Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This week's debate is the first step in a process which should lead to a referendum in a few months. There is as yet no clarity on important pieces of legal advice which can only be obtained from the Government. Nonetheless, this is a very important debate and I am grateful to be able to make a contribution. First and foremost, this is an opportunity for each of us to explain how we are going to approach the fundamental decisions which we must take in the months ahead. We must do this not just as legislators but also as citizens and members of a diverse society. Abortion is not an issue on which a unanimous opinion is possible. Radically opposing opinions on the issue are held with great passion, conviction and sincerity. A basic challenge for us is to do everything possible to enable a respectful debate to take place, a debate in which no one will be afraid to add his or her voice and in which we acknowledge the goodwill of people with whom we disagree.

The position of the Fianna Fáil Party is that each member is entitled to vote in accordance with his or her own conscience. I thank my colleagues for the manner in which they have ensured discussions between us have been constructive and focused on answering the many substantive questions which have arisen. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the five Fianna Fáil members of the Oireachtas joint committee. Each one has devoted considerable time not only to contributing at the committee but also to talking to colleagues about the evidence provided. I believe the committee carried out its work well and that it was appropriate for it to seek to concentrate on the expert evidence. In the fact finding stage of a debate that is the right thing to do, rather than emphasise the advocacy which can too often prevent real debate later. The evidence heard by the committee has helped to clarify many issues and focused on the substance of the specific changes to policy we should make and the specific legislative changes required to implement them. I thank the committee for its work and gathering evidence from such a wide range of sources.

In deciding on my position I have read the committee's report, the transcripts of its hearings and written submissions. Most importantly, I have sought to listen to the diverse contributions of women. I am very grateful to the many people who have come to me to give their opinion and colleagues for taking the time to discuss different points. It is unfortunate that the Government has not yet completed work which is necessary to enable us to be more specific on wordings and legislation. However, there is more than enough information available for each of us to be able to decide our attitude to the core recommendations of the committee on the need for a constitutional referendum and the changes that should be made following a referendum.

Those elected to this House carry a responsibility to find a balance between beliefs which should be made law and those which should guide his or her personal actions alone. We must each question how far we are willing to go to impose our personal beliefs on others. During the years I have been on record as being against a significant change in our abortion laws. I did so on a belief that this was the most effective way of affirming the importance of the unborn. While I have supported different proposals to clarify the law and address the threat to the life of the mother, I have been broadly in favour of the law as enabled by the eighth amendment. However, I believe we each have a duty to be willing to question our own views, be open to different perspectives and respond to new information. On an issue as profoundly important as this we must all struggle with complex and discomforting medical and ethical issues. If our views change, the facts become clearer, we come to understand properly the impact of a policy on others, we must be willing to act accordingly.

No one can dispute the fact that thousands of Irish women have an abortion every year. For the significant majority, that means a journey to Britain – often alone and always separated from the support of their medical professionals. For many, a crisis can become a deep and hidden trauma. As the master of the Rotunda Hospital informed the committee, these journeys can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of the women involved. As has been said in earlier contributions, in an increasing number of cases abortions are happening here. The availability of pills which can cause an abortion in the first 70 days of a pregnancy is widespread and growing and that is not going to change. Therefore, it is untrue to say the issue before us is whether there will be abortion in Ireland. The eighth amendment does not mean that Ireland is a country without abortion. Retaining the eighth amendment will not make Ireland a country without abortion. Nothing we say or do here could make it a country without abortion.

It is also not the case that where legal abortion is provided, there is one international approach to what is allowed. Countries differ significantly in their legislation and also the prevalence of abortion. Rates of abortion appear to link more with societal and cultural issues rather than legal limits. In fact, research published in the medical journal The Lancetindicates that some countries have seen a reduction in the number of abortions following liberalisation. The Oireachtas joint committee considered similar evidence from the World Health Organization. The likely cause of this was the fact that women became far more likely to engage with support services at a time of crisis. Fundamentally, there appears to be no sound basis for pointing to other countries and saying Ireland will become like them iin changing its laws. The war of claim and counter claim on statistics serves no positive purpose in this debate. What we know for sure is that the adoption of the eighth amendment was intended to remove this issue from the courts and the Oireachtas. It was claimed that it would give certainty, but the growing list of cases both in the courts here and international courts has shown that this never happened. Women known to the public only by a single letter of the alphabet have exposed the cruel inflexibility and unintended consequences of the eighth amendment.

I have always admired the work of obstetrics professionals. I believe their incredible dedication and high standards have helped to dramatically improve care for women and children in hospitals. Individually and as a profession, they are absolutely focused on the care of those in their trust. Their evidence to the committee and elsewhere has had a deep impact on me. There is, of course, no single viewpoint in the profession, but the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is clear in pointing to the impact of the current law. The institute's chairperson has said the amendment has given rise to "significant difficulties for doctors practicing in Ireland and has caused grave harm to women, including death." That is something we simply cannot ignore. We all remember the sense of national shock at the death of Savita Halappanavar six years ago. She was a 31-year-old, healthy medical professional who had experienced difficulties during a pregnancy. In the inquiry into her death the current law stood indicted for leading to a situation where her care was not as responsive or urgent as it should have been.

Other cases have revealed a situation where the law has gone to extreme lengths in the attempt to force women to go to full term with a pregnancy and it has done so even where the public has been horrified by the implications. If a family is told of a fatal abnormality during a pregnancy, the law, as it stands and is required to be under the eighth amendment, states they can do nothing. Under threat of a criminal sentence, they must carry the pregnancy to full term, irrespective of the potentially devastating impact it will have. Without constitutional change, it is not possible to address that issue. That is also the case where a woman has been the victim of rape or incest. The law is blind to the permanent damage to the woman which might be caused in being forced to carry the pregnancy to full term, again under the threat of committing a criminal offence.

There are women who choose freely to carry such pregnancies to term, and for them the law is not relevant. They have a right to be respected for their decision and to be given all the support they need. For many others, however, the law represents a cruel victimisation of women at perhaps the most traumatic moment of their lives. The law, as it stands, denies them the comfort of basic respect and humanity.

Of course, many in these situations choose to travel to have an abortion overseas. When they do this, they do it without the active support of their own doctors, enduring further trauma, incurring serious costs and risking further damage to their mental and physical health. If we are sincere in our compassion for women and if we are sincere in respecting their choices, then we must act.

The eighth amendment has been shown to cause real damage to Irish women. It has caused real harm to the quality of care available to pregnant women at critical moments. It has not and cannot change the reality that abortion is a present and permanent part of Irish life. It seeks to force women to carry a pregnancy to term when they have been the victim of a rape or incest, or when they have received the diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality. It requires that pregnant women and doctors must face criminal sanctions. It prevents us from responding in a humane way to help women in the most traumatic situations. For these reasons and following a long period of reflection and assessment of evidence before the Oireachtas committee, I believe that we should remove the eighth amendment from Bunreacht na hÉireann, and I will vote accordingly.

There remains a significant issue concerning whether we should simply remove the amendment or replace it. Before deciding on this, I would like to see the legal advice that the Government says is being prepared. I feel it is likely, however, that we may need to agree a replacement that gives certainty to the Oireachtas's right to legislate. This need not be a complex provision but it may be the only way to prevent significant unintended consequences in future court cases, which are inevitable.

If a referendum is passed, there will have to be legislation. I fully agree with the idea that we must set out in detail for the public the legislation that the Dáil will debate if the people decide to repeal the eighth amendment. I support the logic and the basic approach proposed by the committee, but I want to see proposals about how it might operate and to hear from the Government about the legal advice which it has sought. I agree that there is no legal, practical or humane way to prove rape or incest early on in a pregnancy. Equally, it is clear that the reality of the abortion pill means we are no longer talking about a procedure that involves the broader medical system during the early stages of pregnancy. We must have a system which actively encourages women to seek support from medical professionals as soon as possible. As such, I support the idea of a time-based cut-off near the end of the first trimester. Beyond this, I believe we should make provision for cases of fatal foetal abnormality and serious threats to the health of the mother. The 2013 Act has proven yet again that we can trust our medical professionals and the women who seek their help to respect legal limitations. The claims that the 2013 Act would allow the introduction of UK-style laws have been fully disproven. As such, I believe mechanisms similar to those in place for threats to the life of the mother can be applied in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities and a serious threat to the health of the mother where she does not wish to go to term. These decisions must include multiple medical opinions and a high level of oversight.

If the constitutional requirement to have criminal sanctions to enforce the eighth amendment is removed, we should immediately review how we enforce remaining restrictions. The decisions we will take in the coming months are complex and emotional. The challenge every one of us faces is to consider fundamental issues, and to find a balance between our personal beliefs and the laws we require others to follow. We are also obliged to consider the realities of society today and the many profound concerns that people have with the operation of an amendment adopted over a third of a century ago. The case for change is justified by the full range of evidence available to us, and I will vote for this change.

See this speech in context