Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White, and I thank him and his colleagues for the work and effort that has gone into putting this Bill together. I welcome the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. It may be overdue but it is very welcome indeed. This has proved a very difficult time for many people as they wrestled with how to vote and what to say and I have complete respect for those who have found it difficult and continue to find it difficult.

I have complete respect for those people who have found it difficult and continue to find it difficult. I am very grateful to those people who have politely and sincerely left messages for me or called, e-mailed or written to me to express concerns on both sides of the debate. I have read and considered all of them.

I find it less easy to respect those people who have deliberately sought an incendiary approach to this debate through the use of various visual images, letters, e-mails, speeches, threats, twisting of the truth, mud-slinging, abuse and accusations that are less than savoury. It is momentous for the country that we are having this discussion and it is good that so far today this House has managed to maintain a sound and respectful approach to the debate. I welcome that. I sincerely wish this would extend beyond the walls of the House.

Making this decision is difficult whether we are legislators or not. It is not any easier for those of us who have opted to support the Bill, despite the impression given by some of those on the "so-called" pro-life side of the debate, who would like us to believe that they somehow have the sole monopoly on conscience and difficult decisions. That is an ugly and dishonourable approach on their part. The truth is we would all prefer some class of magic wand we could wave for a clear and easy answer to present itself. However, the truth is there is rarely complete clarity or any definitive or black and white solution when it comes to life and death.

When it comes to the life of a mother and the potential life of a child, it is more complex and difficult to legislate for that situation. However, as others have said, we are legislators and we are here to uphold the Constitution. This is a limited piece of legislation to give legal protection where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother and to regulate access to lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The report of the expert group on the judgment of A, B and C v.Ireland found that the ruling of the Supreme Court is the law of the land. As a democracy, we must continue to recognise the authority of the courts in this matter.

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, said last week that he is puzzled by people who keep insisting that the ruling of the Supreme Court is not binding on lower courts. He said:

As a lawyer who has practised for more than 30 years I can say the X case is a clearly set out decision of our Supreme Court that binds the lower courts in this State, and the Supreme Court, until such time as it might formulate a different view. I do not know on what basis anybody can say the X case is not binding.

Of course, this has not prevented some people on the other side of the debate from saying it is not binding, perhaps to win some argument. However, it is binding.

The issue of risk has been raised. The risks will be measured, as per the Bill, by a number of medical practitioners. These will always include an obstetrician, to ensure patient safety. The opinion requires a clinical diagnosis on the risk to the life of the pregnant woman and there will also be foetal assessment at that point. The Bill makes it the duty of the obstetrician involved to issue the required certification and if there is a risk to the life of a child in the late trimester, that child can be delivered. Part of the argument put forward has been that somehow or other children who are viable will be murdered as a result of this legislation. This is untrue and unfounded.

One of the arguments put forward by the other side is that guidelines should have been issued, rather than legislation. The expert pointed out clearly in November 2012 that guidelines are by their nature non-binding and do not have the force of law. Both international and domestic courts have made it clear that in a democracy, measures which affect rights must have a secure legal basis. I am satisfied this Bill has sought to introduce the legal clarity required by the X case and has done that within the limits that exist. The Minister pointed out there are limits and we are all aware there are, but we will uphold the ruling made at the time.

We know people will continue to make the journey to the United Kingdom for an abortion and I will return to that issue later. One of the major issues I have with regard to this debate is the language relating to suicide. Many people here have already eloquently expressed their concerns in this regard and now I wish to add mine. There are two aspects to this. The first is that the impression is being created that queues of women will form presenting suicide as a reason for wanting an abortion. This suggests that women will lie or feign suicidal feelings in order to get an abortion. It suggests women are liars and are not to be trusted with their own lives and should have no say in their well-being. These are the implications of this argument, whether they are articulated clearly or not. I find them distasteful and insulting.

This argument also insults the psychiatric profession and suggests that some of its practitioners would be satisfied to dissemble in order to encourage or allow a woman to have an abortion, by giving her a false certification stating there is a real and substantial risk to her life. This shows enormous disrespect to the psychiatric profession and shows huge hypocrisy on the part of those who oppose the Bill, because they will choose to support those psychiatrists who agree with them. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have half of the psychiatric profession considered okay because they support their point of view, but not the others who make a fair judgment for women. I find this aspect of the debate difficult to deal with.

The second aspect revolves around describing the provision of abortion for a woman with suicidal intent as, somehow, a treatment for suicide. Senator Gilroy alluded to this with great clarity and Senator Bacik pointed out that it is the risk of suicide that must be assessed. That risk of suicide can sometimes be caused by the pregnancy and it is those rare cases for which we are legislating. There is no doubt they will be rare cases, but the risk is a real risk. As Senator Gilroy said, anybody who says otherwise does not know what he or she is talking about. This demeans the debate on suicide we have had in the Houses over and again regarding our concerns for people who take their lives and the lack of resources for them. When it comes to pregnant women who may be suicidal, some people here seem to be prepared to throw what has been accepted regarding suicide to the four winds and say this situation is completely different.

Deputy Gilroy raised the issue of care for suicidal women. Would the solution be to put them in a room and give them a cup of tea? The suggestion seems to be that a cup of tea and a little chat might solve the problem. Anybody who has ever encountered anyone with a serious suicidal intention knows this is far from the right way to respond. That suggestion should not even be made. There appears to be a deliberate attempt on the part of people opposed to this Bill to occlude or obfuscate on the issue of suicide and to refer to abortion as a treatment for suicide. I never understood the X case judgment or the legislation in those terms. I do not believe anybody anywhere was intent on describing abortion as a treatment for suicide.