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

It is really derogatory of the families facing this situation. If the Minister of State wishes to continue interrupting we have quite an amount of time. However, I want to deal with this State's obligation, under human rights law and the intervention of the State's human rights watchdog, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties which has said that there is an onus on us to go further in this legislation and that the State can go further. Recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of reproductive rights as set out in a number of cases relating to Poland, indicates that the Council of Europe states are obliged to ensure that the women seeking lawful terminations are not exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the convention on human rights. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties is of the opinion that it is clear that the current treatment of women with pregnancies involving a defined set of fatal foetal abnormalities would be covered by this.

Other Deputies have made the point that the State itself has argued that fatal foetal abnormalities could be legislated for within the confines of the existing constitutional restriction. That is precisely because of the point made by other Deputies that our constitutional provision and protection equates the life of the women with that of the unborn, and if there is no life to protect, the constitutional protection does not exist. That is critical to this point.

Our opposition to this Bill does not arise from what is omitted, although it has some shortcomings, but rather from what it contains. I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett's point that if this one definition was changed, we could support the legislation. We now have unborn human life for the first time being defined in Irish law and although the Minister, Deputy Reilly, stated earlier that it was only for the purpose of this law and it would not relate to anything else, that is not the case and legislation clearly does not operate that way. The points being made about viability, which have been put forward by the likes of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Irish Family Planning Association etc. could not be envisaged if the definition is made in the manner sought by the Government, giving protection from the moment of implantation until the moment of birth. It is important to state that this is a unique definition in European law and it is not helpful. We would replace that definition as being one where the foetus is capable of independent life, which is a far better and more appropriate definition in the current scenario.

The issue of inevitable miscarriage is not being addressed in this legislation. We have read the HSE report on the difficulties around Savita Halappanavar's case but a lack of clarity will prevail if this legislation is passed. As long as there is a foetal heartbeat, a doctor's hands can essentially be tied, even in a case where there is the possibility of inevitable miscarriage. We have heard from the doctors in Galway that the risk to a woman's life had to be real and it could not be a "perceived" risk; in that sense, the infection would have had to become critical in Ms Halappanavar's case before they could intervene. Nothing in this Bill is dealing with that issue, which is why amendments have been tabled. People can have different legal interpretations and opinions but some issues are quite clear. It may be immoral and abhorrent that we cannot deal with issues of a woman's health being in danger because of strict constitutional provisions but a sizable body of legal opinion has indicated that we can legislate for this issue. I am very glad about that.

The Minister of State, Deputy White, asked why the provision was not in our Bill. As Opposition Deputies, we do not have access to the Attorney General or lofty legal opinion in the preparation of our Bills but we do our best. We would have been quite open to amendments and it is fair to say that our Bill gave a platform to women and couples to come forward and put their stories into the public domain. This educated society far beyond the realms of what had been done previously. Not only that but it forced the legal profession and other human rights organisations to wake up and consider the issue in greater detail. I am sorry we did not have the knowledge at the time but if we had, it would have been included in our Bill. Nevertheless, it is no excuse for a Minister of State to use, and the arrogance and rudeness he has shown is deeply disrespectful to the families which are the victims of a lack of action. I complimented the Minister, Deputy Reilly, on the fact he has legislated in this instance, and we are talking about women, couples, families and decisions that will have an impact. If the Government is serious about being more than compassionate, it should act to address these issues.

See this speech in context