Why I will oppose this Bill unless there are radical changes

By COLM KEAVENEY TD AFTER voting against cuts to Child Benefit in the Budget last December I was removed from the parliamentary Labour Party and lost the whip. This presented certain challenges for me, one of which was the requirement to consider the merits of proposed legislation without the resources of a political party and without the cover afforded by being under a whip. This has turned out to be a welcome challenge as it has afforded me the freedom to vote on the lines of my own judgement and conscience, informed by the views of those I represent. I have to be honest and admit that the issue of legislating for the X case is not an issue that I had previously looked into in any depth. The publication of the Heads of Bill of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, 2013 prompted me for the first time to carefully consider the issues involved. This resulted in me questioning some of my previous assumptions on the issue and to reflect carefully on what was being proposed here. Having done so I have decided that I will have to oppose this Bill unless there are radical changes to what is proposed in the Heads of Bill. The main points of concern that I have with the Bill are mainly contained in Head 4 â€â€ those relating to the risk of loss of life from self-destruction, ie suicide. There are a number of grounds upon which my concerns rest. The idea that a baby, as anticipated in the Heads of Bill, would be intentionally delivered prematurely, which would leave it at risk of disability, and placed in an incubator under the care of the State (given that in some cases the mother may not be willing or able to care for the child herself) seems somewhat dystopian to me. Minister of State Alex White confirmed this understanding during his closing remarks to the Health Committee on Tuesday evening. However, neither he nor the Minister for Health have been able to provide any detail about how the welfare of such infants would be secured, including their welfare into adulthood with any disability that may arise from such an early delivery as is envisaged by this legislation. The above arises as the Bill does not impose any limits on up to what stage of pregnancy that a termination may be carried out. There is little to suggest that the Irish people would be willing to agree to late term terminations. These issues arise, in part, from the failure of the Heads of Bill to adequately balance the right to the life of the mother with that of the unborn as the 8th amendment to the Constitution appears to demand. Other concerns that I have with this Bill include the danger that this legislation may further normalise suicide as an option. This is at a time where this country is undergoing a suicide epidemic. We need to show some caution and understanding towards the potential effects that such normalisation may have. These concerns arise from testimony of some health professionals before the Oireachtas Committee hearings. I am in agreement with some of the measures contained in the Heads of Bill. These include the proposed measures that deal with physical illness, including a medical emergency, but not including the risk of suicide, where the medical procedure concerned is necessary to save the life of the mother from a real and substantial risk to her life. These provisions must conform with the ethical principle of double effect and take an adequate account of the equal rights of the unborn. Legal clarity would be welcome. Since making my views on this matter public the response from the public, both in agreement and disagreement, has been notable by its volume. This is to be expected with an issue of such importance to so many. What has been striking though has been the failure to date of anyone who has disagreed with my interpretation to provide any refutation of my concerns that goes beyond sloganeering. It is essential that we, as a people, but more particularly we as in myself and my fellow legislators, get this right and do not now place something into law that will be a cause for regret in decades to come. To do that will require the debate to move beyond simplistic labels and slogans and to move towards addressing the substance of what is proposed. Anything less will be to fail in our duty.