Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 20 June 2000 (continued)
Mr Speaker:
Order. I am afraid that the time is up.
Mr Boyd:
I support the motion introduced by the hon Member for South Down, Jim Wells, opposing the extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. I oppose the Women's Coalition amendment because I believe that the majority of Members have considered the issue very carefully.
The Northern Ireland Unionist Party is committed to the biblical principle of the sanctity of human life. The basis of Christian morality is that human life is sacred. We have pledged to protect the life of the unborn child. Following the Abortion Act 1967, five million abortions have taken place in Great Britain, where one baby is killed by abortion every three minutes. That is 500 every day, seven days a week. To put it bluntly, it is a massacre of the innocents that all too often leaves mothers mentally or physically scarred for life.
Birth does not mark the beginning of a new life. A new life begins in the womb. At conception all the hereditary characteristics of the new human being are established, eye colour and sex, for example. Birth brings about a change in the baby's environment, not a change in the nature of the baby. The right to life is an inalienable right of which an innocent human being may not be deprived. All human life is of equal value. The life of the child in the womb is neither more nor less important than the life of the mother but equally so. There is, therefore, no moral objection to measures aimed solely at curing a life-threatening condition in an expectant mother, even if this may indirectly lead to the child's death.
The ethical treatments available in such circumstances do not involve deliberately killing the baby. Serious medical problems which may arise later in pregnancy, when the child is capable of surviving outside the womb, may justify early delivery so long as appropriate steps are taken to save the life of the baby.
Abortion is typically carried out by the dismemberment, poisoning or the premature expulsion of the unborn child. It is usually an invasive procedure for the mother which, even in the best hospital conditions, carries risks to her physical health and often causes her psychological harm. Fathers and other family members may also suffer after an abortion. The ethics of health-care professionals who take part in abortions are compromised and society as a whole is harmed by the tolerance of violence against the unborn child.
In 1996 there were nearly 190,000 abortions in England, Scotland and Wales. A further 1,600 women from Northern Ireland had abortions in England in the same year. In 1996 only 1% of abortions were carried out because there was a substantial risk of the child being seriously handicapped. Only 0.002% were carried out to save the life of the woman. When the 1967 Abortion Act was passed many felt it was necessary to deal with a small number of women in particular situations. The Act has, however, led virtually to abortion on demand.
Amendments under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 brought in a new upper time limit for most abortions of 24 weeks, and up to birth if mental or physical handicap is suspected. Yet at 18 days a baby's heart is beating, by eight weeks all her body systems are established, at 11 weeks she is breathing. She can also swallow, and her fingernails are present. By 13 weeks her taste buds are developed, and at 16 weeks she has eyelashes.
Abortion of the disabled is doubly discriminatory: it is a reminder of the inhumanity of abortion - the attacking the most vulnerable, those most in need of protection - and an affront to all members of the community here who are disabled. It sends a message that they are inferior to and of less value than the able-bodied. There can be many physical complications with abortion including perforation, rupture of the uterus, pelvic infection, miscarriage in later pregnancies, infertility and death of the mother.
At a major conference in New Delhi in 1992 it was stated that legal abortion has killed 200,000 women worldwide. The Royal College of General Practitioners carried out a study over a 14-year period on attitudes to abortion which found that women obtaining abortions were twice as likely to develop self-destructive behaviour, such as taking drug overdoses, as those who decided not to abort. They also had a 10 % increased chance of problems such as anxiety and neurosis.
Medical research also shows a link between abortion and breast cancer. Twenty-six studies out of 32 worldwide show an increased risk of breast cancer after an induced abortion. In the United States 12 out of 13 studies show the link.
I must refer now to the press release yesterday from the Family Planning Association for Northern Ireland. I take exception to its rather condescending tone when it says
"Women are being failed by their political representatives. Like it or not MLAs have a duty to work on behalf of all their constituents."
Such attacks on elected representatives do nothing to resolve the issue. I am confident that my view on abortion is one that is held by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. The case against an extension of the 1967 Abortion Act is overwhelming and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would oppose it. Once the sanctity of life is denied the value of every human life is in question. The growing pressure for euthanasia is witness to this. It is essential, therefore, to maintain the sanctity of life as a first priority.
The people of Northern Ireland are hoping and praying for a new era of peace, but we must not let our desire for peace blind us to the death threat to our unborn babies. After over 30 years of terror and violence, the last thing Northern Ireland needs is legislation that will shed infinitely more lives than even the worst terrorist atrocities. I support the motion.
3.00 pm
Mr Ervine:
The Member who introduced the motion set the scene clearly for me when he described the foetus as "he", "he", "he". Of course, we have just had the balance restored when the foetus was described as "she", "she", "she".
Abortion is an extreme symptom of the failures in society. Convince me that we offer adequate sex education? Convince me that we help people to not only the reproductive system but the relationships they will have throughout their lives with members of the opposite sex.
Mrs Carson eloquently stated that the Dutch seem to be somewhat ahead of us on this matter. They made abortion freely available, and when they did so, what happened? Did lots of women dive at the opportunity of having the most brutal form of contraception - abortion? Indeed they did not. Actually, the figures dropped. As has been said, they have the lowest figures in Europe and possibly even in the world.
The Dutch matched their action with bombarding children with information about how the rest of their lives would have to be lived. They took control of their destiny and understood the importance of decisions they might make as children and how those decisions might affect them in the future. We have not done that. We have not remotely thought of doing it.
Those who are pro-life have a point - and I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice. They have, lying more deeply at their core, a desire for chastity and decency. I suppose these are reasonable aspirations, but just simply trying to get someone to cross her legs or keep his zip up does not seem to work.
There is an awful stinking, painful route that is travelled by people in our society - not just by women but by people. They are not women; they are people; they are equals; and, indeed, they are the majority. We sit here making decisions about their lives without one iota of the pain, sorrow or suffering that whatever decision they make about abortion will blight the rest of their lives as they see it then. When they put their hands out like scales and try to make their decision, the moral arguments we create do not help because there is right and wrong in each hand, or on each side. In many ways, they do not view it in terms of right or wrong or of society's moral values.
Essentially, it becomes imperative for them. It is something they must do. The human being is faced with trauma and difficulty, and then we heap upon her a degree of admonishment, bitterness and hatred. What I am hearing is that they are murderers. When we talk about murderers, what about Belgrade, which was recently pattern-bombed. What about Baghdad, which was pattern-bombed, or Dresden, which was patternbombed in order to send a message loud and clear to Germany? Or what about when we devastated it?
We, the politicians, are the moral people who talk seriously about the ethics of the medical profession. Is this a joke, or what? Politicians who have consistently failed to bring peace to this society are admonishing those people who are trying to bring a better quality of life to our community. It seems alien and incredible to me.
The arguments can all be emotional and I suppose I am getting emotional too, but the reality is that we all have choices to make as human beings. We would be better to make those choices with proper information. Perhaps then, people would not end up taking an awful route because they were not properly equipped.
I hear much said about the foetus, and I understand the arguments. Our party had to have two party conferences to enable me to make a speech like this. In the last two years, 21 women have died as a result of domestic violence. The safe houses that society has provided are packed to overcapacity as we speak, and not one word is said about that. This male-dominated society is treating the majority like something it walked in on its heel, and that is not acceptable.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
In 1982, when this issue was raised previously, it is my understanding - I dare say I will be corrected if I am wrong - that one Member opposed the motion. More than one Member will oppose the motion today, and when it comes up again, as it surely will, more Members will oppose it. People are discriminated against by that evil, awful Britain who killed 5 million, the Britain with whom you want to be associated both politically and socially, that murderous, evil Britain that will extend the Act. The Act will be extended eventually and our people will be treated as equals. They will be given the same opportunity to have an abortion if they need one, and, consequently, one hopes that the number of abortions will decrease rather than increase. What we are constantly doing is heaping pain and more pain on people who are incapable of taking that pain. There are many thousands of nameless people who have gone along that painful route. They will be listening today and, unfortunately, unless we get our act together, there will be many thousands who will follow them. And what will we do? Will our moral arguments make popes and moderators end up in the same camp?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
This debate is about the preciousness and sanctity of life. By that I mean the life of the mother as well as the life of the child. I know that many hon Members may not agree with what I will say today, for I take the traditional Protestant line on this issue. I disagree with many Roman Catholics in this House. I believe that the priority must always be given to the mother whose life must come first in all circumstances - that is the traditional Protestant view and always has been.
We need to dwell on one question today. Should the life of the babe in the womb, at whatever stage, be protected, safeguarded and preserved? It is interesting to note that all those who have spoken in favour of the amendment and in favour of abortion never mentioned the child - they never mentioned the child. They had much to say about the mother, but they made no mention of the child. Should the child in the womb be protected, safeguarded and preserved, or should it be destroyed - at times wantonly and ruthlessly? It is not enough for people to say that they do not like hearing a description of what happens during an abortion. Such descriptions are based on well-established facts. If the baby were outside the mother's womb, say in an incubator, and a member of the general public or of the medical profession came along and deliberately slaughtered it, such a person would be in breach of the law and would be tried for murder. Do those who are arguing for abortion say "No. Those who kill a child when it is outside the womb should be subject to the same laws as those who kill a child inside the womb"? They cannot have it both ways. Yet, because the child is inside its mother's womb, we are told it can be slaughtered.
A mother has a voice and can use that voice to defend her case. The women in this House have spoken today and have made their points loudly and clearly. Other women would take a different view and make their points equally loudly and clearly. But who will speak for the child, who cannot lobby or be represented, whose voice cannot be heard? Yet that child will be the victim of a barbarous deed.
As a public representative, I shall speak for the child today, the child who feels, who can recognise its mother's voice and know pain, who is a member of the human family and who has been given the unique gift of human life. We cannot get away from that. There may be some in this House who would like to do so, but who should consider it very seriously indeed. Some people misjudge the passion in our hearts today when we discuss this. There is no apology needed when people have deeply held views and express them sincerely and with passion.
Today we should listen to the silent cries of those who cannot speak for themselves. No matter how we vote at the end of this debate, we should all realise that we are on most serious and solemn ground. The Bible is the most ancient of all books, and I am old-fashioned enough to believe that it is what it claims to be - the Word of God. That will come as no surprise to any Member. In the Book of Psalms, which is part of the Hebrew scriptures, covering both Judaism and Christianity, it says
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, that I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
That is the most beautiful description of life and its secrets. That is why I plead with hon Members today not to take upon themselves the destruction of God's own handiwork. We should not take it upon ourselves to terminate that God-breathed vitality, nor should we lift our hand against the circumstances of special sanctimony.
Clearly there are circumstances where physical or health problems must be considered. That is the traditional view of the Protestant Church. As I have already emphasised, the priority is the mother, whose life must come first in such physical circumstances. It has been argued that we should do this and that. In closing, I say that many will speak and say "Let the children die", but I wish to raise my voice with others in the House and say: "Let the children live".
3.15 pm
Mr Davis:
Mr Ervine referred to the last debate that took place here on this subject. For the record, it was on 29 February 1984. When the Division was called, there were 20 votes for and 1 against. I quote the late George Seawright, who spoke in that debate. At the time, there was great trouble throughout the Province with murders being committed daily. He said
"In Northern Ireland political circles we have heard much of discrimination, we have heard much about biased legislation, and we have heard much about political philosophies that do not accept the rights of minorities, but I can think of no minority group more tragic than those innocent infants within the womb who this year, like every other year, and perhaps in future years, will be put to death simply because someone, with very twisted logic, believes that a parent has the right to put her own child to death".
Many other Members said similar things on that day.
I am glad that the Assembly is tackling the abortion issue. It reflects well on Members to address difficult issues as well as those with which we can agree relatively easily. The abortion issue is probably the most difficult one of all. I am glad that my party, along with others, has extended a free vote. It would be wrong for abortion to become a party political issue in Northern Ireland.
Debates on the abortion issue usually revolve round the so-called hard cases - rape, in particular. However, since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967, only 2% of abortions have been performed as a result of rape, severe handicap or a real threat to the life of the mother. Abortion is available to women in Northern Ireland in those circumstances. Today, we are discussing unlimited abortion on demand. The Lane Committee of 1974 concluded that that was the effect of the Abortion Act 1967, which is limited only by the 24-week rule.
Unfortunately, the abortion debate is often reduced to questions on when life begins. I have not read the stories of the German Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but I agree with what he said:
"To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being."
To allow that intention to be taken away on an à la carte basis would be wrong. For all their differences, people of all religions agree with that view, whether they are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim.
There are far too many unwanted pregnancies in Northern Ireland. We have the highest birth rate of any region in the European Union, but abortion is not the answer. Fewer than 3% of abortions in England and Wales are performed on women who have five children or more. We must encourage the proper use of family planning, and we should value our children more.
I am not a medical expert, but I am concerned by what I have read about the effects of abortion on the mental and physical health of women. Women who have had abortions find it much more difficult to have children in later life. Of course, keeping the Abortion Act 1967 off the Northern Ireland statute book will not prevent women from seeking abortions across the water, but it is a major deterrent.
The number of women recorded as having travelled to England for abortions has fallen, even as abortion has become less of a taboo. The number travelling is far fewer proportionally than the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales, which are not such different societies from ours in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that we have a problem, but my favoured solution is for more funding for unwanted pregnancy counselling, rather than an extension to Northern Ireland of the Abortion Act 1967. That would create an abortion culture, resulting in more abortions in the long term. For all those reasons I support the motion.
Mr O'Connor:
I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Jim Wells. I do so because I believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong and against all the principles in which I believe. I oppose the amendment, Mr Speaker. We talk about pro-life and pro-choice. Why do we not talk about pro-death and pro-murder? That is what abortion is.
There are a few facts I would like to share with the House today. Mr Wells and others gave us facts and figures about the number of people going to England for abortion on demand. I do not want to see that happening in this country. We have heard about the terrible crimes of rape and incest, but an abortion will not undo those crimes. It will not take away the fact that a crime has been committed. To punish an unborn child because of that crime is morally wrong.
In Britain in 1996, out of 190,000 abortions only three were carried out to save the life of the mother. We have to think about the child in question here. Dr Paisley quite rightly referred to it as a child, other people tend to refer to it as a group of cells or a foetus to try to dehumanise it. That child is an individual growing in its mother's womb - it is not a part of the mother. Many people say "Oh, it is the woman's body; she should be allowed to choose what happens". Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were to give you a lift home today and decided to run my car into a brick wall, would I have a right to do that because it was my car? Or would I have a moral responsibility to protect you? I feel that it is the latter.
Another issue I want to come back to is rape. In the United States the Supreme Court allowed an abortion in the case of Roe versus Wade. A woman known as Jane Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, admitted that her claim of rape was a total fabrication. She was a woman intent on procuring an abortion. This is another danger of extending this Act to Northern Ireland.
Mr Cobain:
Is the Member saying that in order to obtain an abortion women will be claiming rape? What a disgraceful thing to say!
Mr O'Connor:
The Member is deliberately misrepresenting what I said. There is the potential for the situation to be abused. We have had calls for clarification of the abortion law from the former Ministers, Mo Mowlam and John McFall. Clarification of the abortion law would mean permissive abortion in Northern Ireland. That is quite clearly what it means. To say that handicapped children should be aborted is totally wrong. Who is to say that a handicapped child is less valuable or less loving than any other child? Certainly not I.
I would like to quote from the feminist author Mary Meekin, who stated in the 'Human Life Review' in 1983
"Honesty requires us to say that it is unjust that a woman may carry her child through rape or incest; it is far greater injustice to kill the child".
This is a rare situation in which injustice cannot be avoided, and the best thing that can be done is to reduce it. The first injustice lasts for nine months of a life that can be relieved both psychologically and financially.
The second injustice ends a life. There is no remedy for that. Yesterday and this morning I received what could probably be described as junk mail from Voice for Choice, from the family planning people and from Alliance for Choice - that is not the Alliance Party, I hasten to add - all saying how wrong it was for this motion to be brought forward. I am glad it was brought forward. This matter needs to be aired, and I hope that the motion gets the full support of the House. There will be some dissenters, but I know where I stand on human rights. The human rights of an unborn child are as important as the rights of any one of us. I urge the House to support the motion.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
There are people on every side of this issue who hold deep and genuine views. There are also those who dismiss my right to come to the House today and express my views. They do so because I am merely a man and for that reason, they think, I have no right to speak on matters that affect women. I was not commissioned to come to the House by the men of Mid Ulster. I come on behalf of all my constituents, whether male or female. I have been lobbied by many ladies' organisations on this issue. I make no apology for my views, which I hold passionately. I know that I represent the vast majority of my constituents. I shall vote for my Friend Mr Wells's motion.
As a public representative it is my duty to give a lead to the people of this Province. The people of Ulster need their leaders to speak clearly on the issues of life and death. Should this legislation be extended to Northern Ireland, it would be a travesty of justice and democracy. The vast majority of people, across the community, do not want it. By having this debate, we are putting down a marker, and I thank my hon Friend for giving us this opportunity.
We have heard many voices raised on behalf of those who desire abortion on demand. My party Leader, Dr Paisley, posed a pertinent question: who will speak for the unborn child who has been silenced by murder? There are charges laid against us. We have heard them today. For example, it was said that this debate should not take place because it would simply be a heated debate. I have been here since the debate started, and I have heard people speak passionately, but I have not heard a heated debate. This place is all about debate. It is a debating Chamber. It should deal with the important issues, and what issue could be more important than the life or death of a child? I speak as the father of five children.
We are told that this debate should go upstairs. Why? Is this not the place for debate? Is this not the place where the decisions are made? We are told that we have no knowledge. Have we no knowledge of this Act that was passed in England in 1967? Are we not able to see what the effects of it have been?
3.30 pm
There are those involved in this debate who do not want us to see what abortion actually is. You are walking on very dangerous ground if you happen to talk about the suction of a child from its mother's womb or about tearing a child apart or about the dismembering of its body, but that is what actually happens, yet they do not want you to know that. They do not want you to know about the pain of the child, or the cry of a child, which is being taken from its mother's womb where it was put by God. But man has decided that no, the child will not stay there. For some reason, it must be destroyed.
Another aspect of the tragedy is the talk about the child's being unwanted. Why is it unwanted? Is it because it does not suit its parents' social life? Is the child unwanted because it will disrupt their plans for the future? So, for them to have their way, this unwanted child has to be removed, so they murder him. Make no mistake about it; call it whatever fancy name you want; the child is murdered! Indeed, that is what has happened to five million children.
I see a Member shaking her head. She is disgusted I suppose. What fancy name would you call it, I wonder? I hear people saying that men have no sensitivity for women's needs. I have been a pastor of the same congregation for 32 years -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Please address your remarks to the Chair, not to Ms Morrice.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
I am happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have been a pastor for 32 years to the same congregation, the majority of whom are women. I have never been charged with being insensitive to the needs of those ladies, and thank God for the many children that are therein. However, I do remember a child being born once. You see, it was a mongol, and the doctor had suggested getting rid of it. I remember when the parents were told that they had a mongol child. I sat in the hospital overnight with that child, who is now 21 years old. Not an "it", "he" is 21 years old. That child has given the sweetest love to his mother and father for 21 years. It is not right that, because he is regarded as disabled, he is less entitled to life than any of us in this Chamber. So I listen to the charge. I cannot stop them from going to England, but I can stop them from receiving my blessing to murder their children.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am indebted to the many people, female individuals and groups who lobbied our party in respect of this debate. These responses illustrate that we need to open the door to honest and reasoned debate on what is a tragic dilemma for women. This is a dilemma that is not being addressed, nor indeed will it be resolved, by the DUP motion.
Using legislation that was enacted to deal with one set of social circumstances to deal with another set of social circumstances is illogical, especially if one considers that abortion is legally available in the North in certain circumstances. It must be stated though that accessibility to such services is very limited. However, there is no escaping the fact that around 7,000 Irish women, from the North and the South, travel abroad each year to get abortions. Travelling abroad to other jurisdictions has, therefore, become a safety valve for Irish women. The alternative for women who have chosen this course is a return to back-street abortions and all that that entails. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that there is such polarisation on the issue of abortion, with what have become the pro-life and pro-choice camps. People, particularly women, who have taken sides are motivated by a deep concern for the value of human life, even if they have different political perspectives.
Many people who are anti-abortion would consider abortion as an option in the case of rape or where the life of the mother is threatened. By the same token, many of those who are pro-choice, favouring the legislation, do not believe that abortion is the answer to the complex problems facing women in today's society. There is also the view that abortion is, primarily, violence against women and a capitulation to the norms of patriarchy. However, those who subscribe to that view would oppose any form of legal sanction against it, because they recognise the need, so far unmet, for more adequate and widespread change in society at large, which would make abortion unnecessary.
As politicians, our response to the tragic situations where women are put into absolutist positions might be to work towards removing the conditions of shame, economic circumstances and lack of education which place women in situations where they have no choice except abortion. Many women are forced to make such stark choices because motherhood, unlike fatherhood, is not easily combined with other aspects of daily living. If we are obligated to upholding the rights of women and children, we must work towards creating a society where those women who choose to have children can do so without economic penalties and with support through nursery and childcare facilities and the recognition of the fundamental role of parenting. This may not end abortions, but it would do more to decrease their incidence than criminal sanctions.
Sinn Féin has debated this issue for many years, and it will continue to debate it because the issue of abortion presents us all with emotional, social and political questions. Our party position is that we oppose abortion on demand or abortion as a form of birth control. We accept the need for abortion where a woman's life or mental health is at risk or in grave danger and in cases of rape and sexual abuse. We believe that full information and non-directive pregnancy counselling, embodying all choices, should be freely available. We totally oppose those attitudes and forces in society that compel women to have abortions or criminalise them for making such decisions.
As a party, we acknowledge the complex nature of the abortion issue. We have attempted to deal with the matter in open and honest debate. Modern technology has created genetically cloned sheep; life is no longer arbitrary but planned; medical science has advanced dramatically; and people go to outer space. Women, however, are expected to bring children into the world irrespective of whether they have the means to clothe or feed them, whether their physical or mental health is broken, whether they have been victims of a violent sexual attack, whether they are suffering from AIDS or their children are suffering from, or will be born with, HIV, and irrespective of whether the children will die, before they are one year old, from starvation, disease or a neutron bomb that preserves buildings but wipes out human beings.
Life, and the right to life, is not only about biological reproduction; it is about the future child. This happens in an emotional and a social context. Life is a gift entrusted to women and men. It must never be reduced to a knee-jerk reaction. The tragic dilemma of abortion, which sees women boarding boats and planes, often in isolation and fear, is an indictment on us all.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Can you please bring your remarks to a close.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat. This should never be an exercise in political point scoring. My party therefore urges all Members to support the amendment by the Women's Coalition.
Mrs E Bell:
This afternoon we have heard a number of speeches, and their substance was based primarily on personal conscience rather than party attitudes. I would like to put forward my personal perspective.
I speak as a woman who has lost children and who was told that she could not bear any more. I was then told that I could not adopt children because I was in a mixed marriage and did not have a stable faith in the home. I have two healthy nephews, although they have difficult problems. One was born with no back passage and a deficient kidney, and the other was born with Down's syndrome. They had no real security of future life, and their parents were advised to abort or to turn off their life support machines. They refused to do either, and those children are now living with difficulty but are surrounded with love and protected by us all. And I would not be without them for a moment. However, abortion, though personally unthinkable, is a complex issue for all of us as legislators and politicans. Alliance has always been a party of freedom of conscience, a party which recognises that although there is strong personal opinion against an issue as sensitive as abortion, individual circumstances must also be taken into account before decisions are made and legislation is drawn up.
We as a party are not in favour of imposing our opinions or prejudices before the needs of the public. Legislation should be drawn up to allow for all eventualities. The criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act are clear enough. Amendments could be looked at for a number of matters. The one which I have a problem with is the period of 24 weeks, which is considered as unsafe in some areas. But abortion on demand is not an option under this legislation.
I do not know how Mr Wells can be so certain of his facts when he talks about how most women have their abortion under category C, and how he thinks -
Mr Wells:
Will the Member give way?
Mrs E Bell:
I will not give way. I am sure Mr Wells can say what he wants to say during his summing up.
Mr Wells said that most abortions are carried out under category C, which covers cases where a pregnancy has not reached its twenty-fourth week and where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated or injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Obviously Mr Wells has never had to prove for himself, but I know women who tried yet found it impossible to satisfy those criteria. His facts are sometimes a bit out of kilter.
At the moment, as others have said, abortion is governed by the 1861 Offences against the Person Act. As we are now in the twenty-first century, do we not deserve better than nineteenth century legislation? Currently we export the problem. Every year, thousands of women travel to England at great expense in terms of time, money and emotion.
3.45 pm
Let there be no doubt about the fact that, in spite of Mr McCrea's comments, women do not lightly choose to terminate any pregnancy. They do it because they feel they must for a number of reasons such as those already mentioned - rape, assault and age. Often these women receive little or no counselling until they arrive in England, because many of the organisations set up to help women with these problems, and perhaps to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, have suffered intimidation and abuse as a result of their efforts to help people in distress.
Suffering the pressures of travel and worrying about the expense that they have incurred, are we really to believe that these women are in the best situation and circumstances to think about and decide on the proper course of action? Are we really to believe that we are best serving their interests by keeping abortion largely illegal here? Because England is so close it is easy for us to keep abortions both illegal and uncommon, but it does not stop abortions from happening, and neither will this motion. All it will do is keep consciences clear.
It is time for us to do more than quieten our consciences. As my Colleague stated earlier, abortion kills. We all know that, but we must look at all of the issues and realise the ramifications of any decision. As politicians and legislators, we must examine the issue, listen to the needs of women and consult the medical profession. This is best done over time and in Committee. We do not seek to justify murder but to allow for the reality of abortion.
After mature thought - not emotional, impassioned and political outbursts - the Committee would be best equipped to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Let us bear that point in mind. We can make recommendations to the Secretary of State only if all in the Chamber can agree. He or she can then take our wishes into consideration and act upon them. As things stand, we have no power in respect of this issue and, in a sense, it matters not a whit what we say today. Power rests at Westminster, and so this debate could be said to be about sound bites, however impassioned, rather than about the needs of women. Because of the complexity and sensitivity of this issue we need informed and objective advice. I support the amendment.
Abortion is too important an issue to be decided on after four hours of debate. All we are doing is posturing for the media, scoring political points and trying to create the best sound bites. The women -
Mr Wells:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon Lady for North Down to mislead the House? This is not a political motion. There is a free vote for all Members from the DUP. This is not a DUP motion. This is a motion that I have tabled. I seek the support of everyone, and I am not doing so in a party political context.
Mrs E Bell:
I am fully aware of that, but the Member cannot deny that there are people who have been scoring political points and trying to create the best sound bite. I believe my remarks to be in order.
Women, people and, certainly, the children - born and unborn - in Northern Ireland deserve better. Life is precious. Surveys carried out in 1993 and 1994 showed that three out of four people in Northern Ireland are in favour of abortion -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Please draw your remarks to a close.
Mrs E Bell:
OK. Let us take the time to act with the courage that Prof McWilliams talked about. Let us do more than make speeches during one afternoon in this Building. Let us discuss the issue over time with consultation and expert advice and support. Let us act responsibly and serve with objectivity the people who elected us.
I support the amendment.
Ms Morrice:
I support the amendment. In tabling this amendment the Women's Coalition is not promoting abortion; we are trying to ensure that there is a mature and responsible debate to enable the Assembly to make a well-informed decision about the diverse reproductive health needs of women. The effects of the DUP motion -
Mr Wells:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon Lady to perpetuate the myth that this is a DUP motion? It is a personal motion that I have tabled.
Ms Morrice:
The effect of Mr Wells's motion will be to close down the debate, and this health issue is too important for that to happen. A show of hands would not do this debate justice. Our amendment will enable all elements to be examined, and we believe it should be supported.
In fact, it is our belief that we share, to a certain extent, a common aim with the proposer of the motion. We also want to see the abortion rate for Northern Ireland reduced. However, banning abortion will not prevent it from happening. We have heard the figures: more than 1,500 women travel from Northern Ireland to England each year to procure terminations. Also, worryingly, a survey conducted by Dr Colin Francome in 1994 found that 11% of Northern Ireland's general practitioners had encountered the after-effects of amateur, otherwise known as "backstreet", abortions.
The main effect of banning abortion is to put women's lives at risk. There have been five known deaths in Northern Ireland as a result of backstreet abortions since 1967. There were no such deaths in Britain in the same period. Additionally, very few of those women who travel to Britain have six-week post-op appointments with their GPs or counselling of any sort. This is so important for their physical and mental health. It may also have ramifications for their future fertility and their emotional well-being.
What makes matters worse is that outdated laws, dating from 1861, 1929 and 1945, govern the legal situation in Northern Ireland. The courts have since offered various interpretations of these laws, but when doctors carry out abortions in Northern Ireland - and, as we have heard, they are carried out under certain circumstances - they do not know whether they may be subject to criminal proceedings. At the very least we need to clarify the legal situation.
How do we go about reducing the abortion rate? We could look at the experience of other countries, and it is very interesting that two Members have already mentioned one country in particular. Joan Carson and David Ervine referred to the Netherlands, and it is true that there are countries where progressive health and family policies are cornerstones. We must address the fact that more of our children are now entering adolescence at the lowest age ever, sometimes around eight. Therefore good, age-appropriate sex education is an important part of the equation as well as free, and freely accessible, contraception.
We have heard that the lowest documented abortion rates are in the Netherlands and Belgium. These are countries that rely on contraception and sex education to maintain low fertility. What our amendment proposes is that we examine what the needs of women in Northern Ireland actually are. We have an unacceptably high abortion rate, and we need to find out why and determine what steps to take, whether that be at policy level, legal level or both. There is no doubt that this is a very difficult and a very delicate subject about which everyone has an opinion, and we have heard all shades this afternoon. I have listened to the opinions expressed before me today, and I shall listen to those after me. It is inappropriate to accuse as criminals, the many thousands of women, young and old, who have had abortions. The Women's Coalition has established a working group on reproductive rights, and the group reflects the range of views of coalition members. The group's work has brought challenges from all perspectives. We will conclude the work soon, and I do not want to pre-empt its conclusions here. Suffice it to say that it takes time, effort, and a lot of research and patience to reach a position on this complex issue. A four-hour divisive debate in the Assembly cannot, and will not, do the subject justice.
Let us give the Secretary of State a steer on this matter. Let us vote to refer this complex issue to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. I urge Members to vote for the amendment and against the motion. Thank you.
Mr McFarland:
Abortion is a serious moral issue. At one level it is a choice between killing a foetus and letting an unborn child live. On the surface, it is an easy choice.
Deeply religious people believe killing is wrong in any circumstance, and I respect their right to that view. However, the issue of taking another life is not that simple. We employ an army to defend our country and kill the enemy, if that is necessary. That is a moral dilemma.
Similarly, if your wife and children are about to be slaughtered by a mad axe-murderer and you have a gun in your hand, do you shoot, or do you stand idly by? It would be a moral dilemma but perhaps not for long.
There is an interesting conundrum connected with the stance against abortion, particularly in America, where many of those who vehemently oppose what they see as the murder of unborn babies have no qualms about shooting dead a doctor who carries out abortions. The morality of killing is not an easy issue, and in some cases it is surrounded by hypocrisy.
Other scenarios raise disturbing moral issues. There is the married couple who, in their forties, have a little too much wine on an Italian holiday and realise that a new arrival would cause chaos to their working life and existing family. More seriously, there is the fourteen-year old school girl raped by an AIDS carrying hoodlum. The assault brings with it the possibility that she may become HIV positive. That would be worrying enough for the girl, without her going on to produce a HIV positive child - a constant reminder of the trauma she had undergone. Then there is the discovery, through a scan, that a baby is severely disabled, and the medical advice indicates that the child is likely to have pain and little quality of life. Is it right to bring such a child into the world?
Most of us do not have to face these dilemmas, and it is extremely difficult for those who do. The subject of abortion, particularly in Northern Ireland, sends politicians scurrying for what they perceive to be the moral high ground. That is a comfort zone in which they can avoid having to address the issue seriously, and it is occupied by many here today.
Abortion is lawful in Northern Ireland. It is grounded in the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, together with Northern Ireland high court decisions between 1991 and 1995 about individuals unable to prove consent by reason of diminished mental competence or age, minors and wards of court who wished to terminate their pregnancies.
Termination of pregnancy is lawful in Northern Ireland under the following conditions: where there is a probable risk of an adverse effect to the physical or mental health of the pregnant women; where there is a probable risk of an adverse effect to the physical or mental well-being of the mother; and where there is a probable risk to the life of the pregnant woman.
There is no provision for lawful termination on the grounds of foetal abnormality, although there are clear indications that such terminations take place here. There is also no provision for termination on the grounds of rape or incest, although opinion-poll evidence suggests that strong popular support exists for such a move.
Figures in 1998 show that around 1,530 women living in Northern Ireland addresses had abortions in Great Britain. Many others are likely not to have given their addresses, so the real annual figure is probably nearer 2,000. This is the political comfort zone which I spoke of. Some might say that we do not need to examine this issue, that those who get pregnant can nip over on the plane and be back the next day, so our conscience is clear. The bad news for those in the comfort zone is that they will not be there for much longer. We in Northern Ireland are about to be overtaken by two waves, which will force us to address this issue properly.
4.00 pm
First, there are to be legal challenges in the area of human rights. These challenges will deal with privacy rights, the right of the woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy and gender equality. Prohibiting abortion has an impact on the life of a woman that cannot be equally imposed on a man.
Secondly, there have been rapid advances in biotechnology and developments in prenatal, genetic diagnostic techniques allowing early identification of genetic abnormalities. In addition, new embryonic stem-cell technology may offer therapies for many degenerative diseases. Such methods require interference with early embryos and foetuses. There is likely to be immense pressure for the law to be changed at Westminster, and here, to allow advantage to be taken of such medical advances.
Those who are fundamental in their beliefs take a clear view on the issue of abortion. I believe that it is a complex issue and that a substantial amount of study is required before those who take a less idealistic view can take an informed decision.
This would be a suitable subject for examination by the Health Committee, which could then report to the Assembly, but it would take a substantial amount of time. It is too early for the Committee to be addressing such a serious issue. The Committee needs to bed down with less potentially divisive topics. We need to address the issue of abortion in detail, but not now.
Mr A Maginness:
Assembly Member Jane Morrice says that the effect of the motion today is to close down the debate on abortion. In fact, it does nothing of the sort, and I am disappointed that an amendment has been moved, because that amendment does nothing to deal with the substance of this motion which is abortion on demand. That is what this debate is all about. It is not about abortion per se; it is about abortion on demand.
The Abortion Act 1967 effectively created a climate of medical opinion and of legal opinion that made abortion on demand possible. I do not believe that Mr David Steel or Mr Roy Jenkins, as they were then, both of whom were the architects of that Act, co-authors as it were, intended, or fully intended, that abortion on demand should be introduced to Great Britain. But the fact is that it was, and we know that from our empirical observations, and we know that from the Lane Committee, which declared that this Act had produced exactly that. The Act gives doctors freedom, perhaps too much freedom, to put their interpretations on the concepts of health. One can think of the 1948 World Health Organization's definition of health, which says that it is a state of physical, mental and social well-being and does not merely mean the absence of disease or infirmity. With that definition a doctor can put a wider interpretation on the physical and mental-health concept than those who take a strictly medical view. And that is, in effect, what has been happening in Britain over the past 40 years.
Doctors have widely interpreted the power afforded to them, diagnostically and otherwise, by this Act. That has led to abortion on demand, and it is that which the House is asked to deal with today - not abortion, but abortion on demand.
Does the House believe that we should endorse abortion on demand? I believe that we should not, and Mr Wells, who moved the motion, has done a good service to the House and to the community by saying clearly that we do not. Producing an amendment which does not tackle this is evading the issue. I wish to see the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and, at a later stage, the House dealing with it, and the Committee is in no way constricted by the passing of this motion from dealing with the matter anyway.
Mr Ervine:
Will the Member show me where the motion states that this is about abortion on demand?
Mr A Maginness:
It is not just implicit but explicit in the motion, and if the Member cannot see that, he is totally - [Interruption]
Mr Ervine:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member constantly uses the words "explicit" and "implicit" with reference to the motion. We are not stupid; we can read what the motion says.
Mr A Maginness:
If the Member is being deliberately obtuse, I cannot help that.
Although the Abortion Act 1967 is bad, the amendment by way of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is even worse, for it gives us a 24-week limit - and that is probably the longest in Europe. Holland is the only comparable country. Abortions are effectively legal when performed in the second trimester, and surely that is appalling. In most other jurisdictions, one is confined to the limits of the first trimester at least.
The additional removal of time limits on the grounds of foetal handicap and in relation to the life of the pregnant woman or to grave and permanent injury to her physical and mental health also does much to erode the protection of the unborn. I hope that this motion also effectively refers to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Mr Wells:
That is an important point. We attempted to table an amendment to the motion to include that, but unfortunately it was too late, and the Speaker ruled it out of order. The intention, however, is to prevent abortion on demand in any form in Northern Ireland, be it under the 1967 Act, the 1990 Act, or any amendment to either.
Mr A Maginness:
I thank the Member for that intervention. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which amended the Abortion Act 1967, effectively presents the House with the 1967 Act as amended. A further amendment by Mr Wells would not in those circumstances be necessary.
We are concerned on the issue of abortion with competing rights, those of the mother, those of the father and those of the unborn child. Those are three competing sets of rights, and we in this jurisdiction, as in any other jurisdiction, shall have to devise ways and means of reconciling them. It is wrong simply to say that there is only one party in this difficult situation that has a right, that being the mother. There are two other sets of rights, and they must also be weighed in the balance. One cannot simply deal with one set of rights exclusively.
There is a strong case to be made for the unborn under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to life, so the rights of the unborn can in fact be safeguarded under that European Convention. To date, legal challenge has failed in relation to that aspect, but given legal developments and the advances in medical science, that may soon be achieved with the European Court.
Once again we find ourselves debating something in this Chamber which, strictly speaking, does not come under our purview as an Assembly. More and more we will come to see that devolution is, unfortunately, very limited. We have seen that in the Appropriation debate and in other debates already. We must move eventually to maximise the power that we can have within this jurisdiction to organise our own lives. This is one area where, in fact, we should be able to exercise that right and that authority. I support the motion.
Mr Carrick:
As a public representative, I am very happy to speak on behalf of the unborn child. Irrespective of what has been said earlier in the debate, I trust that my remarks will not be construed as political or ill-informed. This debate on abortion has been going on for many years. It is not just confined to this four-hour session. The contributions already made by Members show informed opinion about the subject.
I do not underestimate the serious moral, medical and social issues involved. Since the introduction of the Abortion Act 1967 in England, Scotland and Wales it is reported that 180,000 babies have been killed each year by abortion. Prof McWilliams has already referred to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. During the Committee Stage of that Bill, pro-abortion MP Emma Nicholson declared
"The Committee should step away immediately from the fiction that the 1967 Act does not provide abortion on request - of course it does."
She said
"General Practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell that it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion order under the working of the 1967 Act."
These words are from Hansard of 24 April 1990. The issue at stake when discussing abortion is of course the termination of the life of an unborn child. Abortion is the destruction of human life. Abortion is the unlawful killing of children, which of course is murder. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, on which the current law in Northern Ireland is based, recognises four special circumstances where abortion may be carried out. Those have already been referred to on one or two occasions, and I will not repeat them.
There are built into the legislation the necessary safeguards to cover the special extenuating circumstances that have already been mentioned. Indeed, there are probably those who would have moral difficulties in accepting those exceptions. However, I am of the view that there is no need for an extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.