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

I will proceed when I have the floor.

Funnily enough, based on what Deputy Donnelly said last night and on what I understand, although I would like confirmation from the Minister, the Minister agrees with the basic thesis of the amendment. As far as I understand from what he and Deputy Donnelly said, it will be illegal to have an abortion beyond 12 weeks on the basis of race, sex or disability. The Minister agrees with the principle, therefore, that it would be an unacceptable basis for having an abortion. I welcome that because at least babies or foetuses of more than 12 weeks will have that protection in law, and because that fundamental right has been conceded. I am told, however, the vast majority of abortions or terminations are likely to take place before the 12 weeks has elapsed. The protection that the Minister so carefully inserted in the Bill, which I have not heard anyone saying should be removed, is moot. The protection is not there and it cannot be there because, as the Minister said, no reason need be given and, as a result, no inquiry into the reason a person may have can be made. I do not expect that to be changed in the Bill but nor do I expect anything in it to be changed.

I wish to highlight, however, that a protection that is there after the period of 12 weeks will not be there before the 12 weeks has passed, and that the opposite impression was given strongly by those proposing the legislation during the referendum campaign. I am delighted the amendment was tabled to highlight the inconsistency of the approach to this matter, an inconsistency that was obvious from the beginning to those who read the small print of the Bill but would not be obvious to those who did not. As I understand it, the Minister, on the one hand, agrees that abortions of unborn children of more than 12 weeks should be utterly forbidden in law with severe penalties, and that the grounds to which everyone on my right takes exception are in the law, should remain in the law and will be in the new law when the composite law on this subject is taken into account. On the other hand, however, he is saying there should be no such protection for that group of people who have not reached 12 weeks

We make law not for today but for the future, if only for a five or ten-year span. As technology advances, it will become much cheaper and much more accessible to test for disability. The argument, therefore, that people will not test for Down's syndrome, to use an example that was mentioned, or that they will not avail of testing or that they will not be allowed to do so, is fallacious.

See this speech in context