David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is a nasty, timid and shame-faced piece of legislation which I will be reluctantly forced to support. I am really disgusted that still at this stage we, as a people, are apparently unable - certainly in political terms - to face reality, honesty and truth. I believe the people of Ireland are well in advance of this Government. At least the Minister did not say that the Seanad was responsible for the mess. I am surprised he did not, in view of the mendacious attitude obtaining throughout the entire Cabinet.

I pay tribute to Senator Ivana Bacik. I remember very well, over 20 years ago, when Senator Bacik was involved in the students' union in Trinity, that she promoted honesty and integrity in this area and was threatened with jail. I was never threatened with jail but I handed out advice and I am glad I did because that saved a number of people who would otherwise have had abortions. The irony is that the more honesty and integrity there is, the fewer abortions there will be. The sanctimonious people would drive young women out of this country. I make no apology for using this kind of language. There is all this drivel about respectful this and that and all the rest of it and that we must be very courteous. That is rubbish. The very people who say that never are. What about the people outside the gate with the photographs? This is disgusting stuff. A photograph of an appendix operation or a tooth extraction would look bloody awful too. It does not prove anything. It is emotive. It is going on outside the gates. Why should people not be outraged? I am outraged. I am absolutely outraged by what is continuing to go on in this country. If we are respectful, why is Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, who has tabled a reasoned amendment, with which I completely disagree, listed as No. 24 on the list of speakers? That does not show very much respect for democracy. I do not happen to agree with her views and will be voting against the amendment, but it is not very respectful. Let us not have hypocrisy. I do not mind people using heated language. In fact, I think we should use heated language in this area when fertilised eggs are referred to as citizens. One would need to be Jonathan Swift to deal with that kind of tripe. I will not be respectful of a farrago of nonsense. Why should I?

In page one of his contribution the Minister said the main purpose of the Bill was to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland. To a certain extent I could understand that from an old fellow like myself. When I was young, this was the most horrible thing on earth. It was whispered, it was a violation, it was the most outrageous criminal thing one could possibly do, it was the complete negation of motherhood.

Senator Burke asked what are pregnant women to do. This Bill will not solve it. The Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, actually had the gall to say - as if he was proud of it - that this Bill will change nothing. Well, if he is telling the truth, that means that Savita Halappanavar would die again. Is that something to be proud of? Well, I certainly do not think so.

We have heard much about evidence-based tests. This is an entirely new lingo, along with the respectful stuff. Where were all these people who are so interested in evidence-based tests when I challenged another section of that Bill? The Government, in the words of Mr. Justice Henchy, signally failed to provide any evidence at all. I did not hear a squeak from any of these people who have subsequently cropped up and described themselves as pro-lifers. What I want to say - I have said it repeatedly in the past 20 years and I am glad it is beginning to catch on - is that we must never allow these people to colonise the language. I am pro-life. I am pro-choice. There is no contradiction whatever. I suppose it is a debating point, but it horrifies me that a Minister for Health could actually put in his speech, as a point of pride, that the Bill only deals with the situation in which there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother. The Minister is Minister for Health. I know his heart is in the right place, but probably his Cabinet colleagues do not have the guts of a burst gooseberry. He will have doctors here and doctors there and doctors all over the place and he will have pro-life doctors, as they call themselves, and pro-choice doctors. What happens if two of them cancel each other out? Doctors differ and patients die.

On the last page of his script the Minister said "...it is recognised that the potential criminalisation of a pregnant woman is a very difficult and sensitive matter..." That is a very peculiar way of describing it. It is revolting; it is utterly revolting. Let me say, I listened to all this waffle brought out about the constitutionality aspect. I think I have solved the Minister's problem because I have tabled an amendment proposing that the fine should not exceed a maximum of 50 cent and the maximum term of imprisonment should be one day, reduced by a maximum of 18 hours for good behaviour. That would solve the Minister's question of whether he is still criminalising abortion, but it shows up the farce that is involved.

Governments have always been very shifty about this area - not just this one but the whole damn lot of them. I was around in 1983; I was not a Member of this House but I campaigned on this issue. That was a squalid little sectarian amendment that was introduced; it was virulently sectarian and it expressed the position of the Roman Catholic Church post-1869. I am very grateful to Patsy McGarry for his wonderful article in The Irish Times that shows that the position of the Roman Catholic Church up to 1869 was that abortion was perfectly all right up to 166 days because it was at that point that the soul entered the foetus. I do not know how they knew that. I would love an objective, evidence-based test to show me when the soul enters the foetus. Let us have the evidence on that particular one.

We then had a colleague of mine, for whom I had great affection - I will not name him - sidling around behind people's backs at the time of the Maastricht treaty, or one of those treaties, and this little group of self-appointed people went off and got a commitment from the Government that it would introduce into the treaty a protocol on abortion without consulting either House of the Oireachtas or the Irish people. How democratic is that? Then we refuse to listen to the people, who have spoken in two referendums. That is quite extraordinary.

I respect people whom I regard as misguided but are really wonderful, decent people. There was a man on the radio today who was a real hero. He was the carer of the year. I cannot express my admiration for that man and the wonderful work and the sacrifices he has made. One of his children has Down's syndrome and he seemed to give the impression that if this law was passed the life of that child might be threatened. I do not believe that for one second. I would never stand over an abortion that took place simply because the foetus had a diagnosis of Down's syndrome. That is utterly revolting and wrong. What is equally revolting is people who come along and say to a woman carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality that she must carry it to term. I place on record my admiration for Deirdre Conroy, who, all those years ago, wrote that powerful, passionate letter. Now she has emerged from the background with a new and vital message. I would like to ask all the men who tend to speak on these issues to consider a situation in which a woman is pregnant with what amounts to a cluster of cells which will develop into a large piece of tissue that has no head, no brain, no spinal cord, no capacity for anything whatever. Would they say the woman concerned must carry that to term? How could one not be outraged by that and the violence that causes? What about incest and rape? What about a girl who is gang-raped? This Government is prepared to collaborate with the forced colonisation of her body.

I would respect any woman who says, "No, I respect life so much I am keeping this.", but I would also understand the psychology of somebody who had been violated repeatedly by thugs and could not bear to bring this. Of course, there is outrage.

This Bill is being presented as an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I remember when the late Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, came out with that one and I defied him over it. I said: "What an insult to the Irish people." This is yet another insult to the Irish people.

As if we did not know this stuff about fertilised eggs,-----