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

In response to the issue raised by Deputy Naughten on the definition of a term at which an intervention should or could take place, I am not entirely certain as to what is indicated here. It would appear that once a term is imposed, there is a time at which the life of the woman becomes the issue and that her life is deemed to be no longer a major issue. The Supreme Court had to deal with the situation whereby there was an equal right to life of both parties and when one introduces a situation where one party or the other gets a superior right to life, surely that is in breach of the constitutional amendment, Article 40.3.3°, wherein both the unborn and the mother have an equal right to life.

That is the nub of one of the matters that we have been discussing for quite some considerable time. We have heard references to the Supreme Court decision to the effect that it was wrong on the basis that it did not hear all of the evidence but the court decision had to be made on the basis of the evidence presented to it at the time. The problem then is this: If the presumption is that both the unborn and the mother have an equal right to life - that was decided by the people - then introducing anything else at that stage tilts the balance in favour of one or the other. The court decided how that would be. The court's decision is the final decision and it cannot be changed. It has been suggested by Members, whose views I fully respect on this subject, that we should hold another referendum and look at this matter again. The problem with this is that it has been looked at. The people looked at it as well and the people made a decision. The people made a decision on suicide as well and they made that decision, not once but twice. They made it twice - a clearcut decision, no doubt about it. I am neither a lawyer nor a medical professional, and I have no competence in the area at all, but it would appear, at least, to my mind, that once one intervenes and sets a date by which a termination can take place - or, in the reverse of that argument, cannot take place - then that shifts the balance in a way with which the Supreme Court did not agree, and we must accept that.

Whether we like it or not, the decision of the people is paramount. It was already decided in a referendum. Subsequently, the Supreme Court interpreted the decision of the people and made it quite clear. In the aftermath, we have seen numerous persons on all sides of the argument suggest what if, maybe in different circumstances, something had happened and, maybe, if other information had been made available. I do not accept that. Courts make decisions and the Supreme Court makes the supreme decision.

See this speech in context