Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I assure the Acting Chairman that I will not offer any points of order about what other Senators say.

The Minister was at pains last evening to cast doubt on people's concerns that politicians cannot be trusted with an issue such as this. Already today in the corridors of this House, I was scolded by a member of the Government for daring to say that politicians cannot be trusted on this issue. The person in question is very nice by the way and I will not name him for fear I will be accused of attacking him. The reason I say this is that across the western world, and in this country also, politicians say one thing at election time, as the Government party did but do a different thing when political convenience seems to indicate. All along, politicians have been reassuring ordinary folk that they support the right to life of the unborn as well as top medical care for mothers. They go on journeys without consulting two sides of the story and on which they seem to believe in listening to only one side of the story. To give an example of this latest twisting and turning, one Minister's proposal that a two thirds majority be required for any changes to abortion legislation in future was shot down by the Attorney General and the Government. There was no credibility to the position of the politician in question in any case because we was already in favour of repeal, which gives politicians a blank cheque for however much abortion they wish.

If the Government was serious about the kind of caution the Minister for Health would like us to believe the Government would exercise, they need look no further than Article 12.10.4° of the Constitution, which does not relate to the life of the unborn but to the political life of the President. They could have easily proposed a formula of words to the constitutional amendment providing that no such law, that is, a law regulating abortion, shall be approved by either of the Houses of the Oireachtas save upon a resolution of that House supported by not less than two thirds of the total membership thereof. The concept exists, provided one provides for it in the Constitution. It is not my proposal because once the eighth amendment has been repealed, there will be no protection for the baby in any case and the law the Minister is proposing is so extreme and permissive as to make my point without me having to make it.

What I am trying to say is that the Government is not serious about restricting abortion. It says it is and shoots down the Tánaiste's proposal when, if it so wished, it could perfectly easily and democratically provide for a blocking minority. That is just one example of the argumentation that seeks to reassure but is not grounded in fact. I make that point because it is relevant on Committee Stage. I am not making a proposal on Committee Stage to amend the constitutional provision. I am opposed to it in principle because it is fundamentally against authentic human rights.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson deserves tremendous credit for undermining, in his typically understated and slightly mischievous way, the arguments of those who say that to oppose even putting the issue to the people is an undemocratic act.