Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on one of the most important issues to come before this House since I became a Member of the 32nd Dáil. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution published its report on Wednesday, 20 December 2017. The committee's report reflected the majority position of its membership, with dissenting positions and voting records set out in the report. I was not a member of the committee. However, from the outset I engaged with the process by reading as many of the transcripts and by watching as many witnesses as I could and by reading both the majority and minority reports over Christmas. It was clear there was not a consensus in the committee.

On 29 January 2018 the Government approved the holding of a referendum on Article 40.3.3° before the end of May 2018, subject to the timely passage of a constitutional amendment Bill on the matter by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be a matter for the Irish people to consider and determine by way of referendum whether to amend the Constitution. Today, we are debating the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018. It is a short Bill. Probably for anybody not used to reading Bills, and I was not used to reading them up to two years ago, it is a little bit complicated on the first page:

An Act to amend the Constitution.

Whereas by virtue of Article 46 of the Constitution any provision of the Constitution may be amended in the manner provided by that Article.

We move on a couple of pages and it comes to the substantive issue. Part 2 of the Schedule to the Bill states, in English: "3° Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy". For anybody listening today or watching and wondering what will they be voting on in the referendum, that is exactly what they will be voting on: "3° Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy".

I would like to continue the respectful debate of this very emotional matter. It is a very emotional matter. Any modern democracy should be capable of debating this in a respectful way. I refer to trying to address genuine concerns while preserving the life of the unborn child. As a Fianna Fáil Deputy I will state my position. I am thankful I am in a party where I can express this and follow a vote of conscience. It is very important to me and I have been consumed by this topic for quite a while. I accept my position will differ from others - I accept that - but I hope others can accept my position because I have learned to accept other people's positions. We have managed to be very respectful to each so far.

I made my position clear before I ever entered the 32nd Dáil. The people of Waterford knew how I stood before I became a councillor and a Deputy. I want to continue to support the unborn child's place in the Constitution. I am against repealing the eighth amendment. I was on the record from the very start saying I support a referendum. We live in a democracy. People are entitled to a vote and a say on this. I do accept that it has been 35 years since people got the opportunity to vote. However, if what I was asked to vote on tomorrow or Thursday said quite clearly am I in favour of a referendum, "yes" or "no", I would be able to answer that question with "yes", I am in favour of a referendum.

However, if it is whether I am in favour of a referendum where provision may be made by law for the regulation of the termination of pregnancy, I will not be able to vote "yes" to that. I am probably a little bit premature saying it because the vote will probably be taken on a Wednesday or Thursday, but that is my clear position. The committee recommended that the law should be amended to permit termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason. I have grappled with the words "provided it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks" or three months. I keep going back to the phrase "with no restriction as to reason". I will be honest in saying that I cannot understand how anybody can propose, "with no restriction as to reason", to end a 12 week-old baby being carried by a mother. It really bothers me that the life of the unborn child is thought of so little that I could be 11 and a half weeks pregnant, go along to my GP, say I no longer wished to be pregnant, be asked why and I could say that I had no reason. I could say that I did not want to be pregnant, I no longer wished to carry that baby and, if this law is implemented and this referendum is passed, the doctor could turn around and hand me a box of abortion pills.

I could then go home and end the life of that 11 and a half week old baby which I am carrying. I just cannot understand the term "with no restriction as to reason" and how we have come to this.

This will go beyond the position in Britain where the Abortion Act 1967 still requires two doctors to form the opinion in good faith that an abortion is necessary to prevent a risk to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman. We all know this law is applied in such a way as to provide abortion on demand with one in every five pregnancies in Britain ending in abortion. That is 200,000 abortions performed in Britain every year with stronger laws than were proposed by the Citizens' Assembly. Currently in Ireland, one in approximately every 15 pregnancies, unfortunately, ends in abortion. I was also struck when I discovered that three fifths of people in England who have an abortion will go on to have a second abortion. That really fails me.

I still feel a premature vote was taken by the committee on 18 October 2017 when it decided, not by a majority, that Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. I remember thinking that night that it was job done, pull down the shutters and close the curtains. The decision was made without hearing all the viewpoints or all the witnesses. Why would one do that on the third week of witnesses appearing before the committee? Why would the committee not wait to hear all sides of the story? I was concerned and saddened at that stage. There has been much criticism that the committee was biased. I have sat on many committees myself. It takes up much time and the majority of people who sit on committees do so in good faith. One has to be shown the relevant facts in both sides of an argument. When looking at the number of different witnesses who presented before the committee, there was a bias regarding the number of people who presented from a pro-life ethos as against a pro-choice ethos. I do not blame any of the members present. I chair a committee myself and one has to have a fair and balanced approach. I do not think that happened with this committee, however. We are not trying to put people in boxes. I feel, however, that the pro-life opportunity was not presented as well as it should have been at the committee at that stage.

During the committee's meetings, I was also struck by how often the committee used the word "foetus". I do not think I have ever heard a word used quite as often. I am lucky enough to have three children. My youngest is 12 years old. I often remember walking down the street when people would say, "Congratulations Mary, you are expecting a baby." I never heard anybody on any occasion tell me, "Congratulations Mary, you are expecting a foetus." It is so much easier when one is talking about a bunch of cells or a foetus. We have to be quite clear, however, that we are speaking about the life of the unborn child. Everything to be found in a fully grown person is formed in a baby at eight weeks in the womb. At 11 weeks, a baby in the womb has fingerprints and its fingernails appear. At 12 weeks, the baby's lips open and close, it turns its head and can leap around the womb. I am not a member of a pro-life group or the Iona Institute. I am a person who has formulated my own opinions. I stand proudly here tonight articulating them.

Another point which disappointed me about the committee was that the only option it gave for a crisis pregnancy was abortion. I watched many hours of its proceedings. There was no or very little discussion of the option of adoption or fostering. There was little thought given to perinatal hospices for babies born with life-limiting conditions. A mother contacted me recently. She told me, unfortunately, her baby had been diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality, or as I would call it a life-limiting condition. She and her husband decided they would have their baby. She told me she will never forget the nine months that her baby lived. She will never forget holding that baby. Now, she has little lock of hair, the keepsakes and the grave to visit. I realise life is not simple for everyone. As I stand here tonight, people might think I have simplistic view. There are many people listening to this debate who are suffering crisis pregnancies. However, there are options and we must examine them. Forgetting the life of the unborn child in this debate is one thing I cannot do. The unborn child needs a voice. I am happy to be the voice of that unborn child. I have listened to numerous hours of debate. I might not have always been in the Chamber but I have listened. Unfortunately, the unborn child is the term we are not hearing about all too often. There cannot be only one solution to a crisis pregnancy. It cannot be the case that the only solution offered to a crisis pregnancy is abortion. Where are the wraparound supports for the babies and their parents?

Some 25 legal abortions were carried out in Ireland in 2017 under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 where the life of the mother was put first. We are living in a society where the life of a mother who presents at hospital can be put first. It has been put first in those instances. We must talk about that as well. There are different options open to us. One is a system which protects life in all its forms, from conception to natural death, and stands squarely and strongly behind those with crisis pregnancies.

I have heard many people talk over recent months that they have come on journeys. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that. People have come on journeys and changed their positions. I firmly believe in the journey of conception to birth. I firmly believe in the nine-month journey that when a baby is conceived, the baby deserves the right to life. I know we do not live in an ideal society. However, I am not happy with this perception that if somebody rapes a woman, they might only get seven years in jail but the woman who procures an abortion could be liable to 14 years in jail. I am open to correction on this but I have checked it. I am not aware of any one person in Ireland who has ever been prosecuted in the courts for procuring an abortion or procuring abortion pills. There are no records there. I am afraid that argument does not stand up for me.

On disabilities, we are told we have to stick to the facts. The facts are very clear. Not one child with Down's syndrome has been born in Iceland or Denmark in the past five years. These facts are clear as daylight and are there for everybody to see. The facts are also clear that in England 90% of all children diagnosed with Down's syndrome do not live and only 10% are born. Those facts are there. People can talk about truths and not giving out misinformation. That information is quite clear.

I have a little cousin, 16, who has Amsterdam syndrome. She has never walked or talked in her life. She has been tube-fed since the day she was born. She is a joy to behold, a Cheann Comhairle. I fervently believe she is as entitled to her right to life and to the love of her mother, father and brother as any other baby in this world is entitled to the right to life.

We have to be compassionate when it comes to issues like this. Unfortunately, a society has developed in countries of the world where children with disabilities are not respected as much as they should be, and where a termination or abortion seems to be the only way forward. That is where my worry starts.

I read with interest the policy paper approved and published by the Government on 8 March 2018, Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy. I was glad to get the policy paper because it sets out a lot of things quite clearly. Straight away, it deals with termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to health. What the committee proposed was up to 12 weeks in regard to rape and incest and in cases of fatal foetal abnormality. However, the policy paper states:

Policy 1: That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

Policy 2: That the General Scheme would make no distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

Policy 3: That two appropriate ... medical practitioners would be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

Therefore, we have already moved beyond what the committee had suggested. I am so afraid that what we are going to end up with in this country is what we have in England, which is abortion on demand. There is no point calling it anything other than that because it is abortion on demand, when there are 200,000 babies being aborted.

I did a little digging on different statistics because, at the end of the day, we want to get to the facts and get to the truth, and we do not want to be accused of putting forward false facts. When abortion was introduced in Portugal in 2007 the rate was 6.6% and within five years it was 17%. The only thing that tells me is that if abortion becomes available in this country, it will open the floodgates and, before we know it, we will have abortion on demand.

I want to set out the reason I will not be able to support this Bill when we decide on it on Wednesday or Thursday, and I want to reiterate the reason. I have no problem with people having their say. We live in a democracy and if the question that was put to us in the House was, "Are you in favour of a referendum - "Yes" or "No"?", I would clearly vote for a referendum. However, when the text of the Bill states, "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy", I am afraid I will not support that. Again, I would like to say I would never be in favour of stopping a beating heart.

See this speech in context