Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

For the Minister to employ another verbal device is to engage again in the politics of casting odium rather than engaging in specificity and honest and truthful analysis of what the various sections present. Clearly, what we have seen in this legislation is the elevation of a certain ideology of choice over the welfare of unborn children and, at the same time, a medicalisation of claims for abortion that are not in keeping with time-honoured bona fide medical healthcare for women, including where such bona fide medical care would adversely affect the unborn child, which has never been opposed.

That was the reason the amendment on taxpayers' money was so important. Although the Minister in his analysis of our amendment sought to confine the issue to cases he could speak about in emotive terms, the reality is that the vast majority of cases of abortion, and I gave the figure of 99.97% in Britain, do not have anything to do with what one could call medical grounds. That is why it is such a corruption of medicine and is so wrong and unjust.

It is worth quoting from O'Flaherty J, in the case of McKenna v.An Taoiseach, where he stated: "The public purse must not be expended to espouse a point of view which may be anathema to certain citizens who, of necessity, have contributed to it." This Bill goes much further than that by expanding the public purse to take countless innocent lives, something that is clearly anathema to at least hundreds of thousands of citizens. The taxpayer funding scheme is contrary to the will of the majority of adults in Ireland, as we pointed out was correctly shown in an Amárach poll. With so much polling taking place, sometimes at taxpayers' expense, to test the waters on what can be successfully promoted and pushed, I found it interesting that when serious opinion poll evidence emerged, including in the exit poll after the referendum, which was a very professional affair, this Government, which is so reliant on polls, cast doubt on the information we were deriving from polls. This is another example of the politics of rhetoric over substance.

I might say in passing that it was interesting that I was criticised earlier by both Senator Higgins and the Minister for pointing out that the Minister was not truthful or forthcoming before the referendum about his intention that abortion would be made available freely and paid for by the taxpayer. It is interesting also that while Senator Higgins said that several of my comments were inaccurate, she did not manage to point to one. The one she attempted to point to was that there were billboards attacking the issue and making this claim. The Minister then said that we should almost be glad that he was following through on his promise. What he is basically saying is that he was very clever in keeping shtum, whereas we who campaigned against abortion were worried about and feared it so we cannot complain now that he has pulled this rabbit from the hat after the referendum. That is a very dishonest way to do politics. What the Minister has failed to contradict is our statement that there was no-----