The referendum is about political expediency and constitutional hypocrisyand should be voted down, writes Alan Shatter
Ask yourself, if your daughter or granddaughter was raped, would you force her against her will to continue her pregnancy? If your wife was raped, would tell her, despite her protestations, that she must go to full term?
And if, in such circumstances, your wife, daughter or granddaughter threatened suicide and a psychiatrist or psychologist said her life was at risk, would you take the chance?
Most people believe a teenage girl or woman, pregnant as a result of rape, is entitled terminate the pregnancy whether or not there is a risk of suicide.
Many argue that to deny a raped, pregnant teenager the right to termination compounds the horror of the abuse she has already suffered, and would be an appalling act of inhumanity.
But not everyone holds such views. A minority of people in the State say that if a teenage girl or woman is raped, there are no circumstances in which she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy.
While protesting their compassion and concern, they would disregard the nightmare and psychological consequences of having conceived through violence and being told you must continue a forced pregnancy for nine months.
Whilst I profoundly disagree with this, people are entitled to such views. They are not, however, entitled, as they do, to ignore the humanity of the pregnant, raped teenager, the additional psychological trauma inflicted, and its long-term consequences on her capacity to cope and lead a normal life.
Moreover, where she is suicidal, they are not entitled to play theological games with her life.
We have had two court cases, the X case and the C case, in which our courts have determined that a suicidal raped teenager is entitled to a termination. The entitlement is to a termination in this State. In both, however, the application to court was to allow each to travel to Britain for medical intervention.
In the C case, the teenager was in care and the health board was allowed to facilitate the flight to England because our domestic law allows raped, suicidal teenage girls to effect a termination here.
Should a majority vote Yes on referendum day, the constitutional right given to suicidal raped teenagers to end their pregnancies in Ireland will be removed. As a consequence, so will the possibility of any health board in the future obtaining a court order to facilitate a suicidal raped teenager travel to Britain in circumstances similar to the C case.
We have discovered in recent years much about the scale of sexual abuse in this State. There are at present almost 400 men serving sentences of imprisonment for sexual crimes. We have a Commission on Child Abuse charged with the duty of hearing the stories of the hundreds of men and women abused in institutions into which they were put and maintained by the State.
In this country, we can no longer deny that children are raped, both in the home and outside it.
We can also no longer deny that children taken into care in the past have been victims of sexual crimes, nor can we honestly predict in the future that no child in care will suffer such fate.
In such circumstances, what madness leads us into a referendum which could deny the right of a termination to a child sexually abused in care or taken into care because she is the victim of such abuse?
Those who advocate a Yes vote deny that the proposed constitutional change could reverse the C case. They say women and teenage girls will still be able travel to Britain for abortions and this includes all victims of rape, whether suicidal or not.
There was a time when some of those who favoured constitutional provisions banning abortion also wanted to stop pregnant women travelling abroad for terminations.
This is no longer the case. So what is this referendum truly about?
It is not about any moral principle, because, if it is acceptable that suicidal Irish women travel to Britain for terminations, there is no moral basis for denying them the right to termination in this country.
It is about political expediency and constitutional hypocrisy.
THIS referendum would never have happened if the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were not politically beholden to four semi-Independent TDs for the Government's survival and if they didn't fear they may want their support again after the general election.
This proposal is more to do with Jackie Healy-Rae than it is to do with constitutional principle. It is more to do with turning the blind eye than facing the reality of our own social problems and the plight of women distraught as a consequence of a forced pregnancy.
At the start of this article I deliberately omitted a question. Ask yourself what you would do if you were a pregnant victim of a violent assault and rape? Women know the answer. Men, who will never find themselves pregnant in such circumstances, may not. The truth is that if men could conceive following a sexual assault, this referendum would not be taking place.
Nor would we have had the original abortion referendum in 1983, which for 20 years has caused social, legal and political turmoil. The advocates of the 1983 referendum got it wrong. Many are the same people who support this constitutional proposal.
Yet again they have got it wrong and are presenting a constitutional amendment as a simple solution to a complex problem.
Referendum day is March 6th. Vote No.
Alan Shatter is Fine Gael spokesman on justice, law reform and defence. He is also author of Shatter's Family Law (Butterworth, 1997)