Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would like to start my contribution like so many others before me by commending the work of the eighth amendment committee, in particular its Chair, Senator Catherine Noone. I also commend the work of the Citizens' Assembly, which continues its deliberations on our Constitution and the matters surrounding it. I commend in particular the members of the eighth amendment committee who found it difficult. I appreciate the difficult conversations and evidence that was heard.

Their deliberations have, however, been repeatedly labelled as biased and I do not agree with that sentiment. Medical practitioners' evidence based on their experience and legal opinion is not bias. Quality will repeatedly beat quantity. It is a disrespectful argument to suggest otherwise. I would like to thank each member for the time and effort they spent debating this matter on behalf of all Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Due to space constraints which have been referenced on a number of occasions in regard to the media and Gallery in the committee room, I was not able to attend but I watched with great interest when my diary allowed. I must record my regret at having declined the invitation to participate in the committee. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but at the same time the members did a tremendous job.

Like many Members of the House and colleagues in my party, I was torn between head and heart in terms of the eighth amendment and a potential referendum. I want to take this opportunity to, as some of my colleagues have done, read the opinion of the Attorney General in 1983, Peter Sutherland, who passed away recently. He said:

Far from providing the protection and certainty which is sought by many of those who have advocated its adoption, it will have a contrary effect. In particular it is not clear as to what life is being protected; as to whether ‘the unborn’ is protected from the moment of fertilisation or alternatively is left unprotected until an independently viable human being exists at 25 to 28 weeks. Further, having regard to the equal rights of the unborn and the mother, a doctor faced with the dilemma of saving the life of the mother, knowing that to do so will terminate the life of ‘the unborn’ will be compelled by the wording to conclude that he can do nothing. Whatever his intention he will have to show equal regard for both lives, and his predominant intent will not be a factor. In these circumstances I cannot approve of the wording proposed. ...In the event that the Supreme Court is called upon to construe the proposal, it could come to a number of different conclusions as to the definition of the class which is afforded protection.

We know that the Supreme Court pierced the eighth amendment of the Constitution a number of years later. This was the flaw within it.

The Citizens' Assembly and committee have studied the issue a great deal and have recognised that it would be almost impossible for us to insert into the Constitution a provision which has been consistently indicated in polling as being acceptable to many in the State, namely, cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. However, it is very clear from their deliberations that it would not be feasible for us to insert a such a provision because consultants, including the masters of two maternity hospitals, explained how the complexity of health conditions would make it impossible for the medical practitioners in the performance of their duties if they had to have one eye on the Constitution and, perhaps, regulation should we insert a clause into the Constitution to allow for abortion in the three instances to which I referred.

It is clear from both reports that the eighth amendment has no place in our Constitution. I recently read the letters page in The Irish Timesand saw a letter from a constituent of mine whom I have met on a couple of occasions. I was struck by the letter because the person is in his late 80s. He is a former well known medical practitioner and was known as a pro-life advocate until a few years ago. I was very surprised that he indicated that it is, as I believe, that the eighth amendment has no place in the Constitution because it should be a matter for the Legislature on the basis that the complexities around pregnancy and human life in general cannot be dealt with by a blanket ban when there are so many examples and reasons why it is not appropriate to have the eighth amendment in place.

On Monday last, I listened to one of my colleagues break down during their contribution to the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party meeting, and then another and another. There was an unmistakable quiver in the voices of many contributors at that meeting, and again today and yesterday in the House. I listened to the passion about life and about equally, liberty and freedom of choice on both sides of the debate. In certain instances, one can learn a great deal from the expression on a person's face when one listens to, broadly speaking, raw and unbridled emotion. One hears stories of how torn are some Members of this House and the Seanad. We have listened to friends and relatives over the past number of weeks and months. It is very clear that they, like me, are torn between head and heart.

After the parliamentary party meeting on Monday, I lay awake until 5 a.m. or thereabouts. I was consumed by the cyclical argument that it is wrong for us to ship our women to the UK and further afield or expect them to buy a pill online, or worse, to carry a baby who will never breath, cry or hold his or her mother's hand. Even worse is to force someone to carry the child of a rapist or a pregnancy which is the result of incest. In these circumstances, we are expected to impose the views of those who voted 35 years ago on women of child bearing age today. That is wrong, and I believe I am not the only one who thinks so.

I would not have said any of this a few years ago, but I believe we can no longer accept that shipping women to the UK and further afield is acceptable nor is it acceptable to fail to provide proper health care to the women of Ireland when they come home.

How is it acceptable to us as a society to expect grieving parents to ship their baby home in a box? Where is the humanity or the Christianity in that?

Human life is precious but it is also extraordinarily complex. Sometimes, pregnancies go wrong. Undoubtedly, the eighth amendment has stopped women from availing of terminations and thus, it has saved lives. On other occasions, however, it has interfered with doctors in the performance of their duties and cost lives. We do not hear about the former but we hear very much about the latter in very tragic circumstances.

The other issue which is of concern to me and which both the Citizens' Assembly and the committee spent a great deal of time discussing was the prevalence of abortion pills. One UK provider stated that it had shipped approximately 1,800 pills to Ireland in 2016. Those pills are dangerous when used unsupervised, and we must regulate them in the public interest. That is our job. That is the job of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We should not and cannot shirk from that responsibility, but we cannot do that under Article 40.3.3°. We cannot regulate a pill which is readily available in every house in this country should people wish to go online and buy it. That could, potentially, result in a woman's death, or worse, the death of a woman with catastrophic consequences for her family, among other awful outcomes. Regardless of one's view on the morality of the situation or the views of those who voted in 1983, we have a scenario that did not exist then and it shows the futility of the constitutional ban. If we could remove the ban we could facilitate a proper medical and diagnostic analysis of those pills and we could make a decision to ban them, regulate them or limit their availability to medical practitioners who ultimately should be the ones who determine whether they should be made available. Allowing the situation to continue and for the pills to come into this country unfettered is completely wrong.

I clearly intend to vote in favour of the enabling Bill to allow the people of Ireland to determine the future of the eighth amendment. With no one person under the age of 53 ever having voted on this matter, I believe it is the minimum Members of this House should do because we are all democrats. The people own the Constitution and we are merely its custodians. We should let the people decide and take steps thereafter if they decide to repeal the eighth amendment. That is a decision for the Irish people. No doubt colleagues on both sides of this debate are under enormous pressure from their electors to vote against the enabling Bill whenever the wording is produced. The reality is that those who shout loudest are sometimes not in the majority on either side of the debate but the fundamental principle of living in this Republic with its ideals means that we should afford the opportunity to the people themselves to determine what should be in the Constitution. We are merely the custodians of the Constitution and we facilitate access to it from time to time to allow the people decide whether it should be changed. Therefore, we should do that.

I know of many of my colleagues who hold opposite views to my own on a constitutional ban on abortion will still facilitate the Bill. That takes great courage and I thank them for doing so. Even if they do not agree with my position I know some who will facilitate a vote.

I wish to touch upon the tone of this debate which has been almost entirely respectful. Members should be commended on that. Perhaps in vain, I hope that if the enabling Bill is passed, the public debate will be equally respectful. However, like some other speakers I wish to reference the content of some of the correspondence I have received of late, including one which greeted me when I randomly visited my constituency office last night. I will not read the entirety of it but I wish to reference one or two extracts for the purpose of illustration:

The pro-choice women in government can find a budget and an agenda to murder babies. Pro-choice women plan on emotionally manipulating the Irish people into facilitating murder. They plan to play with the electoral fears around pregnancy. You should hold your head in shame. You are a deceiver. You are a disgrace. These women - it is like panto season is alive and kicking in Dáil Éireann right now with the good, the bad and the downright dowdy. The women in government and on the Opposition benches are attempting to make a fool of all the women in this country. They think we are all stupid. You are living in cloud cuckoo land. I am pretty sure Kate, Claire, Bríd, etc., would not know how to spell the word love. The female snakes in government and opposition are plotting and scheming. Women who avail of abortions in the UK have no moral compass, are not happily married, have other deeply rooted issues in their psyche, are not happy with their lives. They do not know the meaning of the word love. They have chips on their shoulder. They are disgusting. How dare they? How dare you? Let's face it, they are female emotional manipulators and the men, you are gutless passengers. I am praying to the holy spirit to guide you.

That is not all from one email, it is from a few correspondents.

I thank my colleagues for listening to me, being respectful and not interrupting. I again thank the members of both the Citizens' Assembly and the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for their recommendations which, broadly speaking, are uniform with some small alterations. I sincerely hope that those who might be listening or will read the debate in this Chamber will understand that a ban on abortion has no place in the Constitution and that if there was to be an outright ban or a partial ban then it should be legislated for. We cannot ever foresee the events of the future but we can look to the past and assess and evaluate what has happened since 1983. Peter Sutherland suggested that life was viable at 25 to 28 weeks but in fact it is now viable at about 23 weeks because medical science has advanced extraordinarily. To me, that would mean that unless a baby had no chance of life outside of the womb there would be no particular reason for a termination to take place after 23 weeks if life was feasible thereafter. We are legislators put here by the people to make decisions on their behalf but sometimes we need to ask them to make a decision for us. That is why facilitating the passage of a Bill enabling a referendum on the Constitution is so important and critical to the future of this debate, which has troubled Members of this House and the Seanad for the past 30 years. I again thank those who have contributed to this discussion so far. I look forward to the production of the Bill enabling a referendum.

See this speech in context