Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I also tabled amendments Nos. 47 and 54 on Committee Stage and I also discussed amendment No. 80 previously. They are straightforward and say every effort must be made to save the life of a child where viable. It is a statement of the obvious but it reaffirms the thrust of the legislation and Article 40.3.3°. However, I accept the Minister's comment that this is provided for under the legislation anyway and there is no need to make my amendments.

I am speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my party. I find when we discuss amendments relating to viability and gestational terms and time limits that I would oppose the legislation if I thought for a moment that we had decided a baby at 34 weeks could be taken from the womb and destroyed. It is repugnant to me to even consider that but, more important, it is repugnant to the Constitution and the legislation before us. When we discuss this issue, as Deputy Twomey said, we should refer specifically to the legislation. If we talk about gestational limits, we are putting forward a situation where we are pitting the life of the woman against the life of the unborn. Clearly, that is what we will do because if we decide that a term limit of 20 or 22 weeks, the only time under the legislation or the Constitution that a termination can take place is in the event of there being a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman. That is the overriding issue at stake here and if we were not to intervene, the life of the woman would pass, as would the life of the unborn. If we move to debating whether the limit should be 18, 20, 22 or 24 weeks - let us get personal about this - what we are saying is if my wife is in an operating theatre and she is told they have to intervene to terminate the life of the child, they cannot intervene because she is gone beyond 24 weeks. That is what we would be providing for in the legislation. We would clearly be providing in the legislation that we cannot intervene to terminate the pregnancy because it would be in conflict with the legislation if we put in gestational periods. We need to be conscious of what we are trying to put forward in this legislation.

Outside the House, there are strong views on this but to raise issues that are not relevant to the Constitution and that are at variance with the Constitution and the X case judgment simply undermines what we are trying to do, which is to pass legislation that has one fundamental overriding principle: to save the life of the woman when there is a real and substantial risk and to make every effort to vindicate the life of the unborn. Once gestational periods are put in, one is pitting the life of the woman against the life of the child. That would be repugnant to me and to the Constitution. I make that point because many in my party have strong views on this issue but when one goes to the core of it, we are putting in legislation something that has been in place for the past 21 years but, more important, we are trying to save the life of the woman and, in doing so, we are making every effort to save the life of child. When we talk about viability and gestational terms limits, we are going down a dangerous road because we will force doctors to look a woman in the eye and say "We cannot intervene to save your life because the term limit under the legislation has been exceeded". I urge genuine caution in the discussion on this issue.

See this speech in context