Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White. I wish to make a couple of responses to the Minister, Deputy James Reilly's, response to our argument. I fully accept the constitutional barrier to introducing the amendments on incest and rape and welcome Senator Averil Power's support for one of our amendments. Clearly, there is no monopoly on courage. As a man, I find it deeply upsetting to even discuss the right to intervene in the bodily integrity of a woman. The idea, as a man, that I should be legislating for the right of a woman to decide and choose her own sense of bodily integrity, whether that is her own sexuality or her right to live, is deeply uncomfortable. However, as a Senator, I have to make that call.

Our amendments are about the right to choose. They are about a choice. We are not saying that every couple and every woman who has a fatal foetal abnormality needs to, or should, go to full term but that there should be a choice. We have examples of that. The Minister, Deputy James Reilly, mentioned figures and questioned those figures. We are not proposing these amendments based on figures but on actual facts. The Termination for Medical Reasons group has clear, upsetting and barbaric examples. The group would like to have a termination of a fatal foetal abnormality available in Ireland where it could then offer closure but where the State would offer compassion. There is no compassion evident in this process particularly as they travel abroad.

I wish to clarify again what the Minister was talking about in terms of a viable pregnancy or a life of a person once he or she is born. We are talking about cases of "fatal foetal", not cases where a person survives. If there was even a scintilla of evidence of that, I would be against it. I am talking about a particular case of fatal foetal abnormalities. I heard the responses of Senators Susan O'Keeffe and Ivana Bacik. Although Senator Bacik mentioned it, she is politically in favour of the clause "fatal foetal abnormality", as I think the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, may be but I do not want to put words in his mouth. Senator Bacik mentioned that it was less constitutionally robust while the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, said if our amendment was inserted in the Bill it would be open to constitutional challenge.

I would argue that the definition of "unborn" in the Bill could also be open to constitutional challenge. In fact a lot of the details could be open to constitutional challenge. He has mildly threatened that if a clause on fatal foetal abnormalities was included in the Bill it would prevent it from being constitutional. As Senator Averil Power said there are a number of people who are probably preparing to take cases against the Bill, once it is enacted. It is not that it is not constitutional. One has only to look at the Government case put forward in the D case. It is not constitutionally settled - that is the difference. That is the reason we are seeking to include this clause.

As I stated to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, it concerns me more as well on the political front because in a way, we are legislating. We must listen to the medical advice on all sides and the legal advice on all sides. Nobody has a monopoly on that. However, we also must have political courage as well. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, in his letter in the newspaper, has shown empathy and compassion for those women but to deny this amendment on the basis of a possible constitutional challenge does not reassure me that there are other elements within the Bill that will not be challenged constitutionally. That is my final point on that.