Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Seanad inniú freisin.

I expect that virtually everything that could be said has been said on this exceptional piece of legislation. There has been widespread debate on this and one could see the manner in which people became energised in this debate. It also attracted considerable media coverage and each person can decide whether that coverage was impartial. There were many questions raised during the debate. Some were answered, some were fudged and some were merely ignored.

In a way, we must keep reminding ourselves, even though certain comments are made about the church and religion and persons being sanctimonious, etc., that what we are really talking about here is the human right to life.

That is the basis of the discussion.

We have learned certain things during the debate. First, it is widely acknowledged that Ireland has the safest medical environment for an expectant mother. Second, treatment is not withheld where the life of the mother is in danger even if it does necessitate the loss of life of the unborn child. Third, we learned, as the debate went on, that Europe did not require or demand that we introduce this type of legislation, simply clarification. In so far as possible, certain sections of the Bill, clarification is forthcoming and that must be welcomed.

The Minister, quite rightly, mentioned in his speech that "conscientious objection is a human right". Nobody could disagree with his comment but many people were surprised that conscientious objection did not extend to Members of the Oireachtas and that the Whip was ruthlessly used against people who wanted to express their own view. Early in the debate we were told to leave personal opinions aside and even went as far as telling us to leave our conscience outside the gates of Leinster House. The second part was gradually watered down because it made no sense. How could anyone think that we would come in here like vegetables and not, in some way, be influenced by our opinions and not wish to make a contribution based on our outlook and experience - the idea that people who wanted a free vote on something so fundamental to them was denied. Even worse, for the first time that I can remember in the history of the State, not only did they face immediate excommunication from the party, they were told that their careers would also end. The wording used was that they would not be allowed to go forward under a particular party colour in the future. I can never recall that measure being taken before.

We must accept that there was a degree of intimidation and coercion that was unhelpful. As so many people have said over many months, this issue is sensitive and complex. We called for respect and tolerance but not much was shown for the views of those people. Being told that champagne corks will pop when the legislation is passed does not help the situation either. Today, we are speaking about human rights for all people, irrespective. We do not make a distinction regarding human rights even though the legislation will make a distinction. I remind Members that Bunreacht na hÉireann does not make a distinction. If champagne corks will pop then we should remind ourselves that, in this case, many an unborn child will never celebrate a first birthday. They will never hear champagne corks pop at a graduation ceremony or marriage. If we do not say that then we will have ignored the fact that we are speaking about two lives here.

There is one name that will be enshrined in the minds and hearts of people for many years to come, Savita. It is the tragic case of a young woman who lost her life, lost her potential and devastated a husband. Again, one can see the compassion of the Irish people and the manner in which they responded to the terrible tragedy. It is regrettable that some people used a terrible tragedy to promote a particular agenda, even before an investigation was held. Even when the findings came forward and it was quite clear in the findings that there was a failure of systems in the hospital we were able to forget that fact. I think it was wrong to invoke such a tragedy to promote any agenda whatever that may be.

I wish to comment on the use of language during the debate. Commentators wrote that people who would stand up to express their genuinely held views on the legislation but oppose it were in some way not "progressive". That is the word they used. That begs the question. What is meant by "progressive"? I can only speak from my point of view and I have seen nothing progressive in targeting, unnecessarily, the life of an unborn child. I do not want to go into history but I have read the 1916 Proclamation and even back then we talked about "cherishing all the children of the nation equally." We are not cherishing all the children equally, particularly in regard to the suicidal ideation clause that most people have focused on.

I attended the Oireachtas hearings. I was also anxious to inform myself and there were certain questions that I needed to have answered. I was particularly interested in the evidence given by the psychiatrists during the hearings. If those hearings were meant to be meaningful and the intent was to inform ourselves and Government policy, the psychiatrists were quite clear that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation. If I read it correctly then we are asking medical practitioners to involve themselves in a procedure that is not evidenced-based. If we are prepared to throw the evidence-based concept out of the window when it comes to medical practice then we know full well that the move will come back to haunt us in future debates and discussions.

All people are entitled to expressed their views. I was disappointed during debates here on the abortion issue that people were prepared to bring another agenda to bear, to have a swipe at the church and to tell the bishops not to get involved. That is not democracy. They, too, have an organised grouping and are quite entitled to bring forward their views. I think people here just wanted to create confusion. It is undemocratic to suggest that the churches and bishops are not entitled to their view. I have seen efforts being made at the pro-life rally of 50,000 people to try, in some way, to diminish the numbers and demonise their intent. I do not think that is necessary. It does not matter if there is 1 million people or ten people because they went to the trouble of expressing themselves in a peaceful manner. I have a question for those of us who have received letters and communications. Do we resent getting letters? Do we resent people communicating with us? We would not do so on economic issues, on housing or on roads. Are we suggesting that people cannot communicate with us or do we demonise that communication?