Convention on abortion would help us address ignorance and face reality

Under one in 10 people are aware a woman can be imprisoned for up to 14 years for procuring an abortion in Ireland, writes Alison O’ Connor

The notion of a politician promising to set up a talking shop seems like a bad joke. But that is just what Taoiseach Enda Kenny has done to tackle the difficult issue of abortion, and it is a very good idea.

The issue has been gathering a new momentum ever since the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar three years ago. The Taoiseach announced the very significant news last week that, if re-elected to government, Fine Gael would refer the matter of the Eighth Amendment — which gives equal status to the rights of the mother and the unborn — to a citizens’ convention or assembly.

It is a pragmatic and smart political move by the Taoiseach, pitching the issue into the future, crucially a future that is after the general election. It looked even smarter following the landmark judgement this week in the Belfast High Court that would make abortion legal in the North in cases of rape and fatal foetal abnormality.

I wrote here in mid-2014 of how, following the success of the Convention on the Constitution, such a body should be considered the most appropriate way to address the thorny subject of abortion. Other states, such as Canada and the Netherlands, have previously established such bodies to examine their electoral systems, but it would appear that no other country has used such a mechanism to address an ethical question such as this.

Given how conventional politics and politicians have failed for decades on it, though, the time is right to turn to the citizens themselves to find answers. The Taoiseach was correct to say it would be impossible to have an early referendum on an issue as complex as this without fully understanding the issues involved. He’s always a good man to make a virtue of necessity.

Mr Kenny has pledged that, if re-elected as Taoiseach, he would establish the convention within six months and, if it recommended change involving legislation, he would allow a free vote in Fine Gael.

It is important first to ask what the Taoiseach means by this. If such an assembly recommends, for instance, that there should be a referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, will it actually be the Government TDs who decide on whether such a thing happens or not in a Dáil vote?

What is the point of establishing such an assembly, to divine what it is the average Irish citizen believes on this issue, only to have ministers and TDs subsequently decide against their recommendations? Whose views will hold supremacy?

What if, for instance, the assembly decided that there should be abortion on request available in Ireland? Such a scenario appears unlikely but it is hard to grasp what might emerge from it, given how skewed and polarised the debate has been here for so long.

It is important that the Fine Gael general election manifesto ties down a few more details, such as how long the assembly would sit for and what sort of a commitment the party would give to implementing its recommendations.

It also needs to be properly resourced. The Convention on the Constitution cost a miserly €900,000 and I say miserly when comparing it to, for instance, the €5m or so spent on the banking inquiry.

There was considerable goodwill involved, and a number of people involved in the actual organisation of it gave of their time. It is not to say that they need to be paid massively next time, just that provision might be put in place, for instance, to arrange cover in the day job. The citizens involved might be paid a realistic daily amount for their time and expenses.

There is a strong argument for leaving this to citizens only. Last time, people were chosen by an opinion poll company which apparently knocked on every 10th door in an area and asked people if they wished to become involved. About 1 in 40 people agreed to do so. Variables were introduced to ensure gender, age, and regional balance. The Convention on the Constitution was made up of 34 politicians and the other 66 were members of the public.

The flip side is that, according to those involved in that convention, the involvement of politicians meant there was an anchoring to the wider political system.

It could progress if, as a first phase, experts would be brought in to factually brief members on the medical, legal, and societal aspects of abortion, and regimes as they exist in other countries. Subsequently, they could listen to advocates on what is not just both sides of the argument, but the many sides of it. Finally, they would make recommendations.

Clearly, this will not be as straightforward as the previous convention and there would be additional concerns around security and the willingness of ordinary citizens to become ‘piggy in the middle’ of the opposing sides of the abortion argument. It would seem a good idea to once again involve David Farrell, who was research director of the previous convention, and Tom Arnold, who was chairman.

There is an increasing lack of tolerance for forcing Irish women to travel when there is a case of serious or fatal foetal abnormality. A poll commissioned by Amnesty International last May by Red C found that 90% of people were in favour of abortion in certain circumstances.

It is worth breaking that figure down to assess various attitudes — 36% said they were in favour of allowing abortion where a woman’s life is at risk, the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, where the woman’s health is at risk, or where there is a case of fatal foetal abnormality; 45% were in favour of allowing all women access to abortion as they choose; 9% said only where the woman’s life is at risk. Some 7% were opposed to allowing abortion in all circumstances and 3% had no opinion.

Quite remarkably, over two thirds of people were unaware that abortion carried a criminal penalty, meaning that under one in 10 people are aware that a woman can potentially be imprisoned for up to 14 years for procuring an abortion in Ireland when her life is not at risk. Clearly, the media coverage and debate that would accompany a citizens’ assembly would go a considerable way towards addressing these quite extraordinary information gaps.

So a citizens’ assembly may have been a convenient way for the Taoiseach to attempt to somewhat neutralise the abortion issue right now, and to appease prominent members of his own party, but it has far reaching implications and needs to be very carefully considered.