Why I refuse to be used to legitimise the deeply flawed abortion committee
HAVING been invited as a witness at the Oireachtas committee on abortion, I followed its proceedings closely for several weeks. It soon became apparent that the entire process was nothing more than a political ‘stitch-up’ with no interest in hearing evidence that might challenge the pre-determined outcome favouring abortion in potentially very wide-ranging circumstances.
It is grossly disrespectful to invite witnesses to participate in a process such as this, with no intent to glean new information, and to use those witnesses as a fig leaf to create a pretence of fairness. It is unimaginable that a committee of the Oireachtas would treat a life-and-death issue in such a cavalier way.
I was not prepared to add any further credibility to this deeply flawed process and for this reason reached a decision to withdraw my name from it on Thursday.
More than 25 individuals and groups advocating abortion have been invited before the committee. In contrast, only three speakers in favour of retaining the Eighth Amendment were requested. This raises the very obvious question – why is the committee so reluctant to hear evidence to the contrary?
If the committee is proposing we abandon all meaningful protection for unborn babies, should it not have some curiosity about what this has led to in other countries? How did it reach a point where 90pc of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are now routinely aborted in England? Why are neighbouring countries where abortion has been performed for years finding it increasingly difficult to recruit doctors to perform them? What led to one out of every five pregnancies ending in abortion in England and in many other European countries? How many people are alive today thanks to Ireland’s Eighth Amendment? Should the committee not scrutinise the workings of the Citizens’ Assembly that led to hasty votes at the end of its meeting without any prior discussion?
These are the types of questions that should naturally arise in any fair scrutiny, but the Oireachtas committee hasn’t exhibited the slightest interest in these or any other questions that put legalised abortion under the spotlight. Instead, the exclusive focus has been on clearing the way for repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, it appears that to merit the label of “expert” in the current debate, you must support the goal of removing the Eighth Amendment. Otherwise you’re tagged as a “campaigner with an agenda”, regardless of how compelling the evidence you present is.
I have willingly participated in previous Oireachtas committees, presenting evidenced-based information in respect of women’s mental health and abortion. Had I felt the current committee was truly open and objective, I would have presented the research evidence showing abortion does not protect women’s mental health, as well as information on the debate on whether abortion harms women’s mental health and the data limitations concerning refused abortion.
THE conduct at the committee itself has been eye-opening for its juvenility. Those few committee members who are not wedded to the pre-determined outcome of undermining the Eighth Amendment have been heckled, insulted or accused of telling lies when they have raised reasonable questions about testimony from prochoice witnesses. The atmosphere is sometimes more like a rowdy student debate rather than a serious parliamentary inquiry.
And those supporting the eradication for protection of unborn life have not been distinguished by the breadth of their knowledge of the issue. For example, I was forcibly struck by the comment of one member that “lies” were being told about botched abortions. Yet the reality of babies surviving botched abortions and left to die is well known. It was shockingly illustrated in the CEMACH report in England and Wales, something of which the member seemed unaware.
They were also most likely unaware that a number of clinics in the UK were closed earlier this year because of problems about consent and block signing of forms by doctors, among other things. But then again, one has to have a curiosity about alternative views to acquire such information.
When some members exposed the imbalance on the committee last week, it then requested that further witnesses be invited to prevent a pro-life perspective. This insulting suggestion, coming so late, and after such witnesses had previously been rejected, points to an attempt by a dysfunctional and heavily biased group to save face rather than a truly expressed desire to garner new information. This is highly demeaning to those who have criticised the committee.
Furthermore, the cynicism underpinning the entire process was laid bare last Wednesday when the members voted – by a margin of 15 to three – against retaining the Eighth Amendment, and this even before all of the witnesses were heard! This is evidence of the gross defilement of our democracy.
In theory, the Oireachtas committee was, I suggest, supposed to conduct a balanced hearing. In practice, it has mutated into a political charade whose predetermined outcome is plain for all to see. The great tragedy is that this failure is designed to reduce the constitutional protection of Irish unborn children. The public are being manipulated and, in conscience, I cannot be used by it to legitimatise its pre-determined outcome.
Members voted before all of the witnesses were heard ... evidence of the gross defilement of our democracy