Ultimately it was the voices of the medical professionals who swung the undecideds over to the Yes side
THE Healy-Raes are not the only people trying to sniff the summer wind. For there is hardly a TD or senator who, in their quieter moments, is not brooding on what might be going on in the minds of the country’s voters.
Pollsters, pundits, and assorted politicos were nowhere close to predicting the result of the Eighth Amendment referendum. We were assured that, especially in the heart of Healy-Rae territory down in deepest South Kerry, there would certainly be no revolution. A clear majority would reflect the views of the Dáil deputy brothers, who pride themselves on having their ear to the ground.
It would be ‘not an inch’ down south over any easing of our abortion restraints. After all, on such matters, this is one of the most conservative constituencies in the country. But in places like Killarney, Kilgarvan, and Kilcummin, the tsunami which swept away the amendment hit with full force. Voters combined to give the go-ahead for abortion up to 12 weeks.
In the process, old political certainties were shaken to the core. Who could have predicted Ireland would vote in such numbers to throw off the shackles of generations? But now there remains the all-consuming question for those who must face the electorate come the general election. Was the result a one-off – or a sign something deeper is afoot?
Will politicians out of sync with a public mood risk being tossed overboard? Mysterious stirrings in the undergrowth concern not just the Healy-Raes, with their antennae for what’s moving in the long grass. Those representing similar rural constituencies also share a sense of unease.
The fallout from the referendum continues. Not least is the fact that some politicians are under intense pressure to do an about-turn with their conscience. The catch cry of the moment is they ‘must heed the decision of the electorate’. So are we now to witness sundry TDs and senators backing legislation which they have repeatedly insisted is morally repugnant?
Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has suggested his naysayers should support the upcoming abortion bill in the Dáil. But he is not alone in heading a still divided party, as latent wounds wrought from an emotion-wracked campaign continue to fester.
Fine Gael also has its conscientious objectors, while Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald is set to face an early test of her authority. Peadar Tóibín and Carol Nolan have surely left themselves little wriggle room to do a complete U-turn on their deeply held beliefs over the rights of an unborn child. If they refuse to bend to an all-embracing party whip, can they survive within the SF fold?
Another area of possible rancour for Sinn Féin could erupt north of the Border. Anecdotal evidence suggests attitudes to abortion among northern Catholics are more conservative than their southern co-religionists. However, the McDonaldMichele O’Neill leadership axis remains gung-ho about extending abortion rights in Northern Ireland. This has the potential of provoking the ultimate nightmare for the post-Gerry Adams regime – a north-south rift involving party rank and file.
All the while we ponder why the Yes vote swamped the No side by two to one. The consensus throughout was the result would be fairly tight because of the huge number of don’t knows. But it is now clear most of those undecideds plumped for removing the relevant article from the Constitution.
IT’S easy to be wise after the event and it is only speculation. But the singular fact which persuaded such an unexpected majority to back liberalising our abortion laws was unease over the health of a mother in troubled pregnancies. In the run-up to polling day, a number of women told their own stories of heartbreak. But perhaps the key factor in swaying public opinion was the views of some of the country’s leading obstetricians and gynaecologists.
The Master of Holles Street, Dr Rhona Mahony, and former Master, Dr Peter Boylan, plus other leading members of the medical fraternity, were clear, concise, and considered in their comments. Their message was chilling in its essence. Speaking with all the authority of their professional backgrounds, they insisted constitutional change was necessary to fully protect the lives of seriously ill pregnant women. There was also a stark reminder that, in the opinion of some of our best medical brains, Savita Halappanavar died because of strictures and constraints imposed by the Eighth Amendment.
Regardless of religious or other moral considerations, this was enough to sway many voters who in principle opposed abortion. As the pre-referendum debate intensified, it slowly came to be ‘make up your mind time’. The No campaign found it impossible to really confront an array of heavyweights from the medical profession. They could hardly charge consultants and doctors with being mistaken in their views – or suggest they were not fully conversant with what they were talking about.
Their only counter-arguments were contrary medical opinions – and claims that Irish mortality rates at birth are among the lowest in the world. But such a response came across as self-serving. Some in the No campaign seemed willing to bend the facts to fit with their view of the truth.
Back in the 1950s, the medical profession hardly covered itself in glory during Noel Browne’s mother and child scheme. Many were determined not to raise their head above the parapet. Others were more concerned with optimising their income than showing the courage and risk-taking necessary to rid the country of TB.
In the 1982 referendum, there was nothing like the cohesive involvement of doctors as seen in recent weeks. This time round it can be said the medical profession, as per their engagement on both sides of the argument, did the State some service.
Meanwhile, back in the political world, some excruciating choices must be made. “I have reservations on the time limit of 12 weeks – but I will not be obstructing the will of the people,’’ said Independent deputy Michael Fitzmaurice this week.
And so the die is cast. So much has changed – changed utterly.