The real Citizens’ Assembly

Voices in the pro-life community are calling the Rally for Life march which took place in Dublin at the beginning of July this year the real Citizens’ Assembly. I can understand why they might think so.

The Citizens’ Assembly was set up by the Government to find out where people stood on the issue of abortion and come up with recommendations as to whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which acknowledges the right of the unborn child to life, should be repealed or retained, and, should it recommend repealing it, to put forward suggestions as to what kind of abortion regime should follow.

It should be noted that there was widespread cynicism about this Assembly on both sides of the debate when it was first suggested. Pro-lifers felt is was the Government’s way of avoiding the inevitable political fall-out that would come from introducing a referendum to repeal the Eighth to an electorate that not only had made it clear that such a referendum was not a high priority for it but was also not in favour of abortion on demand even if it was no longer as clearly pro-life as it once was. On the other hand the pro-abortion side regarded the Assembly as a delaying tactic, a way of putting off the referendum it had been working so hard to see take place for many years.

Even before it began, pro-life organisations were dubious about the Assembly, believing that it was designed to produce only one result – that is, a recommendation for repeal of the Eighth followed by a liberalisation of abortion laws in this country. They continued to be very critical of the Assembly while it was in session, pointing to what they claimed was a lack of balance in the speakers making presentations to it. Too many, they felt, were pro-abortion. So it came as no surprise to pro-life groups that the Assembly ultimately recommended not only repealing the Eighth but called for abortion to be legalised in almost all circumstances and to effectively bring in abortion on demand.

But this result was quite a shock to pro-abortion advocates. They had hoped, I believe, that the Assembly would indeed recommend that the Eighth be repealed, but basically on the grounds that it was necessary to do so on “compassionate” grounds, in order to facilitate abortions in what are usually referred to as the “hard cases” such as rape, incest, and situations where the unborn child suffers from a condition where he or she is not expected to live long after birth. With the Eighth no longer in place to protect the rights of the unborn child to life, the hope was that they would soon be able to pressure the government into ever more liberal abortion laws and and if that pressure failed, they would take to the courts in this country and elsewhere confident that, with the Eighth gone, litigation would force the government to bring in the kind of liberal abortion legislation that they could not bring in by democratic means.

Even the most liberal sections of the media, however had to acknowledge that the Assembly had gone too far with its recommendations. They hadn’t much choice; even the proverbial “dogs in the street” knew that its proposals were wildly out of kilter with public opinion. And polls conducted shortly after the Assembly finished its work confirmed this; these made it clear that while there may be a wide diversity of opinion when it comes to abortion in this country, very few indeed wanted to bring in the abortion on demand that the Assembly was calling for.

This made its recommendations something of a disappointment to the pro-abortion side; not so much with what it had proposed, for it would seem quite obvious that what it had called for was essentially what pro-abortion advocates ultimately hoped to see as the legislative regime in this country, but rather that by going so far in what it was calling for that not only had the Assembly made it abundantly clear what the end-goal of this campaign was, it had also put forward proposals so extreme that they had little likelihood of being passed. Much as the pro-abortion side had chafed at the delay they saw the Assembly as being, even worse would be a referendum to repeal the Eighth that was rejected by the people because it had been made abundantly clear that repealing it would inevitably lead to, and was intended to lead to, abortion on demand. Such a rejection would set the pro-abortion agenda back a very long time indeed, because it would be years before anyone could reasonably hope to try and call another referendum on this issue.

Ironically the Assembly, which is generally acknowledged as having failed to give a true picture of where the people stand on abortion, is nonetheless still being used as the justification for a referendum on abortion. What form that referendum will take and what recommendations it will put before the people still remains to be seen. But the government has said repeatedly that a referendum will take place in 2018. However, that promise places the pro-abortion side in what might be considered to be something of a Catch-22 situation. Pope Francis has scheduled a visit that year. Not surprisingly the pro-abortion lobby fear that his visit might inspire something of a Catholic revival in Ireland that would most likely doom any chances of a vote to repeal the Eighth in its aftermath. So they need the referendum to take place before he comes. However, they also realise they need time to “re-educate” people concerning the merits of abortion and to construct a convincing formula that makes it look like repealing the Eighth will not open the doors to abortion on demand in this country. So they can afford neither to rush nor to wait as doing either risks costing them the “prize” of winning the referendum to repeal.

It should also be noted that coming up with a way of convincing the public that it is possible to both repeal the Eighth and at the same not introduce a regime of abortion on demand is a very tall order indeed. The introduction of the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which allowed for abortion in certain circumstances, was brought in despite specific electoral promises that no abortion legislation of any kind would be introduced. This previous betrayal has left people wary of trusting politicians when it comes to this issue. And the media, used to being the only game in town when it comes to influencing public opinion, has had its position undermined in recent years by online platforms and social media outlets. People get their information from many sources these days, not just radio, television, and newspapers. The influence of the traditional media has been further weakened over the last few years by a documented decline in public trust. People, to put it bluntly, have come to realise that those working in the old media are, on many issues, not as interested in reporting what happens as they are in influencing outcomes,  and as a result they are paying less attention to what those in the media have to say.

All this must make the Rally for Life very worrying for those promoting abortion. Tens of thousands of people came to march – perhaps as many 80,000 and probably no less than 50,000 – and they sent a very unambiguous message. That message can be summarised as follows: life begins at conception; no one has the right to deliberately end the life of an unborn child; and the Eighth Amendment is the only way to protect that right and must be retained.  By contrast the “counter rally” organised by pro-abortion groups to oppose the march attracted very few supporters. The highest estimate of those who came to express a contrary view to the marchers was two hundred; lower estimates puts it at half that.

So tens of thousands came to support the Eighth Amendment and celebrate the countless thousands of lives it has saved over the years, and only a few dozen turned out calling for its repeal. This seems to give a pretty clear picture of where the people stand. And where they stand is diametrically opposed to the breathtakingly liberal pro-abortion recommendations made by the Assembly. And so it therefore also makes very strong case that pro-life voices are correct in saying that when it comes to representing the views of the man and woman in the street who will be voting when and if a referendum takes place the Rally for Life was the true Citizens’ Assembly.