 |
| This is not a baby |
I sat in
the AV room at Leinster House with eight women and one man in front of me, a full audience of TDs and Senators behind. Richard Boyd Barrett introduced the topic and revealed
that he and his former partner had the experience of fatal foetal abnormality, he
certainly empathised with the issue.
Ruth had
only begun her story and I was crying. Thankfully I had the canteen
serviettes in my bag, because there were eight more stories to go and I don’t
think I could have remained sitting.
You see,
even though I went through the trauma of fatal foetal abnormality eleven years
ago, I have never known anyone I could talk to, or with whom I could share the
experience. Even though I wrote about it, and took the first human rights case
against Ireland, I still felt alienated as if this was something only I had to
go through.
So today was quite a milestone. I had no intention of speaking
because I find it very difficult to repeat my story but I realised I could
remember all the legal nuances from my ECHR case and the Heads of Bill.
I stood and
said I was Deirdre de Barra who wrote the letter in 2002. I am normally very nervous speaking in public, but the facts were so well known to me and the wrongdoing so clear, that it wasn't an effort, the point was to remind these legislators how to enable the amendment to the Bill.
It was funny and kind of David Norris to say to me afterwards that he kept my letter. Indeed it was
very moving to hear each and every one who spoke in response, that they would
support legislation in this situation.
Catherine
Murphy Kildare North TD said it all when she described the listening experience as
surreal, stating that briefings in the AV Room were generally full of
engagement, questions and explanations, but in this case there was no need, it
was so clear that change was needed.
I firmly believe
there is scope to amend the proposed bill, we have cross party support and I
believe that support will grow. It was unfortunate that Peter Mathews had to
leave mid presentation, the briefing was only for an hour, if he couldn’t stay
he shouldn’t have come in. Because he missed what I had to say to him. Don’t compare
a flower with a fatally abnormal foetus.
Dear Deirdre,
ReplyDeleteI work for a Labour TD and was present at the briefing. You were all really great and you were great during the hearings recently also. The TD I work for couldn't make it himself as he was speaking in the Dáil during your time, but he has been on the Dáil record about all of your situations and ask written and asked the Minister for Health to examine the possibility of legislation to cover your situations. He is very, very aware of this issue, and although he has never said it (nor would he), I strongly suspect he has personal experience relating to this in some way through his family - he avoids getting involved in such sensitive matters in terms of writing letters to Ministers, but he has made an exception for this.
I hold a law degree, but am not a lawyer, I work in the legislature side of law and the politics around it. I'd like to talk frankly about the legal aspects of all of this and I hope I don't sound cold and clinical - if I do, it is not in the least deliberate, but legal debate does sound like that as I am sure you know.
Hi thanks for your comment. I am interested in hearing you legal view on the process. Can we email directly? Mine is deirdre@deirdreconroy.com
DeleteI am all in favour of amending the present legislation in the hope that it passes, but I have to tell you that I do not believe that most of these situations will be covered because of Article 40.3.3 in the Constitution (concerning the unborn), and also the constitutional provisions concerning the right to life. I don't think the scope is there.
ReplyDeleteI know Simon Mills has put forward his Bill, and I applaud him for it, but I think he is overly ambitious in doing so.
The Constitution simply is not developed enough to cater for situations like this, and even if the legislature passed the Bill and the President signed it into law, the so-called "pro-life" brigade will simply take it into court and it will be found incompatible with the Constitution and will be struck down. Likewise, the President could invoke his power under Article 26 of the Constitution and refer the Bill to the Supreme Court to see whether it is constitutional (he would do this because it means that if it is deemed constitutional, it cannot be challenged again) I believe it will be struck down in that circumstance too. This would also apply to any amendments placed in the present Bill. What also has to be considered is that the present Bill concerns life, not health of the pregnant woman (as Article 40.3.3), and this might be an issue with fatal abnormalities in their own right.
I believe that the one exception to this would be cases surrounding anencephaly, as it is very easy to see that there can be no life without a brain or brain stem, even if there was a heartbeat. As for other abnormalities, if there is a chance of life, even if it were for 5 seconds, that qualifies as life under the Constitution - as I said, the document is not developed to cater for this sort of situation - it was written in 1937 and the amendement in 1983 (40.3.3) simple does not cater for any of this.
ReplyDeleteI am dreadfully sorry to have to write all of that, but I have gone through this with others in the hope that something can be down and no lawyer, short of Simon Mills, thinks that there is a way around without an amendment to the Constitution first. I have yet to see any clear legal analysis that shows a way forward without a referendum - if you have, please do get it out there, because it isn't known about and it would help enormously.
On a more positive note, to see conservative Fine Gael men present at the briefing and being supportive, and also politicians of many colours getting together with Richard Boyd Barrett (a lot of people see him as a populist) is massively significant. And as was said at the briefing, even if an amendment for fatal abnormalities did fail, it would be constructive to see how it failed - it would highlight a way forward. So there are still positives to take away from the attempt.
ReplyDeleteIt is unlikely that so many conservative TDs will bring about a referendum on this matter of their own will - for that to happen FF and FG will have to be in opposition at the same time, with progressive TDs in the majority (this has never happened in the history of the State).
One way to force them to have a referendum is to mount huge political pressure on them via the media and their voters to deal with this issue. The TFMR group have made serious inroads here and it is massively significant that two conservative rural and male TDs from Fine Gael were present at the briefing and indicated their support. People are aware now of the issues here, and do not see it the same way as th wider abortion debate. People also saw Sarah McGuinness and Berry Kiely on Prime Time and were totally horrified at what Sarah went through and how she was treated by Berry Kiely.
The other way to force a referendum is for a pregnant woman with a fatal abnormality to take her case to court in Ireland and on to the ECHR. I am confident this would eventually succeed, but the reality is that the emotional burden on the woman and her family would be shocking, due to the tragedy of the situation, and those who would undoubtedly serve to make their lives difficult. I met Miss D (the other D!) during her court case in 2007 and myself and some others had to protect her from the awful people who made her walk through the crowd they had assembled to intimidate her, hissing and spitting as she passed. That happened after the lunch break adjournment on the first day of her case. It was horrible. These same types shoved posters in my face last Monday as I was going in to work, they protested outside Leinster House. I don't understand them at all. The extremists on the pro-choice side are not anything like as nuts.
Keep up the advocacy, it is working, and you are generating an awful lot of support and encouraging more and more women to talk of their experiences - it is no longer taboo. It just seen as something very sad and upsetting, and people now want to help those who are suffering.
Kindest regards, TC
Thank you so much for sharing so much. The horror is that you as a woman and your family have to rip open their private and personal lives yet again in a hugely barbaric judgemental'christian'! Irish society. What we need is for more women, men and their families to stand up and speak out, they are the bravest of all as they know what may happen to them socially but then again they have lived through the initial happiness, inexplicable ongoing grief, horror at what they were put through which must be like a 24/7 torture for all and then not being able to talk about it as it is illegal. Thank you for telling it like it is and for providing other women and men a space to walk into and stand beside you while they speak out too. I absolutely agree that the only way to ensure human rights for women and the autonomy of choice is to keep the letter.email\phone calls to them. They need to hear from us all the time what the reality of not having choice forces us to go through. Best wishes and once again thank you and your family for allowing us to share in your grief.
ReplyDeleteIn sisterhood for so many reasons,
Grainne Blair
Dear Grainne, thank you for your kind message, the support has been overwhelming, I am much relieved about that, the thing now is to effect change for the better. D
ReplyDelete