Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I was only acting on the request of one of the members of my Rural Independent Group who wanted to speak. He had to go to a funeral this evening in County Meath and said he would come back.

I am happy to speak on this most important topic. We have certainly seen some interesting developments in the past week, particularly with reference to the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, to which I used to belong at one time. While I respect his right to have a personal view on this matter it seems extraordinary for a leader to call for a respectful debate and then proceed to disrespect the majority of those at his own Ard-Fheis and his parliamentary party. He also called for a non-divisive debate but in the same breath seems to have split his own party. These are certainly strange times.

I have sat here and listened to the contributions other Deputies have made, and that is why I did not want to speak until late into the debate. As a member of the committee I said I would sit here throughout the debate, and I did, until it concluded. Some speakers have been nothing short of contemptuous and sectarian in a manner that would not have been out of place in the most bigoted loyalist diatribe of 50 years ago. Thankfully, most of us have moved on from such bitter and blatant hatred masquerading as compassion. Others continued to parrot the worst stereotypes about the Catholic Church at the same time as they managed to completely avoid what this debate is really about.

What I have found to be truly disturbing, and indeed chilling, however, is the total lack of reference to the unborn child. Speeches that went on for over ten minutes managed to avoid all reference to the reality of the child in the womb. That was incredible. We are here debating whether we will permit the intentional destruction of an innocent child's life up to the first three months of its existence and yet we will not face that fact. However, it is a fact that must be faced. It is a brutal fact that what we are now proposing is that for any reason whatsoever, a child's life may be ended up to 12 weeks. Can anyone explain to me the rationale for 12 weeks? Why not 13 weeks or 20 weeks? We must face up to what we are doing.

Much of what I have to say has been outlined in the minority report I, along with Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick of Fine Gael and Senator Ronán Mullen, an Independent, issued prior to the Christmas recess. To my mind, the committee has produced what may have been seen as the most dangerous and extreme set of proposals ever formulated in terms of attacking the fundamental right to life of the unborn child. From the outset, it was clear the preference among the majority of the committee members for the repeal of the eighth amendment and the legalisation of abortion in this State had the potential to obstruct the proper fulfilment by the committee of the mandate given to it by the Dáil and the Seanad. It was stressed to the committee that the mandate given to it by the Dáil and the Seanad was to consider the report and recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and that, therefore, there should be an opportunity to consider in detail the approach taken by the Citizens' Assembly to its work and the strengths and weaknesses in that regard. There was little support for this among the committee members and the view of the minority group was that the majority wished only to examine how the main thrust of the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations should be implemented.

In our view, the Chairperson had a duty to remind the committee, notwithstanding the various personal views of members, of the need to ensure a thorough consideration of issues given that the vital issues of justice, human rights and personal welfare were at stake. We are disappointed that this did not happen at any stage. Instead, much was made by the Chairperson and other members of the need to avoid repeating the work of the Citizens’ Assembly.

We believe that this revealed a troubling mindset. It was more of a priority to deliver a report by 20 December, without too much inconvenience to members, than to thoroughly consider questions on which lives would depend in future. Yet, despite this desire to avoid repeating the work of the Citizens’ Assembly, the committee later saw fit to embark on a question which was, at most, only tangentially dealt with by the Citizens’ Assembly, namely, the question of whether abortion should be decriminalised.

On the basis of not wanting to repeat the work of the Assembly, the consensus was that the committee would not hear from advocacy groups, but mainly from experts. We opposed this exclusion but, to our surprise and disappointment, the committee went on to invite numerous well-funded international pro-abortion advocacy groups and abortion providers. The only pro-life group invited was One Day More, and that was to present the other side of the arguments presented by the group Termination for Medical Reasons.

The extraordinary imbalance in the list of invited guests in favour of abortion was a problem from the start, which was pointed out by pro-life members. This problem arose because the abortion-supporting majority on the committee did not see it as necessary or desirable to hear expert testimony on issues such as the human rights case for the eighth amendment, seen from the perspective of the Irish State having regard to the current provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann; whether, as has been claimed, the eighth amendment has contributed to Ireland having a significantly lower than average abortion rate compared to abortion jurisdictions and to the saving of thousands of lives as a result, I believe up to 5,000 per year, since it was inserted in the Constitution at the will of the people; the experiences of families who believed that the lives of some of their loved ones had been saved by the eighth amendment; and the evolution of an abortion culture in countries where abortion had been legalised.

Having regard to the manifest majority in favour of legalised abortion among committee members, pro-life members made it clear at all times that it was not the job of us in the pro-life minority to secure a list of experts who would ensure that all issues were examined thoroughly. That was the responsibility of the Chairperson, Senator Noone, supported by the secretariat, and we believe this responsibility was not met by any yardstick. Nonetheless, several names were proposed by us. Some of these were rejected, contributing further to the imbalance in the perspectives presented.

Any independent analysis of the invited speakers and the recommendations that they made shows a clear ideological preference for legalised abortion among the vast majority. This applies also in the case of some invited speakers who spoke from a position of medical expertise but who did not confine themselves to providing expert evidence and instead offered personal opinions that went far beyond the scope of their expertise.

Despite concerns expressed repeatedly by the three pro-life members, there was not sufficient time allowed to properly examine invited speakers-committee witnesses. This concern was never accepted by the Chairperson and there was never any proposal to extend the time available for questioning. That was all the more of a problem because of the strong tendency of invited witnesses to support legalised abortion. The allocation of extra minutes occasionally and on a grace-and-favour basis cannot be considered as an acceptable resolution of the problem given the profound importance of the issues at stake.

When the committee pre-emptively voted to recommend that the eighth amendment be removed or changed, and I mean pre-emptively - everybody could see that - without waiting to hear from all the invited speakers, much less to hear from a balanced ticket of speakers, this confirmed that the link between the evidence being heard and the conclusions the committee would reach would be, at best, loose. I pointed out that it was like a court case where somebody was on trial - it could be anybody - and after hearing only half the evidence the jury foreman approaches the justice and says, "We have heard enough; we will give our result now".

The committee’s decision to vote pre-emptively has been defended repeatedly by the Chairperson despite its being an objectively hasty, ill-considered and prejudicial move. We believe that is unfortunate. It was only when pro-life members drew public attention to the biased attitudes and processes within the committee that the Chair, backed by the secretariat, made belated attempts to invite a small number of pro-life voices. It should be noted that the number of such people by then proposed was small and tokenistic and would in no way rectify the imbalance complained of. It is significant that one of the speakers the committee invited was a person who had earlier been proposed by me but rejected. The committee did not choose to hear from him at first but, in the light of criticisms of the lack of balance, an effort to secure his participation was now under way. We believed this was revealing.

A second belated invitee, the group Both Lives Matter, had previously offered to appear before the committee after its work in highlighting the number of abortions prevented as a result of Northern Ireland’s more restrictive laws had been discussed briefly at the committee. This group’s offer was declined on the basis that advocacy groups were supposedly not being invited, despite pro-abortion advocacy groups like the Irish Family Planning Association, the New York based Center for Reproductive Rights, and the largest abortion provider in the United Kingdom, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, being invited.

However, the group was later invited after public attention was drawn to the imbalance among invitees. It is not surprising that the small number of pro-life groups invited belatedly to give evidence declined to do so. From their correspondence with the committee, it was clear they felt they were being used to give token respectability to a process which had already jumped ahead to decide on critical issues. We cannot disagree with their view of the situation. In fact, I and others attempted to have the letters they wrote to the committee read into the record, but that was denied by the Chairman. Hearing what they had to say was denied.

I have a note on a case to which I was very close. It is important that we recognise the fact that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates and is one of the safest places in the world to give birth. It is important that we do not confuse unfortunate medical failings with the lifesaving eighth amendment, which strives to protect both lives. Women’s lives are saved from complicated and emergency pregnancy situations day in and day out in our maternity hospitals. Women receive all the treatment necessary to save their lives, including the termination of pregnancy if required. The only difference is that the aim of the eighth is to save both lives. Four years ago today, my own daughter’s life was saved when her pregnancy became complicated by severe pre-eclampsia. Thankfully, my granddaughter, Amy-Berry, was delivered, ten weeks early. My granddaughter almost lost her life as a result of being delivered so early but thankfully both lives were saved. It is a story which demonstrates precisely the aim of the eighth amendment. I wish my granddaughter a very happy and peaceful birthday. I thank the medical and maternity staff of South Tipperary General Hospital and Cork University Hospital and salute staff all over the country for the gallant work they do in these situations every day.

In view of the failure of the committee to consider certain issues and the partial nature of the evidence heard on other issues, we have chosen to give a fuller treatment to issues not fully considered by the committee. We recommend the retention of the eighth amendment on the grounds that it protects both mother and unborn child, does not endanger top quality medical care for women and unborn children in pregnancy and is consistent with the best standards in the protection of human rights and human dignity. In the last few weeks, there has been much talk and apparently a lot of sincere concern about one recommendation of the committee in particular. I refer to the so-called "12 week limit without restriction as to reason" which was introduced by the Fianna Fáil members and then accepted by the majority of the members. This was despite the fact that the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis voted overwhelmingly a week earlier to retain the eighth amendment and not to undermine the right to life that it guarantees.

There is one thing that must be made absolutely clear: all of the debate about what will and what will not be acceptable in a post repeal scenario is a complete and utter distraction from the main point. I emphasise that. If the repeal of the eighth amendment happens, albeit I do not believe it will, there will be absolutely nothing to stop the Oireachtas in any future iteration from introducing as permissive an abortion regime as it sees fit. I have the privilege to have been elected to sit here currently and whoever is elected to a future Oireachtas will have the same privilege. However, they will be able to introduce whatever legislation they see fit. Only the power of the Constitution can prevent this State from descending into a situation like that of the UK where there is de factoabortion on demand and where 200,000 unborn children lose their lives each and every year.

It has been observed that a common argument put forward by those who advocate the repeal of the pro-life amendment is that the Constitution is no place to deal with the complexities of abortion. Better by far to leave all of that to the wisdom of the Legislature, so the reasoning goes. While not entirely unsurprising, the fact that this has generated a certain kind of credibility is quite bewildering. It is a view that has been reiterated on several occasions. As has also been noted:

One can only wonder if any of those who advance this position have ever actually opened their copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann or even taken the time to acquaint themselves with the many other Amendments that now form part of its text. [An Taoiseach referred to some of these recently]. If they had done so they might perhaps, have been more circumspect in adopting the 'too complex for the Constitution' line. What about children's rights? [We had that referendum some years ago and legislation passed here, inserted in the Constitution]. There is now an explicit children's rights provision in the Constitution, even though the topic of children's rights is extremely complex. [It is very complex as any of us who have children or grandchildren know]. What all of this demonstrates is, and I quote “not that abortion or the right to life is too complex for the constitution. What it demonstrates is that it is the ‘wrong’ kind of complexity [for some of the people here]. By all means let us keep complex amendments that liberals like. But by no means let us keep the Eighth [That is the hypocrisy and double standards]. That is the clear reasoning at work here. Sure we can hold summits [the Taoiseach is in Davos], conduct pan-European debates, engage with the entire EU political class to canvass for a certain treaty outcome; but try and figure out how to keep or 'ratify' a fundamental human right in the Constitution? Sorry, you're on your own, it's just too hard. [A party I was involved with campaigned twice on treaties that were rejected]. In an appalling dereliction of duty, the Committee chose to cut the knot of complexity rather than make any attempt to unfold it in a life affirming manner. [That is my belief, that it decided to cut the knot of complexity rather than make any attempt to unfold it in a life-affirming manner, sadly]. It is a lazy parliamentary hubris masquerading as serious critique.

As our minority report puts it:

Bunreacht na hÉireann is the basic legal text of the Irish State, within which all fundamental rights are protected, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, the right to private property, the right to a fair trial, etc. Constitutions are the correct place to secure and protect fundamental rights.

It is time to call out the majority of committee members on their "too complex for the Constitution" line.

To return to a point I made earlier, but which I think needs repeating, the focus on the so-called "12 week limit" is utterly disingenuous and amounts to little more than a grotesque exercise in PR designed to obscure some of the more distasteful realities that the report recommends. For example, while the committee report in its section dealing with foetal abnormalities did not technically recommend that the law should provide for the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality, or what I call "life-limiting condition", it nevertheless left the option for such terminations to occur on other grounds, such as those of a purported threat to the physical or mental health of the mother. These recommendations have thus created a gaping legislative loophole that will directly permit the targeting of unborn children who have been diagnosed with severe life-limiting conditions at late gestational ages. By their very nature, loopholes never explicitly mention the abusive purposes for which they can be used. Recently, we had a budget debate on the Finance Bill. No tax loophole, for example, ever says "this way to tax avoidance". The same is true here.

Submitting a human being's right to life to a democratic vote is to my mind the very opposite of genuine democracy. It is, in point of fact, an utterly totalitarian impulse. If we put even a fraction of the effort into trying to tease out the life saving benefits and possibilities of the eighth amendment that we have put into undermining it, we might not feel this great sense of inevitability about abortion. The child in the womb cries out for our protection and our care. The eighth amendment is a reflection of what an authentic human rights culture can look like.

We should not allow it to be tainted or destroyed by those who will not stop until every last protection for the unborn child is removed. Is that really who we want to align ourselves with?

There are many more aspects of this debate I could have mentioned, such as the total absence of gestational limits under mental health grounds in the report. I have been asked not to say this but many Down's syndrome families have contacted me because of the stance taken by their CEO. I could have mentioned the fact that 90% of Down's syndrome children in the UK are aborted or the fact that since the UK introduced its abortion law 50 years ago, a law which is mirrored in the report's recommendations, almost 9 million unborn lives have been lost. Is that where we want to be in 50 years? This is an opportunity to assert we will not tread that path, that we choose a culture of life, the life of both mother and baby, and that we will not rush headlong into a culture of death from which there can be no return.

See this speech in context