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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue, which has been debated quite a lot in recent years. More recently, the issue was debated in the context of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill which was debated last year and enacted. The Minister has referred to some issues and fall-out from that debate, such as the Ms Y case which may come before the courts. We are also waiting for a reporting system to be put in place that will inform us of the numbers of people who have been treated in the context of that legislation.

We must accept this is a divisive issue, but there are also many people who take the middle ground. Deputies on the other side mentioned those who favour provisions in the context of fatal foetal abnormalities, incest and rape. A broad body is of the view that these should have been accommodated in the context of the legislation we discussed previously, but that could not be done because of the constitutional barriers arising from the 1992 Supreme Court judgment and interpretation in the X case and on foot of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

Most people in the country on either side, if they had their time back, would not have campaigned or advocated for the inclusion of this measure in the Constitution in the first place. Reference has been made to many of the eminent minds at the time in the 1980s when this referendum was put to the people who said it was the wrong decision. They could foresee where we would end up and many of their views came to pass, including that at some stage there would have to be an adjudication by a court on the vindication of the right to life of the pregnant women versus the right to life of the unborn.

I will quote from my Second Stage contribution on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013:

I do not like to stereotype people or to put them in boxes but I am pro-life in the sense that I believe we should do everything possible to vindicate the life of the unborn. It is something I hold personally dear. I am not a member of any organisation that espouses that view but as a Deputy I believe it is something we should do. It is the fundamental right of the unborn to be brought into this world. However, we face conflicting difficulties when we must provide for complicated medical procedures. I find it difficult to oppose this Bill because I would not like our clinicians and those who deal with this issue every day of the week to have their hands tied because there is not clarity or certainty in the law in terms of clear and definitive guidelines on when they can intervene to save the life of the woman without facing the prospect of a criminal sanction.

That was the purpose of the Bill but the debate has moved on for a number of reasons. There are advocates who express the view that we should have abortion on demand in this country, but on the other side of the equation there are people who believe a pregnancy should not be terminated in any event. Some people have gone so far as to say that this should not happen even in the context of a threat to the life of the mother. There are many people in between who believe the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution places onerous restrictions on clinicians in making decisions. A number of people continue to argue that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is onerous and restrictive and the health of a woman could be damaged because of it. Some argue that the threat to the life of a woman is dealt with in this legislation but the health of the woman is put at risk in the context of the restrictions it provides for. The reason it is restrictive is the public have been consulted twice in the 1994 and 2002 referenda on the substantive issue and there are conflicting opinions in the sense that the people said women had the right to information and the right to travel but abortions could not be carried out in this country.

A total of 150,000 women have travelled to England since 1983 for a termination and that fact is indisputable. I refer again to my contribution to the previous legislation:

Every year, 5,000 Irish women travel to Britain for terminations. We should not pretend this is not the case. We should show moderation in our use of language when discussing this issue to avoid offending others and be conscious of the need to avoid being judgmental about the 5,000 women who travel abroad for terminations each year. I do not want to make their decision any more difficult by using inflammatory language or making them feel bad. They are our mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and neighbours. I feel very strongly that people should not use nasty, inflammatory language to try to vindicate an argument, because these women are living among us. We should not be judgmental and our language and tone should reflect the fact that at least 150,000 Irish women have travelled overseas for terminations in the past 30 years and they are among us. I welcome the fact that Members of the Oireachtas and people outside the House have, by and large, been responsible and moderate in the language they have used when expressing their views on this issue.

The language used during that debate was moderate but if a broader consultation is conducted with the public, there will be two extreme views and a significant middle ground. I am not sure which Members can claim to speak on behalf of the majority, the minorities or the middle ground. The only way that can be tested is to have a referendum because no Member can claim to be the absolute guarantor of one side or the other. We have varying views. There is a facility in place to provide for a consultative referendum on whether people are satisfied with the present legislation or whether they want it to go further.

Reference has been made to the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities and, as Deputy Twomey said, there is a strong view that this should be addressed. Many people hold strong views on the notion that we would force a woman to carry to full term a baby that will die. I refer to the issue of incest and rape. As a father, I cannot say what I would do if my 14 year old daughter was raped and became pregnant or how I would react. Some people would react by booking a Ryanair flight and taking their daughter to England. There are also cases of foetuses not being compatible with life outside the womb. This happens regularly. Up to 5,000 women a year go abroad for terminations for various reasons.

Many people are not of the view that we should have abortion on demand in this State but there is a strong body of opinion that the issues of fatal foetal abnormalities, incest and rape should be addressed within the State. Nobody in this House can claim that he or she definitively knows the answer to that question. The only way that can be addressed is by having the debate with the public and allowing them to adjudicate. The wording proposed by Deputy Daly has flaws. It advocates regarding one particular area and there are concerns that there would be a liberalisation of the current regime. It is proposed to replace the eighth amendment to the Constitution with the thirty-fourth which would have repercussions. However, a consultative referendum could be held to ask people whether they are satisfied with the status quo or whether they believe the issues of fatal foetal abnormalities, incest and rape should be legislated for. There are people who think we should have abortion on demand but nobody in the House can claim that he or she knows definitively what the public is thinking.

The Minister said the law will be different in 20 years. Why will that be the case? Is it his view that society will become more liberal on this issue or that people will be dragged along screaming and kicking in the context of further court challenges with the Government of the day consistently having to amend legislation? The one way we can definitively find out what the public is thinking now is to have a consultative discussion with them. I do not advocate that the eighth amendment should be amended but we could ask the public what they think as opposed to reading polls in the Sunday newspapers every now and again on the issue.

See this speech in context