Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators O'Donnell and Mac Conghail for tabling these amendments which I strongly support.

Like many other Members of the House, I met several of the women from the Terminations for Medical Reasons, TFMR, group who have gone through the terrifying and upsetting experience of having babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. I listened to their heart-breaking stories. These ladies came into the AV room last year and spoke of how, initially, they were overjoyed to hear that they were pregnant. Many of them were married couples who had been trying to have babies for a long time and wanted nothing more than to be able to have a little boy or girl. Then I heard them outline how that initial joy turned to deep, deep sadness upon hearing that their child simply could not survive outside the womb. What was most upsetting for me in all of that was to hear them outline how, at a time of such sadness, the State turned its back on them and told them that if they wished to terminate their pregnancy, the only way to do so was to make a lonely journey to England on their own.

As Senator Mac Conghail stated, this amendment is all about choice. I completely understand how some parents, on being given a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, would choose to continue with the pregnancy and I respect any woman who would make that choice. Equally, I listened to Ms Arlette Lyons, Ms Deirdre Conroy and others from the TFMR group, who came in and spoke to us, explain that the reason they chose to seek a termination was because, for them, as mothers, it was the compassionate and humane thing to do. One woman outlined how her own body was crushing her baby, and how her baby was in constant and immense pain as a result of that condition and would never be otherwise. I can completely understand how any mother in that position would come to the decision, upsetting as it is, that the best thing for her to do is to relieve her baby from that pain and suffering. In such circumstances, the State should facilitate that choice.

As Senator O'Donnell outlined in her initial contribution, the State has previously argued in court that termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality is legal in this country or at least that there is an arguable case that it may be. She outlined quite eloquently the facts from D v. Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights where then senior counsel on behalf of the State, Mr. Gerard Hogan, questioned the legal definition of the unborn and contended that if it had been established that the foetus had no realistic prospect of being born alive, then at least a tenable argument could have been made to the effect that the foetus in that instance was not an "unborn" for the purposes of article 40.3.3°, and that its right to life might not actually have been engaged in this case if there as no realistic prospect of life outside the womb.

As has been outlined earlier, Ms D lost her case in the European Court of Human Rights because the State successfully argued that if she had taken a case in Ireland she might have won. European law quite clearly states that one cannot have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights unless it is an absolute last resort. One can only go there after one has gone through all the legal channels in Ireland, usually the whole way up to the Supreme Court. Having lost the case here, one can take a case under the European Convention on Human Rights before the European court.

The State argued that Ms D's application was inadmissible because she could have won her case here. That is why, when the Minister was bringing forward this legislation - as he will be aware, I support the Bill - I hoped he would take the opportunity to deal with this issue. I was really disappointed when the Bill was printed and that had not been done. I have read all of the arguments that have been made in the other House and I have seen the Minister's responses to different queries. I wrote to him directly about this issue.

I understand that the Government is now arguing that it does not think the provision is constitutional but I do not understand how that argument can be made with any sincerity when the exact opposite was argued by the State successfully before the European Court of Human Rights.

I agree with Senator David Norris that the only thing preventing the Government from including this provision in the Bill is a lack of political courage. Women like Deirdre Conroy, Arlette Lyons and others who have come to Leinster House and gone on the national airwaves to share their incredibly painful personal stories have shown immense bravery. The very least we can do is ensure we take this opportunity to include provision for fatal foetal abnormalities in the Bill. We have a duty to prevent any other woman having to go through that experience. For anybody to be given such a diagnosis is hugely devastating in itself - there is no happy outcome in that situation - but the least we can do is relieve their pain in so far as we can. Women have spoken of travelling to Liverpool and the excellent care they received there. The fact remains, however, that they are obliged to travel to a hospital across the sea, away from their families and home, in order to secure a termination. They spoke of how they had to take their babies home in a cardboard box in the boot of their car or carry ashes home with them. It is absolutely barbaric and inhumane to inflict that type of torture on people. We can and must do something about it.

Several speakers referred to the issue of pregnancies arising from rape or incest. As I said yesterday, I believe an unborn baby has a right to life and I do not support abortion on demand. I also believe, however, that there are certain circumstances in which the non-availability of termination is worse. It is not a black and white situation, as human experience in general rarely is. This is especially so when it comes to painful human experiences such as those facing women with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormalities, women who face a risk to their life from a medical condition or as a consequence of feeling suicidal during pregnancy, and women who have gone through the torture of rape. Women who are pregnant as a result of rape should have a choice. We know from other jurisdictions where such a choice is available that many women choose to continue with their pregnancy. Many find it within themselves, while coping with the immense personal distress resulting from rape, to give birth and either keep the child or have him or her adopted. Others simply cannot do so, which I can understand.

Another speaker referred to a woman who is the victim of a gang rape, who has been violated in the most disgusting and unimaginable way. It is understandable that anybody who has endured that type of ordeal might feel she simply cannot cope with having the child of her attacker growing inside of her. It would be a daily reminder for the term of her pregnancy of the trauma she endured. Women in those circumstances should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy in this country. They should not have to make the lonely journey abroad. They should not, in addition to the stress of the rape, be made to feel a sense of shame by having to travel abroad to obtain a termination.

At the same time, I must, as a legislator, respect the reality that our Constitution does not allow for termination in cases of rape. In fact, it clearly specifies that such a procedure is only allowable where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. If and when a referendum is brought forward, as I expect it will be, I will argue that there should be provision for termination in cases of rape. Regrettably, however, I cannot support colleagues' proposals at this time. I would not be doing my job as a legislator if I did. We all have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the separation of powers and to respect the will of the people. I am confident, however, that most people would vote in favour of a constitutional amendment providing for terminations in cases of rape. That is clear from the opinion polls. Although I cannot vote in favour of an amendment which I know to be unconstitutional, I thank Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Marie-Louise O'Donnell for tabling the proposals. It is an incredibly important issue for us to debate.

While this legislation will save women's lives in physical emergencies and where there is a threat to their lives from suicidal ideation, there is a category of women in very distressing circumstances for which it does not cater. There are many women observing this debate who have experienced those circumstances and who must be very upset to know the Bill would not have changed anything for them. I will be voting in favour of the amendment on fatal foetal abnormalities because I strongly believe it is constitutional. I have taken legal advice on the matter and studied opinions by a number of senior counsel. In addition, I have read the arguments put forward on behalf of the State at the European Court of Human Rights. The provision can be included in the Bill and I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support it.