Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is another amendment consequential on an amendment that has not been allowed. We did, however, discuss the issue at some considerable length on Committee Stage. Again, it refers to the grounds for abortion in section 9 and the use of the word "appropriate". As I pointed out on Committee Stage, the word is not to be found in the relevant Medical Council language. It is to be contrasted with the use of the word "necessary" in section 10. I have spoken a good deal about the corruption of medicine. I have also said part of the corruption of medicine is an attempt to cloak access to abortion services on an elective basis in medical terms, thereby seeking to undermine opposition to it. This fudging between what is elective, on the one hand, and what is necessary medically, on the other, is unique to the story of campaigning for access to abortion. It is highly irresponsible to see the Government bend to that political tendency by choosing language that masks the distinction between procedures one could reasonably contemplate on legitimate medical grounds, on the one hand, and, on the other, the importation of an unusual level of subjectivity into assessment to allow abortions which, by definition, are harmful and fatal for the unborn baby to take place, even though there is no bona fide medical basis for them. That is part of the corruption of language and politics for which the Government is responsible, as exemplified by this legislation. On Committee Stage I pointed to the absence of the word "appropriate" in other medical circumstances. It is clear that there is a desire to introduce abortion here, ostensibly on medical grounds but, in fact, where it is not judged to be necessary.

It also departs from what I believe are the wishes of the people. Apart from the 34% who opposed repeal completely because they wanted to protect both mothers and babies, many were reluctant "Yes" voters who did not want to see clever masking of access to abortion services by inappropriate medicalisation of the subject. That is harmful and not the way to do politics. It does a disservice to the women and unborn children in question. It also does a disservice to the medical profession and all those who see a clear distinction between authentic care for mothers and babies, on the one hand, and decisions that are choice-based to avail of an elective procedure, on the other.

I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment. It would not make sense for him to do so in the context of the substantial amendment not included for discussion today. On that basis, I am not pressing the amendment, but I highlight the injustice, the dishonesty and sheer wrongness of departing from the legitimate and effective term of "necessity" and it does not have to be 100% or absolute, as the Minister claimed previously. Again, it is an example of the use of political language. The simple word "necessary" has always been effective and doctors have used it. They are in a position to make reasonable judgments on necessity without having their hands tied. "Necessary" is the word that should be used.