On Monday, all eyes in the Dail were on Lucinda Creighton in anticipation of what she would have to say on the issue of the abortion Bill. She did not disappoint those who hoped she would express her opposition to the Bill.

She has called for certain amendments, especially to Section 9 which deals with the suicide ground for abortions. Those amendments have not been forthcoming making it extremely likely she will vote against the Bill when it come back to the Dail for a second vote on Wednesday night.

Here is what she had to say in full:

I must say that I never imagined when I stood for election to Dáil Éireann
for the second time in 2011, that I would find myself here, just 2 years later,
speaking on a Government sponsored Bill to liberalise abortion law in Ireland.

I am in no doubt by now that this legislation
will pass, notwithstanding the many reservations expressed privately and
publicly by colleagues from all parties – indeed, in the face of the grave
reservations expressed by experts psychiatrists in two separate sessions of
Oireachtas health committee hearings.

I can only hope that logic and verifiable
evidence will prevail and substantive amendments will be accepted to ensure
that the rights of all human beings are protected with the full rigour of the
law.

I have never regarded myself as a pro-life
campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the
abortion issue. In fact I have spoken previously about the fact that I held a
very different view on this matter when I was a student.

However, after much reflection, my views have
evolved over the years; as I learned more about the topic, as I came in contact
with friends and family affected by abortion, and as I matured and developed my
own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic.

Crucially for me I stepped outside the
“groupthink” which I genuinely believe dominates this debate in Ireland. It
seems that if you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a
“liberal issue”, a “women’s rights issue”, a cornerstone of the “progressive
agenda”, then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal
fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this
prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any
alternative outlook.

Of course I respect the right of people to
campaign for liberal access to abortion. Maybe they do not consider abortion to
be the intentional ending of human life, and so they simply see it as a medical
procedure, which can simply be regarded as a clear-cut choice.

I can appreciate this way of thinking because
I used to think that way myself. Carried along with the accepted supposedly
“progressive” view on abortion, I never considered the other life involved.

Of course, because of the huge stress and
trauma that surrounds abortion, we know that this medical procedure analogy is
a sterile, yet dangerous, inaccuracy. I think that the vast majority of us know
and appreciate that an unborn baby, is just that, a baby.

If such a baby is born prematurely, we do
not simply shrug our shoulders and say this baby has not come to full term, it
is merely a foetus, we will not treat it. Of course not. We will do everything
possible within the bounds of medical science to save that baby’s life. We know
that baby cannot live independently outside the womb, but that is not a cause
to give up on it. This is human life after all. We must save it.

Some say this is a women’s issue, that its
all about women’s rights. Therefore if you are “pro life”, you are somehow
“anti woman”.

Oppression

Yet, when one steps back from the stifling
groupthink, and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman
and I am happy to say that I am also very much in favour of women’s rights. But
by that I mean all women. Not just adults or adolescents or children – I mean
babies too.

The sad reality, as we look around the
globe at how women’s rights are advocated, promoted and defended, it is clear
to me that abortion is in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

Look at China, India, Korea and indeed some
parts of Europe and the United States. The societal preference for boys over
girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were
simply never born. A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010
showed just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion.

One paragraph from that edition of the
Economist jumped out at me and frightened me:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this
preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound
scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began
to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in
India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees
($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a
daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby
daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators
and hopefully, as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question “What is the net
difference” between such screening followed by intentional gender-based
abortion, and the intentional killing of that baby after delivery? The answer
is of course none.

The net effect is exactly the same, which
is to say that an innocent baby, is simply wiped out. The scale of this
exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30-40 million
less women than men walking the earth, growing up, having families, going to
work and generally contributing to society . 30-40 million less women is hardly
a triumph for feminism or liberalism.

Designer babies

The horror of abortion is also to be seen
closer to home. The phenomenon of “designer babies” is one if the elements
which horrifies me most. This year we celebrate the 10 year anniversary of the
Special Olympics coming to Ireland.

That was an extraordinary occasion, which
saw children and adults with intellectual disabilities and particularly Down
Syndrome celebrated in this country like never before. In a sense it marked the
end of marginalization and the beginning of a new era when people with special
needs were finally embraced and celebrated like never before.

Many people will not like the juxtaposition
of these two issues, but I believe in facing reality. In the United States, a
country which initially introduced abortion in extremely limited circumstances,
the use of pre natal screening is today absolutely prolific and increasingly
acceptable in society.

There are many studies charting disturbing
trends but one by F.X. Egan, of the University of Connecticut, showed that of
the 122,519 babies expected to be born between 1989 and 2006, only 65,492 were
in fact born. Almost 50% of those babies were simply obliterated, because they
were not “perfect” whatever that means. I find this shocking and terrifying all
at once.

This again shows that this question of
abortion is not a liberal issue – far from it. In a liberal society we
celebrate life in all its imperfect manifestations. We also celebrate the right
of human beings to enjoy life – whether we speak of a criminal on death row, or
an innocent baby girl, or a baby with Down syndrome. None of us is perfect, but
our life is worthy and we a all worthy of life. Who is any one of us to
determine that even one single life is not worth living, not worth protecting?

As I say, I did not stand for elected
office to pursue a “pro life” agenda. Of course my view before all of the
elections I have contested, was crystal clear, and often repeated on doorsteps
in my constituency and on the airwaves. It was of course, no secret that my
party, Fine Gael, was a party which unashamedly defended the right to life and
issued repeated statements to that effect over the years, including stridently
in advance of the last general election.

But I campaigned, as almost all politicians
did in the last election, on a platform which was almost entirely focused on
the economic future of our country. For me, and for Fine Gael, this was
essentially a pro enterprise agenda, concerned with restoring our economic
sovereignty, ensuring we emerge from the shackles of our bailout programme. It
was about restoring confidence and hope to the Irish people, and doing so in
the framework of crucial cooperation with our partners in the European Union.

In the two years and nearly 4 months since
our Government was formed, this is what we in Fine Gael have dedicated
ourselves to. Along with Taoiseach Enda Kenny and all of our Ministers, I have
worked day and night to contribute to this country’s recovery. I certainly
don’t want to give up on this work. We still have much to do.

The revelation of the Anglo tapes last
week, reminded me of this. It minded me once again of the disease and rot at
the heart of the system, which I want to contribute to changing.

But what of another type of rot – one which
could enshrine in Irish law, for the first time ever, and in contravention of
our express constitutional obligations, a hierarchy of human being in this State.
One which says that we can select who deserves to live and who does not.

Groupthink

I’ve had people contact me in recent months
condemning me for having a “moral” or ethical concern about abortion. Some
demanded that I leave my morals or conscience aside in order to support
abortion. Now I must say that I find this bizarre.

There is an emerging consensus in Ireland
which suggests that having a sense of morality has something to do with the
Catholic Church. It is automatically assumed that if you consult your
conscience, you are essentially consulting with Rome. This is deeply worrying.
It is a lazy way of attempting to undermine the worth of an argument, without
actually dealing with the substance. This is not just a Catholic issue, any
more than it is a Protestant or Muslim issue. This is not a religious issue. It
is a human rights issue.

I wonder what one should consult when
voting on a fundamental human rights issue such as this, if not ones own
conscience? My personal view is that all I can do, when making a decision on
life and death, and that is what we are considering here, is consult my
conscience, which is based on my sense of what is right and what is wrong. What
else can I consult? The latest opinion poll? The party hierarchy? The editor of
the most popular newspaper?

I mentioned groupthink, which is a
corrosive affliction in this country. We saw it in the Haughey era, we saw it
during the Celtic Tiger era, and we see it on this question of abortion. It is
easy to understand why people in positions of responsibility want thorny issues
to simply disappear. It is far easier than risking conflict, unpopularity or
worse; paying the price for speaking up…

Wouldn’t the country have been much better
served in the 2000s, had more people on the Government benches, in academia, or
in the media been prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? I am sure
that there were many conscientious objectors who realised that what was
happening was wrong, yet they all remained reticent to avoid the wrath of their
colleagues, the public, their bosses, the media and so on. Conscience lost out,
and the country suffered greatly.

We all have the right to conscientious
objection. It is enshrined in Article 18 of the United Nations, Universal
Declaration on Human Rights which states :

“Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion….”

I contend that this freedom of conscience
is not just a right, but also a duty.

Substance of the Bill

Given my misgivings about this Bill, I am
hoping that some substantive changes might be accepted to improve the
legislation in order to make it more compatible with our constitutional
obligations as legislators.

It is fair to say that sections 7 & 8
of the Bill do not cause me any concern. In fact I welcome the fact that we
will be ensuring certainty for medical practitioners and pregnant women in the
case that there is “a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother” in
accordance with the test set down by the Supreme Court in the X Case.

It is right and proper that all women,
including prospective mothers, can benefit from the very highest standard of
care in Irish hospitals. No woman should lose her life through inaction during
pregnancy. I hope and believe that we are all agreed on that. That is surely a
pro life position.

Suicide

However I am deeply concerned about the
inclusion of the so called “suicide clause” in the legislation (section 9).
This is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the vast majority of
psychiatrists in the country, is a very worrying step.

Not only does it fly in the face of the
evidence presented at both hearings of the Oireachtas health committee, where
the overwhelming view of the medical profession was that suicide could never provide
a treatment or a solution to suicidal intent, but in addition, this clause has
the potential to normalise suicidal ideation by enshrining suicide on our
statute book for the first time.

The only way to avoid the introduction of
this flawed element of the legislation is to omit it entirely from the Bill. I
would urge Minister Reilly to to read and reflect upon the expert psychiatric
evidence presented to the Heath Committee hearings. I would also ask him to
study the joint statement endorsed by 113 Irish psychiatrists, who unanimously
declared in an alarming but illuminating statement that the suicide clause is
simply unworkable.

Term Limits

It seems from recent statements from
Ministers, that the Government’s view is that there can be no term limit on the
right to end a pregnancy by inducing delivery. In other words if a woman’s life
is in danger, and the unborn baby is deemed to be viable, there is an
obligation to bring forward delivery in order to save the life of the woman
while making all efforts to also save the life of the baby.

This of course has the potential to cause
major medical negligence litigation in the future. However, I do not propose to
address that point here. Others have made that point cogently.

Further to this position, the Government
has expressed the view that whether a pregnancy can be ended by means of an
abortion depends on the gestational stage of the unborn child. In other words,
if a foetus is viable then delivery has to be induced. An abortion is not permitted.

The clear result of all of this is an
inherent term limit for abortion within the legislation. If this prohibition on
abortion after viability is established, is assumed and indeed articulated
publicly by the Government, then why not enshrine it in the legislation?

The leading authorities on Irish
constitutional law, Hogan & Whyte in Kelly’s constitution (originally
authored by former Fine Gael TD and Minister, Professor John Kelly) support
this line of argument and go so far as to say it is “disingenuous” to suggest
that the X case allows abortion up until the point of birth.

Logically and legally by this analysis,
there is a constitutional term limit already in place, namely the point of
viability outside the womb. Both Government and the leading academics agree on
this point.

Given that there is agreement between the
Government and the leading constitutional lawyers in the State, why should this
not be expressly stated in the legislation? I am strongly of the view that an
amendment to the legislation clarifying and confirming the legal term limit for
the carrying out of an abortion is necessary. It is also perfectly
constitutional and further I would argue that it is the absolute minimum
protection necessary in a civilised country.

Such a provision would give a firm legal
basis to what is already the interpretation of Government, and crucially would
provide some reassurance to those citizens with concerns about the possibility
of abortion up to full term (which does not exist in any jurisdiction to my
knowledge – even regimes where liberal abortion on demand exists impose term
limits).

Right to vindicate constitutional rights of
unborn

I am entirely perplexed as to why the right
to legal representation for the unborn is excluded from this legislation. It is
the minimum protection required to be afforded to unborn children.

It is important to remember, at every step
of this legislative process, that the unborn child is a human being, a person
and has full rights as such under our Constitution. This means that as a
“constitutional person” an unborn baby has the exact same right to life as any
other living “constitutional person”.

I think this concept can sound a bit
abstract to many people. They might ask, how on earth can an unborn baby, with
no voice and no capacity, benefit from legal representation. However, in
reality, and in the pursuit and vindication of human rights, this is nothing
unusual.

A baby one day old can be represented in
the courts, and this happens regularly, for example in medical negligence
cases, through the “ad litem” procedure. Equally, a person of limited mental
capacity can be represented in our courts, in order to have their rights
vindicated.

When you think about it, this of course is
not a luxury afforded to the most vulnerable people in our society. On the
contrary, it is often the only way in which they have their constitutional and
human rights vindicated in a world where otherwise they might suffer greatly.

I understand that some people do not
believe that a foetus is a person and therefore that it has no legitimate
expectation to have its constitutional rights vindicated. This is however
simply an idealogical position. It is not borne out by the law or by our
Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, which explicitly recognises it as a
person, and therefore with the same and equal rights as all other people.

Now I can only assume that the logic behind
this omission in the Bill is a view that legal representation is not warranted
on the grounds that medical decision making does not warrant consultation with
all parties

However, it is hard to think of any other
“medical” decision where the rights of a third party (and not that of the
patient) are directly affected, so surely legal representation is more (and not
less) appropriate in these cases.

Decisions made under sections 7 and 8 of
the Bill are purely medical decisions based on empirical evidence.

However, decisions made under section 9,
relating to suicidality, are of a different nature. They involve judgments of
credibility, veracity etc. by psychiatrists (and not simply empirical
observation by doctors) and as a result the decisions should be detailed,
forensic, investigative, and will inevitably take place over a period of days.

This difference in nature between the
decisions to be made under sections 7&8 and those under section 9 was
essentially the central point of former DPP Eamon Barnes’ recent article in the
Irish Times.

These decisions are also quasi-judicial in
nature, because of the “panels” system, so surely the unborn should be
represented.

Constitutional obligation to act

It is impossible to justify a situation
whereby the unborn (a constitutional person) would be prohibited from being
represented in front of these panels when grown adults (also constitutional
persons) are entitled to such representation in front of similar such panels
where decisions have a profound impact on their rights, for example in front of
Mental Health Tribunals under the Mental Health Act 2001.

Furthermore, it is arguable that the
Attorney General has a constitutional obligation to act when there is a public
interest in vindicating rights which are identified in the Constitution.

This is acknowledged in much case law as a
“privileged role” of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court has specifically
recognised this role in relation to Article 40.3.3 the right to life as per
Judge Finlay in the X Case. This right or duty of the AG is inherent in the
Constitution and therefore should be included in the Bill.

Furthermore, under the Constitution all interested
or potentially affected parties to a legal process must be given a right to
express their point of view (i.e. the fundamental constitutional right of
participation – audi alteram partem – both sides of any case must be heard).

This was reinforced recently by the Supreme
Court itself in Dellway Investments Ltd. v NAMA (2011).

Clearly the right to life of the unborn is
“capable of being directly affected in a material way” by a decision taken
under section 9, under the formula given in Dellway.

Since this is a constitutional principle it
is implied into all statutes. It seems likely that the legislation could be
successfully challenged on the grounds that no specific mechanism is in place
for the position of the unborn (a constitutional person) to be advocated or a
means for them to vindicate their rights.

Conclusion

I have mentioned some key areas in which
this legislation needs to be amended. I know that Minister Reilly has stated
his intention to accept amendments during the committee stage. I take him at
his word and assume this means substantive amendments based on evidence, and
not just procedural ones.

If this Bill is to genuinely live up to its
title “The protection of life during Pregnancy Bill” then it should simply
aspire to do just that – provide protection to all lives – no more, no less. It
must protect women who’s lives may be endangered during pregnancy, we expect
and demand that this be be the case. It must also protect the life of babies in
pregnancy. Otherwise the title will simply be misleading.

Ireland is a great country for mothers and
babies, where the best possible care has been, and continues to be afforded.
This Bill has the potential to change that, and to change the compassionate
culture of care which have treasured for so long.

Before I conclude, I wish to read an email
I received last night which sums up the essence of the problem with this Bill:

‘Dear Ms Creighton,

My name is Dr ‘Y. I am a psychiatrist for
the last ten years and I am also a woman and a mother. I have experienced both
depression and pregnancy.

From all these perspectives I ask you to
think long and hard before the vote on the “life on pregnancy” bill, and
discuss your concerns with your party colleagues.

Suicidality is not an easy “diagnosis” to make.
It is dynamic, not static, with the matters contributing to the suicidal state
constantly changing. There is absolutely no test one can make to predict
whether someone will die by suicide. Finding out one is pregnant for all the
wrong reasons is a devastating life altering thing, but as human beings we try
to help people adjust and make decisions in a clear frame of mind. Abortion has
never ever been a treatment for suicidal ideation and completed abortion may
end up being one of those dynamic factors that pushes someone to contemplate
suicide. There is nothing so devastating as guilt to the depressed mind.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, please
consider diverting energy and resources to supporting people with unwanted
pregnancies, not pushing them down a path that may be detrimental to their
mental health later when it is too late.

Thank you for reading this.’

Dr ‘Y’

This sums up very well why this legislation
as currently framed, is considered unworkable by so many experts. I have had
countless emails and letters, such as this, from concerned psychiatrists in the
past few weeks. I have not received one single letter from a psychiatrist
welcoming this Bill or saying that it is necessary to deal with suicidal
intent.

Compassionate, clinical care is what is needed
and the government should put all possible resources into providing this for
young, vulnerable women. Abortion solves nothing.

I know a number of women who had abortions
and deeply regretted it. I genuinely do not know any woman who has had a baby
and regretted it. No matter the circumstances, the initial stress, anxiety
fear, stigma or concern, we must support women in their hour of need. That is
simply our moral and constitutional duty.

ENDS