Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like all Members, I find this issue very difficult to handle. I am the fortunate father of five children and the fortunate grandfather of 16 children. I look at this from the point of view of born and unborn children rather than from the other point of view. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. Like others, I am concerned that its wording is so open to differing interpretation that it will open the door to much more widespread access to abortion. That is of concern to me. I apologise for not having welcomed the Minister of State. Like others, I am concerned about the inclusion of the threat of suicide as a means to have an abortion. It is not what can be termed the correct treatment for a person who may be considered suicidal. If someone justifies abortion on the basis that if she is not allowed to have an abortion, she will commit suicide, it leaves the door open. I would hate to think something for which we had legislated would open the door to automatic abortion on that basis.

Other Oireachtas Members have mentioned how medical professionals are split on the issue. The position needs to be reiterated. It is regrettable that political parties are coercing their members to vote in a certain way such that they face serious consequences if they vote with their conscience. Is it right that someone has to choose between a profession and his or her conscience? It is not a good advertisement for our system and it is an anti-democratic move.

It is interesting to look at what is happening in Italy which is similarly known as a Catholic country. I am not looking at it from that point of view, but, as RTE recently reported, Italy has had a relatively liberal abortion regime since 1978. A specific law permits medical personnel to refuse to carry out abortions on conscientious grounds. The report highlighted that the number of medical personnel doing so had risen dramatically, with one MP saying the number of doctors and gynaecologists objecting had reached nearly 80% across Italy. Even though Italy permits abortion, there is a growing trend towards anti-abortion views. One of the foremost objectors is a man called Dr. Romano Forleo. He is Italy's most eminent gynaecologist and a former Senator and has been practising obstetrics since the early 1960s. He has never performed an abortion and says some people believe the embryo, especially at the beginning, is not a person but he believes it is.

I have listened to the debate on this issue today and before our grandchildren were born, we were able to see a photograph of each of them inside the womb. In my mind, what horrifies is the thought of someone killing that child. I am arguing from the point of the unborn. Most of those who have spoken today and who spoke the other day have spoken and spoke about it from the point of view of the mother-to-be.

However, I would like to concentrate on the unborn child. It is worth heeding this, as this Bill provides for conscientious objections by "any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife" only. It excludes others who may be obliged to co-operate in providing services related to abortion against their conscience or religion. If one objects, he or she is obliged to hand over the operation to someone else. That means medical personnel are complicit in an abortion whether they like it or not. If we are to introduce legislation, we should give them a real choice where they could be compelled to do something against their conscience. Currently, they are not given an alternative, which infringes on the pledge to preserve life.

There is also support in Italy to include more financial support to encourage women to go through the pregnancies rather than to seek termination and this would be worthwhile examining in the wider context of abortion. I cannot support the Bill, as presented, because its construction leaves a lot to be desired and it does not do enough to consider all lives equal during pregnancy and may well create a system where abortion becomes a norm. That is the concern I have.

Senator Healy Eames said she intends to table a reasoned amendment later today or tomorrow. I am pleased to support to it. I gather she will move it but I cannot, although I can second it. I gather I cannot second it until she has moved it. The use of a reasoned amendment is an unusual procedure but it is amply justified by the unusual nature of the legislation and gravity of the consequences if passed. The amendment invites us to reject the principle on which the Bill is based, which is where a woman is suicidal during pregnancy, it is appropriate to offer an abortion as a form of treatment to remove her suicidality. If we pass the amendment, it will impose on the Lower House and the Government a 90-day period of reflection. That would be useful given the deep flaws in the Bill and the unseemly haste with which Report Stage was conducted in the Lower House. Such a period of reflection can only be beneficial. The amendment lays out the reasons the Seanad - a reasonable, thoughtful and responsible part of our Legislature - should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. I understand I cannot second the amendment until Senator Healy Eames moves it.