The referendum: just vote no

The right thing to do in the upcoming referendum on abortion is to Vote No. Not only that: if you know anyone who has the right to vote but who might not go to the polling booths, or who is currently undecided as to how he or she will finally lean on the issue, then it is vital to do everything in your power to convince that person to make the effort on polling day, to use their democratic prerogative – and to also Vote No.

One of the most frequent observations made about this referendum is that there is a lack of clarity, that people are confused. I have seldom felt a greater sense of clarity about any issue of this kind, for the following reasons…

1. In the X Case, the Supreme Court permitted the young girl who was pregnant at the time, to travel to England to have an abortion, on the grounds that she was potentially suicidal. The decision was a good one, which reflected a genuine sense of compassion and an understanding of the plight of someone who has been made pregnant in circumstances that involve gross exploitation or violence of one kind or another. It is utterly wrong that an attempt is now being made by the Government to undo the genuine human good that was intended by that ruling.

2. The second – and I believe utterly compelling – reason is that the potential effect of a Yes vote is that the use of the Morning After Pill and the IUD might, as a direct result of this Referendum, become a criminal act. This would place both the prescribing doctor and any woman who uses either of these devices at risk of receiving a jail sentence of 12 years. This is utterly outrageous – a new and frightening threat to womens’ freedom of a kind that would rank this country among the most repressive in the world in relation to matters of so-called sexual morality.

The suggestion that what are currently standard treatments might be criminalised in the wake of the Referendum is not mere idle speculation. The government have told us that they sought legal opinion on the matter and that the new definition of abortion in the Human Life in Pregnancy Bill, which will come into law if the Referendum is passed, “presumes that the IUD and the morning after pill will have legal protection.” However, it is quite clear that legal opinion is hopelessly divided on this very issue. The Government’s own appointed body, the Referendum Commission, disagrees with the position taken by the Government. So does the Catholic Hierarchy. What’s more, it has already been declared by members of the so-called pro-life movement that, if indeed the Referendum is passed, a legal challenge will be mounted via the courts, which will have the express purpose of establishing that the IUD and the morning after pill are abortifacients – and therefore, under the new regime imposed by the Referendum, that they will be subject to criminal sanction, including criminal sanction against the woman.

It is thoroughly disgraceful that the people of Ireland are being asked to vote on this issue while such a fundamental question remains unresolved.

Do the Government’s reassurances on the matter have any credibility? They do not. The Supreme Court has confounded the assumptions of successive Governments in the past. It is highly probable that they would do so again.

In other words, we are being asked to vote effectively with a blindfold on, and without any certainty as to what the effect of a Yes vote would ultimately be. In the context, the only option is to vote no.

3. In the circumstances, you’d have thought that the Government would have been at pains to ensure that there was sufficient time to fully debate all of the issues arising from the wording of the Referendum, and the Act that it contains.

Instead, however, when they set the date on which the poll would take place, they allowed the minimum possible time for discussion and debate. It is an old trick and a deeply dishonourable one. The assumption is that by effectively stifling debate and rushing a provision of this kind through, the likelihood of pulling the wool over people’s eyes will be increased. This kind of disreputable cynicism should be given the rebuff that it deserves. When a Government – any Government – behaves in this way, there is only one logical response. Whatever position they are advocating should, as a matter of principle, be rejected. Vote No.

4. It is a responsibility of Government to ensure that there is sufficient time for the Referendum Commission to fully and properly carry out its function of informing the electorate of the different views, both for and against any proposed change in the Constitution. This has not been done. The Commission initially declared that it did not have the necessary time to get a proposed leaflet, which would attempt to outline the conflicting arguments on the issue, to every household in the country. That position has apparently been modified. However, the likelihood, as polling day approaches, is that they will not in fact be in a position to fulfil their statutory function in any kind of meaningful way.

Whether the proposed leaflets reach every household before polling day, or not, it is completely unacceptable that the Commission should have been put in a position by the Government where there is a genuine doubt about their ability to perform the job that is the agency’s raison d’être. To be clear about this, the date for the Referendum could have been delayed by a week, or two, or even by a month if necessary. The only conclusion to which a reasonable person can come is that this was a deliberate decision on the Government’s part to render the Commission powerless or ineffective. If for no other reason than that they have undermined a statutory body in this provocative and insulting way, the correct response is to reject the Government’s proposal. Vote No.

5. The decision to hold the Referendum, in the first place, represents the lowest form of political expediency. In order to form a Government, a commitment was given to a small number of independent TDs that a Referendum would be held with the specific purpose of rolling back the judgement of the Supreme Court in the X case. We have now been foisted with this stupid, divisive and misguided Amendment to the Constitution to keep that gang of four sweet.

There is no other reason for this Referendum. Lest there be any doubt in relation to this, all you have to do is to ask why the poll is taking place within a matter of months of the upcoming General Election. This is the longest-running Government in the history of the State. It would have been eminently feasible to bring this constitutional Amendment before the people at a much earlier stage in the life of the Government. But, no: the prospect of it coming down the turnpike eventually was used to keep the appalling likes of Jackie Healy Rea and Harry Blaney trooping into the Dail and voting the Government’s legislation through.

The saps did it, like lemmings. This is their reward. And how many people do these four galoots represent? In the national scheme of things, very few. For the sheer undemocratic and expedient nature of the whole charade, from start to finish, the correct response is to Vote No.

6. There are, of course, deeper issues involved. Is it right that a woman, or a girl, who is the victim of rape or incest, should be forced to carry the embryo that results from such a hateful, and in the case of rape violent, act of that kind to full term? On the contrary, any such demand is an injustice to the individual woman involved, that screams to high heaven. The ultimate objective of those who have sponsored this Amendment is to make it as difficult as possible for women and girls who find themselves in this tragic situation to have an abortion. And, to be clear about it, there is nothing in this Referendum, which provides the slightest element of comfort or support to the victims of circumstances such as this.

Make no mistake: for people who have been violently assaulted, this Referendum is a deeply retrogressive step that has the potential to make their traumatic circumstances even more terrible. In solidarity with anyone who has ever been assaulted or defiled in this way, we should Vote No.

I could go on – about the hypocrisy of the Progressive Democrats, who once had the distinction of being a genuinely liberal party on issues of individual morality but who have sold out miserably to Fianna Fail on this issue, for example – but I won’t. Far from being confusing, I believe that the picture is abundantly clear. We are potentially at a major turning point in the history of this nation. To allow this Amendment to be passed, by neglecting to go to the polls and thus by failing to vote no, would be a terrible mistake. It would be to collude with the most stealthily reactionary elements in Irish society. And it would be to reward the basest kind of political cynicism.

I appeal to everyone who reads this not just to Vote No themselves, but to use every power of persuasion they can muster to convince anyone they know, of voting age, to do likewise.

Vote No. A thousand times, Vote No.