A Limerick lecturer is considering appealing to the Supreme Court a High Court decision refusing him leave to take proceedings to challenge the abortion referendum on a number of grounds.
Mr Denis Riordan, who challenged the proposed appointment of Mr Hugh O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank two years ago, has predicted that the Act prohibiting abortion under threat of suicide would be found to be unconstitutional if the amendment is passed.
Article 40:3:3 of the Constitution, acknowledging the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn, would still be interpreted according to the Supreme Court judgment in the X case, despite the new Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act, he believes.
"There is nothing in article 40:3:4 which eliminates abortion on a threat of suicide. Eventually some woman who wants to have an abortion on a threat of suicide will go before the courts and the courts will have to rule on the Act versus the present provision of the Constitution as interpreted in the X case.
"That Act, outlawing abortion under threat of suicide, will be found to be unconstitutional," Mr Riordan contends.
He said if the amendment is passed, the Constitution would have contradictory sections. The new Article 46.6.4, proposing that the President could not refer the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill to the Supreme Court, would be in conflict with her powers under Article 26 to refer legislation to the Supreme Court.
"If they wanted to exclude her from sending the Bill to the Supreme Court, they should have put that exclusion clause into Article 26."
Mr Riordan, who intends running in Limerick East as an Independent candidate for the general election, said he was also concerned about differences between the Irish and English versions of the amendments to Article 40 of the Constitution.
He said under article 34 of the Constitution, legislation could not be excluded from the Supreme Court for challenge. "There is nothing in the proposed amendment that excepts the law from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, nor could it do so."