Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I dislike using a scripted speech, but this matter is too important for ad-libbing and I want to be sure I say exactly what I want to say.

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill and give my opinion on it. I have listened to the debate in the Lower House, I have assiduously followed the TV and radio debates and I have studied the various articles in the print media, including statements by medical professionals, psychiatrists, legal people and the churches. I have listened with respect to the views of my fellow Senators on both sides of the argument, have engaged with the community at large and have read most of the correspondence I received. I have drawn my own conclusions and intend to support the Bill.

I believe I can fairly state that on this issue I have what is known in the church as an informed conscience. I say this because there seems to be a suggestion that possession of a conscience is the sole preserve of those opposing the Bill. Conscience is an individual thing and it is up to each adult to do what he perceives to be right. Each person can consult and seek advice, but at the end of the day it is his or her decision. A person with strong conviction can try to persuade another to his point of view and I have no difficulty with that. Politicians know about pressure; it is in our job description.

However, there are bounds to the amount of pressure and interference one person or organisation can legitimately exert upon another. Where pressure is continually and systematically exerted on any individual, it ceases to be pressure and becomes bullying. When I was a small boy I was bullied by a certain individual, until one day I hit back. I found out very quickly then the bully was a windbag with no centre to him. I am hitting back now at some of the activities I have witnessed and experienced in this anti-Bill campaign.

Some groups campaigning against this Bill have spent inordinate amounts of money getting their message across to Deputies and Senators. Some of these organisations are reputed to receive their funding from fundamentalist organisations, some of them secret, both in Ireland and abroad, particularly America. It is time that these organisations came out of the closet and declared what they are spending in propagating their fundamentalist views. They should also have to account for the source of their funding, just as we elected representatives are required to do.

Some statements by the Catholic Church in the course of the debate also come very close to bullying. As a Catholic I regret having to say that. It was Jack Lynch who proposed the removal of Article 44 from the Constitution, an article which gave special recognition to the position of the Catholic Church. Some eminent churchmen do not seem to have got that message yet. They have certainly not taken cognisance of it. Veiled threats of excommunication and the like are redolent of a different Ireland, an Ireland we have moved on from and to which we have no intention of returning. This is a Republic and there are clear lines of demarcation between church and State. We are not some extreme Jihadist parliament that takes its orders from the clerics. I believe the people have no wish to revert back to the days when the infamous belt of the crozier put politicians in their place. If I had as clear a conscience about the rest of my life as I have about supporting this Bill, I would be on very good terms with myself when I go to meet my maker. I am not going to allow myself to be browbeaten by any group, secular or clerical.

As previous speakers have said, abortion has been legal in Ireland for 21 years, ever since the Supreme Court ruling on the X case. Furthermore, it has been lawful for a mother to have an abortion on the grounds of suicide in all that time. Was this right abused? We heard statistics from the Leader indicating a number of abortions were carried out, but was that right abused? Did the X case judgment open the infamous floodgates? The answer is "No". Why, therefore, should this Bill, which seeks to clarify, limit and restrict the existing right to abortion, usher in an escalation in abortions in the future? It seems logical to me that the opposite should be the case. I have great difficulty in understanding why others fail to see this. Some say that the experience abroad is that legislation for suicide ideation opened the door to abortion on demand. I am not concerned about other countries at this time, but I am sure this cannot and will not happen here. The reason I believe that is that we have a crucial and unique constitutional provision that clearly establishes the right to life of the unborn. Therefore, anything we do legislation-wise here, now or in the future, will be limited by that insertion, which can only be removed if passed by the people in a referendum.

Opponents of the Bill constantly describe the Supreme Court ruling as a "flawed judgment". That is entirely unacceptable and shows scant regard for the whole system of jurisprudence. We cannot pick and choose the legal verdicts we like as if we were choosing from a box of chocolates. The decision was made and the decision holds. The effect of that decision is that abortion is lawful, as was stated by none other than Professor William Binchy in November 2002. Therefore, we have a situation where abortion is lawful whether we like it or not and it becomes the duty of our Government to legislate for it. That we have failed to do so is a singular disgrace for the Oireachtas. As renowned jurist, Mr Justice McCarthy, stated "the failure of the Legislature to enact appropriate legislation is no longer just unfortunate, it is inexcusable".

There are still those who say we need do nothing and that some vague medical clarification will answer. They are wrong. Many of this Bill's strongest opponents were saying the very opposite in 2002. They were saying then that the current situation was extremely liberal and open to abuse. The record will show this clearly. That was when their strategy was for yet another referendum, but I believe not even the most extreme opponent of this Bill would want another referendum now, because they know the view of the people and know it well. Any new referendum would be resoundingly defeated and would probably be swiftly followed by a demand for a much wider and more liberal availability of abortion. That is why I detect a lack of enthusiasm and more than a little disingenuousness in those who have rather feebly put forward the referendum option again. It is a diversion and nothing more than a device to defeat the Bill.

I also believe the public would be outraged if we opted for referendum rather than legislation.

They would see it as a cop-out, as it would be, and their opinion of politics would sink even lower than it is. We, therefore, have a duty to act.

I do not say this is the best possible Bill. For example, it does not make any reference to the situation where a non-viable foetus must be delivered full-term by a mother, only to die immediately after birth. There are many who say the Bill is too restrictive, that it will probably prevent further debate on this issue for decades or even generations to come. A more suitable title might have been the "restriction of abortion Bill". In my view, however, it is the best possible Bill the Government could hope to accomplish in the current circumstances. It is the only possible Bill that could have gone through the Lower House and, I hope, could go through this House. For that reason I support it.

My party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, whose opinion on this subject I share and support, decided to allow a free vote in the Fianna Fáil Party for the first time in our history. We are divided on the issue - very evenly divided; therefore, applying the Whip was simply not an option. Each of us must decide individually, without having any place to hide, which is probably good. I know that I am in a small minority among my fellow Fianna Fáil Seanad colleagues, which is a matter of real regret to me, as I have high regard for each and every one of them. However, I take no small amount of comfort and solace from the fact that I am standing in the company of our only two women Oireachtas Members, Senators Averil Power and Mary M. White. Ultimately, this has to do with women. It has to do with their bodies, pregnancies, health and lives. We talk about gender equality, but I am afraid there still is a cohort of men who privately believe women's place is in the home. They will not come out and say so publicly, however. There is something very unsettling about a group of male politicians presiding with great certainty on matters which are fundamental to the health and dignity of a woman and which concern her, first and foremost.

I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the debate, but it is one that will define our time here. For me, it ultimately boils down to one central core issue - the kind of Ireland in which I believe. I claim to be a republican and I am proud to be following in the great traditions of Tone and Davis and the men and women of 1916. I believe in a progressive, pluralist Ireland which accommodates all religious opinions and their expression, which maintains equal rights for all citizens, men and women alike, and which treats everyone in difficulty with love and compassion. In a different debate at a different time Des O'Malley memorably stated he was standing by the Republic. At the time, the issue was the right of people to avail of artificial contraception - just imagine that - and Mr. O'Malley was expelled from Fianna Fáil for the stand he took, but, thankfully, he was able to continue to contribute to public life in a different party. Ireland has moved on a lot since, as has Fianna Fáil. For that reason, I do not anticipate any political difficulty when I reprise Mr. O'Malley's call to the Republic and say I will vote for the Bill.