Sir, – Sr Anne Maher (April 29th) is simply incorrect in her assertion that the Irish public view the threat of suicide as an invalid reason for permitting an abortion. Two referendums in the wake of the X Case (in 1992 and 2002) attempted to remove this possibility from our Constitution, and both were defeated.
The people of Ireland have spoken and it is time for the politicians to listen and legislate for X now. – Yours, etc,
DAVID BEATTY,
Coolamber Park,
Knocklyon, Dublin 16.
Sir, – The emotion Louise O’Leary (April 27th) feels about the potential risk to her life should she become unwell while pregnant clouds the clear reality that when it comes to a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the foetus, the former will win out.
It is unfortunate that she tries to cite the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar’s death where the above clear-cut scenario did not occur. Ms Halappanavar died after having initially requested an abortion while miscarrying but outside the legally allowable circumstances of a threat to her life. Sepsis intervened, was missed, didn’t respond to standard antibiotic treatment and the tragic loss of a life occurred. – Yours, etc,
Dr MAIT O FAOLAIN,
Beechwood Court,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Aidan O’Boyle (April 29th) says that a woman must be “close to death” before a medical termination is carried out. This is singularly untrue. The risk to life does not have to be immediate, just real and substantive. In the case of Ms Halappanavar, for example, the threat to her life from sepsis was real long before it was immediate, but as the inquiry told us, failings at Galway University Hospital meant it was not acted upon at that time. – Yours, etc,
ALAN EUSTACE,
Annadale Drive,
Marino, Dublin 9.
Sir, – How I would to see all this concern, money and energy (relating to the abortion debate) directed to those children who are actually born, and in great need of help.– Yours, etc,
JEAN FARRELL,
Southlands,
Athlone, Co Westmeath.
Sir, – I would first of all like to share what appeared to be the Sunday Independent 's shock that Anne Ferris TD and Aodhán Ó'Ríordán TD were found to be pro-choice over the weekend. My "shock", however, is not that they are pro-choice, but that more TDs were not outed by the media as caring enough about the women of Ireland to be willing to stand up for their right to bodily autonomy.
Let’s not forget that Ireland still does not allow a termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormalities, and health (lest we so soon forget the findings of Savita Halappanavar’s case), let alone economic ruin with another mouth to feed in these times of continuous austerity. Is anyone surprised that some of our representatives wish to increase access to abortion to cover some of these cases?
Polls have consistently shown that as a democracy we wish to widen access to abortion to cover most of these circumstances. Congratulations to Deputies Ferris and Ó Ríordán for representing the will of the democratic republic and for standing up against the conservative patriarchy that wishes to control my body. I hope we get a whole swathe TDs coming out of the pro-choice closet. It is no longer shameful to be pro-choice in Ireland, it is brave and honourable. – Yours, etc,
ABIGAIL ROONEY,
Wicklow Pro-Choice,
Southern Cross Road,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – It appears the cat is now officially out of the bag. Not that we ever needed confirmation of Labour’s real intentions in introducing abortion legislation. It was clear from the outset when Ivana Bacik described plans to legislate for the X case as “an important first step, a beginning”. But now Aodhán Ó Riordán’s taped conversation leaves us in no doubt: Labour may describe the forthcoming legislation as “restrictive” but it really means to see widespread availability of abortion on demand.
So the writing is on the wall for Enda Kenny. Elements within his party who have voiced concerns about this legislation were right all along. It’s time now for Fine Gael to decide who they owe most to: Labour, or those of us who elected them. – Yours, etc,
EDEL CROSBIE,
Coast Road,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Martyn Turner (Opinion, April 27th) – the most astute comment on the above issue. The “debate” – just another waste of time. – Yours, etc,
M CORCORAN,
Castlerahan,
Ballyjamesduff,
Co Cavan.
Sir, – If a farmer suffers suicidal ideation because his livestock are starving, does anyone recommend, let alone legislate for, the destruction of his cattle? Would anyone remark, “But the animals are going to die anyway”? Surely every effort will be made to save the livestock – and thus the farmer? If I am threatening to take my own life because I can’t meet my debts, should I be entitled to have my debt “terminated”?
How then does it makes sense to legislate for the destruction of the unborn based on the suicidal ideation of the mother? – Yours, etc,
Fr EAMONN
McCARTHY CC,
Freemount,
Charleville, Co Cork.
Sir, – Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks pregnancy is a reality in this country. Thanks to low-cost airlines, the cost of such travel to a clinic is often less than the train fare from Cork to Dublin. It is time that politicians grew up and faced the reality, that approximately 10,000 Irish women have abortions every year, and legislate for that situation rather than engaging in pathetic holier-than- thou craw-thumping. – Yours, etc,
TIM BRACKEN,
Pope’s Quay, Cork.
Sir, – The longer the debate on abortion goes on, the more convinced I become that there is something inherently wrong and anti-democratic about a process that allows the Supreme Court and its judges, erudite and wise as they may be, to create an interpretation of law that they did not write, and for that interpretation then to become constitutional and immovable without referendum.
Although the current issue at hand is the X case, the issue, in my mind, is not confined to this decision. We elect our politicians and through a democratic process, they table bills, have them accepted (or not), debated, amended and, in many cases, they eventually make it into law. Similarly, we as citizens are asked about whether we approve changes to our Constitution, and if we approve, such changes are made to our Constitution.
All of this is as it should be. However, enter the Supreme Court. A situation arises whereby this body of wise men and women is asked to determine what we, as citizenry, approved for inclusion in our Constitution and they decide upon an interpretation that may, or may not, be accordance with the will of the people who voted on the change. And that’s it. Our democratically expressed views are cast aside and forever more, the votes of millions are subjugated to the opinion of a tiny few.
Surely this cannot be right? Many people struggle with the concept of papal infallibility; I cannot believe nor accept that there is such a thing as judicial infallibility. – Yours, etc,
T GERARD BENNETT,
Bunbrosna,
Co Westmeath.