Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The first point I noticed was the difference between Senator Burke’s rationale for opposing this very sensible amendment and that of the Minister’s. I have great respect for Senator Burke. He has been a very thoughtful and well-researched contributor to debates in this House. I felt, however, his rationale for opposing Senator Walsh's amendment showed he was not at his best in his analysis.

I note the Minister resorted to the view it is simply not necessary. Senator Bradford said much of what I was going to say. In light of the offence as identified in section 22, namely, that “it is an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life”, it simply does not make logical sense to reject Senator Walsh’s amendment.

There are very clear issues at stake. For example, across the water obstetricians, the people who are skilled in saving life, are also, sadly, the people skilled in taking life when that life is not wanted as a matter of choice. I recall reading one excerpt from a scholarly article by a very distinguished academic obstetrician in Britain in which he described the procedures for the late-term termination of pregnancy. He referred to intra-cardiac injection of potassium chloride being the optimum approach. It is the injection of a poison into the child’s heart. This is from a member of the establishment in Britain. This illustrates the radical difference in the cultures of our two countries.

That was why I opposed the nomination of that very scholar as the Chairman of the HSE inquiry into the tragic death of the late Savita.