Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, and I know the Minister of State, Deputy White, has been listening intently to this discussion and thank him for that. I also thank my constituency colleague, the Minister, Deputy Reilly. We are all agreed that nobody finds this legislation easy to grapple with, but dealing with it is our job. It is our job as legislators to deal with difficult situations and to make up our minds.

I would like to put the record straight on some issues. The narrative has been put forward that nothing has been done in this regard by successive governments over a 30-year period. As a young child of seven or eight years, I distinctly remember the campaigns of the early 1980s and how divisive and nasty the debates were on both sides. I am happy to see our country has moved on a great deal since then. I have found this debate, both in the Oireachtas and outside, to be respectful and well thought out.

For my own reasons, I have not stated a position on this issue publicly. I have not received any offensive literature or phone calls from any side, but I regret that seems to have happened in the case of others. I have received no urging or direction from any church, neither my church, the Catholic church, nor the Church of Ireland to which my wife belongs. I still want the Government to inform me on the Bill and I have specific questions in regard to section 9, but my position on the Bill will be my own position, not my position as a Catholic. I hold religious beliefs, but such beliefs should be left at the door by legislators. We are legislating for all the people. I disagree completely with Senator Noone that we legislate for the majority. It is clear that with this legislation we propose to legislate for a small minority of cases. This is our job.

I wish to reiterate and make it clear that the position I will hold is not based on my faith, but on listening, reading and consulting people. I thank the hundreds of people who have been in contact with me, both those opposed to and those for the legislation. Some feel it goes too far and others feel it does not go far enough. I will not box people into a pro-life or pro-choice box. I have listened intently to my colleagues and I know all of us respect human life. Some of us have very strong personal beliefs in this regard.

There are aspects of the Bill that I do and will support. Clarity was needed in regard to medical interventions at the risk of life from physical illness, and this is dealt with in section 7. Many people in the medical profession believe and welcome the fact this grey area will now be dealt with clearly in law. This is crucial. The health and life of a mother is very important, but does not take primacy. Article 40.3.3o protects the equal right to life of both the mother and the child.

Section 8 of the Bill deals with the risk of loss of life from physical illness in an emergency. It is very important we have legislation to deal with this issue and this section gives the clarity required regarding how this intervention can take place. We all know, some of us from personal experience, that this kind of intervention happens every week in this country. Such intervention is necessary and if we need to legislate for it, I will support that legislation. We have had examples of such instances, for example the recent tragic case in Galway of Savita Halappanavar. I hope this legislation will assist in such cases.

It is not clear from reading the coroner's report that intervention would have assisted in that instance. However, we need to provide for it in any case.

I refer to some elements of the Bill - the review aspect contained in Part 2 and the establishment of a review panel, which is not there. I believe there have been six cases in the years since the X case where the State brought young women to England for terminations but we do not know who they were or which social worker or doctor signed off on the procedure, as there is no such requirement. If there is to be a review included in provisions of the Bill we will have a schedule, which is very important.

Some 4,000 to 5,000 Irish women travel abroad for terminations every year. That is as good a figure as we can get. We have a societal issue to deal with here and I believe all of us recognise that. We need to provide proper supports for those women. Not all of those pregnancies are crisis pregnancies, though some are. Some happen as a result of rape or incest which, without question, are disgusting acts to perpetrate on women. I want women to get the supports they need. Neither this nor any previous Government has provided the resources required to support women in crisis pregnancies. I refer to the most recent budget and the moneys allocated to mental health of both adults and children, where there have been cuts to and reductions in services. Relevant to section 9, there is a lack of funding for suicide prevention which receives only a fraction of the funding the Road Safety Authority receives. They are both very serious issues but multiples of the numbers of those who die on our roads die by suicide. If we are very serious about this, as legislators, as Government and as Opposition, we must put this issue forward and make tough choices. We must say these are areas where we will not only ring-fence moneys but will ensure there is an increase in funding. I would like to see that.

I refer to section 9, the main area with which I have difficulty although I do not intend to inhibit the passage of this Bill on Second Stage. There will be opportunities on Committee Stage, even at this late stage, for the Government to provide further clarification and amendment. When my daughter was born in the Rotunda Hospital, my colleague, Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill was reading into the record Dr. Sam Coulter Smith's opinion in this area. I watched with great interest the abortion hearings that took place in this very Chamber at that time but what struck me was the lack of psychiatric evidence in this regard. Dr Coulter Smith stated:

Our psychiatric colleagues tell us that there is currently no available evidence to show that termination of pregnancy is a treatment for suicide, suicidal ideation or intent and, as obstetricians, we are required to provide and practise evidence-based treatment. It therefore creates an ethical dilemma for any obstetrician who is requested to perform a termination of pregnancy with the treatment of somebody who has suicidal ideation or intent.

Dr. Coulter Smith welcomes many aspects of this Bill that provide clarity in the area of medical intervention on the basis of risk of loss of life from physical illness or in the case of an emergency. I agree with him and am yet to be convinced by evidence put forward by psychiatrists. Some 113 psychiatrists throughout this country share those very views. We have a duty to ensure that the laws we pass are robust and evidence-based. I am not at all convinced that in this area, specifically that covered in section 9 of the Bill, that all we are doing is ticking a box. Without being disrespectful to anybody who believes the contrary, it is my opinion that we are legislating purely to deal with that aspect of the X case. Many people have brought into question some of the evidence, as well as the decision of the Supreme Court, which I am not doing. However, I have a question that is specific to section 9. The fact that gestational limits are not included is extremely worrying to me. I am pro-life, pro-woman and pro-child. I want our women to be as safe as they can possibly be and for that reason I support large sections of this Bill. We will deal with section 9 in more detail on Committee Stage but I would like the Minister for Health or the Minister of State in his Department to give me an example of any state which, in good faith, has introduced a restrictive abortion regime, as the Government has stated this to be, which has not, over time, led to a more liberal abortion regime. I will ask about this in more detail when we come to it. I thank the Minister of State for his attention.