Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Senator told me that his view is that it is not contemplated in both senses. That is where the Senator and I have an honest disagreement. I think it is very obvious, in light of the evidence that Senator Ó Domhnaill and I have put before the Minister again, that circumstances can arise in which there will be knowledge of disability prior to the moment when the permitted time limit for the section 12 abortion without reason has elapsed. That is fact. As I have raised previously in the context of later-term abortions, the provision that is being made for abortion on the ground of health does not distinguish between physical and mental health. In light of the evidence that mental health is not improved by abortion situations - I referred to this evidence yesterday - the Minister's Bill is not protecting against a situation where the tragic or challenging discovery of disability, if one wants to use such words, could be said to trigger a mental health challenge for the person involved.

It is true that the law being proposed here is different from the law in Britain, as Senator Norris has said. Britain's very cruel provision on disability expresses no time limit whatsoever where disability is diagnosed. As Senators will be aware, abortion is criminal in Britain but is not prosecutable under various exceptional headings. The one in relation to disability is particularly cruel and unjust. We have heard about late-term abortions for disabilities as simple or as uncomplicated as a cleft palate. The Minister's Bill is cruel and irresponsible in its vagueness because it provides for abortion without reason up to a 12-week limit without insulating against the possibility that a vulnerable person in such a vulnerable situation might seek an abortion on the grounds of disability. Before the referendum, the Minister gave a commitment to provide for a specific exclusion in the case of disability, but he cannot deny that it is not specifically excluded. He may claim that his Bill does not intend to legalise abortion on the grounds of disability. He can truthfully say that and I cannot challenge him, but I can question the honesty of the Government when the Minister tells me that this Bill does not specifically exclude disability because he has failed to specifically exclude the invocation of disability as a ground under section 12, section 9 or even section 10. At the bar of history, this will not be a difficult one to resolve. The words have clear meaning.

Senator Norris reminded us all of something that is important here - how difficult it is for families who find it impossible to cope, including and perhaps especially families that already have a child with a disability. Those who are seeking to exclude abortion on the grounds of disability can only do so with integrity, in my view, if they are on board with extra support and care at taxpayers' expense for families that deal with this challenge. I hope that in my ten or 11 years here to date, I have been on the side of the angels in that respect. We can never do enough in this regard. The point of legislation here is not to pretend that people do not find themselves in vulnerable situations; it is precisely to deal with what happens when people find themselves in vulnerable situations. The difference of opinion in this Chamber is about what constitutes compassionate care in this situation. For some Senators, compassion in this situation points to acceding to a request for abortion. For me and for some other Senators, and for many people in this country, the only way one can be compassionate is if one is consistently and inclusively compassionate. This means that no child is left behind, not even an unborn child. We have a greater obligation to be supportive of people and families when disability is diagnosed in pregnancy. It is precisely because of the vulnerability that this situation brings about that the law needs to be especially clear. That is exactly what this legislation is not - it is not clear.

The Minister rightly said that we need to talk about these matters in a sensitive manner. He took umbrage at the implication that the only reason some children were born in the past was because of the eighth amendment. He paid tribute to those families that give life to their children out of love. With the greatest of respect, that is seeking to obfuscate the issues by reference to an emotive argument. Nobody even disputes the love that parents have when they find that they cannot cope, even if they make a choice that I would disagree with. It is an indisputable fact that our constitutional protection for the unborn coincided with dramatically lower abortion rates, according to the best information available, than those that exist in the parts of the world where abortion is legal - especially, but not exclusively, our nearest neighbour. There was a radical difference in the incidence of abortion of children where conditions such as Down's syndrome had been diagnosed in utero. It can be claimed that the difference was love - that the Irish were more loving than other people. I would like to think that was the case. I can even agree that it may have been the case. However, it is not a basis for making law.No responsible Minister for Health would make law on the basis that the people of one country are more loving and kind than the people of another. We all know that the reason we have laws is because laws help to shape choices. They signal the community's desire in respect of certain choices and so as not to be hypocritical, they must be backed up by extra support and resourcing for people who we ask to make a particular choice. The Minister suggests that the issue of hair colour is on a par with the issue of disability. He says it is no more inappropriate that the Bill does not specifically exclude abortion on the grounds of hair colour than on the grounds of disability. To suggest that-----