Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It will come as no great surprise that I will be opposing this Private Members' Bill. My opposition to the repeal of the eighth amendment is a matter of public record. I was clear about that position in the run-up to the general election and I am even clearer about it today.

The Bill before us recommends altering the Constitution to remove any reference to that most fundamental of human rights - the right to life. A constitution is a statement of the highest principles which guide a nation and its legislators. It is in inconceivable to me that we should arrive at a point where the right to life of the unborn child is excluded from those principles.

What are we about as a people if we do not work to "cherish all the children of the nation equally", as stated in the 1916 Proclamation? What is deeply troubling to me and to many others across the country is that during the whole course of the repeal the eighth campaign, there has been no mention whatsoever as to what would replace it. Time and again, I have heard representatives from the parties proposing this Bill and the repeal the eighth campaign being asked what protections they would put in its place for the unborn child.

No clear answer has been forthcoming at any stage. Are they seriously suggesting that at a constitutional level no protections at all should be in place to protect the right to life of the unborn? If they are and that is what they intend, it is a battle they cannot win. The vast majority in the State do not support the view that there should be no limits in accessing abortion services. That is a fact the Anti-Austerity Alliance and People Before Profit seem content to ignore in the pursuit of what is, by any measure, an extreme political stance. In Ireland's system of government the Constitution is the highest guarantor of the rights of people. To alter it and rely solely on legislation which can be amended or deleted is not a strong enough protection for the right to life.

We know that given the chance, the parties which are proposing the Bill would remove even the limits set in the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act about which we have heard so much. I have no doubt that they would do the same in the case of any future legislation brought before the House. That is a clear indication that they want no limits, on when or how an abortion can be sought. That is unacceptable to me and, I contend, the majority across the State. I will, therefore, be opposing the Bill which I see as a further attempt to undermine the right to life of the mother and that of the unborn child as outlined in the eighth amendment. As far as the Citizens' Assembly is concerned, I believe, like many in the Repeal the Eighth campaign, that this House is the citizens' assembly, to which Members sought election. Many of us have made our views known clearly and in an forthright manner. We were elected to deal with issues, not to set up an assembly and ask the 99 people involved to deliberate on what is a very difficult issue. Are we just passing the buck? Deputies should deal with issues in this Chamber, as we ought to do, as we were elected to do, as we are entitled to do and as we are empowered to do under the constitution. The Citizen's' Assembly was ill-advised and has been ill thought out. While I have respect for the justice who heads it, there were question marks over the process of selection of the people taking part in it.

See this speech in context