Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this Bill. I welcome the Minister's apology for what has happened. However, he must do more than apologise or give empathy and sympathy. There was a duty on him to publish and make available the judgment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR. He might confirm whether he did. He also had 180 days to make information available about the measures taken to give effect to the committee's views and he must show what effective remedy the State will provide. He is under a legal obligation to devise a solution for this matter. Had the Government come forward regarding its obligation under the decision and told us what it was going to do, perhaps I would have taken more seriously its advice that this draft legislation is unconstitutional.

I welcome the tone of this discussion and the rational and reasonable debate. When the famous amendment was introduced in 1983, the Bishop of Galway was Dr. Eamon Casey and the Magdalen laundry in Galway was still open. It was also the year that Sheila Rodgers died in Drogheda. A young, married Dundalk mother of two, she died in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, having given birth to a premature baby. She had become pregnant while receiving treatment for a recurrent cancer. The hospital refused to allow her to stay on the treatment because of her pregnancy. The cancer returned, she died and her baby died. That was 1983, when we introduced the amendment to the Constitution and many lawyers and academics warned that it would lead to significant difficulties.

Of course, problems emerged. In 1992, the X case dealt with the treatment of a 14 year old girl who had been violated, became pregnant and was going to England for an abortion only for the High Court to seek to do everything in secret and to prevent her from going. The Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the Attorney General also tried to prevent it. There is not a mother or father in the Chamber who would not have taken her or his 14 year old out of the country to seek a termination.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court acted sensibly and made a judgment. It deplored the fact that no legislation had been introduced by successive Governments. It allowed Miss X to travel. She deserves her privacy and I am simply referring to the principles involved. The Supreme Court deplored the failure by the Legislature to enact the appropriate legislation, saying that it "is no longer just unfortunate; it is inexcusable". That was 1992. The then President, Ms Mary Robinson, issued a statement on the deep crisis within ourselves. She hoped "we have the courage, which we have not always had, to face up to and look squarely and to say this is a problem we have got to resolve".

In 1992, there was another push for an amendment to copperfasten Article 40.3.3^oby ruling out suicide as an acceptable ground. Fortunately, it was rejected by the people. In 2002, a further referendum to overturn the X case - not to deal with the problem or introduce appropriate legislation - was again rejected by the people.

In 2010, and owing to the failure of successive Governments to introduce appropriate legislation, we saw the A, B and C v. Ireland case in the International Court of Human Rights. The court found that Ireland had breached the human rights of a woman with cancer who had to travel abroad to get an abortion. In that case, the woman - C - had a rare form of cancer and feared that she would relapse when she unintentionally became pregnant. However, she said that she was unable to find a doctor who was willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued.

One would have imagined that we would have learned something then, but it took another death, that of Ms Harte's in November 2011. It is worth taking a moment to consider her case. She suffered from malignant melanoma and was forced to go to Britain for an abortion despite being terminally ill with cancer. The hospital ethics committee forum had decided against authorising an abortion on the basis that her life was not under immediate threat and so on. The doctors were willing to carry out a termination, but the ethics committee said, "No". She had to be helped onto an aeroplane, such was her illness, to seek a termination. When she returned, her solicitor took a case and won a substantial award for her. She died a few months later. She left a child behind her because we failed utterly to deal with the legislative situation.

My city of Galway saw the shocking case of Savita Halappanavar in 2012. Her doctors and nurses were acting under an unworkable regime of laws. Besides questions about a lack of basic care and treatment and resources in the hospital, there was an issue with there being no termination. This forced the Government to act in the form of the expert group's report, which was suddenly published and led to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. The Act would criminalise me - I am beyond the age - but a woman would be criminalised and face a long prison sentence, fine or both if she sought to terminate a pregnancy due to a fatal foetal abnormality or any other reason. That is what we have done. "Protection of Life During Pregnancy" is a cynical use of language.

Here we are in 2016 being forced to act because of our obligations under the covenant. The committee went to pains to point out that legislation like the 2013 Act and the constitutional amendment are no excuse for not providing services for women who find themselves in this position. In the case of Amanda Jane Mellet, it was found that there was a violation of her rights under Article 7 of the ICCPR and that her treatment was cruel, inhuman and degrading. Can we stand over that? Her right to privacy under Article 17 was violated and she was discriminated against under Article 26.

Eleven people will have left Ireland today to have an abortion in England. Many of them will have been carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality. Can we stand over that system for the approximately 4,000 women we know about who leave our country each year for England? How could we stand over that in this Chamber?

See this speech in context