Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LEO VARADKAR TOLD the Dáil last night that Ireland’s abortion laws are too restrictive.
While discussing Clare Daly’s bill to repeal the 8th Amendment in our constitution – which confers equal rights on the mother and the unborn – the Minister for Health said the current government should avoid the mistakes made by those in power in the 1980s.
Here is what he said, in full:
“Ceann Comhairle, the private members bill before the House tonight proposes to do two things. First, to delete the eighth amendment to the constitution and in so doing remove the constitutional right to life afforded both to the mother and the unborn child. Second, it proposes to insert a new provision acknowledging the citizen’s right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
It also affords us another opportunity to debate our abortion laws which I welcome. First of all, I am hopeful that we shall have a rational and measured debate tonight and tomorrow.
For too long, the debate on abortion has been dominated by the extremes on both sides who have in turn crowded out the middle ground. Instead of a genuine debate there has been name-calling, and a corrosiveness that has damaged how we approach this most difficult of issues.
I do not believe that one side is anti-life just because they call themselves pro-choice, any more than I believe that one side is rigidly anti-choice just because they call themselves pro-life.
Medicine and the human condition are coloured in grey and cannot be reduced to binary argument – black and white. We need to approach this issue with compassion rather than with cold certainty.
So let us approach tonight’s debate in a new spirit.
Let us prove to those who have become disillusioned with the extremes of both sides – even with politics – but who know in their hearts what is right and what is just – that we can have a calm and measured debate, an exchange of views about what is right and wrong for women, the unborn, families and society.
Ceann Comhairle, often individual cases give rise to ethical and legal dilemmas that are very hard to resolve. I shall not mention any tonight but everyone in the House will be familiar with these cases or at least some of them.
Advocates on both sides in the debate often use such cases to advance their argument insisting that such should happen ‘never again’. That is a nonsense. No law can ever eliminate all human tragedy from human pregnancy. Countries with very conservative laws such as ours risk putting the lives of women at risk by refusing terminations.
Countries with very liberal laws do the same, allowing for the life of the unborn to be ended and exposing women to potential injury, loss of fertility and even death as a consequence of abortion. It is rare. But it does happen.
Dilemmas about late-term abortion when the unborn child or foetus is a 20, 22, 24, 26 weeks gestation occur in other jurisdictions. As do dilemmas about the viability of an unborn child, fatal foetal abnormalities and even disabilities that are compatible with life.
It is not just an Irish problem.
Every country and parliament grapples with these issues. We are not unique and there are no easy answers, nor a social consensus to which we can yet all agree.
We can never say ‘never again’ and think to mean it. We need to face up to that and be honest about it.
There is no perfect abortion law and never will be. We will always be challenged to amend and refine whatever law we have and so we should.
The proposal made in this bill asks us to acknowledge the right of all citizens to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. I think this proposal flawed.
It is not clear what the author intends by providing that the State will ‘acknowledge’ the rights of all citizens to autonomy and bodily integrity. The proposal is vague. It makes little sense to state that the State simply ‘acknowledges’ that rights exist. Usually once rights are acknowledged, the State then indicates how it intends to protect them.
For example, Article 40.3.3 as it currently reads provides that the State “acknowledges” the right to life of the unborn but it continues by stating that with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, the State guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. In other words, the State in Article 40.3.3 is doing more than acknowledging rights, it is also protecting them.
In the same vein, Article 42 the State “acknowledges” that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family, but it goes on to guarantee to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide for the education of their children.
Again, in Article 43, the State “acknowledges” that man has a natural right to ownership of private property but again, Article 43 goes on to provide that the State “accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership….”.
In other words, there is little point in acknowledging a right without adding the specifics as to what the State is going to do to protect that right.
The language employed in Deputy’s proposal is opaque and unsure as to what it actually wants the State to do. These points are all the more important in the context of a Constitution, a document laying down the fundamental legal structure of the State.
Article 40.3.1 provides that the State guarantees in its laws to respect and, as far as practicable, to defend and vindicate the personal rights of citizens. Specific rights are referred to in Article 40.3.2; these are the right to life, person, good name and property rights.
The judiciary has identified a number of additional personal rights arising from Article 40.3.1. One of these is the right to bodily integrity.
Another is the right to privacy, which has been recognised as an unenumerated personal right under Article 40.3.1. Autonomy is related to privacy and the constitutional values of autonomy and self-determination have also been accepted by the courts as recognised by the Constitution. Thus autonomy and bodily integrity are personal rights already protected under the Constitution.
There for the proposed amendment contains rights that are already protected under our Constitution.
… If there is one thing that we have learnt from the mistakes of the past, it is that ambiguity in wording can be the source of terrible problems further down the line.
While I have no doubt about the Deputy’s sincerity in putting forward this amendment for inclusion in our constitution, I do not believe that she has given full thought or due regard to the law of unintended consequences, and I cannot support the inclusion on this wording in our constitution. So, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, this Government will not be supporting this bill.
Indeed, it seems to me that the Deputies in favour of this, in not considering the effects and outcomes that could flow from their proposal, are perhaps making a similar misjudgement to those who sought the inclusion of the 8th amendment in our constitution back in 1983.
I doubt any of them thought that the effect of their actions would be, in fact, the creation of a constitutional right to a termination in certain circumstances. But that, is exactly what happened and indeed the Oireachtas legislated to codify and clarify that constitutional right only last year in the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.
Looking back to the early 1980s we had what Gene Kerrigan has called a ‘Moral Civil War’, as two opposing sides fought over principles they genuinely believed in. But there were no winners in this cultural civil war, only losers. The result was a flawed amendment.
Just as damaging, as one of most perceptive commentators, Ann Marie Hourihane, has noted, reflecting on the events of 1983 exactly twenty years later, ‘one of the biggest results of the amendment was that parliamentary politics lost its thrust…’ The momentum came from outside of parliament, and she noted that: ‘The Dáil never got to grips with this’.
Such criticism is deeply wounding, and I would like to think that it is no longer correct. On both sides of this House politicians care deeply about these issue, and want to see them resolved, even if we may disagree about best how to go about it.
I think in considering the eighth amendment, we should recall the words of some of the wise voices of the time. The attorney general of the day, Peter Sutherland, was clear in his objections to the proposed wording, but unfortunately the Dáil voted against an alternative proposal.
In his 33-page memo to government he predicted all the problems that came to pass, and warned that ‘far from providing the protection and certainty which is sought by many of those who have advocated its adoption it will have a contrary effect’.
He recognised that the eighth amendment would ‘confuse doctors as to their responsibilities, and inhibit them from making decisions rather than assist them’.
Speaking in the Seanad on the 26 of May 1983, Mary Robinson attacked the amendment as something ‘so uncertain in its scope and so potentially contradictory in its meaning’ that it would be ‘so potentially damaging to existing practices in the area of family planning and medical treatment’.
How prophetic those words were and have turned out to be.
Ceann Comhairle, last September, in this House, I was asked for my views on the eight amendment. I declined to give them at the time. Ministers for Health do not just represent their own private views, they are guardians of the nation’s healthcare, and must work to protect and safeguard all of its citizens. But perhaps people may be interested in where I am coming from.
I consider myself to be pro-life in that I accept that the unborn child is a human life with rights. I cannot, therefore, accept the view that it is a simple matter of choice. There are two lives involved in any pregnancy. For that reason, like most people in the country, I do not support abortion on request or on demand.
But I also know that this is an issue where there are few certainties, there can be a conflict of rights and difficult decisions have to be made every day, sometimes to save a life, sometimes because the quality of the lives involved also need to be considered.
I like to believe that I am a conviction politician, often definite, sometimes blunt but this is an issue that requires compassion and empathy, and not unshakeable certainty. That was the mistake we made as a Dáil and a society in the 1980s, when we engaged in a simplification of politics to present this a straight choice between right or wrong, when human decisions are rarely so simple.
Speaking today as Minister for Health, and also as a medical doctor, and knowing now all that I do now, it is my considered view that the eighth amendment is too restrictive.
While it protects the right to life of the mother, it has no regard for her long-term health. If a stroke, heart attack, epileptic seizure happens, perhaps resulting in permanent disability as a result, then that is acceptable under our laws. I don’t think that’s right.
Similarly, it forces couples to bring to term a child that has no chance of survival for long outside the womb if at all. Forcing them, against their own judgement, to explain for weeks and months to all enquirers that their baby is dead. I have been present at stillbirths. I know it can be handled well and sensitively but I do not believe anything is served by requiring women or couples to continue with such pregnancies should they not wish to do so when there is no chance of the baby surviving.
The eighth amendment continues to exert a chilling effect on doctors. Difficult decisions that should be made by women and their doctors, a couple or the next-of-kin where there is no capacity, and on the basis of best clinical practice, are now made on foot of legal advice. That isn’t how it should be.
But it is not my right to impose my own views on others, and the current Government has no electoral mandate to do so. This is not a decision that can be rushed. We are told that Civil War politics is now behind us. Perhaps we need to ensure that the politics of the ‘Moral Civil War’ are consigned to history as well.
I oppose this motion because although it is well-intended, it repeats the mistakes of the past, and replaces some old errors with some new ones.
Instead I propose that we have a considered and careful debate, and not attempt a ‘rush job’ referendum in the spring. We need a real debate and a genuine attempt to find a consensus.
The solution is not to create further moral and legal confusion but rather to try to come together to find a consensus, and in doing so we must first replace our old convictions with new compassion.
First published 16 December 11.45pm
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How many people are using the train from Howth versus coming from all the way down the East Coast from Drogheda? I can’t see Howth residents winning this. Nor should they really……
They’re not being cut off, they’re just being asked to join the main line. And if it increases the number of trains surely that’s a good thing overall?
@Tricia G: yeah it’s probably the sensible change.It won’t be without issues though. Irish rail/gardai will probably have to address howth junction station. It’s like a ghetto at the best of times. And the howth train is brimming with tourists daily (1000s on the weekends) who will need changover here. It’s also a busy enough commute but I dont know the numbers exactly.Then there will be the knock on effect of traffic on the Dublin road with people deciding not to take train. And also parking in howth (which is currently free) if people find it more hassle too get train. There is also a massive apartment complex being built beside howth station. Bound to increase demand.
I can understand why they are complaining. Most people don’t want to be inconvenienced but it happens I guess.
@Tricia G: it’s looks like that the entire area from Lusk to Drogheda will become a huge Dublin suburb. There’s a lot of housing developments in Lusk, Rush, Skerries, Balbriggan, Laytown, Bettystown and Morington. The DART will encourage even more developments.
@Tricia G: many people may have bought a house in Howth because of the DART line. Why not just do both, there are already separate DARTS to Howth and Malahide. Start building a proper public network around the city and into the suburbs not along the coast.
@Tipper Irie: because we haven’t built any new rail since the Brits were here as far as I know and wont have any for a long time. DART+ will just be using the existing lines which are already congested, it’s not as simple as just putting more direct trains from Howth.
@Tipper Irie: Only so many trains can operate at a time. MAYBE yes, one “express” train an hour perhaps with all others requiring a change but implementation and timing is challenging.
@Paul Furey: I’d argue they’re already part of the “Dublin suburb” and a better public transport system is required to reduce the numbers currently forced to drive.
@Tipper Irie: more efficient logistically doing it with the shuttle train…… Inconvenient for the people from Howth line who won’t be virtually guaranteed a seat
@Colm Kane: As someone who used to commute on a train from the first stop so I always got a seat, this is the bit I’d be raging about.
That would suck, to go from always getting a seat to having to stand because you’re joining halfway down the line.
@Paul Furey: They have all been surburbs for years!
@Colm Kane: Everyone is changing trains the shuttles run from Howth Junction to the city!
@Tricia G: as someone from Howth who depends on the dart daily I think it’s a disgrace! Why should we have to change over? There just needs to be an increased frequency and capacity over all!
And to answer your comment about how many people use the service, it’s a hell of a lot and would have a much greater impact on our local economy than drogheda
@James Moore: you should have to change because in doing this it makes the dart a better service for way more people than live in howth while only inconveniencing you a little
@eoin fitzpatrick: it’s not just inconveniencing me it’s 100s of local passengers per day not to mention the amount of tourists who come out to Howth. Also there is only one road in and out of Howth and the traffic is already bad and making people change darts will only encourage the people affected by this proposed change to drive therefore making the traffic worse! The people who live on the train line have much more options in terms of different routes they can take if forced to drive than those of us on the proposed affected side
@James Moore: it’s not just about Drogheda though, is it? It’s about a population more than 5 times bigger, possibly 10, actually getting a service that works. So a hell of a lot more. Howth will still have a service, and a far better one than up the coast at the moment. So cut the selfish moaning, and look at the bigger picture.
Honestly we need to do whatever works best for the greater amount of people. If people from Howth have to change big deal. We can’t have a few moaners bring the quality of services down overall. This kind of stuff is what holds this country’s infrastructure back.
@eoin fitzpatrick: it won’t bring the quality of the service down to keep both tracks running to the city directly if they increase the capacity and frequency of trains! Everywhere is experiencing development and issues with public transport so it is madness to suggest to ask a sizeable amount of commuters to change and make their commute even longer! The train is packed from bayside onwards
@James Moore: they can’t do this as the line is already too congested
@eoin fitzpatrick: exactly this. “sacrificed for Drogheda” – such hysterical hyperbole.
If you are a resident in Howth, Sutton, Baldoyle, or surrounding areas, or even travelling that general direction, there are 3 level crossings in very close proximity. Unless trains can fly, the extra capacity and frequency will cause massive traffic jams at level crossings, which will have a severe impact on school runs or shopping. It will also kill a struggling tourist market in Howth. Myopic planning proposal, in my opinion.
@B2dL Me/You: true. Fair point.
@B2dL Me/You: They are closing the level crossings!
@B2dL Me/You: well said. Traffic is already really bad when the gates are down at the moment, so their proposal will mean gates will be down for 30 mins of every hour. Can you imagine the tailbacks which will affect those trying to get to Sutton and Howth and those trying to get to the Airport/ M50. Not alone that but extra capacity will be needed due to the hundreds of apartments they’re building. There has to be a better alternative (perhaps reduce the number of darts from Howth / to Howth, but make them express). They are trying to make public transport attractive to all, this proposal certainly defeats that. It’s so Irish, keep on building out in the suburbs but don’t build any new infrastructure to support it.
After moving from Bayside to Rush last year I can honestly say that I don’t believe this is a great idea. The Dart is rammed at rush hour from Bayside onwards. I have yet to get on a busier train from Rush. And absolutely nobody lives near the Rush & Lusk station, it’s bizarre.
@Jen Mc: pretty sure there will be a lot more trains running so that might help congestion
@eoin fitzpatrick: would you want to have change trains? I wouldn’t, especially in winter. Considering they don’t even match up the bus and train out in Rush, I can’t see this being a case where you step off the train at Howth Junction and catch a train to town straight away.
@Jen Mc: if only there was a solution to having crowded trains….I dunno maybe increase frequency and capacity …oh wait that’s what being proposed ?? And some people don’t think it’s a good idea to add more trains double capacity and more frequent services ……because the existing services are too full ?
Hmmm…
@Jen Mc: Rush&Lusk is hardly typical of the entire line. Nor is linking train/bus timetables particularly relevant to coordinating trains with each other. It’s desperately needed further north, and cocooned Howth-dwellers need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Howth Junction/ kilbarrack was always a hub of anti social behaviour. Now add thousands of visitors/ normal travellers to Baldoyle, Bayside, Sutton and Howth. The beach at Sutton and Howth are literally packed when the sun comes out. From May to September, burrow Road is like a pedestrian area and cars are backed up from Clontarf up to Howth on the coast road. Guards have trouble keeping peace in Sutton and Howth and now all these 1000′s of additional passengers will have to stand at Howth Junction together. Initially they proposed a bus from Howth Junction and now a feeder train.
Massive immigration is fueling the need for more trains, schools, hospitals etc.. Population in Ireland went up by 90,000 last year alone. Metro Boston, MA has added about 1M more people in the past 30 years. Cramming people into small spaces is not a great strategy.
@Paulco: cramming people into small spaces actually is a great strategy compared to spreading people out in urban sprawl
@Paulco: 90,000 is an anomaly, if you look at Ireland’s 30 year pattern. And really it’s an underpopulated country. People have just got very used to space for increased urban sprawl, without proper increase in infrastructure. So now both issues need to be tackled.
Eamonn Ryan keeps going on about using public transport yet the Dart does not operate before 0900 on a Sunday.
If the new proposals to change at Howth Junction dont guarantee a seat maybe its time to start driving instead. Also the journey time is longer and more inconvenient
And yet still no Dart to Balbriggan! Only the south side gets it all the way to Greystones!!
Why not keep the current system, add a track, do direct Dublin to Drogheda and back peak hours and a slow one with more stops including one to change onto the Howth Dublin line.
@Colm Molloy: because that bypasses all the other places that need a proper service, perhaps?
I see Eoin Fitzpatrick wants to live in a glorified Ballymun tower where kids have no green space and live 14 stories up in the air. No wonder couples aren’t having as many kids anymore.
@Paulco: much of the world live in apartment towers not everyone is afraid of having neighbours. if you’re concerned with lack of green spaces, dense living in 14 stories is what you should be promoting. If everyone in dense cities were to move into sprawled out suburbs and one offs it would take up far more space and leave less areas green. pretty straightforward.
@Paulco: not all high-rise is the same as Ballymun, which seems to be thrown out as a hysterical buzzword whenever such plans are suggested. The error there was building a ready-made ghetto.
have your say