Change will come, dripping slowly

Absolute positions on abortion are no longer tenable, as three days of hearings showed, says Michael Clifford

THREE days of news, views, and opinions on abortion, and the winner is… the referee.

Jerry Buttimer, chairman of the Oireachtas health committee, succeeded where so many others have failed in this most sensitive of issues. He brooked no rancour, kept everybody in line, and his timekeeping wouldn’t go astray at the Super Bowl.

As a result, much information was gleaned from the proceedings and space was provided to parse entrenched positions. The hearings demonstrated that politicians have plenty to contribute to national issues when they’re not massaging constituencies. However, the instruction from cabinet that no recommendations are to be made is an indictment of the political culture.

What the three days did crystallise was the aspect of the issue that most observers identify as being at the kernel of legislation. Two words sum up where the battle will be joined: “Suicide” and “floodgates”.

The X case ruled that the threat of suicide was a ground for abortion. Those who oppose any legislation say such a law would open the “floodgates” to widespread abortion. Yet as things stand, the legislature has no option but to follow the ruling of the highest court in the land.

First up yesterday were the faith bodies, the most prominent of which was the Catholic Church, represented by Bishop Christopher Jones. Unlike his colleague Leo O’Reilly, this bishop was careful with his language. There was no talk of a “culture of death”. Instead, he merely restated the Church’s teachings, and, pronounced that the Supreme Court ruling on X was flawed. Never in the history of jurisprudence has a bench of eminently qualified judges been as ridiculed as those who ruled on X.

“We do not need to legislate for abortion to protect women’s rights,” said Bishop Jones. His confederate, Fr Tim Bartlett, put in a strong performance, but the hearing reaffirmed that which has become increasingly obvious in recent years. Even in an issue central to the Church’s teachings such as abortion, the institution has been relegated to the sidelines in the public square.

Still, Senator Ivana Bacik was a little over the top, kicking their graces when they’re down by suggesting that the Church was guilty of “misogyny towards women”. This, Fr Bartlett, suggested, resorted to caricature, and, he added, nobody had ever called him a misogynist.

The institution’s pre-eminent role in the debate has been usurped by lay people. Most of the anti-abortion groups that turned up yesterday appear to accept that legislation is inevitable, and are instead concentrating their energies on attempting to have the suicide ground excluded.

Breda O’Brien, from the Iona Institute, got straight to the point in her submission. She began by saying that in the past 30 years, she had, as a teacher, witnessed the “normalising of suicide”. The institute’s submission also referred to the contagion affect that has been identified as a feature of the suicide blight, particularly in recent years.

“Are we to believe that no such contagion will result when the Government legitimises suicidal ideation as a response to crisis pregnancy?” it states. Quite obviously, the institute wants to place the suicide ground for abortion in the context of the wider suicide problem in society.

“What is your fear?” Fine Gael TD Regina Doherty asked the anti-abortion groups.

“Do you trust the medical profession?” Mary Mitchell O’Connor wanted to know.

“Will there be a major increase in the number of abortions which are not bona fide?” Senator John Crown asked them. Crown, who had a starring role in the hearings until yesterday, met his match when the Pro-Life Campaign’s Caroline Simon made reference to his tweeting during proceedings. The senator got up and left seconds later.

THE explanations given by the anti-abortion people on the suicide issue were rather restrained, usually referencing the experience in the UK while glossing over the glaring differences between the law in that jurisdiction and what is proposed here.

The previous day, when the floodgates fear was also raised, former judge Catherine McGuinness provided the most cogent observation. If legislators are worried about opening the floodgates, she said, then they are afraid of Irish people, Irish society.

“We ought to have more trust in Irish people and Irish doctors,” she said. “To say that is to say everyone will be galloping to do something we don’t do already.”

Whether such common sense will get much of an airing in the months to come remains to be seen.

Throughout the three days, a whole clutch of Fine Gael TDs within and without the committee were prominent. Most have been identified as having difficulty with voting for any legislation.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames was on first-name terms with the anti-abortion groups, directing questions at “Sean and Breda”, “Caroline”, and “finally, Maria”. Terence Flanagan and Billy Timmins posed frequent questions, while Enda Kenny’s constituency colleague John O’Mahony sat silently through all the proceedings — his face a mask of concentration.

These and others within the party are going to be under the spotlight in the coming weeks. Will they park their genuine reservations about legislating, or will they cause Kenny some embarrassment, if not a splitting headache?

Either way, there appears to be a tide that is carrying middle Ireland on this issue. Absolutist positions are no longer tenable in the real world. Change is about to come, and not before time.