Why can't foreigners grasp Irish abortion?

A few months ago I met a group of New Zealanders who were in Ireland studying Irish politics. It was around the time of the purchase by the State of Farmleigh House. Although they were from some university in New Zealand, these New Zealanders were curiously obtuse.

In spite of my best endeavours they were unable to understand why the Government paid £23 million for Farmleigh, which had gone on sale for between £11 million and £15 million.

Neither could they understand what the Civil War in 1922-23 had been about, what the fuss was about Articles 2 and 3, why the Albert Reynolds government collapsed in 1994, and the controversy over the hand pass in Gaelic football.

Yet what flummoxed them entirely was us and abortion.

I explained to them that abortion had been illegal here since 1861 and that in 1974 the Supreme Court had said that abortion, as well as being illegal, was also contrary to the Constitution. They were unable to understand why there had been a campaign in the early 1980s to have a specific anti-abortion clause inserted into the Constitution.

They took my word for it that in 1983 the Constitution was changed by referendum to give equal protection to the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother. I explained to them that the Irish people were not just antiabortion but were very anti-abortion.

I told them that a few decisions of the European Court of Justice in the 1980s caused alarm here that abortion would be introduced by fiat of the EU and that to guard against this we even managed to get an amendment to the EU constitution. This was the Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which decreed that nothing in the EU constitution would have any bearing on Ireland being very, very anti-abortion.

I told them that Gerard Collins had negotiated this diplomatic triumph. They had not even heard of Gerard Collins.

I then told them about the X case. They could not understand why the then attorney general had taken an injunction prohibiting the 14-year-old pregnant girl from leaving the jurisdiction when he knew she had already left.

I told them how the Supreme Court had decided that, because this girl was considered suicidal as a result of the trauma of her pregnancy, her constitutional equal right to life meant that she was free to have an abortion. I told them that this had driven the Pro-Life lobby into a frenzy and they wanted another amendment.

I told them that a constitutional amendment was proposed in late 1992 which would have ruled out suicide as grounds for permitting an abortion where the equal right to life of the mother was at stake and that this had been rejected decisively by the people.

Then, by the way, I told them that at the same time the Irish people, by massive majorities, had passed two other constitutional changes. One of these ensured that there was a right to travel abroad to have abortions and the other that there was a right to information about abortion services abroad.

They asked how this would be so, given that the Irish people were very, very anti-abortion. Patiently, I told them that the Irish people were very, very much against facilitating abortion in Ireland and very, very much in favour of facilitating abortion abroad.

Their obtuseness obstructed an appreciation that what was at issue actually was not the right to life of the unborn. What was at issue was the kind of society we had. We wanted an abortion-free society but that did not mean that anybody who wanted an abortion would be obstructed in any way from going abroad to have one. They couldn't get that one at all.

I also mentioned that just before that late 1992 referendum the Fianna Fail-led government had said that if the proposal about ruling out suicide as grounds for permitting abortion was defeated it would introduce legislation to deal with the issue. They asked what form that legislation took.

Well, actually, I explained, Fianna Fail back in government didn't bother at all about that. In fact, nobody refers to that promise. Instead, contrary to what was said in late 1992, Fianna Fail has now promised yet another referendum, and a demand for this is gathering pace.

What precisely is wanted now? they asked. Is it not the case that the position at present is that there is constitutional protection for the equal right to life of the unborn with the equal right to life of the mother; what's wrong with that? The Pro-Life side could hardly want to change the equality of status, could they?

Well, yes, but they don't say so, I replied.

Surely the Pro-Life side want to change the parts of the Constitution which now permit people travelling abroad to get abortions and permit people getting information on abortion services available abroad?

No, they don't, I explained.

Why?

I don't know.

So the position is, they persisted, that the Irish people want to copper-fasten the freedom to travel abroad specifically for the purpose of denying any status to the right to life of the unborn and, at the same time, afford a theoretical right to life in the Constitution which ranks higher than the right to life of the mother? And this is the position of the Pro-Life people as well?

The New Zealanders just couldn't understand the subtleties of Irish politics.

I was going to tell them of the Solemn Declaration of May 1992, but thought that this would be beyond their comprehension. You do, dear reader, remember the Solemn Declaration?

No?

Very well, but don't tell the New Zealanders.

For starters, the Solemn Declaration doesn't mean anything at all, so you don't have to be bothered about it. But just in case it comes up in a pub quiz . . .

IN 1992, the government of Mr Reynolds was afraid that there wasn't enough confusion over abortion and that this would lead some people to vote against the Maastricht Treaty. This treaty was to give billions of ECUs to the State in cohesion and structural funds.

So they got all the European foreign ministers to solemnly declare that the protocol which Gerard Collins had so valiantly negotiated a few months previously did not mean that Irish people could not travel abroad to have abortions (sorry about the double negative).

But back to the New Zealanders. They wanted to know if, because of the X case decisions, there had been a rash of abortions here for women claiming to be suicidal.

Just one, as far as is known, I replied.

And how many abortions have been carried out on Irish women going abroad for abortions since 1992? Probably about 20,000, I guessed.

So, what is the fuss about abortion here? they asked.

Strange people, these New Zealanders.