Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Constitution was introduced in 1937 and voted on by the people then. This is the first time we have been asked to put forward a Bill which will take away the most fundamental of human rights from people, the right to life. I note much of the time in this debate that the child in the womb is not mentioned. It is as if it did not exist. It is as if its health and its well-being do not count. I have a firm belief that human life in all its manifestations should be protected. It is a liberal belief. For many centuries, some lives were considered more important than others. One of the great steps forward in the 20th century was that, irrespective of race, colour or gender, human rights became more and more protected in both national and international laws. What we are proposing to do here is to take 100% of the human rights and human protection in the Constitution away from the unborn, right up to birth.

There are people who believe that unborn children are not human beings. As a parent and a grandparent, as well as looking at science, I cannot go along with the theory that they are only potential human beings. Are we saying that the minute a child is born at 24 weeks it is a human being while another child in the womb at 30 weeks is not? It does not make rational sense. Accordingly, this proposal has much more fundamental ramifications in the long term when we start differentiating between humans than any proposal put before this House since I became a Member. We must, therefore, all think deeply on it.

I also believe it is absolutely important that we protect women. As somebody who has been happily married for many years, the closest person to me is a woman. Her good is paramount to me. Accordingly, I have always agreed with Supreme Court interpretation, which I always believed from the very beginning was the only rational one, that if medical intervention has to take place to save the life of the woman and, if as an unattended consequence that the child’s life is not saveable, then of course one intervenes.

Savita Halappanavar has been mentioned many times in this debate. Unfortunately, that event happened in my constituency. When one looks at the reports, however, it is quite clear that mismanagement was at the heart of that issue. If the only way of saving her life had been to intervene, of course the law allowed that intervention. What the Irish people have been asked to do is to give this House carte blancheinto the distant future into what it might do regarding abortion and, as developments take place that were already referenced to the people, that the House could do what it willed. Talking about Bills which might be proposed is of limited importance because once one opens the door here, there is no closing it again.

The Minister, Deputy Harris, mentioned the lonely place in which people find themselves for one reason or another in a difficult pregnancy.

I can fully understand those lonely places and empathise with that situation. However, we also have to remember there are many people who regret abortions, who do not live in a lonely place for a finite amount of time but who live with regret for the rest of their lives. Therefore, it is important, when we talk about this issue, that we think of the long-term consequences in terms of regret that could arise very easily out of this Bill. I know of very few parents but, more importantly, very few women who have had a baby and, when they see the reality of their child, have regretted it. I think most people would say that that has been their experience of life as well.

As I said, the Bill that might or might not be introduced is only what might happen in the next six months. It has, of course, no bearing or influence on what might happen in the future. Nonetheless, I think it is worth analysing what is proposed by the Government in the next six months. First, what is being proposed is basically a walk-in service to a GP in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. It has been seen through scans that, even after 12 weeks, the child in the womb is quite developed. Obviously, the question arises, if somebody develops a method of abortion that goes up to 15 or 16 weeks by some pill or some other method administered by a GP, does the logic follow that we allow the intervention on that basis up to 16 weeks? What is being proposed, once we go down this route, means there is no stopping where this is going.

Second, a lot of play is being made of the fact that 3,000 people go to England every year for abortions. Of course, we know that many of those people go for social reasons or for reasons of personal choice and not because of fatal foetal abnormalities or because of the very sad cases in terms of disability that people mention. Therefore, it is only rational that if one wants to stop people going to Britain, our law would have to mirror the British, because if there is a significant difference between the two, obviously, people can and will go to Britain. It is fair to say that this is basically what is being proposed by the Government, and I think it should say it quite clearly.

I was looking at the UK Abortion Act of 1967 which states it is not an offence to have an abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or any existing children of her family, greater than if pregnancy were terminated. It then goes on to talk about the risk to the child but let us focus on what it states. In other words, in Britain two doctors certify, and in 95% of the cases of abortion there, it is under this provision that abortions are sought and provided. I think most people would say it is effectively a walk-in service.

What the Government here is proposing to provide for in the document it published is as follows:

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...

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

Therefore, again, there is no distinction between physical and mental health. We know from Britain that the vast majority of abortions are carried out under the mental health provision. The document continues:

Policy 3: That two appropriate (i.e. appropriate to the clinical circumstances) 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.

The only difference between the two is that one would appear to be going to specify that if it related to mental health, one would have to get a medical practitioner who had a speciality in mental health, in other words, a psychiatrist, whereas, in Britain, it appears that is not specified. Otherwise, what is being proposed here is the exact same regime as in Britain, although I am not sure if this document gives us a limit.

Let us be clear what is being proposed and put that to the people. Let us be absolutely clear that, basically, we are introducing the same regime as pertains in Britain. To be honest, it is rational from the Government point of view to do that since its stated aim is to provide here in Ireland what people seek in Britain.

Mar a dúirt mé i mBéarla, seo í an cheist is tromchúisí a thiocfas os comhair na Dála i rith mo thréimhse mar Theachta Dála mar táimid ag baint buncheart de dhaoine daonna - gasúir sa mbroinn. Is buncheart é atá cosanta sa mBunreacht. Má ghlacfaimid leis an leasú seo dar le seachtar breithiúna den Chúirt Uachtarach ní bheidh cosaint dá laghad fágtha sa mBunreacht. Is cuma cé chomh forbartha a bheas gasúr, ní bheidh cosaint dá laghad fágtha sa mBunreacht don leanbh sa mbroinn. Is an ceart daonna is bunúsaí atá ag aon duine beo é. Cuimnigh go raibh chuile duine a bhí ann riamh sa mbroinn ag am éicint. Tá an buncheart sin le baint amach ón mBunreacht.

Tá go leor daoine in Éirinn bródúil as an mBunreacht mar go gcosnaíonn sé cearta daonna, ach táimid ag déanamh cinneadh fáil réidh leis an mbuncheart sin. Chomh maith leis sin, tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach breathnú ar céard atá molta ag an Rialtas. Tá an-chaint go deo ar an 12 sheachtain agus, mar a dúirt mé, níl aon srian air sin dul go 14 seachtaine, 15 seachtaine nó 16 seachtaine amach anseo mar a dhéanfar forbairt ar phiollaí agus ar córacha leighis gur féidir a thabhairt san íoclann áitiúil. Ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, tá gasúir á mbreith beo anois ag 23 seachtaine ach beidh muid ag rá go mbeidh cead ginmhilleadh a dhéanamh suas go dtí an aois sin.

Tá sé thar a bheith spéisiúil breathnú ar an leagan amach atá sa mBreatain. Sa mBreatain má fhaightear dearbhú saighneáilte ó bheirt dochtúir go bhfuil contúirt ann do shláinte mheabhrach nó fhisiciúil na mná, is féidir ginmhilleadh a fháil. Ní ginmhilleadh ar éileamh atá ann i Sasana ó thaobh an dlí de ach tá a fhios ag chuile duine go bhfuil sé ann go praiticiúil agus go saighneáiltear dearbhuithe go rialta. Níor chuala mé riamh faoi éinne a eitíodh ginmhilleadh dóibh i Sasana faoin dlí atá ann. Tá a fhios ag an Rialtas é sin.

D'ainneoin sin agus uilig, tá sé i gceist ag an Rialtas seo sa mBille atá i gceist aige a thabhairt isteach má éiríonn leis an reifreann seo an soláthar ceannann céanna a chur ar fáil. Beidh beirt dochtúir fós i gceist, is é an t-aon difríocht ná go gcaithfidh siad a bheith cáilithe sa speisialtacht. Glacaim leis go gcaithfidh cáilíocht síciatrach a bheith ag na dochtúirí a bheith i gceist más meabharshláinte na mná atá i gceist. Seachas an difríocht an-bheag agus an-teoranta sin is an soláthar céanna é. Cén chaoi is féidir le dochtúir a rá nach mbeidh cur isteach á dhéanamh ar shláinte na mná? Seachas an difríocht an-bheag sin, tá i gceist ag an Rialtas an solathár ceannann céanna a thabhairt isteach sa tír seo agus atá ann i Sasana. Tá sé an-spéisiúil smaoineamh ar an bhfocal Gaeilge "ginmhilleadh". Milleadh an ghin sa mbroinn. Tá sé i gceist ag an Rialtas é a thabairt isteach ar an mbunús sin.

Tá iarrtha ar an Teach seo vótáil ar son moladh a chur faoi bhráid an phobail a bhainfeadh buncheart d'aicme leathan daoine daonna. Ní fhéadfainnse tacú leis an gceist sin a chur os comhair an phobail, ar an gcaoi chéanna go ndiúltaíonn an Dáil seo go minic do mholtaí faoi reifrinn agus go ndiúltódh an Teach seo d'aon mholadh eile a bheadh ag baint buncheart den phobal.

What is being proposed is the taking away of the most fundamental human right from all unborn people, namely, the right to life. It is the first time since 1937 that, instead of adding to protection, we are taking away protection from every person who will be conceived. I cannot support the putting of such a referendum to the people, just as I could not support putting any other referendum to take away from the fundamental human rights of a wide swathe of people.

See this speech in context