Hypocrisy continues on the abortion issue

A LITTLE over four years ago Fianna Fail got its act together on abortion. Nothing has happened in the meantime to undo that act, apart from an erosion of nerve and an attack of opportunism. There is no need for a hand-wringing expert committee on abortion, it was all laid out clearly and simply in the autumn of 1992 and by none other than a Fianna Fail Minister for Health.

This was just before the constitutional referendum on the three abortion issues: the right to travel, the right to information and the "substantive issue". That referendum followed the Supreme Court decision in the X case.

The Fianna Fail minister outlined clearly what his party in government would do if the "substantive" amendment was defeated in the referendum. The "substantive" amendment proposed: "It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

The minister stated that if this proposed amendment was defeated in the November 1992 referendum Fianna Fail would introduce legislation to regularise the situation arising from the judgment in the X case.

He specified what this legislation would contain. It would provide for a certification process, involving a number of consultants in approved hospitals to certify that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother which could not be resolved by any reasonable means other than the termination of pregnancy.

Where such risk to life arose from the threatened suicide of the mother, he proposed that the consultants would include psychiatrists to assess the seriousness of the suicide threat. In addition, he proposed special arrangements for medical emergency cases where time would not be available to follow the normal certification process.

As we know the amendment was voted down by the people by a 2-to-1 majority in the referendum that coincided with a general election which gave rise to the Fianna Fail-Labour coalition. A commitment to introduce legislation to deal with "the substantive issue" was given in the Fianna Fail-Labour Programme for Government in January 1993.

So what is the problem now? What is the need for an expert group? Why can't Fianna Fail stick to what it said it would do 4 1/2 years ago and to what it agreed in the Programme for Government with Labour?

Of course the same could be said for Labour. Why didn't it deliver in the last four years on the undertakings it agreed to in January 1993? And Labour had direct responsibility for delivering on this issue for one of its Ministers, Brendan Howlin, held the Health portfolio for two years.

Indeed, the same Brendan Howlin had himself a special stake in delivering.

HEN the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the X case on March 5th, 1992, Brendan Howlin, then chief, whip of the Labour Party, called for "immediate" legislation to regulate the circumstances in which abortion could take place in the Republic.

His call reflected a scathing critique of the legislative branch of government by one of the Supreme Court justices in that case, the late Mr Justice Niall McCarthy. Referring to the 1983 constitutional amendment on abortion, he said: "The failure by the legislature to enact the appropriate legislation is no longer unfortunate, it is inexcusable.

"What are pregnant women to do? What are the parents of a pregnant girl under age to do? What are the medical profession to do? They have no guidance, save what bay be gleaned from the judgments in this case.

But when Brendan Howlin, as Minister for Health, had an opportunity to deliver upon his own demand for "immediate" legislation, he did nothing. And now, five years on from the time of Mr Justice McCarthy's excoriation of the legislature for failing to act, the politicians still have done nothing.

Precisely those questions addressed by Mr Justice McCarthy in his X case judgment remain unanswered: "What are pregnant women to do? What are the parents of a pregnant girl under age to do? What are the medical profession to do?"

An even more fundamental question arises: are there any limits under existing Irish law on the time within which an abortion may take place. The Supreme Court's judgment in the X case leaves this question open and, arguably, the reasoning a majority of its judges deployed could justify an abortion in certain instances at any time during pregnancy.

Apart from these questions, there may also be a "right" to an abortion in certain circumstances and, arising from this, medical doctors and authorities may be liable for damages for failing to provide abortion services in cases where the life of the mother was endangered through a threat of self-destruction or for some other reason.

FUNDAMENTALLY, although the constitutional position as of now is that abortion is legal in certain circumstances, no political party, bar, possibly, the Progressive Democrats, has the nerve to face up to the issue and propose regulating legislation.

Ten months ago, the Constitution Review Group proposed "the introduction of legislation covering such matters as definitions, protection for appropriate medical intervention, certification of real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and a time limit on lawful termination of pregnancy". Not surprisingly, this too has been ignored.

But at least in this respect the politicians area representative, representative of the widespread hypocrisy there is among the public generally on the issue of abortion. By a massive majority the Irish electorate voted to permit women to travel abroad to have abortions - official British statistics (Office of Population Censuses and Sureys, London) show that more than 80,000 abortions have been performed on Irish women in England and Wales since 1970.

This is, apparently, tolerable. But any suggestion of abortions taking place here is regarded as anathema, even in circumstances in which a young girl has been raped and the continuance of her pregnancy poses a threat to her mental and physical well-being.

Postscript: If it is true that abortion is never necessary for the protection of the life of the mother as the Pro-Life people insist, what is wrong with a constitutional arrangement that permits abortion only when such a threat exists? If the threat never exists, then the constitutional position here is that abortion is never permitted.

By the way, the Fianna Fail Minister for Health who laid out clearly in October 1992 what his party in government would do in the event of the defeat of the "substantive" amendment in the referendum was John O'Connell. The Fianna Fail hand-wringers could save themselves a lot of bother by giving him a call.