The Final Paragraph reads:
There must be a referendum in this case. As a member of the Constitutional Convention, I am particularly aware of the need to engage with the broader context of the Constitution in this matter for the protection of women and the unborn. A blurring of the provision of Article 40.3.3° and the two-patient model it inspires is not the way forward. A referendum is the only way to finally judge the view and wishes of the nation in this matter. I am totally opposed to abortion and would not stand over any legislation that would introduce abortion on demand in this country.
Deputy Bannon’s full speech may be accessed on this link
It is also reprinted here below:
''...In order to discuss this report and its ramifications, we must focus on the findings of the expert group and their implications for the issue of abortion legislation. However, given the tragic circumstances of Savita Halappanavar's death in Galway in late October and the efforts of both sides - the pro and anti-abortion lobbies - it is impossible not to include it in any discussion of A, B and C v. Ireland and the report before us.That this sad occurrence is now an integral discussion point associated with the findings of the report is a testament to the power of the media and indicative of an exercise in opportunism, shamefully focused on the death of Savita. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt sympathy to her husband and family. While I cannot adequately express my horror at the sad death of Savita, I have had a sense of disquiet from the moment her situation was highlighted. The timing of the release of the information regarding her circumstances on the morning after the report under discussion was given to the Minister for Health was questionable to say the least. I am sure that it was no coincidence that, although she died on 28 October, her death was not extensively reported until the day after this report was delivered to the Minister. The circumstances of her death have been shamefully used as a justification mechanism by both the pro and anti-abortion lobbies.One could perhaps call the revelations about Savita's death coincidental, but the resultant media outbursts and overwrought reactions seem too opportunistic for that. From being a weapon to try to force the Government's hand, I hope that calm will prevail and that this report will be assessed and viewed in an independent light. However, I am anxious that any legislation should not be rushed through in a knee-jerk reaction to the report, the death of Savita and the other matters that are impacting on it.Having had major reservations about the timing of the news of Savita's death, the publication of which came as a shock and surprise to her family, the fact that there is now a question mark over some of the reporting of the facts of the case only serves to add credence to the opportunism of the exposure of this tragic death. I am shocked to read that the sequence of events may have been at least muddled but, at worst, distorted. That what was reported or not reported, whatever way one looks at it, prompted a recent independent inquiry into the death of Savita, was inexcusable.Despite the worldwide reporting to the contrary, Ireland is not in the dark ages medically. I have always been of the opinion that judgment should be reserved until the independent reports into Savita's death have been published. Medical opinion at the highest level is divided on this case, but only an in-depth investigation or investigations will give all of the facts. That people with little or no medical background are rushing to judgment and being listened to is extraordinary.While it could be said that discussing the circumstances of Savita's situation is to diverge from the matters concerning us vis-à-vis this report, timing and media intervention have made it part and parcel of any discussion on abortion or abortion-related topics. The most important aspect of the current report is that it shows the need to bring clarity for the health of the women of Ireland and those treating them. It should not be regarded as an invitation for the pro and anti sides of the abortion debate to stir up that debate in a manner that is designed to cloud the issues as presented by the report.It is essential that we try to separate this report on the A, B and C v. Ireland case from the upcoming reports into the death of Savita Halappanavar so as to provide clarity and safety for mothers-to-be and to copperfasten guidelines for the medical profession.Abortion in cases of potential suicide is very much an ongoing debate. It is a particularly grey area and one that is open to abuse. Should this provision be included in any future legislation, it would require medical guarantees and judgements, which would be extremely difficult, given that a decision would have to be made in what would necessarily be a fraught and rushed scenario. The threat of suicide is used as a tool in many different ways. I speak outside and beyond the area of the termination of pregnancy, but the implicit threat of suicide is one that is extremely difficult to rationalise and could lead to abortion on demand in the broadest sense. While there is, as yet, a lack of well-established medical evidence, it is held that abortion can negatively affect a woman's mental health. However, in a recent poll on the X Case, 85% of respondents said they supported legislation allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide; 10% said they would not support it and; 5% said they did not know. On the other hand, a separate question excluding the threat of suicide as grounds for termination was supported by 63%. Such surveys are totally dependent on the way questions are framed and are by no means conclusive.While I fully agree with the need for legal certainty and clear guidelines for pregnant women, the issue of threatened suicide is likely to be potentially abused. I do not believe the unintentional death of a baby while medical care is given to the mother should be regarded as abortion. I do not advocate the viewpoint of the Catholic Church or any other organisation, but the church, despite accusations to the contrary, does not teach that the life of the child in the womb should be preferred to that of a mother but rather that both are sacred with an equal right to life. In addition, where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of the child at risk, such intervention is ethically permissible provided every option has been exhausted to save both the mother and the child. It is standard medical practice in this country to do everything possible to save the life of a pregnant woman when complications arise. That may include interventions which result unintentionally in the death of a baby. Death in such circumstances does not constitute abortion. As it stands, the Medical Council's guidelines are very clear. Women in pregnancy must receive all necessary medical treatment to protect their lives, even where the death of the baby unavoidably results. The Supreme Court has already established that women with complications whose lives are at risk must have, or be allowed, therapeutic intervention.Much abuse has been heaped on the situation in Ireland and the lack of availability of abortion on demand. It might be more appropriate to consider the benefits or otherwise of such a determination by the State. In the UK, for example, 6 million abortions have taken place since the introduction into law there of the Abortion Act in 1967. That is now leading to a situation where people consider it a right to abort a foetus on grounds of sex or even to take matters to extremes, which might be implausible as yet, on the basis of eye colour. What makes it a right of the human condition to abort a foetus at will or on a whim? I hope that will never be the situation in this country where we have forged a medically and morally acceptable protection of the mother, while accepting the right to life of the unborn. We have come a long way in this country since the days when a husband would be told in the same breath that his wife had died and that he had a beautiful baby girl or boy. The reality was often indescribably tragic. A family might already consist of six or more children who would be left without a mother and a grieving husband without a wife. Sense has prevailed and directed our actions. I hope that will continue to be the case.I am puzzled by the statement of the Taoiseach late last month that he wanted to get "maximum consensus" to settle the divisive issue of abortion. He further elaborated by saying this is not a matter for any individual parties, this is a matter for the country to get maximum consensus on what is the best and correct thing to do here. I could not agree more but, nonetheless, I am at a loss to know how that can be achieved without a referendum. Such consensus would be extremely hard to gauge without a referendum. However, the Taoiseach has ruled out a referendum and we are told there is no appetite in the country for such. That is not the case and after 20 years of foot-dragging by previous Administrations, we urgently need to gauge the view of the country and to adhere to people's wishes on the matter.There must be a referendum in this case. As a member of the Constitutional Convention, I am particularly aware of the need to engage with the broader context of the Constitution in this matter for the protection of women and the unborn. A blurring of the provision of Article 40.3.3° and the two-patient model it inspires is not the way forward. A referendum is the only way to finally judge the view and wishes of the nation in this matter. I am totally opposed to abortion and would not stand over any legislation that would introduce abortion on demand in this country.