unborn child. It is a different, unique case. We have proposed an alternative definition of "unborn" which deals with that problem. We do not see why the Government cannot adopt it. We do not see why the Minister had to include a definition of "unborn" in the Bill at all. We would appreciate an explanation from the Minister of why he has failed to deal with that and why he appears to be including in the Bill a provision which will preclude him from dealing with these most terrible circumstances without having to repeal this section of the Bill.

See this speech in context