Ahern is right on approach to abortion

If the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, is serious about addressing abortion - a proposition which is greeted with some scepticism by Fine…

If the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, is serious about addressing abortion - a proposition which is greeted with some scepticism by Fine Gael, Labour and his Progressive Democrat partners in Government - only one of the seven options in the Government's Green Paper would seem to hold out the remotest possibility of achieving a political consensus. That is the fifth option: to legislate to regulate abortion in the circumstances defined in the X case.

Somewhat surprisingly, however, in a Green Paper in which constitutional amendments are offered like confetti at a wedding, it is one of the few options which does not propose another referendum. Yet, having covered all of the legal, political and constitutional contortions on the abortion issue since the early 1980s, the proposal to legislate for abortion in the limited circumstances of the X case would seem to be the only workable solution. But in order to succeed, this would have to be put to the people in a referendum.

This view, coincidentally, was promulgated publicly by Mr Ahern in a clever attempt to straddle the pro and anti sides of the abortion constituency before the last general election. In a briefing with The Irish Times in March 1997 and, more explicitly, in a letter to the Irish Catholic in May 1997, nearer the election date, Mr Ahern gave a firm commitment to hold a referendum on abortion. His leanings, indicated in both, were towards legislation to regulate, rather than ban, abortion, enacted under the political cover of consulting the people.

Mr Ahern told the editor of the Irish Catholic on May 21st, 1997, that in government he would "address the legal and constitutional issues arising from the Supreme Court decision in the X case, which has left the situation in an unsatisfactory state of legal and constitutional limbo".

READ MORE

He later added: "I have already expressed the view that a solution to the problem may well require both legislative and constitutional action, not just one or the other, and that the people have a right to be consulted, knowing the entire package. We will not enact legislation on this subject without consulting the people. But, equally, we consider that, after two referendums on the substantive issue, a constitutional referendum on its own cannot do justice to the complex protections required for both the pregnant mother and the unborn, who under the Constitution have an equal right to life."

He then stated: "Two options would be for discussion: (i) to hold a constitutional referendum, accompanied by the heads of legislation to be enacted, as occurred in the case of the divorce referendum; or (ii) to put legislation which had been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before the people by way of referendum, using the procedure set out in Article 27 of the Constitution."

It is known that, since the election, Mr Ahern has abandoned the notion of using Article 27 as a suitable mechanism for referring an abortion Bill to the people. His preferred formula, therefore, is a combination of legislation and a referendum to regularise the abortion situation.

This proposal is a far cry from the stated positions of the main Opposition parties in their responses to the Green Paper, but it is the only one of the seven options with the slightest chance of success. For it is the politicians, not the anti-abortion campaign or the people, who have to reach a compromise on the way forward now on what is still the most divisive issue in politics.

The Fine Gael position is to do nothing. It is not even stating that it supports the third option, the retention of the status quo, in the Green Paper. This stance was deliberately adopted by the party leader, Mr John Bruton, in advance of the last election to contain the polarised views within the party and, equally importantly, to combat an antiabortion ambush. One party source described it as "an accommodation"; another said that Fine Gael was even more divided than Fianna Fail on abortion. Mr Bruton's view is that it would probably be unwise in practical terms to proceed with another referendum, or with legislation, on the basis that neither would improve the "practical situation".

The Labour Party was unequivocal in its attitude to abortion. Its leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, had a statement of the party's position deliberately published in his name supporting the approach of giving legislative effect to the Supreme Court decision in the X case. He is opposed to another referendum.

The Progressive Democrats' position is more difficult to decipher. It supported the proposal to legislate on the "substantive issue" during the 1992 referendums but, back in Government again, it now holds the view that it will await the outcome of the deliberations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.

In all the circumstances, the Taoiseach has proposed the only workable formula which could generate a political consensus.

The first option, an absolute constitutional ban on abortion, would have the support of the antiabortion campaign, but would tear Fianna Fail and Fine Gael apart, while Labour and the Progressive Democrats would oppose it. The second option, an amendment of the constitutional provisions to restrict the application of the X case, was tried in 1992 and failed. The third option, the retention of the status quo, is the real position of all the main parties. Why then have a Green Paper, a Constitution Committee consideration and a recommendation to do nothing at the end of the process?

The fourth option, retention of the constitutional status quo with a legislative restatement of the prohibition on abortion, is a contradiction in terms. The sixth option, a reversion to the position as it pertained before 1983, would fail to secure all-party approval because of the strength of the anti-abortion lobby. The seventh option, permitting abortion on grounds beyond those specified in the X case, would not get electoral approval.

For these reasons, Mr Ahern's proposal to legislate for X and use a format similar to the divorce referendum to put the Bill to the people is the only option with the remotest possibility of political success. The purists will say that the principle of writing terms into the Constitution is a bad one. It was the only way that divorce could be legalised in this State. Politics is the art of the possible. It is a fact of political life that the only way that the politicians will legislate for abortion is with the imprimatur of the people.