Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 2012

Vol. 784 No. 3

Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) (No. 2) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

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

I am pleased to open this section of the debate this evening. Seven months have passed since the House last debated legislation to give effect to the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the X case. Sinn Féin supported the passage to Committee Stage of that legislation, which was tabled by Deputy Clare Daly last April. We will support this Bill in the same way tonight. We are taking this position because we recognise there is an urgent need to legislate to give legal protection and clarity to pregnant women and to their doctors. We are taking this position because the inertia and negligence of successive Governments on the basic issue of protecting pregnant women's lives must be ended now.

The Sinn Féin motion that was tabled and debated last week called for the publication of the report of the expert group. This has since happened, as we know, albeit following extensive leaking of the document last weekend. It is strange to reflect that the Government which last week urged us all to postpone action and patiently await this report felt it appropriate or opportune to leak the report before any one of us had sight of it. This kind of game-playing does nothing to build confidence in the Government's approach to dealing with this issue. The expert group report sets out four options for Government action. While it does not make an explicit recommendation, it makes it clear that legislation is necessary.

It is worth stating for the purposes of clarity that the circumstances in which any woman may lawfully obtain a termination of her pregnancy in this State are very restrictive. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that a termination might be lawful only if there is "a real and substantial risk" to the life of the woman in question. It further ruled that if the life of a pregnant woman is in jeopardy, a termination is not lawful unless a termination is the only way of averting that risk. In other words, the pregnant woman must be at "a real and substantial risk" of death and there must be no other means of saving her life. Those are the tests to be applied if a termination is to be lawful. The X case ruling and the legislation arising from it do not comprise a formula for a liberal abortion regime. It is not a prescription for what is termed "abortion on demand" - far from it. Any attempt to describe it as such deliberately ignores and distorts the constitutional and legal realities that exist in this State today.

In the past week, I have heard many people express the fear that suicide will be included in legislation as a ground for obtaining a legal termination of pregnancy. As we know, the X case ruling arose because of "a real and substantial risk" of death by suicide in the case of a teenage girl who became pregnant after being abused and raped. It is important to be precise in respect of how the Supreme Court found on the question of the suicide threat. The court ruled that a termination of pregnancy is lawful where the threat of suicide poses "a real and substantial risk" to the life of the woman and where no other intervention can save the life of that woman, or child in the case of X. This is not a prescription for what some people have inaccurately and erroneously described as "abortion on mental health grounds". It is wrong to suggest that legislating for the X case is some kind of slippery slope that will lead to an open-ended liberal abortion regime. It is not true.

Abortion is a long-running and divisive issue across Irish society. The sincerely held differences of view on the matter are not likely to be reconciled soon. In my opinion, that difference and that debate can and must be accommodated in a democratic society. I do not think anybody should fear this debate. It is important to say that any extension of the circumstances in which abortion might be permissible is not the subject of this evening's debate. We are dealing with a Bill that seeks to give legislative expression to something which is already lawful. The abject failure of Government after Government and Dáil after Dáil to respond to the Supreme Court judgment of 20 years ago, thereby leaving a legal vacuum and treating women’s lives in a cavalier manner, cannot and must not be tolerated in a democratic society.

It is a great pity that the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has signalled the Government's intention to vote this legislation down. He said last night that he believes there are imperfections in the Bill as drafted. Sinn Féin also has a number of concerns about the Bill as it stands. The Minister said there is a need for clarity on the constitutional balance being struck in the Bill. He spoke about the "blanket immunity" that is being given to doctors in section 5 of the Bill. He referred to deficits in "decision-making processes" and issues with regard to the appeals panel. I am not saying these are not matters of substance. These issues require precise consideration, redrafting and amendment. Such changes can be made on Committee Stage. That is normal when we process legislation through the Oireachtas. Regardless of what members of Fine Gael, the Labour Party or Fianna Fáil might say - the same people delayed on this matter for two decades - it must be emphasised that the imperfections in the Bill are not good reasons to vote it down.

I notice that this Bill has changed over the past seven months. It is now identified as an interim and necessary measure to protect women. That is very important. We should not lose sight of it. The Government has set out a timetable of sorts for the consideration of the expert group report. We know that the Joint Committee on Health and Children will hold hearings on the matter after Christmas. We have not yet been given a definitive commitment or timetable for legislation on the X case. What should women and doctors do in the here and now? Where do they stand in the meantime?

I appreciate that this Government wants to get the legislation right. I will give it credit in that regard because it is the proper approach to take. However, I would like to set it a challenge. The medical profession has made it clear that as a result of 20 years of delay, it has been facing difficulties in those grey areas. As legislators, we have been resoundingly told by public opinion that we must get on with our job. In that context, it is clear that the rationale for voting this Bill down is very threadbare indeed. Perhaps the Government will vote it down simply because it can. That is entirely the wrong way to approach this issue.

I commend the Deputies who have introduced this Bill. It is worthy of the support of this House. It should be allowed to proceed to Committee Stage. It does not stand in the way of any of the other debates or deliberations that are being led by the Government. The women and doctors of Ireland have made it clear to the Members of the Dáil that we must make right the failure to legislate and we must do it now.

I wish to share time with Deputies Jerry Buttimer, Derek Keating, Regina Doherty, Arthur Spring, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Tony McLoughlin and Liam Twomey.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Bill before the House is a genuine attempt to give legislative effect to the Supreme Court decision in the X case. Deputy Daly's interest and commitment on this issue is clear, and it is a commitment that is shared by many in this House and outside. It is a pity to have to acknowledge that this whole debate essentially has been forced upon us by a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C case. In any event, we are now having the debate, at last, and we are progressing towards a resolution.

As I said last week during the Private Members' debate on the Sinn Féin motion, the expert group and indeed the programme for Government referred to how, not whether, the European Court of Human Rights judgment should be implemented. Of course, implementing that judgment, as we must, means implementing in turn the X case decision. It is vital to recognise that, as the expert group points out and Deputy McDonald correctly said, there is in existence already a constitutional right arising from Article 40.3.3°, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case. The expert group is correct in observing that "implementing the judgment could not be considered to involve significant detriment to the Irish public, since it would amount to rendering effective a right already accorded, after referendum, by Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution."

The case against addressing the X case appears to me to be reducible to one argument, namely, that the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of Article 40.3.3°. This perhaps was what motivated people in 1992, and again in 2002, in the attempt essentially to reverse the X case. The people declined to do so on two occasions. Almost 30 years ago the people passed an amendment to their Constitution. Much of what transpired later was in fact foreshadowed by the wording of that amendment, given that it stated: "The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

This is not a debate for "I told you so" arguments. However, the case was made in 1983, as I remember well, that the very wording being proposed would lead to the outcome that in fact transpired. In any event, that debate occurred in 1983 and the decision was made by the people to put that clause into the Constitution. We respect and accept fully the will of the people as set out in their Constitution.

The Supreme Court was then called upon in 1992 to interpret the true meaning of the clause that was put by the people into the Constitution. That interpretation of the Supreme Court in the X case in 1992 stands and it is the law of this State on this question.

We have a Supreme Court which the people, in my experience, hold in very high regard. It is a court, like all courts in our system, that is wholly independent of the Government. It gave its judgment in 1992 and we cannot proceed, in a democratic state, on the basis that the court was wrong or that we do not like its decision so let us ignore it, as some would urge us to do. We cannot cherry-pick decisions of the Supreme Court in this way.

That court did its duty under our Constitution. In contrast, the Oireachtas has failed to do its duty. While it was suggested by some in the Fianna Fáil Party that legislation was brought forward, no legislation was brought forward to seek to implement the X case, apart from the two proposals brought into the Houses to amend the Constitution and reverse the X case, which were defeated by the people. This has been a lamentable failure on the part of the Oireachtas and of the six Governments that have held office since 1992.

In the A, B and C case, the successful applicant, C, had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to enforce the implementation in her own country of her own country's laws - that is the truth of it. We have had that judgment for a considerable period and it is time to act on it. There is no question as to the binding effect of the judgment on Ireland, and the expert group sets this out very clearly in the course of the report. There is clearly a legal obligation on us, if for no other reason than that we still have the 1861 Act, with its serious associated criminal sanctions. It was the absence of clarity for an Irish woman that led her to bring her case to the European Court of Human Rights. It seems beyond argument that an Irish citizen, an Irish woman, should be entitled as an absolute minimum to know where she stands as to what is lawful and what is not and, in regard to what is lawful, that there should be access to such treatment in her own country.

Many of us, perhaps not a majority but very many people, believe as I do that our laws are unduly restrictive on women and that the Constitution should be revisited on this issue at some stage in the future. I note and share the view expressed last night by the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, that foetal abnormalities such that the baby simply cannot survive ought, in all humanity, be grounds for the availability of a termination. As Deputy McDonald rightly said, however, that is not an issue that is before us in this debate. Any change to the Constitution on this difficult question would be in the hands of the people. That was the intention of the amendment in 1983 and that is its effect. However, it is critical to bear in mind that implementing the X case, as we are now required to do, does not have the effect of changing our law in any respect - I emphasise that. If and when we implement this and bring forward legislation, it will do no more than confirm and codify in our law arguably the most restrictive laws in the developed world on the termination of pregnancy.

As to how we should proceed now, we are greatly assisted by the expert group report. Each of the various options is carefully considered there, and the implications, merits and demerits have been explored and explained. There is a legitimate question as to the appropriate detail or scope of the legislation or other measures that will be put in place. Most people agree there must always remain a high level of professional discretion on the part of medical staff, and there is no legislation or set of rules that will ever be able to contemplate every given scenario. Doctors need to know, in the exercise of their discretion within the law, that they have the protection of the law. This is what we need to provide, namely, the protection of the law for the exercise within the law of a doctor's professional judgment in collaboration, of course, with the woman involved, who should always be at the centre of this discussion and debate.

The report is very clear on the question of guidelines. We had the beginnings of this debate last week in regard to guidelines versus legislation and I hope we will have a full debate in the course of the coming weeks. The report is absolutely clear in regard to essentially disposing of the suggestion that we can deal with this simply by way of guidelines. It makes the point at pages 44 and 45 that a guidance document would be required in any scheme that would be brought forward, and it goes on to state:

an argument can be made that guidelines in isolation do not fulfil all the requirements set by the European Court of Human Rights judgment for a number of reasons. Guidelines are, by their nature, non binding and do not have force of law [I emphasise this point]. The Courts, both domestic and international, have made it clear that in a democracy, measures which affect rights must have a secure legal basis.

We give those measures a secure legal basis in this Chamber. This is the Parliament of the people and this is where we should make these decisions. I have no doubt this is what will occur.

It does not seem at all conceivable to me that we could achieve legal clarity through such guidelines. We will need legislation. I agree strongly with the Minister, Deputy Shatter, when he said in the House last night: "I believe it is absolutely clear that the only appropriate action to take is to repeal and replace the 1861 Act, using modern language which does not criminalise the termination of a pregnancy where its continuation poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother." That is the course on which we should set ourselves, and that is the clear view I have as to how we should go.

It is a debate we ought to have in these Houses and let us have that debate on a foundation of respect. If it is about flushing out the Labour Party, flushing out people who are alleged not to care about the issue or flushing out people in some way to gain some political advantage-----

It is not about that.

-----we will not achieve the outcome we want. I hear it already over there. We can actually work this issue through in this Parliament in a mature way if we listen to one another, and if we do not always assume bad faith of the opposite side of the argument. The default position is constantly that the people on the other side are delaying, dragging feet and so on. Let the House understand this.

There is no one in this House who does not have an absolute commitment and sense of purpose for this issue to be resolved in the interests of the Irish people and in particular in the interests of Irish women. That is what we are all dedicated to do. Let us listen to one another for once on an issue that does not have to divide the House. I commend Deputy Clare Daly on her introduction of the Bill and on the work she has done, but I join with others in asking her and all of the parties, in the spirit of trying to resolve the issue, to put aside the attacks and allegations and spend time debating the issue.

Let us assume that Second Stage of the Bill were to be passed tonight. Deputy McDonald made the rhetorical point that we must do it now because we need to address the issue quickly. However, the passing of Second Stage does not equate to the enactment of the Bill. The Bill would in any event require close consideration and scrutiny and a lot more work. I do not believe Deputy Daly’s Bill is in a form that would allow it to be amended to reach the outcome that we want to achieve. We will need a new Bill. Much of the work she has done will be helpful. I appeal to people of all parties and none to join in the debate in a true fashion-----

The Minister of State should tell us why.

The Minister of State should tell us why.

If Deputy Halligan does not know why we are discussing this, then he is a long way away from being able to resolve anything.

The Minister of State should tell us why. He is the one who raised the issue.

For the third time this year-----

The Minister of State is supposed to tell us what is wrong with the Bill.

-----we are finally discussing an issue when we have the full expert review group report. I compliment Mr. Justice Ryan on his excellent report, and I encourage all citizens to read the report calmly and analytically and then to reflect upon it.

I do not come to this House tonight with the complete answer to what is before us. I am the person in this House who was born out of a crisis pregnancy. I was born early and weighed 2 lb. 11 oz. - look at me now, one might say - but, thankfully, I survived. As citizens and legislators we must end the uncertainty, create certainty and give a sense of confidence to the medical professionals and the women of this country. Let us park our political differences and ideology, whether we are pro-choice, pro-life or whatever. The issue is far too important. For 30-odd years it has bedevilled Irish society and there has been a failure to act by all sides. It behoves all of us, in the interests of everyone, to be calm and to debate the issue. We are going to do that.

Tomorrow 12 months ago, the Government set up the expert review group. Today, within a year, the report has been published and is being debated. The Government has given its clear intent on what will happen in the next couple of months. When the Minister established the review group some people were fearful of what its recommendations would be. I hope those fears have been allayed. What we have is a considered report which sets out options that are practical and consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the State. The report acknowledges that its brief was “to advise the Government on how to give effect to the existing constitutional provisions”, not to change the Constitution. Regardless of our opinions, the debate we are having now is necessary. The debate we will have on the report of the expert review group is warranted. I welcome the fact that every Member of the House will be able to have his or her say. As Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, I very much welcome the fact that when we hold our hearings they will be fair and impartial. We will consult wisely and widely and everyone who wishes to make a contribution will be able to do so.

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on tonight’s Private Members’ business. I reject the motion out of hand. This attempt is scurrilous and irresponsible. I find some of the material distributed by this particular group, and by Deputy Clare Daly, nauseating, particularly in light of the tragic and sad circumstances to which we have alluded so often in this House and beyond, namely, the death of Savita. Reference is made in the leaflet to her death and in the same sentence to “the hypocritical politicians that have failed to act and legislate for abortion”. In a short period the Government has responded by setting up two comprehensive and separate independent investigations to examine the cause of the tragic circumstances and the reasons Savita died some weeks ago. I reject the motion out of hand and I also reject the scurrilous piece of propaganda that is being distributed at shopping centres and in Grafton Street today.

There is reference on the reverse side of the leaflet to what is really at the heart of this effort, namely, “free, safe and legal abortion”. I wish to hear clarification of whether Deputy Clare Daly is prepared to deny that she is in favour of what I consider to be walk-in, walk-out abortion. There is no will on the part of the Irish people for abortion on demand. The Government has acted quickly. It has published the expert group’s report this week. As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children has said, there will be ample opportunity for debate. We have set aside 20 hours for debate on the subject next week and we are approaching it in the most responsible way. We wish to reach consensus. It is incumbent on us to do so. As the Tánaiste said some weeks ago, doing nothing is not an option. The Government will not do nothing, but we will arrive at a consensus. That is the appropriate way. To discuss the matter in this way and to divide the House in the short term is most irresponsible.

I gave a speech at a women’s event on Monday, the underlying premise of which was the 1960s statement by the women’s liberation movement in America that politics is about the personal. I do not think any issue is more personal than the one we are discussing tonight and will discuss in the coming weeks. It is sad, and I am disappointed that the motion has been tabled again-----

-----given that we intend to arrive at a consensus position across all parties and for the majority of the Irish people. We are elected to represent all people, not just those who are on one side or the other.

A number of months ago my position was clear in my head. It was very different from the position I hold today. This is probably as a direct result of making myself open and available to different points of view and arguments. I give a similar commitment to my colleagues. What I hope we will do when we arrive at the end of this series of debates and committee hearings is to provide clarity through legislation, regulation or both in order to provide the best medical care for women and children in this country. If every man, woman and child in this country were to genuinely put themselves in the shoes of either the mother of a child who has been raped or the friend of a woman who has a desperate crisis pregnancy, they would probably arrive at different conclusions than when they are just talking about some random person, which we seem to do quite a lot. My commitment in the course of the coming weeks is to be as open and honest as I can, to listen to all of the scenarios and to try to come up with the best mechanism, be it through legislation or regulations, to provide clarity to women who need medical intervention. The terminology we use is genuinely important. If one were to ask me today whether I would vote for legislation on abortion my gut instinct would be to say “No”. But if one were to ask me whether I would vote on legislation to provide for desperately needed medical intervention to save a woman’s life, while still respecting the life of the unborn, I would probably say “Yes”. I hope to arrive somewhere in the middle of that at the end of this series of debates.

I ask Deputy Clare Daly to withdraw the Bill and allow us time and space in the course of the coming weeks and months to reach a general consensus in the House by which we could all agree to provide the best medical care for women and children.

There are three important considerations when discussing this topic. One must look at it from the legal, medical and moral perspectives. Morally, without question, we have a responsibility to protect the lives of women. We should never have a scenario where an intervention is not made or is questioned because of legal uncertainty. As a man, I will never biologically experience or deal with this situation, but as a husband, brother, son and friend, I am aware it could affect me personally. I am worried it could affect my sister or my wife. My hope is that we can prevent another such occurrence or a related worry that might affect people in our society.

Medically, I find it difficult that doctors and women run the risk, under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, of being criminally prosecuted for conducting a medical abortion when a woman's life is at risk. It is wholly inappropriate to base medical decisions on an Act created in 1861. The medical field is constantly changing and adapting to what is best for patients. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure legislation reflects medical reality. We are able to assess and increase the well-being of the child and mother through regular scans that can detect prenatal conditions.

It is important to note also that there is much speculation about what happened in Galway. I reiterate that, as outsiders, we do not know and should not speculate on what took place. The medical team and the husband of Savita Halappavanar must be privy to an examination which should be undertaken using whatever is the correct legal procedure.

I commend Deputy Clare Daly for presenting us with this issue once again. I would like to have more time to speak on it, but I am proud to note the Labour Party's track record in this regard. Of the four main political parties represented in the House, ours was the only one that included this provision in its manifesto for the last general election. We will see to it that this debate is conducted in a proper manner and that the matter is legislated for in a proper way during the term of the Government.

Being an advocate of legislation to deal with the judgment in the X case has been a lonely position to adopt. My party, the Labour Party, has fought a lonely battle on this front for 20 years. Before the last general election no other party mentioned the X case. We stood alone on that platform and suffered the consequences. As a a party, we take the flak, receive the vulgar letters and the abusive telephone calls and encounter the protests. It is our family members who are targeted, homes that are picketed and campaigning that is systematically disrupted. It is we who suffer the dirty tricks of other candidates, both party members and Independents, who scaremonger in whispered tones on the doorstep and laugh at us when the inevitable happens when we knock on the same doors. However, we have no difficulty with this when we know we are right. What we want to do is to protect women and vindicate their constitutional rights and the sacred votes of the people cast in 1992 and 2002. Neither I nor my party have any apology to make in regard to the course we are taking because we know that it will lead to legislation being presented to the House by the sovereign Government of the land, legislation that will be scrutinised by the Office of the Attorney General and survive the many challenges that will inevitably follow in every court.

I thank the hundreds of my constituents who contacted me, horrified by recent events and determined not to be intimidated any longer, to demand legislation. I pay tribute also to the dignity of those who have taken part in vigils outside Leinster House, including this evening, and those who have marched through Dublin city and attended demonstrations throughout the world. My sister in London reported that she felt sick in her stomach thinking of Savita and that she had flash memories of the people who had shouted at us during the election campaign.

In this debate what we witness from one side is a corruption of language. How dare they describe themselves as being pro-life if they let a situation persist where women's lives are endangered, rather than introducing the legislation the Supreme Court and the people have demanded? How dare they describe anybody as being pro-abortion? I do not know anybody who is. Abortion is always a tragedy, but it is a greater tragedy to put at risk the life of a mother to satisfy the washed-out ideology of a failed Ireland.

I have no interest in political perception or showmanship. I vote to win. Unfortunately, the legislation before us has no chance of success in the House and it would have a smaller chance of success were it to be challenged in the Four Courts. However, I am convinced that we will legislate as a Government. Let us not be divided by tactics; rather, let us be united by our determination. We have more allies on this issue within the House now than we have ever had and refuse to be intimidated any longer. The day is gone when the fanatical tactics of a few dominated the considered compassionate view of the many. This is a Government that takes its responsibilities seriously. We will act in order that no woman or medical professional will be in any doubt as to his or her constitutional and legislative rights and responsibilities. Too often in the recent past we have been ashamed as a people internationally. On this issue we will not be found wanting.

I took the opportunity to oppose the Bill when Deputy Clare Daly introduced it before and will oppose it again when the vote is called. A number of events have taken place since last April when the Deputy introduced the Bill. At the time the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, told the House that the report of the expert group would be brought before it. It has now been published and will provide clarity as to the options open to the Government which will be debated both in the Chamber and at the Joint Committee on Health and Children. For that reason, this is not the appropriate time to vote on a Bill dealing with matters covered by the report.

The Bill is flawed in many respects. There are no provisions to vindicate as far as practicable the right to life of the unborn. There are further concerns around the duty of a medical practitioner to consider whether the life of the foetus is capable of being preserved. Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned that whatever is considered and passed after the Government has brought forward its proposals should deal with the following matters. There must be the maximum level of safety for pregnant women. The background is that Ireland is considered to be one of the safest places in the world in terms of maternity services and childbirth, something that is borne out by statistics and has already been noted by other speakers. There is a need to ensure any proposal from the Government is carefully debated and considered in order that our collective deliberations will lead to an outcome that will ensure the health and life of a pregnant woman are protected, while, at the same time, ensuring Ireland does not end up with an abortion regime similar to that in place in some European countries which, in effect, offer abortion on demand. I share this concern with many others in the House and look forward to the debate in the Dáil after the Government publishes its proposals.

I ask Deputy Clare Daly to withdraw the Bill in order that we can have a proper Second Stage debate on the matter because many other issues have not been covered, nor could they be in such a short space of time. It is clear to everybody that Medical Council guidelines are inadequate to provide legal protection for doctors and women in terms of the security and confidence in the health care system that they need. This was pointed out last night in reference to the 1861 Act. On this issue alone, legislating becomes very urgent in order to protect patients and doctors. The guidelines do not provide enough protection.

I refer to the report of the expert group which deals exclusively with Article 40.3.3° and the Supreme Court's interpretation in the X case. It held that a termination of pregnancy was permissable if it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and that this risk could be averted only by the termination of her pregnancy. The entire debate boils down to one very simple question. Do we believe the risk of suicide by the mother is a real and substantial one which can only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy? If we believe the risk of suicide is real and substantial, we have to legislate and must decide how doctors measure that risk and the type of legislation we will need in measuring it. This will be a little more complex than what is presented in the Bill. We will have to decide who has the authority to decide there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother before a termination can be carried out.

When we present legislation, we must also allow for the fact that in years to come international research may show that there is not a real and substantial risk of suicide by a woman who is pregnant.

Matters of this nature must be taken into account. Depression is more common in pregnant women but international research to date shows that the risk of suicide is lower. I am not stating that suicide does not happen, it is merely that the risk of it occurring is lower. These are the complexities which must be taken into account.

Constitutional referenda would be required before many of the considerations relating to termination which have been raised during the debate could be dealt with. In such circumstances, I request that the Bill be withdrawn so that we might engage in a broader debate on the matter we are discussing right now. What is involved may seem quite narrow but there are many issues involved.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett who is sharing time with Deputies Mattie McGrath, John Halligan, Thomas Pringle, Tom Fleming and Catherine Murphy.

My anger at the failure of this State to vindicate the rights of women over a period of 20 years or more has really risen in recent days. That failure has emboldened so-called pro-life advocates to once again argue about the lives, rights and bodies of women. This is the spectacle we have witnessed in recent days. They are arguing as to whether suicidal feelings represent a real threat to a woman's life, about when the threat to a woman's health becomes a threat to her life and what are the best interests of a woman who has been raped, is the victim of incest or has become pregnant with a child with genetic abnormalities. Those discussions are both obnoxious and medieval in nature. Some Deputies on the opposite side of the House have stated that we must discuss the intricacies of these matters. We do not need to do so because it is not possible to make definitive adjudications on psychological matters, on when a threat to a woman's health becomes a threat to her life, on whether suicidal feelings may lead someone to commit suicide or on when the continuation of a pregnancy represents a real and substantial threat to the life of a woman. The fact that any of these things might come to pass should be sufficient to ensure that the women involved would have the right to terminate their pregnancies. The only way to proceed is to allow women to decide.

Savita Halappanavar should have been allowed to have an abortion because she asked to have one. That is the right we need to uphold and vindicate. In fairness to the Minister, he accepted this and indicated that the current legal and constitutional framework means that even if we legislate for women who are pregnant with children with genetic abnormalities, who are the victims of rape or who find themselves in the other circumstances to which I refer, their rights would not be vindicated. That is medieval. If those in government are serious about this matter and if they really mean what they say when they make statements such as that, then they should indicate that they are going to bring forward legislation to repeal the eighth amendment to the Constitution. They should also clearly state that a referendum will be held in order to remove these medieval restrictions on women.

I saw a post on Facebook yesterday in which someone said they had discovered the meaning of the word feminism, namely, that women are human beings. We need to establish women's rights in this regard. The Government - if it means what it says - can commit to holding the referendum to which I refer. In the interim, however, emergency legislation is needed in order to cater for the judgment handed down in the X case. The argument that the Bill before the House is not perfect is not an adequate reason to vote it down. Neither is the argument that we have not had adequate time to consider it and the matters relating to it. If the Government really believes the latter, then it should offer to make time available for us to continue the debate on the Bill next week. If the Government indicates that we can use its time to engage in a non-guillotined debate on the Bill - this would give those opposite and everyone else in the House an opportunity to frame the amendments necessary to refine it - then we will not push the matter to a vote.

The Bill was put forward in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy which we never want to see repeated and in order to expedite matters in respect of this issue. Doctors should never again be expected to operate in a position of legal uncertainty with regard to when they can act in the interest of saving a woman's life. I wish to put an offer to the Government, namely, that it should extend the debate on the Bill into next week, at which point it can put forward its own amendments. If it does not do this, then it appears that the Government is not serious about this matter and is again guilty of facilitating the type of delays that have marked the past 20 years.

Deputy Tom Fleming has volunteered two minutes of his time to me.

There are 30 minutes in total for the group.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Private Members' Bill. It is a pity, however, that it has come before us again. We are stampeding over the rights of different people and the procedures and rules relating to the Technical Group. The United Left Alliance, ULA, has tabled 37% of the Private Members' motions and Bills brought forward by the Technical Group to date. There are 16 members in the group, only four of whom are in the ULA. I will leave that matter to people's judgment.

The pro-life perspective is founded on the equal right to life of all human beings, regardless of age, sex or any other attribute. There is no worse discrimination than disregarding the right to life of an entire class of human beings on account of their being too young. According to official United Nations and World Health Organization statistics, Ireland, without abortion, is among the top three safest countries for pregnant women, that is, it has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. In the context of Savita Halappanavar's tragic death - her family must have our complete sympathy on their loss - it must be remembered that in Britain, where abortion on demand is legal, 13 women died as a direct result of sepsis in pregnancy between 2006 and 2008. We do not know the full facts of Savita's case and yet pro-choice activists are using it to bring abortion into Ireland. I am concerned that the Government appears to have bought into their deception but I hope this is not the case.

A recent internationally acclaimed obstetrics and gynaecology conference in Dublin affirmed that direct abortion is never necessary as a form of treatment to save a woman's life in pregnancy. The ruling made by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 in the A, B and C v. Ireland does not require the authorities of this country to legislate for abortion. The court simply asked for legal clarity in the area and it has consistently said that there is no such thing as a right to abortion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the court's concern was to ensure that women will be provided with an effective procedure by which to determine what treatment is lawfully available to them. This mechanism should include an appeals process. Importantly, the court has consistently stated - it affirmed this in the A, B and C judgment - that it is not concerned with the means by which states vindicate convention rights and that it is merely concerned with whether they are vindicated. This means that the court is not concerned with whether we implement legislation, regulations or guidelines. In that context, in its report the expert group erred in suggesting that guidelines may not suffice for the European Court of Human Rights.

Ireland can introduce clarity without introducing abortion. We can ensure that medical and professional guidelines relating to necessary medical treatment are strengthened. We can also ensure that these guidelines provide for an appeals process for women who have had their requests for terminations refused. To comply with the decision in the A, B and C v. Ireland case, such guidelines must also allow for a woman to make her case in person and for a written explanation of the decision to be given. We can also hold a referendum - we are good at holding these - to clarify matters by overturning the decision in the X case and protecting the right to life of unborn children and their mothers. There is no question that holding a referendum on abortion is compatible with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Previous referendums on the decision in the X case failed because both pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates voted against the measures put forward for various and conflicting reasons.

It must be acknowledged in any debate on this matter that major studies in the past ten years have shown that abortion has a negative psychological impact on women. It is utterly irresponsible to claim that abortion somehow protects women's mental health. No psychiatric textbook available in the British Isles, the United States or anywhere else claims that abortion is a treatment for suicidal thoughts. This fact undermines the ruling in the X case. What undermines it even further is the emerging consensus that abortion can actually harm women's mental health in some instances. The 20 year old X case judgment is a very poor basis for abortion law and it completely disregards the equal right to life of the unborn child.

It had no medical evidence to support the view that the abortion is a treatment for suicide. It is badly out of step with the recent research which shows that abortion has a negative impact on women's mental health. It made no mention of time limits and would allow for abortion up to birth. Providing for abortion on mental health grounds would allow for a very liberal abortion regime similar to that in the United Kingdom.

We should be aware of what happened when abortion was legalised in the UK. It was introduced on very limited grounds but now, sadly, one in five pregnancies end in abortion. Abortion on demand is available up to 24 weeks and up until birth in cases of disability, including the disability of a cleft palate. According to official British Government figures, every year dozens of children survive abortion and are left to die in British hospitals. Some survive for hours outside the womb before they die.

A total of 95% of Britain's 190,000 abortions in 2009 were performed on mental health grounds. We have passed the children's rights referendum. It would be a tragedy if we enacted legislation allowing for unborn children to be directly killed. Abortion is the direct and deliberate destruction of the unborn child. Abortions are not currently carried out in Irish hospitals. The rare case in which necessary life-saving treatment is given to a woman in pregnancy and which results in the death of her unborn child is not an abortion because the death of the child is not the purpose, intention or aim. Even if the death were foreseen as a possible or likely outcome, unlike abortion, every effort is made to preserve the life of the child if at all possible. I am totally opposed to this untimely Bill.

Last April the House discussed at length the need to bring forward legislation for the safe and legal termination of pregnancy. The Government, made up of so many so-called liberals, shot down that motion to legislate in the X case, a ruling which would allow access to termination for a woman if her life was in danger. This was not the first time these acrimonious divisions on abortion were stirred up. We have been listening to the same argument in one form or another over the past three decades. One Government after another has engaged in the ultimate act of political cynicism by failing to clarify the circumstances in which abortion is permissible. Like it or not, those of us who supported the motion last April had to accept the Government's promise that the expert group's report was on its way. What we did not know was that it would it take the tragic death of a young woman to force the Government to sit up and take notice of the legislative void that is preventing the termination of pregnancies. It is a full 20 years since the Supreme Court ruled that a suicidal pregnant teenager had the right to an abortion because there was a real and substantial risk to life.

We cannot yet know what happened in the last days of Savita's life, no more than we can judge the actions of the particular doctor or nurse nor their collective actions. However, there can be no denying that in the final days, Savita requested treatment which was denied to her. This is a shameful occurrence in a State which lays claim to membership of a civilised world.

The Government must now step up to the mark and leave 20 years of political cowardice behind. There has been anger outside the Dáil last week and this week and a shocked response throughout the country. This could have been any woman of child-bearing age. The longer we in this House procrastinate, the greater the possibility that this could happen again. It could happen tomorrow or next week. This is not about pro-choice; this is about women's health which the past seven Governments - this one included - have made clear matters very little. This tragic young woman was denied the basic human right to choose what happens to her body. It is horrendous. Last year, the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a woman had her rights violated because the Irish Government had failed to legislate for the X case. This Government established a commission which took a full 12 months to report, during which time at least 12 women every day travelled outside this country for an abortion. The Government seemed quite content to sit idly by and to allow this problem to be exported across the water. In 20 years we have exported more than 100,000 women to the shores of Great Britain. It is shameful.

There has been a significant rise in the seizures by Customs of risky unrelated abortion pills ordered over the Internet. Last April I referred in the House to figures released under the freedom of information legislation. I was shocked at the revelation that Customs seized 1,216 packs of DIY abortion pills which had been ordered online in the period since 2009. It is tragic and appalling that women are reduced to this. We should hang our heads in shame. The Minister will know that women who use these pills risk excessive blood loss, womb infection, blood poisoning and even death. These women receive no professional confirmation that they are no longer pregnant. An incomplete abortion could leave the baby with defects or part of the foetus could remain in the uterus leading to infection. This could damage a woman's fertility if left untreated. How can this be allowed to happen in a civilised country? Thousands of women are still buying these pills online. If this is what women in the Irish State in 2012 are reduced to doing, every one of us should hang our heads in shame.

The Government needs to get off the fence on this issue. If the timeframe is a problem, let us sit through the Christmas holidays to deal with this legislation. We are putting more women's lives at risk. I remind the House of a picture in The Irish Times some years ago. It showed an image of Ireland surrounded by barbed wire and woman trying to climb out over it. How shameful.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I acknowledge the work of Deputy Clare Daly in amending this legislation to reflect the debate last April when the No. 1 Bill was debated in the House.

This debate takes place following the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway in October. It takes place in an atmosphere of anger and grief experienced by everyone in the country at the death of a young woman in the prime of her life and at the public heartache of her husband. I hope the Government sees sense and makes arrangements for an investigation that will meet the needs of Praveen Halappanavar and the demand from the public for a full and open inquiry. We are unsure as to the full reasons behind her death. A full investigation is needed to ensure the full story can be told. If it is the case that the lack of a clear, legislative basis for a termination was a factor in her death, we all have to say this can never happen again.

If the Government does not act now, once and for all, I fear it will happen again. The need for legal clarity has been demanded for 20 years. It has been restated many times that six Governments have not delivered on legislation. The Minister for Health said this Government will not be the seventh. I hope this will be the case. Given that this Government may have three years left to run, we are at the point where legislation and clarity is needed within months rather than years.

Women cannot be left to live in the shadow of these grey areas where treatment may or may not be available to them should they need it. We are the legislators. This legislation could be the start of the process if the Government had the courage to accept it. I do not understand why the Government could not accept this Bill and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage where, over the next few months, the required amendments could be drafted and debated. The Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman )(No. 2) Bill 2012 would then meet all the requirements recommended by the expert group. The only reason the Government will not accept this Bill is political expediency. It knows that it cannot be confident it will be acceptable to its backbenchers. Abortion legislation in the UK is decided on a vote of conscience. What can be so wrong with allowing all Members of the House to vote in conscience on this legislation? Is the Whip system so weak that it could not survive a conscience vote?

The Medical Council ethical guidelines allow for a medical practitioner to exercise a conscientious objection with regard to termination, yet the political system does not.

The expert group report outlines a number of options that could be pursued and lists the advantages and disadvantages of the various options. It is clear from my reading of the report that the only option is to provide legislation and regulations on foot of that legislation. The question is whether the legislation should include the repeal of the 1861 Act or be based on existing legislation. The most robust legislation would involve the repeal of the 1861 Act, thus providing clarity and certainty as to the legal situation.

The issue of a woman accessing a termination in circumstances where there could be a risk of suicide is provided for in this Bill and can be strengthened if necessary. The expert group has recommended that a psychologist be included in the decision-making process in this case. That is in line with the Bill. The group states the woman's general practitioner could be consulted to give the woman's medical history. Considering that it is the medical practitioner who knows the woman best, this is a reasonable suggestion and could aid the decision-making process.

There is no intention in the Bill to suggest a termination could be seen as a solution to a woman's mental health issue in the case of a threat of suicide. For any patient with mental illness, there is no single treatment that will offer a so-called cure, and there should always be follow-up treatment to ensure the individual's mental health does not deteriorate any further and she can recover as much as possible. This would be a challenge for our health services at any time, but in the current climate it is more so. Provision should be made to ensure that access to follow-up treatment is a right.

This Bill is not the full solution but it provides the basis for one. The Government can accept it and amend it if necessary. The expert group pointed out that the legislative process is slow and has highlighted this as the sole disadvantage of its proposal for legislation to repeal the 1861 Act. The last thing we need now is to slow down the process. What we need now is to ensure the Legislature does not let any woman down again.

It appears that people interested in the health of the mother and foetus during pregnancy are being categorised into two polar extremes, namely, the so-called pro-abortion constituency and the pro-life constituency. These categorisations are simplistic and are misnomers. The vast majority of people I meet are anxious that, during pregnancy, the life of the mother and foetus be given optimum clinical consideration. However, in the event of a medical complication that could put the life of the mother at risk, they believe there should be relevant medical intervention by clinicians to safeguard the mother's life. Many citizens believe clinicians have been exercising their judgment within the parameters of the Supreme Court ruling of 1992 in regard to this matter; hence my surprise to hear that some eminent masters of the maternity hospitals are indicating that the legal position lacks lucidity. They seek legislative guidance in this area.

I have noted the report of the expert group and I will consider the Government's proposal on foot thereof. The onus is now on the Minister for Health and the Office of the Attorney General to introduce legislation promptly for debate so Members can express their mature views on the matter and, I hope, learn from one another having thought the issue through and discussed it constructively. I await the Government's legislation and ministerial regulation, which are to be to the benefit of the mother and child.

I thank Deputy Clare Daly for introducing this Bill. Its Title indicates it is intended as an interim measure. It is important that there be a timely response to current circumstances. The April legislation has been revised to take account of some of the concerns that were raised by the Minister at the time, yet we hear that there is no intention of supporting the Bill. There is no doubt that the present ambiguity, of which people are very well aware, is leading to considerable fear. There needs to be, at the very least, a temporary plugging of the law to address the issue.

There have been numerous expert reports over the past 15 years. The current one is in response to the ruling of the European Court of Justice. It could have been responded to not through an expert report but through legislation and guidelines for the medical profession. The concern is that this is or is potentially a delaying tactic.

I considered the report of the all-party Oireachtas committee in 2000. It refers to the advantages of legislation, stipulating that it would provide legal certainty. The stated disadvantage is that "due to the nature of this legislation, the process of drafting and democratic scrutiny is likely to take a considerable period of time". This was stated 12 years ago.

The case of Savita Halappanavar demonstrated in a very clear way the kind of risk to which a pregnant woman can be exposed. While there is considerable collective sympathy for her husband and family, many women are expressing fear because the pertinent issues have come into sharp focus. The debate that followed the tragedy has shown that the eighth amendment excludes the right of a pregnant woman to be assured of her health and deals only with the issue of the right to life. Others are way ahead of us on this and regard it as a medical issue. In Ireland, it is deemed to be a moral issue.

It is almost two years since the ruling of the European Court of Justice, and we are only now dealing with the report of the expert group. The report refers to previous expert reports and states the means of providing for the X case have been considered by other bodies, all of which have concluded that legislation in some form is the most appropriate way in which to regulate access to lawful abortion in Ireland.

This Bill is on Second Stage. My understanding of Second Stage is that one should either agree or disagree with the principle of the legislation. Tonight, Members are being asked to agree with the principle. Committee and Report Stages allow for a refinement of the legislation. I do not doubt that there are many provisions in the legislation that could be changed to make it better. People cannot understand how the troika can come here and click its fingers such that very complex legislation can be introduced and rammed through the Dáil using guillotines to ensure its timely passage. Emergency legislation can be framed and all Stages can be considered in double-time on economic matters, yet, where legislation on the right to life of a pregnant woman is concerned, the sensitivities of politicians seem to take precedence.

We have been told that to ensure the passage of legislation, one must have 83 Members willing to support it. Clearly the Whip system is determining that this cannot happen. This is not radical legislation but a genuine attempt to address the need to legislate for the X case, even as an interim measure. The real concern is that this will be pushed out and that all sorts of reasons will be advanced as to why certain complexities cannot be dealt with, even if the Government decides to legislate. Tonight, Deputy Daly is being asked not to press this Bill. Her not doing so would be a mistake. There is no certainty on the Government side as to how we are to proceed. I will be supporting the legislation.

I thank Deputy Daly and her colleagues for the work undertaken in the preparation of her Bill. I also thank the Deputies who contributed on the difficult and complex issues raised.

My colleagues last night provided a thorough analysis of the Bill and pointed out the areas where it is deficient. As a result, we cannot support it. However, I reiterate my determination to give the women of Ireland and the professionals working in the health system the legal clarity they require on the issue of lawful termination of pregnancy in Ireland. I have said previously - and I restate it now - that the Government, unlike previous Governments, will not allow this issue to remain unaddressed. Anyone who has read the expert group report will agree it provides a clear analysis of the issues that need to be addressed to implement the ECHR judgment in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. It sets out four options and they are now being considered. I want to put on record my gratitude to the members of the expert group and, in particular, Mr. Justice Seán Ryan, for their commitment and dedication to this matter.

The issue of abortion has divided this country for decades and it has divided political parties and families. It is my earnest hope that this time we can reach a cross-party consensus on the action required in light of the expert group report. The people have it made it clear that they do not wish abortion on demand. Equally, however, it is clear to me that the great majority of our citizens regard the current position as unsustainable. We cannot have a situation where there is any doubt about the right of a woman to a lawful termination of pregnancy in certain clearly defined situations. That is what the ECHR judgment calls for; that is what the Government wishes to deliver and will deliver.

Some people feel the Government is moving too quickly to address the issue. May I respectfully suggest that the people of Ireland have waited long enough for their politicians to do what is right and necessary? However, it is also important that this House debates the report fully and I will listen clearly to the views expressed on all sides. It is also vital that the Joint Committee on Health and Children holds public hearings on the implementation of whatever option the Government chooses on this matter.

While I share Deputy Daly's undoubted concern for the welfare of pregnant women in Ireland, I call on Members to oppose her Bill. A vote on this Bill would be premature, as Members require more time to study the expert group report. In addition, it is flawed and it is not line with our constitutional obligations. The expert group report provides us with a clear roadmap for ensuring the lives of pregnant women will be protected while also more clearly vindicating the right of the unborn. I appeal to all in this House to participate in the 20 hours of debate planned over the next few weeks and this will help inform the Government decision. I hope we can conduct this debate in a calm way, which will lead to a consensus on how to move forward to achieve what we all want: certainty for the women of Ireland on the service available and clarity for those who are charged with delivering it.

For the past three Wednesdays, crowds have gathered outside the Dáil to express their anger. On Saturday, 17 November, they marched through the streets of Dublin in their thousands and they will do so again next Saturday in Galway. It is clear, as it has been for two decades, that the majority of people in this country want action on abortion. It is often difficult for individuals in Ireland to be openly pro-choice and, for too long, women who have had abortions and those who advocate for reproductive rights have been stigmatised, shamed and silenced.

The point has been rightly made over the past two weeks that the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar should not be seen in isolation but as the latest example of how problems within the maternity services and policies concerning reproductive rights in Ireland continue to fail women. The Bill is just the first step. It will not stop the misery that persists for many women who are faced with crisis pregnancies and are left with little alternative but to pack a bag and leave the country for a medical procedure that is not available on our island of saints and scholars. During the debate last night, the Minister for Justice and Equality, to his credit, was strong on the issue when he said:

"...whatever decision is taken by Government, we cannot provide in this State for the termination of a pregnancy resulting from rape in the absence of the victim being suicidal. Neither can we provide for the termination of a pregnancy where there is a foetal abnormality which will, as a certainty, result in the birth of a baby unable to survive."

I remind him that the Government is in a position to call a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment of the Constitution and if such a referendum were called, I believe it would pass with the support of a significant majority of the Irish people.

A crisis pregnancy can have an adverse effect on the ability of a woman to enjoy a range of human rights. An adolescent who becomes pregnant is often forced to drop out of school, thus depriving her of the right to an education. An unintended pregnancy can endanger a woman's health, undermine her opportunities to earn a living and trap her, and often her entire family, in a cycle of poverty and exclusion. A recent internal report by Mr. Anand Grover, the UN special rapporteur, on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health examined, among other issues, how laws and other legal restrictions are used to regulate abortion and the negative impact that such criminal laws and other legal restrictions may have on health care, the freedom and human dignity of affected persons, particularly women, and public health outcomes. He took a general look at how these laws may violate the right to health.

Abortion is a health issue and a human right and the report notes that women's right to health requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services and mandates that women be provided with the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children. Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being related to sexuality and is not just confined to the absence of disease or illness. Criminal laws are enacted by countries to regulate conduct perceived as threatening, dangerous or harmful to an individual or society but where criminal law is used as a tool by a government to regulate the conduct and decision-making of individuals in the context of the right to sexual and reproductive health, the government substitutes its will for that of the individual. This amounts to an interference with human dignity.

Respect for dignity is fundamental to the realisation of all human rights. Dignity requires that individuals are free to make personal decisions without interference from the state. Women often experience infringements of their rights to sexual and reproductive health. Persistent stereotyping of women's roles within society and the family establish and fuel societal norms. Many of these norms are based on the belief that the freedom of a woman, especially with regard to her sexual identity, should be curtailed and regulated. The same thinking seeks to justify state control over women's lives such as forcing women to continue unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Criminalisation generates and perpetuates stigma. Laws and other legal restrictions disempower women who may be deterred from taking steps to the protect their health to avoid liability and out of fear of stigmatisation. These laws can also have a discriminatory effect, as they disproportionately affect women, particular those aged under 18 or from less well off backgrounds or whose immigration status may be uncertain. Governments sometimes try to justify these laws on the grounds of public morality. Public morality cannot serve as a justification for enactment or enforcement of laws that may result in human rights violations such as the deprivation of dignity and autonomy.

Ireland's ban on abortion is a clear expression of State interference with a woman's sexual and reproductive health because it restricts her control over her body, possibly subjecting her to unnecessary health risks, as well as having a severe impact on her mental health. In some cases, women have committed suicide because of the accumulated pressures and stigma related to unwanted pregnancy and having to face the option of carrying the pregnancy to term or having to seek an illegal abortion. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure all our people have a right to all forms of health and human dignity. This Bill can be a start to that process. It should be viewed as an interim measure to prevent any further unnecessary loss of life for pregnant women and until we can address all the issues relating to a woman's right to health and dignity, a woman's right to control her own body and a woman's right to choose.

Some Deputies have called our Bill scurrilous and that they are disappointed we tabled it. It is absolutely scurrilous that we are back here again and I am disappointed with the Government's reaction. Much of what has been said could be summed up as excuses, excuses. When we were here in April, the Government told us we would have to wait for the report of the expert group. In April, Savita Halappanavar was not yet pregnant but now the woman is tragically dead. This time we are told the Government needs time to read the report when the whole country read it in last weekend's Sunday newspapers.

Even if they did not, we have to face it that it is not that complicated. It is a 58-page straightforward report with many diagrams and pictures. That is not out of any disrespect to those who wrote this report. The reason we make this point is that it is patently obvious that we have to legislate. This was the outcome of all the other previous expert groups and that is reality. We are not proposing to take up the opportunity of legislation tonight but to have 20 hours of discussions about it in the coming days. As the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, said last night, a woman has had a legal right - he called it clear and unambiguous – to have an abortion where her life is in danger including a risk from suicide. Women have had that right for 30 years, yet during this time women have not been able to exercise that right because of the successive failures of this House to legislate for it.

It is not petty point-scoring but last week the Opposition supported a call for legislation in this area and tonight we provided it. We are not saying it is perfect but it is a start. Failure to make the start tonight means inevitably this legislation will be delayed for another six months. Is there another woman who is not pregnant now but who may find our six-month delay has tragic consequences for her down the line?

We have had to listen to quite a few excuses tonight. I take offence at Members from Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party who lectured us about being divisive and that we need to get 83 votes to get this through. If those two parties supported us for a start, we would be well on the way to getting 83 votes for the Bill. What is their point? What are they hiding behind? The Government pleads with us to withdraw it, saying we are being divisive. We are not. We are offering our Bill to the House to make it the collective property of all of us and to send a signal to women, the Irish people and the people of Europe that we as a Parliament will begin to take action on a matter we have ignored for so long.

It is all very well for Ministers to claim they have a roadmap for action. We have had this map for some time. What we need is the car's ignition to be turned on. The problem is there has been a huge amount of talk rather than action. It is regrettable the Government will not allow this Bill pass Second Stage. On this, as well as several other issues, this House is out of touch with people in society. We have had an outpouring of emotion with ordinary citizens demanding we take action as they are sick of us talking about it. I received one e-mail from a woman who described herself as a mother, a daughter, a woman who has been through a life-threatening pregnancy that resulted in abortion. She told me she protested for the first time since she was in college as she never felt so moved to stand up and be counted in her life. She has just had her second child, a beautiful baby girl, and this is not what she wants for her or her country, for which she is usually proud. Another woman wrote to me, "As a woman with grown-up children, I thought I had lost the urge to fight. Well I am telling you now, I have refound it". Another women wrote, "I want legislation. Please do this for me, for the child I am carrying, for my grandchildren who one day will be Irish".

Irish people have evidently moved on with regard to this issue. What this discussion really shows is that the campaign to repeal the eight amendment to the Constitution starts here tonight. Let me say this to Deputy Keating who could not be bothered to stay to listen to the debate: it is not about just removing the eight amendment but to provide for legislation for free, safe and legal abortion in this country. That is not walk-in, walk-out abortion. What an insult to women and their doctors to describe all the many and difficult reasons that women face when choosing whether to have an abortion. Many of these reasons are complicated; all are valid. How dare Deputy Keating slander women in this regard. Against the backdrop of increased austerity, our delay on this matter will jeopardise more lives. People will not have the money for the boat or the plane to go to England and will be forced to resort to emergency medication as described by Deputy Halligan.

I am embarrassed our Bill could only legislate for the X case. It gave us the start to do that, however. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, correctly last night said that even if this legislation is passed or the Government comes up with legislation in six months' time, we will still have one of the most restrictive abortion regimes in the world. We will still not be dealing with the thousands of women who every year have to leave this country for an abortion. We will not be providing for those who become impregnated because of rape or incest or for women with fatal foetal abnormalities. The Minister for Justice and Equality described this as an indefensible cruelty.

However, the Minister in his reply to this Bill, put his hands up in the air stating this is a not a matter for government. If it is not, then for whom is it a matter? The Minister with responsibility for equality said women are not equal as they have a limited right to health and bodily integrity. That is not enough in a modern civilised society. The people in every corner of this country will not tolerate women being treated in this way. The reason we are treated in this way is because of this clause in the Constitution, which restricts our right to health.

We know our Bill tonight is only the first step but it is a necessary one to deal with this long overdue issue. We are not bringing abortion into Ireland. Irish abortion already exists for thousands of women every year. What we are asking for is an end to the hypocrisy and to allow people treat this private and personal matter as one of personal choice between them and their doctors. We, along with all the people who have been in contact with us over the past several weeks, will not rest until the House starts to deal with these issues. I am not withdrawing the Bill. We want to press it, not as a panacea but as a signal to our citizens and future generations, as well as to the eyes of the world looking in on us, that we are at last beginning with some seriousness to address this long overdue issue.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 101.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 November 2012.
Top
Share