COMMENT
UNPICKING THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE DIVIDED THE NATION
IN TERMS of this country’s abortion law, we are now at a crossroads. After several weeks of heated debate, of painful testimony from both sides of this unfathomably complex question and much public soul searching, we must decide the way ahead. This Friday, May 25, the country goes to the polls to vote on whether or not to delete Article 40.3.3 from the Constitution (known as the Eighth Amendment), which guarantees the right to life of the unborn, and replace it with a new Article allowing the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion.
If the majority opt to repeal the Eighth Amendment, the result will be a historic landmark, determining this deeply emotive and divisive issue for generations to come.
A vote to retain will also be hugely significant, copperfastening abortion prohibition except in very limited circumstances.
The strength of passions and convictions unleashed, particularly in the later stages of the campaign, were regrettable on occasion but not unexpected.
The cool heads and civility urged at the outset became overwhelmed as the campaign gathered momentum by extremes on both sides, trying to prevent the majority of middle-ground voters from making a well informed decision.
There were also a range of stunts and sideshows which possibly backfired on their originators, serving perhaps to harden the polar opposite opinion.
Controversial No posters featuring Health Minister Simon Harris’s image superimposed on what appeared to be an aborted foetus struck an unsavoury note; graphic posters featuring foetuses hanging outside the maternity hospitals caused distress to expectant mothers while the recent debate on the Claire Byrne Live Referendum Special descended into unedifying scenes with audience members jeering and clapping, comparable to a rowdy football match. F OR their part, Yes supporters have seemed thinskinned about criticism, frequently adopting an off-putting air of condescension when addressing robust and well-considered arguments opposing their cause. The outcome of Friday’s referendum may not be welcomed widely but the electorate will be unified in heaving a collective sigh of relief that the threat of escalating tensions hanging like a dark cloud over the country is over.
On both sides, the arguments are strong and compelling and strike at values that are at the core of our morality. Repealers seek to persuade voters by drawing on so called ‘hard cases’ of rape or incest and fatal foetal abnormality; those against repeal argue that it paves the way for ‘abortion on demand’.
In its starkest terms however, the campaign is essentially a battle for hegemony between two fiercely held principles: the right to life of the unborn and appropriate medical care for women.
The former is seen by many No voters as key to upholding the sacred value of life, the foundation stone of human society; the latter principle is of rising currency in a society which increasingly is shaped by tenets of equality and individual freedom, rather than religious faith.
With so much at stake for hardline campaigners in particular, it’s easy to see why abortion arouses such deep feelings and is one of the most contentious issues in the history of law and ethics.
There are few areas in which individuals and groups are so firmly convinced of the rightness of their position and of their duty to ensure their beliefs are translated into law.
Those advocating a Yes vote believe the absolute ban on abortion in the Constitution has created more turmoil and heartache than was envisioned on its passing in 1983. Its legacy has, not least, been the distressing cases of Miss X, which raised profound questions about the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn, and ultimately won abortion rights in circumstances where there was a substantial risk – from suicide – to the life, as distinct to the health, of the mother.
Three referendums followed from the X case, two of which were passed allowing for freedom to travel for an abortion and the right to information. R EPEAL campaigners argue that the Eighth Amendment puts a stranglehold on doctors, exposing them to the risk of prosecution for treating crisis pregnancies, that it criminalises vulnerable women and endangers the health of those who order abortion pills over the internet and ingest them without medical supervision.
They argue that the Amendment has not achieved its purpose of making abortion extinct, but merely exported it. Official figures from the Department of Health in the UK show that 18,112 women from Ireland went to the UK for an abortion between 2012 and 2016.
Those advocating a No vote believe the Constitutional ban has saved thousands of lives that would otherwise have been destroyed. Pro-life doctors argue that abortion runs counter to the Hippocratic oath which pledges not to do any harm or injury to patients.
Activists argue that so-called hard cases only account for about 3% of abortions and the proposed new law will allow terminations in excessively wide-ranging circumstances. Pro-life lawyers argue that the hard cases can be dealt with through legislation, although two former attorneys general and a Supreme Court judge disagree.
In common with anti-abortion activists across the world, they argue that medical advances making foetal viability earlier all the time makes the case for abortion increasingly untenable.
It is up to each of us who are still undecided or vacillating about how to cast our vote to unpick the strands of each argument, separate the half truths and propaganda from the hard facts and evidence and ultimately decide which side has the strongest case.
Both sides are diametrically opposed; there is no half-way house or compromise vote.
Our deliberations may bring us to intellectual and emotional positions that may seem paradoxical; we may reach conclusions that fly in the face of our gut instincts.
For instance we may loathe the idea of an abortion culture but at the same time conclude that the suffering caused to mothers whose babies have fatal foetal abnormality makes inevitable the prospect of returning to the Eighth at a later date, if it’s not repealed on this occasion.
We may therefore decide to vote Yes for pragmatic reasons. E QUALLY we may acknowledge that a system that leaves heartbroken rape victims to suffer the fresh trauma of travelling abroad to access an abortion is inhumane, but we may reluctantly believe that on balance, the unborn’s right to life must be upheld, and vote No.
Individually, we may grapple with these issues with a heavy heart but we must decide for ourselves because if we don’t, others will make the decision for us.
In recent times we have voted mostly in favour of referendums that have been interpreted as socially progressive: We voted for divorce in 1995 and the marriage equality referendum in 2015 was passed by 62% of the voters. History may be on the side of repealing the Eighth but the latest referendum on abortion will be won by a small margin.
Should the Yes side prevail next weekend, we will rely on the Government pledge to introduce legislation to allow for access to abortion up to 12 weeks and in exceptional circumstances thereafter.
This will allow women who would otherwise travel to the UK for terminations and those taking abortion pills without medical supervision be treated at home.
If the No side is victorious, a woman will only be able to have an abortion in the country when her life is at real and substantial risk, including the risk of suicide.
As we have said, the figures are stark with over 18,000 women from Ireland travelling to the UK for an abortion between 2012 and 2016.
Increasing numbers of women are buying abortion pills over the internet and taking them without medical supervision. The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar says it is only a matter of time before someone dies.
Whatever the outcome next weekend we must accept that this, the most Irish of solutions, cannot prevail. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Irish women and the heavy shadow of abortion.
In its starkest terms it’s a battle for hegemony between two fiercely held principles