Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent, explains what the electorate will vote on in March
The sustained campaign for a new anti-abortion referendum sprang from the fact that the Supreme Court stated that abortion was permissible where there was, on the balance of probabilities, "a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother".
This was based on the X case, where that risk was found to exist because of the threat of suicide. Since then, the consensus has been that a threat of suicide would justify abortion in Ireland, even though no abortions have been carried out on that basis. However, this is only because the ethical guidelines of the Medical Council prohibit it, and they could change in the future.
Anti-abortion campaigners wanted a new amendment which would overturn the X case judgment and rule out the threat of suicide as a ground for abortion.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution tussled with this for many months. However, it concluded that it would be virtually impossible to find a wording for a constitutional ban on abortion which would not run the danger of outlawing certain medical procedures carried out on pregnant women at the moment. These arise in relatively rare medical conditions, including cancer and circulation disorders, where a termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the mother's life.
The committee was also concerned at the uncertain legal status of some forms of contraception, notably the "morning-after pill" and the intra-uterine device (IUD), both of which are in widespread use, but are opposed by the anti-abortion lobby as possible abortifacients.
The Government's answer to this whole dilemma is to insert an amendment into the Constitution which protects the life of the unborn "in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill", and a further amendment providing that this Bill, when enacted, can only be amended by further referendum.
This device allows the Government to keep the changes to the Constitution to a minimum by putting the detail into legislation.
The legislation attempts to do four things: to define abortion and "the unborn"; to reverse the effect of the X case judgment; to protect current medical practice; and to safeguard the morning-after pill and the IUD.
However, different interpretations have arisen as to what its terms actually mean; and, if the referendum is passed, at least some aspects of the legislation are still likely to face further definition in the courts.
In the Bill, the unborn is defined as "unborn human life after implantation in the womb of a woman".
According to the Taoiseach, when launching the Bill, this means that use of the morning-after pill and the IUD will be lawful under these procedures. Government sources have also told The Irish Times that it allows terminations of pregnancy where there is an ectopic pregnancy, because here the foetus grows outside the womb.
However, pro-choice campaigners claim that the morning-after pill and IUD are not protected, because they are not specified in the legislation, and they claim that these could still be challenged under the pre-existing Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.
On the other side of the argument, certain anti-abortion campaigners oppose this wording on the grounds that pre-implanted embryos are not protected by the legislation - thereby, they say, opening the door to embryo research. The Catholic Church defines human life as starting with conception, the joining of the egg and sperm, and opposes any threat to this new entity after conception.
However, those pro-life campaigners seeking a Yes vote point out that Article 40.3.3 still exists to protect the unborn, and this clause contains no reference to implantation. It could still be invoked to protect pre-implanted embryos, they say.
"Abortion" is defined in the Bill as "the intentional destruction by any means of unborn human life".
The section then outlines what will be legal medical practice involving the loss of "unborn human life". This will be any such medical procedure "at an approved place" which, "in the reasonable opinion of the practitioner", is "necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life", "other than by self-destruction".
The Bill goes on to state explicitly that a person can obtain information on abortion facilities in another state or travel for an abortion to another state.
An "approved place" will be one approved by the State for procedures involving the termination of a pregnancy, and a "practitioner" is a doctor registered in the State. A "reasonable opinion" is one formed in good faith, which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life, and where a written record has been made.
Despite these definitions, each of these phrases has been the subject of much debate and disagreement.
The pro-choice side of the argument has objected that what will be "an approved place" has yet to be revealed. Such an approved place might not always be accessible to a seriously ill pregnant woman, and her doctor would not be able to carry out the necessary life-saving procedure, according to No campaigners.
These proposals have been acceptable to the Pro-Life Campaign and the Catholic bishops. They have also welcomed the specific exclusion of suicide as a ground for seeking an abortion and are therefore calling for a Yes vote.
THE pro-choice side objects to the outlawing of the termination of pregnancy when there is a threat of suicide and does not accept that the permission to travel is sufficient. They argue that, if abortion is made illegal for those who are suicidal, State agencies such as health boards will not be able to help suicidal young people in their care, such as the girl in the C case.
Government ministers have denied this and have stated that cases like that of C, where a young Traveller girl was raped, pregnant and suicidal, could still be helped by health boards.
The Bill also states that carrying out or effecting an abortion, or assisting another person to do so, will be an offence carrying a possible sentence of 12 years in prison.
Pro-choice campaigners have argued that this effectively criminalises all women who have abortions and will make it more difficult for them to seek post-abortion treatment and counselling in the State. Those in favour of the proposal point out that the sentence for attempting to procure an abortion under the 1861 Act was life imprisonment.
Some elements on the anti-abortion side are unhappy that "practitioner", "approved place" and "reasonable opinion" are not sufficiently defined for them to be sure that abortion would be totally excluded except when the life of the woman was in imminent danger. They fear that individual doctors could exercise their discretion where the threat to the life of the mother was, perhaps, thought likely to occur after the birth.