Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Right to Personal Autonomy and Bodily Integrity) Bill 2014

I am already on public record as stating I believe Article 43.3.3 ° should be deleted from the Constitution, despite the fact that in the past I canvassed vigorously and voted to keep it in the Constitution.  Over the years, I have increasingly come to the conclusion that this issue, addressing the specific reproductive health care of women – a complex, emotive and crucial issue to women, on which views cross gender, age, religious and political divides – has no place in a written Constitution.  As has been stated often, the Constitution should reflect the common aspirations of the people.  The existing amendment – the Eighth Amendment – does not reflect our common aspirations but in fact our differences.  I am old enough to remember that both sides voted for it because we both thought it meant different things.  Over the years, our greatest legal minds have tried to interpret for us what it actually means.  They did the best they could with what they were given, but in the end they could do little to serve the women faced with the tragic and intolerable choice between their own lives and health and the life of a foetus.

 After previous Governments failed over 30 years, this Government had the courage to at least vindicate the right to life of women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies.  We do need, however, to go further, and I agree with the Minister for Health that the current regime is too restrictive.  Over the years I have seen the health of too many women jeopardised – women whose health was so compromised by pregnancy that they risked blindness and other debilitating conditions, who were forced to go to England for terminations.  Those who went to England were the lucky ones, who had the resourcefulness and resources to go.  Many others did not.

 In the case of fatal foetal abnormalities, it is absolutely barbaric to force someone, against their will, to carry to term a pregnancy when they know the outcome is a dead child.

 There is no doubt that Article 43.3.3 ° should be out of our Constitution.  However, that decision should be preceded by a rational, informed reflective debate about how we as a society want to respond to the needs of women whose health and future prospects are jeopardised by their pregnancy.  A rational debate on a subject such as this cannot take place in the run-up to a general election.  In our hearts we all know that, because we have been through it already.  If this was forced to a vote in a referendum, we would be falling into exactly the same trap that gave us the seriously flawed Eighth Amendment, Article 43.3.3 °, which is dangerous to many women.  We need to debate this as far as possible from political considerations.  Forcing parties or individuals into taking up electoral positions in a referendum 12 months or less before a general election is a folly that ultimately would not serve the people we hope to help.  For the very good reason of bitter experience, I do not believe this is the time for a referendum, much as I would personally like to see it as soon as possible.

 As for the second part of Deputy Clare Daly’s Bill and the attempt to insert another constitutional clause, I do not believe we should put any measure dealing with this issue into the Constitution.  It is also flawed because what it seeks to do is already provided for in the Constitution.  The circumstances in which a termination of pregnancy might be considered should be a matter for legislation, not the Constitution.  The whole area of reproductive health is evolving as medicine, science, technology also evolves.  The Legislature must be able to respond to this constantly changing issue.  We should not be afraid to do that.  The public is ready for us to take a leadership position on this.  Public opinion has moved on significantly in the 30 years since 1983 and is better informed, as we all are.

 One may agree with the Minister that the current regime is too restrictive or one may not.  It is possible for us as a society to reach a consensus about the kind of regime that we want.  The public is sensible and compassionate.  I do feel, however, that in the run-up to a general election, politicians are neither.  Neither can political debate be sensible and compassionate in the heat of a general election.  To enter into a process to radically alter our Constitution on such a vital and sensitive issue would put a real solution another 30 years into the future.  We need to move on this issue.  Before we do so, however, we need to know where we are going with it and how we will do it.  The last Government trying to tackle this issue was bounced into a flawed solution that had consequences for many women.  It was a solution that persisted for 30 years.  We should not do that again.

 While I am not supporting this Bill, I compliment Deputy Clare Daly on keeping this issue on the agenda.  It should be kept to the front of the agenda.