John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In a previous contribution on this topic I outlined my own views in favour of repeal of the eighth amendment.

I want once more to thank my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, for having had the wisdom and foresight some years ago to grasp that the issue of abortion and the right to life of the unborn are matters of conscience for members of Fianna Fáil, and for allowing each party member elected to the Oireachtas the freedom and space to articulate his or her own position on the matter without being subject to a party Whip.

I will start by mentioning the ancillary recommendations of the Oireachtas committee, which are included in chapter 3 of its report. They have been much overlooked in the debate. These recommendations deal with the provision of the most effective method of contraception free of charge, and having regard to personal circumstances, to all people who wish to avail of it within the State. The committee was of the opinion that there is a clear link between effective sex education and lower levels of crisis pregnancy. I support that and equally support the committee's recommendation that all women should have access to the same standard of obstetric care, including early scanning, testing and anomaly scans, irrespective of their geographic location and having regard to their socioeconomic status. I also support the committee's contention that improvements should be made to counselling and support facilities for women during and after pregnancy, including post termination, and that perinatal hospice services should be made available to women who require them. I strongly endorse those recommendations of the committee which, as I have said, have often been overlooked and constituted a considerable part of the work the committee undertook.

My party decided on a free vote of conscience on this issue some years ago. It is worth dwelling on the idea of a free vote momentarily. We should not take the notion of it for granted because free votes are rarely permitted by parties or groupings in most European or Westminster-style parliaments. They are also extremely rare in Ireland, with only four free votes having been identified since 1970. Free votes remove the comfort of hiding behind a party Whip on an issue and demand of everyone a clear indication of where they stand. So it is with the issue before Members today.

In today's debate, Members are considering Second Stage of the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018. The Government has introduced a Bill which, if passed, will give the people of Ireland the chance to vote in a referendum on what we all accept has become one of the most vexatious and debated parts of the Constitution. The Bill gives the people of Ireland the ultimate say on whether Article 40.3.3° ought to retained or repealed. This point is worth dwelling on and is worthy of particular emphasis.

As I mentioned in a previous contribution on the matter, there has been much debate as to the make-up and outcome of the deliberations of the Citizens' Assembly on this matter. There has indeed been some criticism of the manner in which the assembly was constituted in terms of its membership. Following on from that, there was further criticism of the manner in which the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution conducted its business, and accusations of bias in a particular direction, particularly as regards witnesses who were invited to give evidence to the committee. In my view, all those arguments, some of which may or may not have had validity, were waved aside once the work of the Oireachtas committee was presented to this Dáil, the democratically-elected citizens’ assembly. Those who had criticisms to make, whether of the composition of the Citizens’ Assembly or witness attendance at the Oireachtas committee, have been able to articulate those criticisms forcefully in this House and have done so. Once the debate entered this Chamber, those who felt their voices were ignored or that their views were not given equal weight to contrasting views had, and will have next week and beyond, the opportunity to clearly express their views in an unfettered way. They have done so, passionately and cogently.

The matter will eventually go before the people for ultimate adjudication. Each side, in advance of the referendum, will be guaranteed equal access to, and opportunity for, the presentation of its arguments. Finally, on referendum day, after due consideration of the matters at hand, as is proper in a republic, the people will be asked to adjudicate on the matter. The vote of each citizen will have equal weight and my own vote and that of each Member here will be no more or less important than that of any other citizen.

I find absolutism on this matter difficult to reconcile with my own life and my experience of life. I have always regarded myself as pro-life and still do. I am conflicted by many aspects of the debate, however. As I said on another occasion, I find it difficult to accept the extremes articulated at opposite ends of the spectrum of discussion: on the one hand the view that completely ignores the unborn and on the other the viewpoint that ignores the rights of women. I do know this much, though; if, as a man, I was capable of being impregnated, there are circumstances in which I would feel entitled to a say in whether that pregnancy was brought to fruition. In such circumstances, having exercised my conscience, I would have to accept and live with the consequences of that conscious decision and reconcile myself to it. However, I would like the choice in certain circumstances. Clearly, it is unnecessary to outline why such a choice does not apply to me. However, paradoxically, as a legislator I find myself in the position of having the power to determine the choices women make in such circumstances. If I would like the right to choice in such hypothetical circumstances, I feel compelled to recognise the rights of women in real circumstances.

In Ireland now, as the law exists, a risk to the health of the woman is insufficient to justify a legal termination. The Oireachtas committee concluded that some change is needed in the law. Given the ebb and flow of public debate in the last 30 years, the cultural and societal changes that have taken place, and the practice in other countries as outlined by Deputy Kelleher this morning, many of which have cultural and religious contexts not dissimilar to our own, it is difficult to counter that conclusion. It is difficult to counter it specifically in the contexts of rape, fatal foetal abnormality and incest. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 provides protection for women only where there is a real threat to the life of a woman including a threat of suicide, but not to her health. The Citizens’ Assembly recommended that the termination of pregnancy that is the result of rape be lawful up to a 22-week gestational limit. The Oireachtas committee rejected this gestational period in favour of a period of up to 12 weeks.

I believe that it should be lawful to terminate a pregnancy that is the result of rape or other sexual assault, if a woman so chooses. I trust women. Furthermore if, as a man, I was biologically capable of being in such a position, I would feel entitled such a choice. As a legislator, I find myself determining whether women have that choice. I share the committee’s recommendation that it would be unreasonable to insist on the reporting of rape as a precondition for exercising any right to terminate a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or sexual assault. I also subscribe to the committee’s view that there is a need to avoid the further traumatisation of a victim of rape or sexual assault.

In the case of foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death either shortly before or shortly after birth, the Citizens' Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful without gestational limit. As many Members have reminded us, the issue of fatal foetal abnormality concerns a much-wanted pregnancy and not an unwanted pregnancy. The Oireachtas committee recommended that it should be lawful to terminate a pregnancy without gestational limit where the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth. I trust women and I share the committee’s recommendation with respect to this provision, if a woman so chooses. Not all women may exercise this choice. The idea does not sit well with me that a woman with a much-wanted pregnancy who is faced with that traumatic diagnosis and who chooses to terminate must, under existing law, travel to undergo a termination and all the concomitant issues associated with it.

I and my colleagues recognise that this is a challenging issue for people. The people are entitled to be consulted. For most, it is a decision of conscience.

Thankfully we live in a democracy, which entitles the people to the final and ultimate say as to whether or not Article 40.3.3° should be repealed or retained as it is. For me, the answer is clear: Article 40.3.3° needs to be repealed and the Oireachtas, the democratically elected citizens' assembly, empowered to legislate a way forward for women should that repeal be successful. I support the repeal of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution for the reasons outlined, and I support the findings of the Oireachtas committee in this regard, particularly as they relate to cases of rape, incest and fatal feotal abnormality.

I repeat my previously expressed views that my party has always been a warm home for people who have pro-life views, as are many parties in this House. The decision, made some years ago, by the party leader to allow a free vote of conscience on the issue has afforded all of the members of the party the opportunity to express individual and personal views on the issue. My free decision is to support the repeal of Article 40.3.3° for the reasons I have outlined.

See this speech in context