Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yes. Amendment No. 6 is that of Senators Mac Conghail and O'Donnell. I understand this would basically remove protection from any unborn child prior to viability. If I am right in that, I want to say that, obviously, I would oppose it. I do not think I need say any more about that.

My own amendment No. 8 relates to the issue of viability. I am not trying to remove any protection for unborn children prior to viability but, in fact, to ensure that, where a child is viable, his or her life would be fully protected. That involves inserting a definition that the word "“viable”, in relation to a pregnancy, means an unborn who, as a matter of medical probability, would, by reason only of his or her gestational age, be capable of surviving outside the womb with the appropriate medical support”. Clearly, the purpose of that amendment is to help incorporate the idea of time limits into the legislation.

The amendment works in conjunction with the suggested amendments to sections 7 to 9, inclusive, and 13, which we will go on to consider. It also works with amendment No. 37, on which I did not speak earlier and which adds the requirement that "the medical procedure is not intended to end the life of the unborn where such life is viable.” This is in conjunction with the definition of viability. The rationale for all of this has to do with the discussions about whether time limits could be introduced into the Bill.

The line from the Government on this has been that one cannot time limit a constitutional right. If one looks at the Government's utterances on this issue, however, there is considerable confusion. I would quote the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, on this point. At one point, he said:

... the plain meaning of a gestational limit must mean that the test of a real and substantial risk goes out the window after it is reached. ... It is manifestly against the intention of the legislation to introduce such limits. They would undermine the legislation and change the meaning, giving a right with one hand and taking it back with the other.

However, the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White's objections expressed there missed the mark. Time limits refer not to the general rights of a woman but to the procedures which end the life of a viable child. The Government is at pains to suggest to us that what the eighth amendment provides for is not the termination of a life but the termination of a pregnancy, even if, in many cases, that termination of pregnancy will result inevitably in the termination of the life of the child. That is why it is so controversial. However, time limits do not refer to the general rights of the woman. The idea of time limits refers to the procedures which are used which end the life of a viable child. The Government is at pains to point out that the woman, under section 9, does not have the right to end a life of a viable child - that is in the context of suicide. They themselves limit the woman's right in this regard. What this amendment seeks to do is to express and make explicit that sentiment.

The Minister of State, Deputy White, cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot claim, on the one hand, that there is no right to kill a viable child under section 9 and then, on the other, claim that making this explicit in the Bill would actually revoke a woman's rights under the Bill. One cannot make both of those statements.