Legal representation for the foetus utterly superfluous – Mitchell

Fine Gael TD for Dublin South, Olivia Mitchell, speaking today (Wednesday) in the Dáíl on the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013, has said that any suggestion of the need for legal representation for the foetus, by a former DPP or others, is utterly superfluous.

“The whole purpose of this legislation, including all its complex procedures and requirements, is to protect the foetus. If it were only the mother’s life being considered there would be no hoops to be gone through, no requirements for three specialists, no monthly reporting, no 14-year jail sentences. In fact, no legislation. If it were not for the constitutional imperative to protect the foetus, the only medical consideration would be the mother’s health, the standard medical criterion for treating any patient.

“This legislation is a positive development in protecting the life of a woman when her life is threatened by pregnancy. However, I believe that a 14-year jail sentence for women who procure an illegal abortion, or who self-induce one, is not just harsh but downright dangerous. To equate the actions, in terms of attaching a penalty, of a distraught and traumatised women with those of a back-street abortionist is Dickensian, and wholly inappropriate in today’s world. But it is also dangerous; as such a harsh sentence would certainly deter women from seeking medical help where there are complications post termination.

“Abortifacient pills, which need to be taken within a prescribed timescale and ideally with medical supervision, are now widely available and freely advertised online. Unfortunately their most likely use is by young girls who cannot afford to travel and who are afraid to tell either their parents or a doctor. If complications arise in their case, adding the chill of a 14-year jail sentence only reinforces the need for secrecy and puts lives at risk. This penalty needs to be reduced or eliminated.

“Guidelines or ministerial regulations are also required so that all doctors, including GPs, understand the situations to which the legislation refers. The fact that the threat to life doesn’t have to be either imminent or certain is not included in the legislation, although the Minister for Health, James Reilly TD, refers to this in his speech and of course it was part of the Supreme Court judgement. Without clarity on this, the whole purpose of the legislation is undermined.

“I fully appreciate the moral dilemma this legislation poses for many. But it is our responsibility to do our best to provide a framework of clarity and certainty when excruciatingly painful and difficult decisions have to be made, and often made about desperately wanted babies. My hope is that this legislation will save the lives of women by obviating the need for them to travel to obtain lifesaving procedures. For those women in crisis pregnancies, who will continue to travel to England, I hope this open debate will make their journeys a little easier, less traumatic and above all, less secretive.”

ENDS