Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have heard both sides but there is a distinction. Of course, we support every intervention where the mother’s life can be saved, even if that means the unintentional taking of the life of the unborn. Senator Walsh’s amendment states, “but excludes any procedure undertaken or drug administered with the direct intention of killing the unborn”. That is the difference. It is about the intention. Senator Burke is not correct that this amendment would prevent a life-saving mechanism for a woman under sections 7 or 8 or in the Savita Halappanavar case. In all those cases, we would want a woman’s life to be saved. The intention of the intervention would be to save the life of the woman, even if it meant the unintentional taking of the life of the unborn. Senator Walsh is referring to the direct intention of killing the unborn. Will the Minister of State clarify that this is the intention of section 9, namely, the direct intention of killing the unborn?