Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Apr 1979

Vol. 313 No. 8

Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before the debate adjourned I mentioned the problems and difficulties of women in our society having children they do not want, with whom they cannot cope and whom they cannot afford, a matter that was mentioned eloquently by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Eileen Desmond. About 50 per cent of our population at the moment are younger than 25 years. Most of them have very poor prospects of getting good jobs and providing good homes in Ireland, and because of the present state of the economy it is unlikely the position will improve.

Clearly this is something the Government have been considering: there is evidence of it in the reduction in children's allowances in this year's budget. That could be described as a contraceptive provision, a discouragement to the creation of large families. As I have said, a large proportion of our population is comprised of young people, a much bigger proportion than our economy has shown itself capable of affording.

These are problems we cannot sweep under the carpet, no matter how much the anti-contraceptive lobby might wish us to do it. This leads me to the other side of the coin, the problem I see at my weekly clinics, the problem of increasing illegitimate births, of increasing young marriages, some people forced by circumstances to marry too young and who find themselves in difficulties in a short time. Perhaps the amorality of western societies has been contributed to by the availability of contraceptives to young immature people who form relationships with which they cannot cope, who have children they never intended to have, who are forced to marry prematurely, leading to battered wives and unhappy people.

As I said earlier, if we make contraceptives available I do not think we can restrict the sale and distribution of them to married people. This Bill, in my opinion, will therefore exacerbate an existing problem rather than satisfy anybody. We will only exacerbate a particular problem which I and other urban Deputies are confronted with daily, the problem of 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds looking for houses because they are married or about to get married, because they have children or are about to have them. This is a subject that troubles me deeply. They are not bad children. They are the product of the amoral environment in which we live.

I do not know what the answer to this is. In earlier times children were forced to get married, but nowadays most parents discourage girls who become pregnant from getting married, a reversal of the earlier situation. Indeed nowadays many young people get married against the wishes of their parents: they think they know the answers to all problems and that their parents do not know anything. They tend to ignore parental advice and do not foresee the dilemmas they are getting themselves into.

I am choosing my words carefully because I do not wish in any way to exaggerate the problems I see in my weekly clinics. The views I express have been considered carefully and I express them with a certain amount of reserve. I have asked young people how they got into these situations. I do not like to ask such questions but I do so when I think the people concerned are not likely to misunderstand me. I have no doubt that the increasing incidence of illegitimate births and immature marriages are caused by the amoral environment in which western world societies are living. Though the problem is serious we must ascertain first whether people agree that it is serious and then we must ask how the problems should be coped with. Because of its nature it may not be understood fully for many years because the effects of broken and unhappy marriages and of the insecurity of illegitimate children take some time to manifest themselves. To those who are blindly in favour of the concept of contraceptives for all, I suggest that these other aspects of the matter should not be ignored. In the same way the anti-contraception lobby should not ignore the problems that result from bringing children into the world who are unwanted, whose parents cannot afford them or cope with them.

Perhaps this sort of situation is related to what has now been accepted in Britain and on much of the Continent as the effects of the post-Christian society. Sometimes people like Deputy Flanagan and others who hold strong views are the subject of derision. I could not agree with a point of view which ignores the rights of individuals, but neither should we ignore completely the Christian values on which our society is based. During a BBC programme the other day I heard the panel accept that society in Britain in now post-Christian. That concept is accepted, too, in such places as West Germany. I should be very saddened by such a turn of events here.

However, I have never been of the belief that the measure of one's Christianity relates to one's sexual behaviour, though we all know the code laid down by the respective Christian Churches in this regard. Unfortunately, in Ireland there has been a sort of acceptance and tolerance of robbery, plunder, speculation or injustice and one was regarded as a Christian so long as one did not obviously breach the sexual code. As a Christian I do not attach a great deal of importance to what other people might consider to be sins of sex, but I would consider very important the question of the injustices in society, of discrimination, whether intended or otherwise, against the poor, for example. There is the discrimination whereby society seems to favour the wealthy and there is the unchristian behaviour of people who speculate regardless of the consequences for other people. Corruption, though not widespread perhaps, is tolerated. In the past Irish society has had its priorities wrong. There is a very strong lobby who profess to be Christian but who have behaved disgracefully in regard to their opposition to any attempt to make contraceptives available. Some of the literature that I have got from that lobby has been outrageous. Is it not unfortunate that there is not an equally-strong lobby campaigning against social injustice? Far too much injustice has been tolerated in our society. In passing I make the political point that this injustice has not been reduced but has probably been increased since the change of Government.

I wish to deal briefly with the question of whether we wish to remain a society in which Christian values are accepted. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate, having regard to my imperfections, I must not portray myself as being very charitable or Christian-like but, in common with the majority of Irish people, I aspire to the maintenance of Christian values. For many that means merely observing as far as possible the Ten Commandments, one of which forbids adultery while another forbids stealing and another forbids killing our fellow human beings. However, there is a kind of tolerance in regard to breaking any of the commandments except those which relate to sins of sex.

There is no reason for the Sixth Commandment being emphasised any more than the other commandments, especially when there are so many breaches of the commandments forbidding killing and stealing. I believe they are all equally important. The Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" should be observed, as I should like to see the Sixth Commandment observed. I should be sorry if we were caught up in the apparently inexorable movement towards a post-Christian society which is now almost an accepted fact in the western world. If those in the contraceptive lobby who seek to defend it are friends of Christian values, God protect such values from their enemies. The supporters of the contraceptive movement through the methods and vocabulary used in this campaign have undermined the basic Christian value of charity.

Many of our problems are the result of the diminishing importance of religion in our lives. I will not confuse the practice of religion with good Christianity. Some of the most Christian people I know are non-practising in the sense that they are non Church-going. They are, nevertheless, exemplary Christians.

In favouring, as we must, some legislation to provide for the availability of contraceptives so that the rights of mature individuals are respected, we must face the fact that the availability of contraceptives will be widened for young, immature people. An unavoidable consequence of that will be even more illegitimate births, forced immature marriages and unhappy homes.

This Bill is unworkable, even if the doctors were co-operative, because not many people will want to ask doctors to prescribe non-medical contraceptives; nor do I think they should have to. The reluctance which the doctors have twice expressed is based on purely medical grounds. They have no special competence in the field of non-medical contraceptives and they have no place in this field.

There is another matter on which I addressed a question to the Minister for Health and which the doctors may not have considered. It is the matter of indemnity. The Bill does not indemnify doctors giving prescriptions for medical or non-medical contraceptives. The Minister has no intention of indemnifying doctors, chemists, clinics and so on for any failure of contraceptives or any side-effects of them. Very few doctors will get themselves into the situation where they could be hauled before the courts for failure to prescribe adequately for the family planning needs of their patients.

I wonder why the Minister refused the indemnity, especially if he is anxious to get the co-operation of doctors. The manufacturers are not indemnified either, although I would let them look after themselves. If I were a doctor I should be very concerned about prescribing contraceptives without being indemnified as to their effectiveness and suitability for individual patients. If there were to be an indemnity, would people who used contraceptives which failed have a claim against anybody else, against the Government or the manufacturer? Is it a fact that unless there is specific provision under this legislation doctors and chemists are not indemnified? That is a serious question which should be answered. If this legislation is not declared unconstitutional and a case is brought to court, it might be sufficient to frighten off all other doctors and pharmacists. Perhaps the Minister would address himself to this problem and assure doctors and pharmacists who will co-operate in giving effect to this legislation that they will be indemnified against any claims by users of contraceptives.

In my humble layman's opinion this Bill is an invasion of privacy and will be declared unconstitutional. No doctor has the right to know, understand or interfere with private arrangements made by private individuals. I repeat and emphasise the suggestion that before the President is asked to sign this Bill—if it is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, which it may not be—he should refer it to the Supreme Court for adjudication on its constitutionality. That would be a better course to take than to have the Act hauled through the courts and declared unconstitutional. If the Minister insists on proceeding with this Bill, when it is passed he should ask the Council of State to refer it to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. However, I would prefer the Minister to accept Deputy Boland's generous offer of an all-party committee to consider the Bill and to produce legislation that will not bring the law into disrepute. That would be the wisest course for the Minister to take.

From listening to Deputy Lemass and others——

And Deputy Flanagan.

I have already referred to Deputy Flanagan. As there are divisions of opinion among the members of all parties in this House, it was not sensible of Fianna Fáil to promise a Whipped Bill. As the Bill is a matter of conscience for many Deputies it should not be the subject of a three-line Whip. I again appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Boland's generous offer of an all-party committee. When the Coalition were in Government Fianna Fáil made this subject a party-political issue. We lost the vote——

They lost the vote because their Taoiseach voted against them.

When we were in Government we had a free vote on the issue and those who conscientiously objected to the Bill were allowed to vote against it. The Minister for the Gaeltacht may want to imply that there is not a conscience on his side of the House, but I know better.

All Bills are a matter of conscience.

Deputy Mitchell should be allowed to continue.

This Bill should be the subject of a free vote.

Could Deputy Mitchell explain why?

Deputy Mitchell is now repeating a good part of his speech. Up to now I have not said anything about it, but I must tell him that repetition is not in order.

If the Minister succeeds in having the Bill passed, he should ask the Council of State to refer it to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. An even better course for the Minister to take would be to accept Deputy Boland's generous offer of an all-party committee to rewrite the Bill in order to make it meaningful and constitutional.

This Bill will affect the availability of contraceptives and for that reason it is a disappointment. I urge the Minister to withdraw it.

Whatever the Members of this House feel about the Bill—I know there are at least 130 views on this matter—there is no doubt that at the end of this debate we will have an Act on the Statute Book which Fianna Fáil undertook to place there in their election manifesto. It will be an improvement on the vacuum left by the McGee case in the Supreme Court and the vacuum left by the previous Government.

Deputy Mitchell said many members of this party do not agree with all the provisions in the Bill. I do not think there is any secret about that. As a party, we had free conversations on this matter and we discussed it in detail. Ultimately we came to support the Bill before the House. I admit it is not agreeable to everyone, but it is 100 per cent more than what was put before the House before. I can assure Deputies on the opposite side of the House that there will not be a repetition of the display by the previous Government when the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, and the Minister for Education voted in opposition to their own Minister's Bill.

Fianna Fáil have taken a responsible step in fulfilling yet another commitment in their election manifesto. Let me remind the House what that commitment was: "To ensure the widest possible acceptance of a positive policy for family planning and enact the necessary legislation". That is precisely what we are doing here today. The Minister has entered into the most patient and exhaustive consultations. He has shown extraordinary patience and has come up with a Bill which is both middle of the road and pragmatic and is filled with a considerable amount of knowledge which was not available to any other group, or person, or individual. He consulted with a wide range of people and he has come up with a very broadly based Bill. It may be unacceptable to some Members of the House, but I recall that before the last general election out of nine candidates standing in my constituency not one opposed legislation on contraception, including Deputy Kelly. He supported it. He gave a commitment to support such legislation. Perhaps he has changed his mind in the meantime.

There is nothing dogmatic in our approach to this Bill. We are not looking as Deputy Dr. Browne suggested we should look, to Germany, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Holland for solutions to our problems. As the Minister said when he was introducing this Bill, it is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I should like to pay tribute to my colleague Deputy Lemass on a most important contribution to this debate. She showed extraordinary insight, not to mention courage. Her contribution was important in that she expressed what is, whether we like it or not, a widely held view.

I should like to pay tribute to Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan. He expressed what many consider to be an old-fashioned view. People have asked me does he really believe what he said. I believe he does. I do not accept all he said, but I believe he was genuine in what he said. Every Member of this House is entitled to have a point of view. I would not condemn Deputy Flanagan, Deputy Lemass, or anyone else. We have had some extraordinary contributions to this debate. Anybody who expresses a point of view in this House should be listened to. We may not agree with them. I want to put it on record that I certainly do not agree with Deputy Flanagan, but I pay tribute to him because he had the courage to stand up and say what he had to say. He may be, as we all know, a member of that well-known male-dominated secret society, the Knights of Columbanus.

That does not enter into the debate.

It should not be referred to.

I have had correspondence referred to me from senior members of the Government which came from the Council of Social Concern, 8 Ely Place, Dublin 2, in which my name is referred to.

The Deputy is entitled to refer to the correspondence and to quote from it, but membership by a Deputy of any organisation outside the House does not enter into this debate.

I do not think Deputy Flanagan is ashamed of his membership of the Knights of Columbanus.

I am not saying he is, but it should not enter into this debate.

I accept that ruling.

It is quite in order to deal with correspondence from the Knights or anybody else.

This correspondence dealt with my participation as one of the monitors of a survey in the Ballinteer district in my own constituency. More than 70 per cent of the people surveyed supported some kind of facility in the local health clinic for advice on family planning, not merely related to the natural family planning method, or the Billings method, but also the so-called artificial methods of contraception. People threatened to make it known to the public that my association with this organisation was dangerous. The group from the Council of Social Concern included among their constituent organisations, the League of Decency, the Irish Family League, the Society to Outlaw Pornography, the concerned doctors group, and Veritas Christi, to name but a few. These are the same people who circulated what Deputy Mitchell described as outrageous literature to every Member of this House. I agree it was outrageous; it was pathetic.

Deputy Lemass referred to the survey in the Ballinteer area in my constituency in which the vast majority of young married couples came to the conclusion, in their wisdom, that they wanted to plan their families and to provide for their families in the best possible way. They believed they could do that best by the use of contraception. It is not easy to reach a consensus on an issue as emotive as this.

There are those who would oppose contraception of any kind under any circumstances, and there are those who would give out contraceptives willy-nilly, and open the flood gates, and even encourage them. The Minister had to take into consideration all the opposing views and, having done so, he came up with what is in my view a compromise proposal. It is not perfect. I do not believe there are many people who think it is perfect, but it is a 100 per cent improvement. It is a fair compromise.

The opponents of this Bill have opposed any change. They have referred to contraception and abortion as one and the same thing and they have made strenuous efforts to link one with the other. These efforts have been obscene in many cases and also counterproductive. I do not believe for one moment that anybody in this House advocates abortion. In fact, this Bill outlaws abortion. However, that is not to say that Irish women are not victims of what we might call an uncaring society, one which attaches stigma to the unwed mother. Each year the numbers of Irishwomen travelling by boat and plane to England for abortions are increasing, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Almost 3,000 Irish babies are exported in the womb by boat and aeroplane to be committed to the waste disposal units in British hospitals. There we have the horror of doctors working from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. daily at their full-time professional occupation performing these abortions. It fills me with horror and repugnance.

We must come back to our own society and look into our hearts. How do we treat the permissive girls, the people over whom we have no control? What do we do for them? We ignore them largely. We hope they go away. We attach this enormous stigma to them and as a consequence their only option is to remove themselves by boat to these dreadful abortion clinics in Britain. In our schools and in our homes we are reluctant to talk about these matters to our children. We are inclined to evade these issues of education in matters of sex and to sweep them under our collective carpet. As Deputy Mitchell and other Deputies have said, we treat these issues as something more dangerous than lying about our neighbours, cheating—Deputy Kelly referred to cheating the Revenue Commissioners—or driving cars at excessive speed or when we are drunk, and each year we kill 500, 600, 700 people on our roads. There is the real immorality. We are confusing morality with the need to protect the family. Of course we need to protect the family, and the family unit, and this Bill is going a long way towards doing that.

I want to put on the record of the House, if it is not already clear, that, in common with most other Members of this House, I am opposed to abortion. Equally I think that those people who try to link it with contraception, whether it be the Billings method, the natural family method or so-called artificial contraception, are wrong-minded and their approach is intrinsically evil. I remind those people that the late Pope Paul VI set up a commission to examine the whole question of contraception as it related to the Catholic Church. That commission was composed of cardinals, bishops, doctors, theologians and eminent Catholic gynaecologists, and their recommendation to the Pope, carried by more than a two-thirds majority, was that there should be a relaxation in the Roman Catholic Church's attitude to artificial contraception. For his own reasons the late Pope rejected these recommendations and published the now famous but controversial document Humanae Vitae, a document that for good reason has been rejected by a wide cross-section of the world's Catholic population.

This is a very private matter. People are going to make up their minds as to whether they are going to plan their family and by what method. In the Six Counties if people want a supply of condoms or other contraceptive devices, there will be traffic up there in these. Do not worry, the people will not be found wanting in finding ways to overcome their problems in this regard.

I should like to pay tribute to those who have taken part in this debate on both sides of the House. With one or two unimportant exceptions, they have acted most responsibly. The Churches have acted correctly. They have stated their position on one side or the other and they have left it to the legislators to make the decision. It seems as if Fianna Fáil will have to make the decision because the other parties apparently are incapable of providing the support to oppose it or to agree to it.

Our country comes in for a lot of criticism. Deputy Kelly referred to us in this House as a group of leprechauns. He suggested that we were ambivalent. I have travelled over most of this world. I have been to a very big number of countries. I have not spent a single day outside this country without yearning to come back to live here among the people Deputy Kelly refers to as leprechauns. Of course we have problems; of course we have warts; of course we have social difficulties. There are things that many would like to see changed. The Fianna Fáil Party will change these. I spent over five years in America and the Far East and of all the countries that I have come across Ireland is the one that I prefer to live in. We must take an honest view of changes that are coming about in our society. We may not like them but they are coming—in fact they are here. I defy any Member of this House to tell me of any other country more open, more democratic, or in which they would prefer to live and bring up their children than ours. We have a wonderful country. We have a lot to do to improve the quality of life here, but the quality of life is far superior to that of the countries that Deputy Browne and other Deputies mentioned as being countries from which we should take example. Out of hand I reject Deputy Browne's suggestion that we should look to Denmark, Germany or to any of those countries for ideas as to how we should form our society. Our society is a fine one, a strong one. To some extent the weaker sections of our community are neglected, but that is another day's work, another debate, another development.

I want to say something about the Billings method of contraception. One of the most famous advocates of the Billings method in this country has carried out an extensive survey of its success. While the figures are not published and are unlikely to be published for some time, I understand from authoratitive sources, that the failure rate has been 30 per cent. Therefore it would be worth while for Members of this House to consider the provision in this Bill for extensive research into the Billings method.

I do not for one moment consider this Bill the perfect answer to a most delicate question, but I support it. There are many changes I should like to see, but nonetheless I support the Bill. That may sound a contradiction in many ways, but I have had the fullest consultation with my parliamentary colleagues and I believe that is the consensus. I can assure the House that Fianna Fáil will have ongoing conversations on this matter.

I should like to read into the record a statement by the distinguished gynaecologist, Dr. Michael Solomons, writing in the journal of the Irish Medical Association in August 1974, when he said:

We know far too little about our own society. This belief has been confirmed in recent months by a surfeit of contributors to the Irish debate on contraception and associated morality, spilling out statistics from all over the world but little relating to this country.

Dr. Solomons continued:

We are living and working here, trying to solve an Irish dilemma but without adequate facts about our own society which would make discussion of real value. We have no baseline founded on up to date information on which to relate our progress.

He continued to say:

The important point is that change should not be condemned in itself; every aspect should be examined, nothing hidden away, and that which is unhealthy and unsound sought out and put right.

Those who feel society to be threatened by possible changes in the laws in relation to contraception believe sincerely that there would be a deterioration in the quality of life as we know it in this country. But where is the full survey, the complete report which can allow us to feel satisfied that this quality is as high as can be achieved? I fear an element of complacency in a society that wishes to remain static.

Fianna Fáil have delivered on their commitment. The Minister for Health has had consultations with the widest possible range of people on this matter and has come up with a Bill which, like it not, is a vast improvement on what we have had in the past. In fact, we have had nothing in the past. I pay tribute to the Minister for the work he has done. I should like to pay tribute also to those involved over the years on a purely voluntary basis in the family planning associations, in the family planning clinics throughout the country, people who have been working against great odds. Their work has made a major contribution to understanding of this matter. They have made an enormous contribution also in reducing the numbers of women who go each year to Britain for abortions. They have helped hundreds of women who find themselves battered and raped nightly by drunken, bullying husbands—sick men who have lost all dignity. I pay tribute to those organisations who care for battered wives and children on a voluntary basis with the minimum of support. I should like to pay tribute also to CURA for the wonderful work they have done in helping pregnant women whose families have forgotten the admonishments of the Sermon on the Mount, to our general practitioners, to our nurses, for the compassion and understanding they have shown so many troubled families, to men and women, social workers, and to all other caring groups in our society.

When we look back over the last four years we remember that, at the time a similar Bill was introduced, the Gallery was packed. But, when we look around today, it is interesting to note that there is one person in the Gallery and four Deputies listening to the debate on what is meant to be one of the most important Bills ever to come before this House. It is amazing how our society has changed in the last four years.

I understand that my party tried today to get a more immediate relations problem, the industrial relations one, before the House but were not allowed. As one of the minority Deputies it gives me great pleasure to speak for the short time at my disposal about what I regard as a half-way-house Bill. At this stage it has become an embarrassment to the Minister.

What is an embarrassment to me?

This Bill.

No way. Rubbish. The Deputy should speak for himself.

Of course, I speak for myself. It is a half-way-house Bill which has become a complete embarrassment. Knowing the Minister and how realistic he is about society today, if he tries to tell this House that he has now come around to the way of thinking that this is a realistic Bill——

I have already said it ill becomes anybody in Fine Gael to talk about embarrassment over family legislation.

Deputy White can make his own speech. He should not put words into the mouth of any other Member of the House.

I am already embarrassing the Minister. I hope that by the time I have finished I will not have embarrassed him too much.

It is the right of every Deputy to make up his or her mind on an issue like this. I detest any lobbying that has taken place, whether inside or outside this House. As a Member of the minority—and I am disappointed to note that Deputy Briscoe has not spoken—I thought it terrible, when this Bill was introduced, to see those old dears outside this House walking up and down with rosary beads in hand. Thank God, there were not too many of them. Thank God, they were not too young either, that those who were walking up and down were in the over 60 age group. There is something wrong with a society when people walk up and down like that. As far as I am concerned—I probably represent one of the most rural constituencies—I was elected, like other Members, to speak on issues like contraception and make up my mind as to what I should say and I will return to my constituents and tell them why I made my statements on contraception.

I was disappointed with the Minister because I believe the old rearguard Fianna Fáilites got behind him and insisted that the Bill should provide that contraceptives be made available only under doctors' prescription. It is ludicrous to think that if Deputy Andrews and his wife decide to plan their family they must go to a doctor to get a prescription for simple forms of contraceptives. Being from a northern county I am aware that these things are available in Northern Ireland and have been since I was a child. I come from within four miles of the Border and we have seen them and a certain number of us probably used them but I do not think our morals are any less than those of people living in Dublin.

I would love to have been able to tell the Minister that I would vote for his Bill. However, I will not vote against it or for it; I do not intend voting at all. This is only a half-way house. It is a step in the right direction but it has not gone far enough. Everybody who wishes to avail of contraceptives can obtain them. Whether the Bill is passed or not those anxious to obtain them will be able to do so without having to go to a doctor for a prescription. I do not intend to be paired for the vote on this Bill for two reasons. If the Minister had not put in the provision in relation to a doctor's prescription I would have given thought to voting with him but as he has done so and as I realise that he is taking some steps I will not vote. Fine Gael believe in the rights of human beings. We believe that in this case all Members should be allowed to express their own view. The same should apply to Fianna Fáil. Those with an independent view should have the guts to be counted on issues like this.

We are infringing on the basic human rights of people. I do not think anybody can say that we are giving people basic human rights if we are insisting on them going to a doctor for a prescription for something which is widely available on the Continent, in England, Northern Ireland and in most societies. We are interfering with people's basic rights when we ask them to go before a doctor when for the last three years most forms of contraception were freely available to them if they knew where to go. I do not think a doctor has the right to tell a man and his wife whether they should plan their family or not. A doctor can tell such a couple that he does not believe he should prescribe contraceptives for them and they must go to another doctor. These things should be widely available to such couples. Why are they not available to other sections of the community? For example, what is the position of a divorcee, a separated man or woman, a university student who can at present obtain such contraceptives but who under the Bill can be brought before the courts? The Bill will suit the old rearguard over 40s who are passed most forms of contraception anyway but, as far as the younger generation are concerned, we have shown that we are not serious about them.

The former Minister for Justice introduced his Bill because of the decision in the McGee case which resulted in contraceptives being freely available to everybody. It is a humiliating thought for any divorcee or separated person to go before a doctor to discuss their plans about sexual intercourse. Deputy Mitchell quoted the Ten Commandments but in my view he quoted them wrongly. As far as the commandments are concerned here there is only one crime and that is against the Commandment which says, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Those of us who move around realise that these things have always taken place. It is not today or yesterday that we learned that they take place. We are a country of hypocrites, probably the greatest hypocrites in the world, when it comes to talking about sex. Everybody talks about sex as if it was a terrible sin but at the same time most people engage in it. I do not think the morals in this State are any worse than they are in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Andrews spoke of the 3,000 abortions involving Irish women in the last 12 months and I should like to know if any thought has been given to this matter. We all detest the idea of abortion but the reason why so many of these girls and mothers go to England for abortions is that many of them have no form of contraception available to them. This Bill will not make life any easier for such people. The Minister who says he feels for the people he is legislating for is not aware of the situation. How can a single person who decides to have sexual intercourse obtain contraceptives unless through a doctor? Many such people would not have the courage to go to the family doctor to look for a form of contraception. Instead of abortions decreasing I am afraid they will increase.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share