| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_____News____Ireland_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
More
Heat than Light
In the heated debate on a
proposed constitutional amendment, the opposing sides
disagree not only on the merits of the proposal, but even on what it means.
By Kieron Wood
Angry scenes in the Irish parliament early in February finally put an end to any hopes for a moderate, reasoned debate preceding the country’s abortion referendum, which will be held on March 6.
The proceedings of the Irish parliament, or Dáil, had to be suspended after members of the house swapped insults and catcalls. Dick Roche, a member of the ruling Fianna Fáil coalition, was chastised for calling a Labor Party member “pro-abortion.” Opposition parliamentarians responded that Roche was “just a thug” and a “slithering political lizard.”
The divisions in the Dáil reflect the political, religious, and social divide throughout the country. When the political parties nailed their colors to the mast that week, the depth of the differences became manifest.
The political line-up
Taoiseach (prime minister) Bertie Ahern—launching the Fianna Fáil campaign for a
Yes vote— explained that he was undertaking the effort because he did not want
to see a “pro-choice, liberal abortion regime” in Ireland. Fianna Fáil’s junior
coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats, are also pushing for a Yes vote.
On the other side of the political divide, the opposition Fine Gael party is planning to spend 100,000 euros (about $88,000) on its campaign for a No vote. The Labor Party, described by the Taoiseach as pro-abortion, also opposes the amendment. Among the other groups campaigning for a No vote are the Irish Family Planning Association, the Well Woman Centre, the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, and the Alliance for a No Vote. Supporting the government are the Pro-Life Campaign and the Catholic bishops.
The opposition of pro-choice groups to the referendum is not surprising. More remarkable is the split in the anti-abortion camp. Groups like Youth Defence and Ireland for Life, with the support of such legal stalwarts as former High Court judge Rory O’Hanlon, oppose the referendum on the grounds that it will legalize the “morning-after pill” and could lead to embryonic experimentation.
This is not so, insists the Pro-Life Campaign (PLC), with the backing of such legal luminaries as Professor William Binchy of Trinity College in Dublin. The PLC maintains that the referendum merely removes the option of abortion in the case of threatened suicide. The legislation does not change existing law on the protection of the unborn between conception and implantation, this group insists.
The churches in Ireland also disagree on the measure. The Catholic bishops last December said that Catholic voters “should feel free in conscience to support this measure, even if it is viewed as less than might have been desired.” The Church of Ireland (Episcopalian) view was expressed by Bishop Harold Miller of Down and Dromore when he told a government committee: “We are agreed that abortion should be permitted in situations where the continuance of the pregnancy represents a substantial medical risk to the life of the mother, even if in a few exceptional cases this requires direct, rather than indirect, abortion.”
Legislative summary
The subject of the referendum, the proposed 25th Amendment of the Irish
Constitution—the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill—is a complex piece
of legislation, although it is only seven sections long.
• Section 1 proposes to amend Article 46 of the Irish Constitution by the insertion of a 36-line schedule enshrining the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act in the Constitution itself. The act defines the meanings of “abortion,” “approved place,” “medical practitioner,” “reasonable opinion,” and —perhaps surprisingly—”woman.” The word “abortion” is defined so that it specifically does not include any medical procedure carried out by a medical practitioner at an approved place, as a result of which “unborn human life is ended,” as long as the doctor reasonably believes that procedure is necessary to prevent a “real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life, other than by self-destruction.”
• Section 2 bans abortion and prescribes a penalty of up to 12 years imprisonment (plus an unspecified fine) for anyone who attempts an abortion or “aids, abets, or procures” anyone else to carry out an abortion.
• Section 3 is a conscience clause, allowing anyone to opt out of the “medical procedure” mentioned in section 1.
• Section 4 reiterates that the Act does not limit freedom to travel abroad for an abortion or restrict freedom of information about foreign abortion clinics.
• Section 5 relates to the keeping of medical records (including records of doctors’ opinions).
• Section 6 repeals sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences against the Person Act, which formerly banned abortion.
• Section 7 says the Act will come into force at least two months after the date of its passing.
General confusion
The language of the bill, as one might expect with such a delicate issue, is
complex to the point of obtuseness. The new section to be inserted into the
Constitution includes one sentence of 125 words and another of 80 words, which
are all but incomprehensible to anyone except legal experts.
Despite the confusion surrounding the debate, which has already generated far more heat than light, the Referendum Commission—which is statutorily required to clarify the issues for the electorate—has said it does not have enough time before polling day to deliver an explanatory booklet to every household in the state.
The Commission, under Mr. Justice Frederick Morris, has been given a budget of 3 million euros ($2.6 million) to explain the subject matter of the referendum to the electorate as simply and effectively as possible, and to encourage voters to go to the polls. (The Commission no longer has a statutory role in outlining the arguments for and against referendum proposals.)
The Commission held its first meeting in early February and produced an information booklet which it hoped to make available to “as wide an audience as possible” by “alternative means of distribution.” The Commission also proposed to run radio and television information campaigns.
One of the many areas of confusion is the role of psychiatrists in deciding whether a pregnant woman may be suicidal. Marine minister Frank Fahey was forced to express regret for remarks he made on local radio suggesting that several women had sought abortions over the past year on the grounds that they were suicidal. Fahey said he knew of one doctor who had obtained medical and psychiatric treatment for a woman to prevent her from committing suicide.
But top psychiatrists Anthony Clare and Patricia Casey have now stepped into the dispute, issuing a statement expressing their concern at “the central position that is being given to psychiatry in the current debate on abortion.” They argued:
Abortion is not a psychiatric matter. The overwhelming majority of abortions on Irish women are carried out for social and economic reasons. Those who powerfully demand that women should have the right to choose to abort their unborn babies should not enroll psychiatry or psychiatric justifications for their cause.
As the Royal College of Psychiatrists has made plain “There are no absolute psychiatric indications for termination of pregnancy”—that is to say, there are no psychiatric conditions for which abortion is the only answer. Both of us also agree that there is no evidence of an increased suicide rate in women who have been raped but refused abortion and gone on to complete their pregnancies. Those who argue that abortion should be offered to victims of rape or incest are not justified in using psychiatry or psychiatric evidence to justify their arguments.
Clare related his experience in Bermuda in the 1970s when a psychiatrist’s signature was required to the effect that a woman would commit suicide if she was refused an abortion. “Psychiatrists became hopelessly compromised,” he said. “Women were increasingly pressured to make suicidal statements to justify their request to end a pregnancy that was unwanted, economically threatening, or socially unacceptable.”
The symbolism of a joint statement
from Casey and Clare—who have previously differed on the issue of abortion and
suicide—suggests that agreement between opposing views may not be impossible.
But the Dáil debacle indicates that it won’t be easy.
Kieron Wood is a barrister and
assistant editor of The Sunday Business Post in Dublin.