That’s a very good point, Eileen. It’s good to see the hearings teasing these issues out, and I think you’ve just put your finger on one of the main issues, i.e. the unpredictably and lack of clarity in the law in the absence of legislation on X.

@ Eileen, spot on and a good rebuttal of those who actually contend as per John McGuirk on Vincent Browne last night that the existing law is sufficiently clear.

The problem is that legislation which is inhibited by the pernicious Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution cannot deliver an adequate solution. The X Case is very narrow and it does not address the continuum of risk to the life of a pregnant woman point.

As you well made yesterday, is a 5, 10, 20, 30 per cent risk to the life of a pregnant woman acceptable, how can the true risk be assessed and exactly when does the risk to the life of a pregnant woman become real and substantial?

The current legal situation is a complete legal mess and the only way that a real solution can start is by first having a Referendum to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, but that is a political nightmare because it would require political courage and leadership. No politician wants to grasp that nettle, with a few rare exceptions.

I wonder how our obstetricians have been doing so well up to now and not a mention about fear of prosecution until very recently!

@peter I think you got more respect on the other thread.pity as you do make a valid point

What nonsense you talk .

The Catholic Church was not responsible for Article 40.3.3. You’d swear the people had no minds of their own. The Bar Council decision could reflect the fact that this legislation is being pushed through; views are being sought, but Kenny and Gilmore are plainly stating that the decision has been made. What is the point of these submissions on abortion if it’s all done and dusted? Mere window dressing?

In circumstances where a consensus could not be reached, I think that the decision not to participate was the correct one.