The No side won the debate this week; it could still be turned around, writes Mark Brennock, Political Correspondent
Both sides say the choice is simple, and then proceed to put forward different choices. With 11 days to go to the abortion poll the debate has become mired in minutiae so complex that even some of the active campaigners appear to be struggling to understand what is coming out of their mouths.
Politically, the No side won this week hands down. The Government attempted to portray the choice as between a reasonable solution advocated by them and an out-of-control liberal abortion regime advocated by the Opposition.
But the No side made considerable progress towards shifting the focus of the debate to its preferred choice: whether or not the X case decision allowing a suicidal pregnant woman to have an abortion should be rolled back.
To define the debate in this way, the Opposition attacked the two aspects of the Government proposal designed to take the conservative gloss off it: The assurance that the morning-after pill could be used in future without criminal sanction, and the assurance that abortions - or "procedures" as they are called in the Bill - to save a mother's life could still be carried out if the amendment is carried.
On the first issue the Government insisted this week that the 1983 abortion amendment cast no constitutional doubt whatsoever on the use of the morning-after pill or the IUD. However, the independent Referendum Commission said it did. Then Labour dug out a section of the Government's own Green Paper on abortion which also said there was "some judicial support" for the view that the 1983 amendment protected human life from conception, and could therefore have implications for the morning- after pill.
Cardinal Connell had no doubt about this either when interviewed on Thursday night's RTÉ News. "The constitutional protection for the unborn at whatever stage from conception is, in fact, strengthened by this," he said.
It is unlikely to matter in any practical sense: the Supreme Court is seen as unlikely to give somebody a declaration that the morning-after pill is illegal.
Even if it does, no future government is likely to pass a law criminalising the morning-after pill on foot of such a decision. And the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill, which will be given constitutional protection if this amendment is carried, will exclude the use of the morning- after pill from what is deemed to be a criminal offence.
But for the Opposition the point is important. The Taoiseach and his ministers have stated as an incontrovertible fact that what they are doing will guarantee the future legality of the morning-after pill. The Opposition has succeeded in casting doubt on this in the public mind.
The second plank of the Government position, designed to appeal to liberals, is the statement that the proposal is needed to safeguard current medical practice in the rare cases of pregnant women whose lives are in danger. The Fine Gael leader, Mr Michael Noonan, and Independent Senator Dr Mary Henry led the campaign this week to question this assertion.
They said that, at present, doctors carry out "procedures" to terminate pregnancy in hospitals throughout the State, and they need no referendum to allow them to continue to do so. The X case judgment makes explicit the right to carry out such procedures. What the Government proposes to do is to nominate "designated centres" where such procedures will be carried out, and to oblige these centres to keep records.
Mr Noonan and Dr Henry have questioned what would happen if some future government - perhaps dependent on anti-abortion independents for its survival - were to curtail the number of such centres. Both suggested there could be cases where pregnant women who were haemorrhaging severely might not be able to be brought to a "designated centre" in time. Dr Henry goes on to suggest that the requirement to keep records may contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees privacy in relation to medical records.
Again, the chances of the number of designated centres being curtailed appears remote, and the chances of a doctor in a remote area being prosecuted for attempting to save the life of a haemorrhaging pregnant woman appears remote also. But the Opposition's aim has been to remove the argument that the referendum in some way advances the safety of pregnant women whose lives are at risk. It has certainly confused it.
Among Government and Opposition parties yesterday, there were many willing to predict the referendum would be defeated, and some who would say it was still "there to play for". None was predicting victory. The most positive way for the Government to look at it is that confusion has reached its peak early, and there is still time to turn it around.
Two constituency opinion polls whose results were published this week showed a dramatic urban/rural divide on the issue. In Donegal South West some 59 per cent said they would support the amendment, 21 per cent would vote against, 16 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent said they would not vote.
Dublin South East, a traditionally liberal constituency, produced close to a mirror image of the Donegal result. Just 17 per cent would vote in favour, 48 per cent against, 28 per cent were undecided and 7 per cent would not vote.
Neither poll is necessarily a reliable indicator of the outcome. The Donegal poll was taken between February 4th and 9th. The Dublin South East poll on February 15th and 16th, a week ago. The debate has become more bitter and much more incomprehensible since these surveys were taken. The effect on people's voting intentions cannot be gauged.