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

Despite that, I had three Dáil elections and a Seanad election behind me. I can recall the debate very well. It was a very hotly contested debate, full of acrimony, full of accusations, full of unpleasantness and full of false allegations. It did not do any good for our society. In fact, it divided society badly at that time.

I sat in on most of the hearings chaired by the now Senator Jerry Buttimer in 2013 in course of the run-up to the then Minister, now Senator James Reilly's Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. Many of the same issues arose again as well as quite a lot of unpleasantness, allegations and counter-allegations. In more recent times, in the past couple of years, we have spoken about the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and the way pregnant women were treated in this country for a long time, and it was not only in this country but in other jurisdictions as well. We have learned the way they were shunned from society - our so-called caring society - and sent into oblivion, where somebody else would care for them and look after them, and the nuns were then blamed for maltreating them afterwards. Society walked away. Society did nothing. Society chose not to look at what was happening at the time. I hope the debate we are having now brings us forward in a way that recognises people's situations as they are, not as they are perceived to be. It would be hugely important to us, as a society, even at this late stage, to recognise that times have changed, time has moved on, science has changed and people's attitudes have changed, and we have to move along with that.

As I said during the course of the hearings and have said many times in the past, I am not in favour of abortion. However, I recognise that particular situations have arisen in recent years that require to be looked at again. I have always singled out rape as one situation. I do not agree at all with the notion that the victim of rape should have to continue to bear the product of that rape afterwards, to the satisfaction of the perpetrator. I could never in my life understand that argument. It was trotted out several times in 1983 and it was trotted out in 2013 as well. I am not saying that to aggravate anybody, it is just that I cannot see the justice in it at all. It is similar in regard to incest.

I know people have said, in regard to the findings of the committee, that it was strange there should be unrestricted access to abortion. In fact, that is not the case. There is unrestricted access to abortion at the present time on the Internet, although it is illegal and there is no supervision, no medical advice and no counselling. In a situation like that, as in the past, there have been tragic circumstances. It is incumbent on us now, as legislators, to ensure this does not continue. If we want to become hardline on it, we can say we will ban the Internet, or ban abortion on the Internet, but reality is reality. Times have changed, and it is not possible to do that sort of thing. It is necessary, given the duty of care the State has, to take some measures to ensure that women who are pregnant and who may have to have recourse to the Internet to achieve what they feel they require at the time are protected. Society has to protect them and we have to put in place the medical supports, backup and counselling that is required. As Deputy Clare Daly said, it may not necessarily always be an abortion that is required but support is required. There is a need to recognise the isolated situation in which some women have found themselves. We need to ask ourselves whether we want that to continue. Do we want to help them, do we want to offer a helping hand or do we want to do nothing?

A long time ago, I read Adam Bede, a famous book written by a woman writer under her pseudonym, George Eliot. It was similar to Far from the Madding Crowd, which we saw a couple of weeks ago, where the same scene was enacted again and again. Life goes on. Times have changed but the same fault lines have occurred, the same mistakes have been made and there has been the same failure to react sympathetically to a situation that was obvious in those times and again in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The point I am making is that as legislators, there are times when we have to remain silent, times when we have to take action and times when we have to show leadership. It is incumbent on us to show that leadership now and to offer the help, support, sympathy and solace needed during pregnancy.

I remember that people would say, way back, that women had been becoming pregnant for millions of years, and so they have. However, it is not all occasions that it is trouble free. That is the thing we all need to ponder. When a difficulty arises, for example, where a single girl, on her own, has to try to make up her mind as to what is the best thing to do, is it not incumbent on us to offer support and to provide a backup medical service and support for her so she is not left alone? I think it is, and that is what the committee is doing.

The committee also did another important thing, which I have pointed out on many occasions. It highlighted that both sides in this debate over the past ten years have said at one time or another that they want a referendum. That is a fact. It has been said for different reasons, admittedly, but both sides have wanted a referendum. I believe it is necessary to have that referendum now. I agree with the speakers who said it has been a long time since the previous one, which it has been. It is important that we have the referendum. It is now down to the people. The committee did a great job and every member of the committee did to the best of their ability what was required of them. They asked the questions, heard the evidence submitted and tested that evidence, as they were supposed to do. The Chairman did a very good job with a very sensitive and, very often, challenging subject, and she did it well. However, it is now down to the people and they cannot stand aloof. Society is making this decision. Society cannot stand aloof and say it does not agree with what the committee did. Some people may not agree and some people may, but there is one thing we cannot get away from, namely, a decision has to be made and only the people can make that decision. We have tested the evidence that has come before us. We have asked the questions. Not everybody has liked the questions we have asked, not everybody has liked us and not everybody has liked the subject as presented, but it has been presented to us in good faith. We could like it or lump it, as they say. The evidence was there before us. It was up to us to ask how the Citizens' Assembly came to its conclusions and we did that to the best of our ability.

Some of the evidence adduced was challenging, to say the least, and was distressing on numerous occasions, as referred to by other speakers. It was distressing because we had lived through this ourselves. We remembered some of the sequences that were raised during the course of the hearings. For example, we read the coroner's report in the Savita case, which was really sad. It was so sad, moving and disturbing that words could not describe it. I thought then that it was our duty, and it remains our duty, to learn from that and to do what we can to hand this over to the community, to the people, to society to make this decision. Let them now be the judges. Let them ask themselves and ask their peers, in a quiet and persuasive way, what is the right thing to do.

3 o’clock

If they do that, they will come to a conclusion that is amicable and generally in line with the findings of the committee. There may be changes or improvements, but that is a matter for the Minister and others. I compliment him and every Deputy who has contributed to the debate so far. Their interesting, caring and knowledgeable contributions were the kinds of response that we should have had when dealing with this subject more than 30 years ago.

During our consideration of this matter, counselling and support were some of the most important issues that arose. A great deal of time was spent in 2014 debating what should happen where the health or life of the mother was threatened. This is one of the issues that we should consider very carefully. Some health conditions, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, can accelerate rapidly in pregnancy and quickly develop into life-threatening situations. This was pointed out in the Savita case. Over the years, some of us have had experience of dealing with people in that situation. One quickly learns what one would do if one had to advise the people concerned. Medical professionals are in this situation all the time. Their duty is to advise on what should be done and to be alert.

If we balance everything on a 50:50 basis, surely we must take into account the life of the person who has the central role, namely, the pregnant woman. Should we ignore that and recommend that she wait a little while longer so that we can see how the situation progresses? Sepsis, for example, can rapidly reach its zenith, and then it is all over. There is no coming back from that tragedy. It is all very well for us to step away and say that it was unfortunate or we are sorry the woman was lost, but "Sorry" does not undo the tragedy. When we have available to us the measures necessary to take the steps that should be taken at a crucial time, the judgment call should be to protect the mother. Surely we have reached that juncture at this stage in our development. I hope that we have.

I also hope that the committee's discussions will be of some benefit to the general public when they come to make their decision. If not and the argument revolves around issues other than those thrashed out by the committee and the Citizens' Assembly, it will have moved away from the subject matter that should be central to the debate. I hope that those involved will recognise the necessity of keeping the debate on track and focused on the issues that have affected the women of this and other countries for millennia. They should also keep in mind the fact that medicine has advanced, times have changed and what was acceptable 30 or 40 years ago is no longer acceptable.

I hope nobody believes that the victim of a rape should have to continue to enjoy the aftermath. "Enjoy" is the wrong word. The woman at least needs to have some kind of choice in that situation. Otherwise, we are saying that society or a judge in a court will decide. There is no place for that; we do not have time for that. This is about medicine, health and the need to do what is required at a crucial time.

That is why the ten-week or 12-week issue arose. It seemed odd until the evidence was tested. When we asked ourselves how the Citizens' Assembly had reached that conclusion, two factors came to the fore, the first of which was the ordering of abortion pills online without supervision, medical advice or medical control. If a medic became involved, there was also the danger of him or her being charged with committing a criminal offence. That part of the debate was conclusive. The abortion pill is available on the Internet. First there was the morning after pill and then the week after pill. Now there is a three-month pill. We listened to all the arguments against this, what it meant in terms of preventing the lives of unborn babies and so on, but contraception means that as well. During our debates, we received strong evidence from the medical profession to the effect that, with proper sex education in schools and the availability of contraception, there had been a considerable move away from abortion on the grounds that it was unnecessary.

In previous debates, particularly those in 2013 and 2014, there was a suggestion that women would automatically claim to be mentally unstable in order to avail of an abortion. That is not true at all. However, a woman could have a medical condition that, combined with being pregnant, could affect her quality of life and judgment. The courts have proven this in the meantime. In 2014, we were told that thousands of women would seek this option, but they have not. In the consecutive years since, the numbers have been approximately 25, 24 and 26.

All this clearly indicates that women do not seek to have an abortion just because they want one. There are compelling reasons and worries in their minds that they know they must deal with themselves. On this occasion, there has been a recognition that we need to do something.

The committee's recommendation is not abortion for all. Rather, it provides for something that has been happening in any event. Illegally, as matters currently stand, with all of the potential consequences of something going wrong. Society needs to take its share of the responsibility for addressing the issue and supporting those who are directly affected. We must attempt to ensure that we do not continue with the kind of attitude that society had in the past. If this debate continues and people take the judgment call seriously, the outcome will accord with their wishes. That will be something of which society can be proud.

See this speech in context