Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Colleagues will know that I have found this a very difficult issue, as it has been for many colleagues on all sides of the House. I have not really taken part in public debate on the issue, but this was slightly unavoidable during the recent by-election in Meath. I have listened and read with great interest on all sides, and that is one of the difficulties. I have heard very few people in the debate whose expertise is not coloured by political views one way or the other. I certainly do not believe the exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate.

However, two figures who have impressed me are the masters of the Rotunda Hospital and the National Maternity Hospital. They are the people I feel should be given the most hearing. I found them to be genuinely compassionate people whose mission in life is to protect and deliver life into the world. These are the people who should be given most hearing, along with some of the psychiatrists who I found impressive as well. I paid particular attention to these views during the debate.

We have all been asked political questions on this issue, I have always stated that I am pro-life and would always wish to uphold the equal right to life of the mother and unborn child, as expressed in the 1983 referendum. The X case decision in 1992 presented all concerned with huge challenges, not least Ms X herself. I cannot imagine how she is feeling throughout the debate, nor indeed the thousands of women who have gone through abortion and travelled abroad for it. Many of them regret that but many have gone through it, regrets or not. This is a difficult time for them. The Supreme Court itself in 1992 was faced effectively with the challenge of legislating for the 1983 referendum, and in doing so, it criticised the Oireachtas for not legislating. There is no doubt that the X case presents challenges for Governments and for the people. However, it is untrue that no Government has done anything since the X case. In 1992, the Fianna Fáil Government put forward a referendum effectively to overturn the X case. Unfortunately, the entire pro-life movement and a section of the church, led by Archbishop Connell, recommended a "No" vote. The Fianna Fáil Government also put forward a referendum in 2002. This narrowly failed, but was scuppered by some on the extreme right wing, as Senator Leyden stated. We would not be here without those referendum defeats, and this is a pity. The very fact that we have had two referenda to overturn the X case means that the X case is settled law in Ireland, and the only way to overturn it is through a referendum.

I am concerned about moves by respectable lawyers to develop theories calling into question the validity of Supreme Court judgments that they do not like. Therefore, I find the language in Senator Healy Eames's reasoned amendment not to be at all persuasive in the first part. Furthermore, I find it strange and unconvincing that the motion states further down that this Bill is unconstitutional. Every Bill passed by the Oireachtas is presumed to be constitutional until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. It may well be that the Supreme Court will have a chance to rule on this Bill under Article 26 or through some other means. However, even those opposing this Bill should not pre-empt the decision. I am opposing this Bill today, but my opposition to the Bill is not to be interpreted as supporting the reasoned amendment of Senator Healy Eames, which goes way too far and is not a balanced amendment.

After the 1992 referendum, the constitutional review group discussed the issue of abortion in its deliberations. The group included High Court judges and it recommended introducing legislation at that time. They stated that the legislation should cover matters including definitions, protections for appropriate medical intervention and certification of real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, and a time limit on the lawful termination of pregnancy. In subsequent hearings at the Oireachtas, Dr. T.K. Whitaker, chairman of the group, expressed similar views. Nearly 20 years after the review group recommendations, the Government has refused to insert time limits into section 9 in particular, and that is strange. The worrying consequence of this failure by the Government is that the Minister for Health recently conceded on radio that the Bill, with no time limit, will effectively force an early delivery of the baby in some cases. The Minister further conceded that this would probably result in more babies suffering damage because of premature delivery. The Minister said it was inescapable that the laws allowing pregnancy to be terminated would result in more children being delivered in a premature state, a condition which would ultimately mean health difficulties for the baby. In my view, this is an extremely strong reason to vote "No" to the Bill.

The argument opposing this view is that one cannot put a restriction on a constitutional right. I do not believe this and neither does the Government. The Government is actually restricting the X case by putting three doctors in place, and many colleagues have pointed to this as a kind of pro-life reason to support the legislation, and I accept what they are saying. There is no doubt that the three doctor requirement is an improvement on the X case.

Accordingly, if the X case can be restricted in that manner, I do not see how it cannot be restricted to cover the circumstances that the Minister described in a radio interview.

I also cannot ignore the large number of psychiatrists who oppose this Bill and the procedures set out in it. As I stated, I found both the masters from the Rotunda and Holles Street hospitals to be very convincing. Both accepted the need for legislation to clarify the law for doctors in the course of life-saving treatment. The argument for legislation, therefore, is very convincing and essential. Dr. Coulter Smith said “that on the positive side we, as a profession, would like some clarity and comfort from the fact that what we do is covered by legislation and would like legislation to back up the Medical Council guidelines.” He did, however, state the legislation should be left broad, short and clear and take into account advances in medical technology. He subsequently referred to difficulties and dilemmas arising from the legislation.

I cannot support legislation which is supposed to give clarity to doctors when one of our senior doctors stated it would cause difficulties and dilemmas. I am also disappointed that the legislation is not accompanied by further action by the Government to deal with crisis pregnancies. It is disappointing that the Government is not bringing in any further help for women and families in crisis pregnancy situations. These crisis pregnancies continue, as do the Ryanair flights. From government down, a national hypocrisy continues, whatever way one votes on this legislation.

Whatever happens, I do not believe this legislation will open the floodgates to abortion. However, the admission by the Minister for Health that children could suffer disability due to absence of time limits and the concerns of Dr. Coulter Smith suggest this Bill does not provide the clarity required but, in fact, creates further difficulties and dilemmas for doctors, mothers and babies.

I thank all in this House, my family and friends, as well as doctors and other medical professionals, for discussing this legislation with me. It has been very difficult, especially when one has a free vote. Ultimately, I must do what I believe is the right thing to do. I appreciate and acknowledge that the Government has a difficult job. It needs to legislate in this area. However, when Dr. Coulter Smith stated this legislation will cause difficulties and dilemmas, the Oireachtas is not doing the right job.