The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Yesterday’s news on abortion, today, or tomorrow. Or something… April 30, 2013

Well, that caption makes as much sense as some of the proposed legislation…

The issue of the day… April 30, 2013

So. Today is the day, or perhaps tomorrow, depending on reports in the media. Three doctors or four, or two. A ‘deal’ has been struck and the Protection of Maternal Life Bill 2013 will, presumably go forward. And it’s no small step either, even if deeply constrained. By the way, Peter Mathews performance last night on Vincent Browne was instructive, but not in a good way.

Anyhow, reading the Irish Times yesterday morning and the contention that the abortion debate was becoming more ‘fractious’ on foot of the cod-revelations in the Sunday Independent on Sunday that – shock, swoon, some Labour TDs actually sought to move towards a ‘further liberalisation’ of abortion laws beyond X legislation, it struck me that the Constitution plays a strange role in all this.

It is regarded as the rock upon which all else stands or falls – by the anti-abortion side and yet is also regarded, and this simultaneously, as somehow being unfit for purpose. How else to explain the dissonance evident in the views of many Fine Gael TDs on the matter (or sheer ignorance displayed on the VB show last night?).

For example, we know that any measures to introduce legislation on foot of the X case today will be minimal enough, that there will be significant areas where even in the constrained provision of abortion that will become the status quo which will not be addressed.

And yet, consider the following:

Galway West Fine Gael TD Brian Walsh expressed disquiet at the views expressed in the taped conversations: “It is clearly the case that legislation providing for abortion in the case of suicidal ideation is seen as a stepping stone to abortion on demand by Sinn Féin, Deputy Clare Daly and some Labour TDs quoted in the Sunday Independent .”

And:

Mr Walsh said he fully supported the Taoiseach and the Government but he would be failing in his responsibility if he knowingly participated in the enactment of legislation that was fundamentally flawed.

Yet his argument makes little sense if it is the Constitution that is the bedrock of curtailing abortion provision, and also, and this is more important again, that the Constitution as expressed by the relevant amendments represents the will of the citizens of this state. Because if the latter is correct then as long as legislation remains within the Constitution then it is indeed broadly representing the will of citizens. That doesn’t mean that legislation won’t be open to a challenge, but assuming they get it alright on the night the chances of any such challenges being successful should be limited.

Moreover it is clear from successive Constitutional amendments that the citizens of the Republic are, shall we say, equivocal about matters some would prefer them not to be. When offered the choice to amend it in such a way as to exclude the threat of suicide they’ve resiled. As, is understandable.

Of course in reality the Constitution is in no sense the hallowed document some might think in this discussion, but is instead a rampart or a buttress, there to be used when necessary and discarded when not.

And this means that the suicide option is entirely Constitutional, how could it be otherwise given the outcomes of referendums? Small wonder that a raft of FG luminaries, including…

…John Deasy, Peter Matthews, Michelle Mulherin and James Bannon have expressed opposition to the inclusion of the suicide option.

They have to, because all this proves is that it is perhaps beyond the wit of woman and man to provide ‘copper fastened’ legislation in matters such as this. For all the certainty expressed there will always be contention or grey areas.

There’s another point that is worth noting about the Sunday Independent fracas. There seems to be an attitude abroad, as evidenced by the Independent itself running the interviews and some of the response to it, that politicians pushing a pro-choice line are somehow out of bounds, that his aim is in and of itself unreasonable or reprehensible.

How else to explain Walsh’s thoughts or the following comment:

Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton, the most prominent Fine Gael opponent of the plan to legislate for suicide, said the disclosure was worrying. “It is a matter of concern if that is the intent of the Labour Party,” she said.

I find this inexplicable. Creighton knows that this is a democracy of sorts, and that in a democracy it is entirely reasonable for people to hold and propose views. She also knows – none better – the difference between personal views on a matter and the policy of a party. Her colleague, one L. Varadker, could explain that distinction in relation to issues of the public service etc.

All Creighton has to do is to go to the Cabinet table and address the Tanaiste if she requires clarification on the matter.

Granted the LP has been somewhat vague over the years on the issue, but its broad thrust of legislation for X and a sympathy towards the extension of abortion provision is hardly a massive secret. Or any secret at all. It’s probably not the party to join if you are a convinced anti-abortion advocate.

So all of this is a bit amateur hour on drama night.

But Creighton also knows, and again few better, that in order for any extension to abortion provision, beyond that allowed under X, would require a referendum. The practical politics of this are simply that it is vanishingly unlikely that any such referendum will be put before the Irish people under this government, or – I’d be willing to bet – it’s successor.

So this too is entirely rhetorical. Her stand is, in some respects meaningless. Inclusion of suicidal ideation as a reason for permitting abortion is Constitutional. It has to be legislated for. it will presumably, whether six doctors or two, be ring fenced and made difficult to access. It does not lead to abortion on demand in the sense that term is used anywhere else.

It is entirely possible that this provision will alter attitudes to abortion in this state. But attitudes have changed already and one suspects will continue to do so whether this is introduced now or not.

Creighton knows precisely the room for movement on the issue at hand, what is possible, what isn’t possible and where a grey area may exist.

It really is disingenuous of so many, but particular those in FG on the anti-abortion provision side, to pretend otherwise (it’s hardly worth adding that politically taking a pro-choice or anti-abortion approach is entirely valid – even if people disagree deeply, it’s how a view is presented that is the issue being addressed above).

But it strikes me that politically this is very interesting. Watching people parade their consciences is hardly an edifying sight at the best of times, but is it possible that this time we’re seeing this parade being staged due to weakness (even taking into account the minimal nature of the provision noted above) rather than strength?

One would have to hope so, no?

Such courage… April 29, 2013

… is the thought that comes to mind reading that Fine Gael TD, Brian Walsh, is willing to lose the Fine Gael whip over the proposed abortion legislation.

He claimed his stance had the potential to end his career within the Fine Gael parliamentary party, “and probably the end of my political career, full stop”.

That I should live to see this day, a day that in years to come women and men will speak of in hushed tones. A day when they will ask in those ages yet before us what stuff was this man made of that when it came to his political allegiance or his conscience he knew which route to take? Not the route of party patronage or ambition but the one of…

…er… what exactly? Losing the whip? What’s the worst that can happen to the man? He can it is true be forced from the FG offices in the Dáil into the outer darkness of Agriculture House where the Independents and one or two LP apostates languish. Other than that, depending on whether there is room, he will suffer in no functional way whatsoever. He will remain a member of the FG party. He will, almost certainly, vote with the government in all votes (something that the LP dissidents don’t – for the most part).

His suffering is hardly existential.

And given that there’s a small left party’s worth of Labour TDs (and MEP) – or should that be a medium sized left party’s worth – who have already lost the LP whip and somehow the gesture seems… well… not very much at all.

Meanwhile look who has joined the fray, why it’s John Bruton…

[who] said introducing a law on the suicide threat “was not something that should be done under the pressure of artificial deadlines”.
Writing in today’s Irish Independent, he said: “The notion that a simple threat of suicide would make right something that would otherwise be wrong is a really dangerous principle.”

Oh dear. It’s not as simple as right and wrong, at least not in that sense. But then one must echo Fintan O’Toole’s thoughts – granted not a man often quoted here for various reasons – that given what we are told the stakes are in relation to abortion it is remarkable how casual, on some levels, those against it actually are. If it is as ‘wrong’ as he suggests then why not bar pregnant women from leaving the state, or ban all information on the procedure, or… or could it be that this isn’t an issue that is amenable to such measures, whatever the rhetoric. And people know it.

Remember, this man was our Taoiseach.