Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have listened to this debate from my office. It is obviously one of the gravest issues that will ever be discussed in these Houses because unlike many other issues which we debate, this involves the lives and deaths of human beings. It is no secret that I was extremely disappointed with the approach taken by the committee, the way its work was managed, and the way the time allowed for questioning and thorough analysis of the issues was completely curtailed. I regret to say that there was on occasions an atmosphere that I felt was disrespectful of the minority. There were a lot of things to regret, but perhaps I should focus on the issues.

It is staggering to consider the things the committee never considered in detail or at all. I was among those asking to hear evidence about the human rights case for the eighth amendment. We heard from international experts from a supposed human rights culture that does not believe that the unborn has any rights before birth. That is the standard. That is the default position among the international human rights fraternity, the people who dominate the debate. They will never, ever criticise a law on abortion on the grounds that it is too liberal.The fact that this was not engaged with or that a voice to explain the human rights thinking behind protecting both unborn babies and their mothers in the Irish Constitution was not heard was a remarkable omission.

Another great issue that we never got to grips with was the question of whether the eighth amendment has actually contributed to saving lives. This issue is often presented as though the only issue is whether we put the inconvenience on women by forcing them to go to Great Britain for abortions or let those same abortions happen in Ireland. An NGO which supports abortion was brought before the committee even though advocacy groups were not supposed to be there and made the blithe and untested claim that it does not matter what the law says as the same number of abortions take place. I am roughly paraphrasing what it said. However, the obvious comparator is Great Britain with its figure of one in five pregnancies ending in abortion. According to the best figures we can muster and the best estimates, estimates that have been prepared by actuaries, if we take our abortion figures, tragic as they are at over 3,000 annually, if we allow even for 1,000 or so or more abortions taking place through the pill, it is a far lower abortion rate.

One in 19 Irish pregnancies ends in abortion. However, the committee never felt it was necessary to look at whether the law being the way it is in Ireland has caused people not to choose abortion with the result that there might be thousands of people walking around today living as I live and in perfect health. That is really what is at stake. It is whether we see one person to be protected or whether we see two. If the unborn baby was not a human being, it certainly would be heartless to deprive anybody of the right to abortion but what is at stake here is whether we see one person to be protected or two. What we have achieved in Ireland is a law that guarantees the right to life of the mother in all circumstances. Contrary to what has just been said, the threat to life does not have to be imminent. One senior obstetrician told me that they were comfortable that the law allows them to do whatever they need to do to protect a woman. That is why the unfortunate invocation of the Savita Halappanavar tragedy was so unfair because this did not have to do with doctors refusing life-saving treatment to a woman. This, according to the reports, the inquest and all of the documents, was about doctors failing to comprehend that a woman's life was in danger. We need to be honest and not use these tragic cases in a propagandistic way.

The experiences of families that believe the lives of some of their loved ones have been saved by the eighth amendment was not of interest to the committee. I know one family that made an abortion appointment twice but because the law is the way it is, there was that necessary process of thinking. I know one person who came back and said to me: "If only I'd known somebody to tell me I could cope." That is what is at stake. We pretend to be compassionate by saying we will let everybody make the decision and that it should be between themselves and their doctors but who is going to speak up for the baby? I have not heard any contribution here so far actually talk about the baby as though he or she has any rights. I do not know what that means. I do not know what politicians are really thinking. I do not know if they feel they have to obey a party line or if they really do not believe the a baby has any rights because what was proposed by the committee leaves the baby with very few rights. Let us remember because people wanted to talk about complex and tragic cases, like rape, that do conflict people. The morning-after pill is legal in Ireland. Protection for the unborn baby takes place from the moment of implantation and many people who experience that horrible crime go on to keep their babies, which was one very positive thing we heard at the committee. However, in order not to have to deal with the complexities of whether we would legalise abortion in this case or not, the committee proposed that it be okay to take any unborn child's life up to 12 weeks.

I received a letter recently from somebody who asked whether I would consider asking that my colleagues and I in the Oireachtas be given a short straightforward factual presentation on the stages of development that a foetus-unborn baby goes through during a pregnancy. My correspondent said that surprisingly, this information was never set before either the Citizens' Assembly or the committee. I can certainly speak for the latter being true. If there are potential votes on ending an unborn baby's life at particular stages, it would be important in the interests of evidence-based decision making that each legislator would be in possession of this key information and so could be clear in his or her mind on what exactly is at stake at each stage.

I am not talking about gory pictures. I have never been in favour of them. I think they dehumanise the baby and show a lack of respect for the person who is unwittingly confronted with the deep injustice of late-term abortions, particularly in all their physical reality. However, I am talking about us being open to talking about the developmental stages of the human being because one thing is clear. Science is showing us just how wonderfully complex and sophisticated human life is from the earliest days in the womb. One does not need to go through pro-life literature to see it. The pregnancy websites for men and women expecting their babies will talk about your little baby and what is happening to him or her in the womb at three or four weeks and five or six weeks. What one will be stunned by is the early stage sophistication. When we pointed out at the committee that there is a heart beating at 21 days, we were met with the response that this is just a neural tube. This pulse is what turns out to be the heartbeat. Why would people want to deny the sophistication of the development of the unborn child? This is not a potential human being. This is a human being with potential at the exact physicality and the exact state of development that is proper for his or her state in life.

I heard passing references to respecting different views but I also heard references to zealots. How can we regard as a zealot somebody who believes passionately that there is a baby as well as a mother to be protected? How can one regard as a zealot somebody who is willing to pay more of their own taxpayer's money to ensure that no woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy situation feels alone and unsupported? How can one regard as a zealot somebody who believes that a mother must always be entitled to every necessary medical treatment, even if that results in the loss of her baby because that is what our Constitution guarantees?

Reference was made to Peter Sutherland. May he rest in peace, he was a great Irishman. However, I would ask people to be careful about invoking particular names. I knew Peter Sutherland. I spent a very pleasant hour in his house not that long ago. He encouraged me very much in my politics and urged me to keep doing what I do. While he did give his advice, I do not believe he would have been comfortable with what we are proposing now. There are good people on both sides of this debate but we should remember that this is the first time it has ever been proposed that some human beings will have their right to exist taken away. It is not that anybody likes anybody to have to go through a crisis pregnancy. It is because the lesser of two evils always involves letting everybody live so that they can have everything or at least some of what each person in this room, including myself, enjoys, which is the opportunity to have an imperfect life.