I welcome the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly. We are going to resume on amendment No. 6. Senator Mullen had moved and spoken to the amendment on 7 March. Senator Keogan was in possession when the debate adjourned on that day. Is Senator Keogan okay to resume? I do not want her to be out of breath, and I do not want her to miss her opportunity. I will bring the Senator back in again so do not worry.
Health (Termination of Pregnancy Services) (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am fine.
Amendments Nos 6 and 8 are related. It was agreed on the previous occasion that they would be discussed together.
SECTION 3
Debate resumed on amendment No. 6:
In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(4) Nothing in section 2(2) shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in public place.”.
- (Senator Ronan Mullen).
Amendment No. 6 would ensure that silent prayer is protected. In England, several people were interrogated, arrested and fined for simply standing in the vicinity of abortion providers' premises and silently praying without holding any signs or making any statements. One man, Mr. Adam Smith-Connor, was asked by a police officer "What is the nature of your prayer?" When Mr. Smith-Connor said he was praying for the unborn child and in memory of his son who was aborted, he was arrested. This is Orwellian, and it breaches Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The Bill, as it currently stands, makes it quite possible we would see similar situations to this whereby people would be arrested for silently engaging in private prayer if it happened to be within one of these sprawling 100 m zones. What about our protections for prayer that is ordinary customary practice, and which is inherently public in nature and unrelated to protest or advocacy, for example with Corpus Christi processions, at graveyards, near a hospital where there may be a funeral and where the rosary is being said during a public procession or at a wedding or an indoor venue? This amendment would prevent that possibility.
Amendment No. 8 provides for the exemption of a property that acts as a place of worship. It expands on the law to ensure that people can express their views within the grounds of the churches and other places of worship. At present, the protection relating to places of worship does not go far enough and the provisions in section 3 unfairly encroach on people's religious rights, particularly when they are within the grounds of religious properties.
This amendment changes that specific exclusion of church grounds from the scope of the section 3(2) exemption into specific inclusion of church grounds within the scope of the section 3(2) exemption. Thank you.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir. Glaoim ar an Aire.
We have discussed it. I am good, thanks.
Go raibh maith agat. I call Senator Mullen.
I thank the Cathaoirleach and welcome the Minister back to the House. In drafting these amendments, we have been mindful that it is not always clear what is and is not caught by this or any Bill. I am open to the argument, though I do not think the Minister has made it, that the Bill does not explicitly criminalise silent prayer. However, given the breadth of section 2(2), considered in conjunction with section 1, subsections (2), (5), (6), and (7), it seems possible that silent prayer is criminalised if one can tell by looking at the person that he or she is praying, for example. The normal postures associated with prayer that come to mind are joined hands, closed eyes, a person standing still, perhaps holding rosary beads or lips moving without sound. The idea any of those could breach section 2(2) if the requisite intent or recklessness was deemed to be present is intolerable in any free society.
Whenever we have discussed this Bill, I feel it incumbent on me to remind people that when it comes to freedom of expression issues, the important thing is to stand up for the freedom of expression that is not your own. If we have any respect for freedom of expression in society, it is the exercise of freedom of expression that is not our own personal bag or of which we do not approve that we need to be careful to defend. It is easy to defend our own rights, privileges and preferences and campaign passionately for them but, if we are to be democrats, we have to try to put ourselves into the heads and hearts of other people and defend with equal fervour their rights, privileges and preferences, having regard to the common good and the need to always protect the vulnerable as a higher value.
I say that mindful there may be people, though hopefully not in this Chamber, who would take a bigoted view of the idea people might choose to pray in response to the legality of abortion in the country or the idea our hospitals are tragically tied up with the provision of abortion or other healthcare services. I need not rehearse at length the depth of feeling on all sides of this topic. For those who seek to be champions of authentic human rights, there can be no defence of human rights unless it is fully inclusive of everybody.
Many people come at this issue and prayer is not the first thing that comes to their minds. It would be the breach of human rights and the need to bear witness to that and provide positive and generous support to people in crisis pregnancy and considering abortion, in the hope they choose a better alternative that would protect life. There are those for whom this is an issue of profound spiritual significance because of the affront to human dignity involved in abortion, the taking of an innocent human life, sometimes in cruel ways, sometimes less cruel but always final. For many people, this is a civilisational fault-line, a chasm and a major step into the darkness for society. For some, that has a strong spiritual dimension and only a spiritual response can properly or fully address it, in terms of seeking divine intervention to assist people caught up in abortion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that attitude, hates it or loathes it, one has to tolerate it because it is a time-honoured and essentially good expression of things.
One only has to look at the data in relation to religious practice and the many positive associations it has with mental well-being and the ability to cope with life's challenges. Last night there was a debate on Katie Hannon's programme about the role of faith in schools and the point was made, directly or indirectly, that faith can help you through the dark times. That may not be everybody's belief, but it is the belief of very many people, including people who do not necessarily think about faith much when things are going well.
People who present themselves to pray silently in the vicinity of an abortion facility are not praying against anybody. They are seeking to invoke the higher good into what they regard as a bad situation, for the benefit of everybody involved. It is an utterly altruistic thing, in my belief and experience. I say that as somebody who has always confined my advocacy on this issue to terms people of all faiths and none can understand and appreciate. I am not speaking for any privilege I want to assert for my own benefit; I am speaking to the positivity and positive intent of those who seek to invoke God's help on what they regard as a dark situation and one that is harmful for mothers and babies involved, not to mention those complicit in carrying out abortions.
One does not have to spend any great amount of time thinking through the rights and wrongs of abortion to see it should be a no-brainer in our democracy to err on the side of facilitating such freedom of expression. I have never seen aggressive prayer. It is, by contrast, only properly approached in a spirit of humility and respect for others. If you are praying to defend God's creation, you have to realise those with whom you disagree are part of that creation. That is my understanding of it and that is why I defend passionately the right of people of faith to bear witness to the sanctity of all human life. It is not my public practice, but I speak as somebody fortunate enough to have a mandate to represent in this parliamentary Chamber the opposition of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in this country to abortion.
The amendment takes into account and did consider a proposed Britain amendment. While this amendment copied the reference to "silent prayer in a public place" from that British amendment, it otherwise takes a more minimalist approach and is more consistent with the general approach in section 3 in that it just seeks to limit the application of section 2(2). The core problem is not the provision of the Bill relating to conduct "likely to obstruct or impede another person from accessing a relevant healthcare premises"; rather it is the hugely broad, sweeping nature of the prohibition on communicating "material to the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person in relation to availing of, or providing, termination of pregnancy services". That is the particularly sweeping and dangerous part of the Bill and of that section on conduct prohibited and safe access zones.
It is that particular section that this amendment seeks to amend, to provide that nothing in it "shall prohibit a person from engaging in silent prayer in a public place". I ask the Minister again for consideration to be given to these proposed amendments. They are carefully tailored and seem to take a minimalist approach so as to give people every reason to support them without accepting the overall thrust of the Bill. They are seeking, as I would see it, to make a worse situation merely bad. On that basis, having moved the amendment, I will not call a vote on it at this point. I hope that the Government will consider all these matters very carefully before Report Stage when I propose to table these amendments again. I hope that the Government will give more favourable consideration to them that has been the case to date.
I want to briefly put some matters on the record of the Seanad. I know I am not going to convince anybody one way or the other by anything I say. Senator Mullen spoke about a better alternative to abortion services. For the person choosing to avail of these services, this is the best option for them. Many of them are people of deep faith, but for one reason or another, are in this situation. Often it is not something they would have ever envisaged, but this is the situation they are in and they are trying to do what is best for themselves and their families. Prayer is a private and personal thing. I am a Catholic and I was raised and taught to believe that God hears our prayers no matter where we are. There is no reason to engage in that prayer outside a healthcare facility. A person can pray for the same intention at home or in a church or in another location. The prayer is received no matter where a person is, so there is no need to do that other than to judge people availing of healthcare services. Even using words like "complicit" and "harmful" when describing a medical professional is deeply offensive. It is not a good position to be in to be invoking religion to judge and criticise other people who are in a very difficult situation.
I have listened carefully to the debate. There is a huge amount of merit in what Senators Keogan and Mullen have said, when it is private. The example was given of somebody praying outside a hospital or clinic and being asked by a garda what they were praying about. To me, that is provocative to some extent. I would like to know if the person was praying aloud or praying in silence. Perhaps the garda should not have asked them if they were not interfering with anybody in any way. I believe that people can pray without it being obvious that they are doing so. There are places where people can worship aloud if they so wish. Prayer is a very personal thing and I would be quite uncomfortable with it being included, in any shape or form, in a discussion like this. When protests are happening or even if people are standing in silent prayer, it can easily be identified as protest.
It would be remiss of us not to make some observations on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme broadcast last night. It is horrific to see that young women are still going through these traumas. It is not acceptable and I would be quite blunt in saying that the recommendations of the O'Shea report have not been implemented yet, to such an extent that Ms O'Shea has gone on the record and spoken publicly about it. It went before the health committee where a majority supported the recommendations. It is now with the Government and it needs to be implemented. What we saw women going through last night is the type of thing that people voted to eliminate a few years ago. I listened to the Taoiseach in the Dáil today and the Minister was beside him. Yes, huge progress has been made but I would tell the Taoiseach as well that I believe the recommendations of O'Shea report should be implemented. We left it late enough in the review process to set up the review and we should not procrastinate and delay now when it comes to implementing the recommendations.. I do not expect a response but that is my view and I wanted to articulate it.
Unless the Minister engages I will leave the O'Shea report for another day and will not speak about last night's documentary. I have already made my position on the documentary and on RTÉ's behaviour with it known at an earlier stage today in the House. Suffice it to say that I think the many flaws in Ms O'Shea's knowledge were clearly exposed at the committee, not least in her apparently being unaware of the fact that some countries have a mandatory waiting period.
My friend and colleague Senator-Clifford Lee really misunderstands me when she suggests that there is anything about judging other people involved in the decision to pray silently in a public place as part of being a witness around abortion. We are all familiar with the phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Ultimately, it is never appropriate for any of us to judge other people. We might make political judgments about each other from time to time. As public persons, we are a little bit more susceptible to that or we cannot complain quite as much as the private person can when other people presume to make certain kinds of judgment about our motivations as to what we do in politics. As far as possible, we should always avoid judging each other's motivations. There is a hell of a difference between not judging people and not judging their acts. We find ourselves having to judge other people's acts all the time. No doubt Senator Clifford-Lee and all of us here have, at one point or another, got up and condemned people's acts in this House, be they acts of terrorism abroad or acts of negligence or failure on the part of officials at home. We cannot have a thinking society unless we are willing to exercise some kind of a judgment on each other's acts from time to time. To that extent, I can make no apologies for using the words "complicit" or "harmful" when I speak about abortionists or those who carry out abortions. I do not know to what extent they bear subjective responsibility for what they are doing. That will be judged in another forum. However, what I can say is that if right was right, people who do what they do should be in jail, because they kill another human being. That is never justified. The intentional killing of another human being is never justified. It is a time-honoured principle in medicine that practitioners do not engage in the deliberate killing of patients.
That has been abandoned in the area of abortion across the western world and in other parts of the world because people have managed to convince themselves that the unborn child is not a human being. Everybody with any basic knowledge of science, however, knows that the child is a human being because he or she has an individual and unique set of chromosomes from the beginning of his or her life. A decision is taken by some to treat what are manifestly human beings at the appropriate stage of their development as less than human. This has happened at different times in different places with regard to different categories of human beings throughout history with sorry and horrific results. Let us be clear, however, that the medical professional who sticks a needle into the heart of a child as part of the process called foeticide, regardless of whether or not that child has severe or fatal disabilities, is doing something that should horrify every decent human being. There is no justification for directly attacking another human being except in self defence. We spend hours in this Chamber discussing whether countries are acting lawfully in their self defence when they exercise the use of force in the Middle East or elsewhere. The exception that permits violence in self defence is always one that must be approached with great caution and care and should always trouble us, but the idea that an innocent child who has never seen the light of day can be fairly attacked and his or her life ended deliberately is not authentic human rights. It is a perversion of human rights. That is my position.
I have always said that the person who seeks an abortion deserves great sympathy and support because particular pressures arise in pregnancy, as we all know. Of the pro-life people I know, I do not think it has ever been anybody's position that the law should ever target the parents, particularly the mother, of the unborn child unless there is a case of coercion by a father or something like that. The people who should know better are those charged with caring and have a time-honoured Hippocratic oath they are supposed to follow and a principle in medicine that you do no harm but do as much good as you can. That is what is being judged. It is the actions of those people who, if right were right, would face prosecution for attacking innocent human life in the womb. They are complicit in something that is very harmful.
Somebody who wants to witness against the injustice of this is in the same situation as somebody who wants to go out in the street and witness to the injustice of what is happening in Gaza, Ukraine or wherever conscience leads him or her to protest and about whatever conscience leads him or her to protest. That act of conscience is vital to our society and the maximum freedom for that act of conscience is vital to our society. What is being sought here is not the right to shout as much as you want. It is the right to engage in silent prayer. We live in a country with a tradition where we should be more sensitive than most to the persecution of people for their religious beliefs. It is part of our own history and part of what is happening today. Irish missionaries and others have been shut up in prisons in states with totalitarian regimes for daring to stand by the faith they have. They have languished in prison and sometimes died for their faith. I am thinking of things that happened to Irish missionaries in Korea and other places in the 20th century. The idea that we would go anywhere near prohibiting people from engaging in respectful silent prayer in any place in our country and that we would fail to see that there is a pre-eminent right to be wherever you want to be in silence if it is a public place and you are not trespassing on somebody else's property should be a red line for a Government that thinks of itself as democratic and seeks to represent and enable all citizens in the exercise of their freedom of expression.
The Cathaoirleach mentioned that we last spoke on the Bill on 7 March. Since then, there was a resounding referendum result that, if anything, expressed how arrogant and out-of-touch the people feel the Government is on a range of issues. The Government has stood accused - fairly, in the eyes of public opinion - of not listening, acting behind the scenes, only listening to certain groups, privileging certain voices above others and ramming legislation through very quickly. At least this is getting fair time now, which has not always been the case. The Government has been seen as arrogant and out-of-touch to the point where it is willing to cancel or silence other voices in pursuit of what it sees as goals it can cobble a majority together around. It is that failure to attend to other voices - sometimes hidden voices and sometimes silenced voices - that makes many people in our country mistrustful of the Government and of government right now in a way that in some ways is very bad for our democracy. The Government is at the same thing again now, shutting down the freedoms we always thought people had, freedoms that have not been abused. I have heard allegations and, as I pointed out previously, the law is there to deal with them and let it deal with them. The Garda Commissioner said the law was there and, as I pointed out previously, there have been no complaints from hospitals. We do not have a problem with people praying silently intimidating other people. It is impossible to conceive of how somebody in a silent place could in any way be intimidatory of another person but I will tell you what is important - place is important. If you go to any country or city churchyard or any graveyard in this country, you will know how important place is to people - the place where your loved one lies, the place where your loved one died, the place where you first met your loved one and so on, the place in country churchyards where the little babies who were not baptised in darker times lie and the cillíní that honour and remember them. The importance of place is something that we really need to attend. It is no argument to say, "Ah sure you can pray against abortion in the privacy of your own room." That misses the point completely. The people who are disturbed by the deep injustice of abortion as they see it, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them, feel the need to be in some kind of proximity to where the harm is being done as they see it and to pray for a better resolution of that situation and a return to justice and compassion. The significance of place is important for them. They are not there to show off to themselves, to others or to each other. It is the consciousness of place. Obviously, they cannot be in the hospital where the injustice is being done. Needless to say, this amendment does not seek to give them that right. The idea that any person in this country, given our history and what we understand about place, would be restricted from standing in any public place and praying silently is a horror and would only happen on this subject.
The reason it is only happening on this subject is because, if I may use religious language, the promotion of abortion has turned into some kind of sacrament for an activist group in our society that is obsessed with changing the way our society thinks about abortion and turning it from something that previously people shuddered at as an injustice to something that is now seen as a social good and to be celebrated. The people who cheered and danced in Dublin Castle on the day of repeal, to the horror of thousands, are the people who want this kind of legislation, not because it solves any problem or deals with any injustice that is taking place but because it is part of their fetishisation of abortion and the turning of it into something to be put on an altar of some kind and shielded from any kind of opposition, to the point where we have this novel curtailment of people's freedoms.
It is a curtailment that does not, to my knowledge, have any comparator. I am not aware of any other service that is so tied-in, in the desire of some, with the need to crush all dissent and to crush the visibility of any dissent. I said that I would not talk about the RTÉ documentary but I will say this much: that documentary last night was all about crushing the visibility of any alternative point of view. That is what is going on here and that is what this legislation is about. It is about a campaign of forgetting - to try to forget that there was ever anybody who ever thought that abortion was unjust. However, that campaign will not succeed because the science is against it. The science clearly shows the wonder of human life from its very beginnings in a way that we could never tell before. Medicine, and all that can be done to alleviate human pain and suffering, is better than it ever was before. It has never been more possible, if there was only the will to do it, to address and seek to protect fully the lives of mothers and their unborn children and to minimise situations where there is ever any kind of conflict between the necessary medical care of a mother and the welfare of her unborn child.
Sadly, sometimes there will be conflicts and it is not always possible to save the unborn child. That was the position of our law before repeal and nobody had any objection to that but what we have now is the celebration of abortion. We have the inability by our Government and by our policymakers to even say that we should try to lessen the amount of it going on. Senator Clifford Lee, my friend in other contexts but not a friend to this issue, was saying that sometimes it is the best thing. How can it be the best thing when an innocent person is dispensed with forever? There is no second chance. There is no coming back from death. There is coming back from everything else but not from death. As Peig Sayers had it, "Bíonn súil le muir, ní bhíonn súil le huaigh".
I would ask people even now just to think again about what they are celebrating, embracing, supporting, campaigning for and promoting. However, if one cannot be convinced now on that issue, I hope the day comes when one will be but at least accept there is another point of view which many people hold and that there is a responsibility to those people to respect their freedom of expression and that what is being sought here is a very modest defence of their freedom of expression.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 relate to religious expression. I regard the amendments as unnecessary and I am proposing to reject them. There is no expressed prohibition in this Bill on prayer, silent or otherwise. The primary intention of the legislation is to prohibit conduct aimed at impeding access to or otherwise influencing decisions in relation to termination of pregnancy services and specifically then, only within 100 m of service providers. In addition to that, no offence can be committed until a warning has been issued. In the circumstances, I regard the amendments as unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, to delete lines 20 to 23.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, line 28, to delete “but does not include” and substitute “and includes”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61, the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, line 4, after “writing” to insert “, or by any other manner and in any such system as may be prescribed by the Minister for Justice following consultation with the Minister for Health in accordance with subsection (6),”.
I am standing in for Senator Gavan, who regrets he cannot be here.
I will speak briefly to the three amendments. All three amendments are simple and relate to the lack of a Garda reporting system. They address the issue of Garda warnings and those who take part in acts that may be forbidden by the legislation, such as to "communicate material ... or otherwise engage in conduct". This issue was raised in the Dáil and the Minister's argument was that An Garda Síochána does not have a system to record warnings in the first place. There is a system to record an offence or potential charge, which is the PULSE system. The Garda does not record warnings and the Minister stated it was not his job to involve himself in the operational matters of An Garda Síochána. These amendments will bring the Minister for Justice into consultation with the Minister for Health. I would welcome the Minister's response.
I thank the Senator for tabling the amendments. The matter raised in the amendments is being debated in the Dáil, as the Senator stated. It got significant debate on Committee Stage in the Select Committee on Health. I understand the rationale and intent behind these proposals but cannot accept the amendments. An Garda Síochána has indicated it is not possible under the current configuration of the PULSE system to centrally record warnings. It must be remembered that the Garda has a long and proud record of enforcing the law as well as experience of managing public order events. The legislation as currently worded allows An Garda Síochána the necessary flexibility to operate within the confines of current systems and permits the future use of a central repository for recording warnings should one become available. As to the Senator's point, it is the intent that there will be a central recording system in future. A central recording system is catered for within the Bill as drafted.
Moreover, the legislation now provides for a comprehensive review of the operation of the legislation not later than 18 months following enactment. This will ensure any operational issues, such as the concerns raised by the Senator, can be identified and addressed quickly. The review will address all aspects of the operation of the legislation, which will of course include the recording of the warning system, and will place it in the wider context of the legislation and its overall objectives. This will afford us the opportunity to reflect more fully on the ultimate evaluation of whether the legislation has achieved its purpose in providing safe access to services. Furthermore, the outcome of the review will be submitted for consideration to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I understand the intent. Ideally, we would have a centralised system on PULSE and this essentially would be a non-issue. For now, how these warnings are recorded is an operational matter for An Garda Síochána, given the lack of a centralised recording digital system. We want to leave it with the Garda. The legislation is future-proofed such that if and when it does have a centralised system, the legislation fully accounts for that.
I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 9 and reserve the right to resubmit it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(6) The Minister for Justice may, following consultation with the Minister for Health, prescribe by way of regulation the systems which shall be used to record warnings issued under
subsection (2).”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, line 3, after “review” to insert “in particular as it relates to evaluating the effectiveness of the system for recording warnings issued by An Garda Síochána pursuant to section 5(1)”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
TITLE
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
It is not agreed.
Question put and declared carried.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed?
Question proposed: "That Report Stage be taken next Tuesday."
Vótáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Sharon Keogan and Rónán Mullen rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61, the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23 April 2024.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 6.47 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 17 Aibreán 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.47 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 April 2024.