Then and now

Last February in the Irish Times, under the heading ‘we have come a long way since the 1983 abortion vote’, the respected UCD historian, Diarmaid Ferriter, offered some reflections on the 1983 referendum in Ireland on the pro-life amendment.

His opening paragraphs quoted a well-known sound bite by journalist Gene Kerrigan about the referendum, ‘the moral civil war’ and journalist Eamonn McCann’s dictum that ‘abortion is as Irish as the little green shamrock’. Ferriter also drew on Kerrigan’s trenchant critique in Magill magazine of ‘the rabid accusations, the political speeches from the pulpit, the poison pen letters, the threatening phone calls, the attacks on the media’. In short, Prof Ferriter argued, the referendum was toxic and divisive and combined ‘denial’ of reality, ‘hypocrisy’, ‘abstract arguments’ and ‘righteous moralising’. ‘Coming a long way’ apparently meant that we Irish are now interested in ‘evidence and personal testimony’ – though on one side of the debate only – and have come to accept abortion as an ‘Irish reality requiring an Irish response.’

The national media took an overwhelmingly negative approach to the 1983 referendum at the time and since. However, it does not seem unreasonable to expect a somewhat greater sense of perspective, balance and indeed originality from a prominent historian. We are living in unusual times when historians rely so heavily on tendentious journalistic accounts of our recent past. Any fair analysis of 1983 should reflect on the context of abortion law and practice in other countries in the 1970s and 1980s, on the way debate on abortion has been closed down in countries with ‘liberal’ abortion laws and indeed on the legal rights of the unborn – surely an issue of some importance and not just an obscure ‘abstract argument.’

Ferriter began his article by mentioning Thomas Hesketh’s account of that referendum, The Second Partitioning of Ireland? (Brandsma Books, 1990) Although he referred to this book, it was not to reflect on any of its findings but only to quote its colourful title. Prof Ferriter failed to note that, unlike the journalists he mentioned, Hesketh offered a scrupulously fair and balanced account of the arguments on both sides of the amendment campaign.

It’s true that the 1983 referendum was divisive but it is more accurate to say that it revealed more than caused divisions. Any abusiveness on the pro-life side of the debate was wrong, and it is important never to forget that our opponents in political debates are human beings and fellow-citizens who merit our full respect. At the same time, any fair account of the 1983 referendum should also acknowledge that there were extremely caustic/virulent descriptions in the media of the proposed amendment and its supporters and that the national media spoke with one voice on the issue to a disturbing extent.

Important issues do cause or reveal division and this is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that differences are articulated respectfully. As a grassroots supporter of the 1983 referendum, I remember vigorous but respectful debates at my trade union branch and in my workplace.

The overwhelming orthodoxy in the media and in academic publications since 1983 has been that the Pro-Life or Eighth Amendment was a political con trick with little real public support. In spite of this orthodoxy, and indeed of relentless propaganda about the alleged iniquities of the amendment over the last thirty-five years, there is likely to be a very substantial vote in favour of retention of the amendment in the forthcoming referendum. In other words, there is a much deeper level of support for the amendment than has been generally acknowledged in the media or in academic accounts. Whether that will be a majority or minority vote remains to be seen. 

Moreover, given that the Supreme Court has decided in March that the unborn have no Constitutional rights beyond those acknowledged in the Eighth Amendment, this certainly would seem to reinforce the argument made in 1983 that the Amendment was vitally necessary for the unborn and for those who care about their rights.

The holding of a referendum offers the public an opportunity to reflect, and to have their say, on this deeply important issue. Earlier this year, the RTÉ radio Drivetime programme offered its listeners a brief overview of abortion law in other countries. The implicit argument seemed to be that ‘conservative’ Ireland was out of step with our more ‘liberal’ neighbours. What the programme failed to note, however, was that one important difference between Ireland and other countries was that, unlike many other peoples, the Irish were consulted in 1983 about the abortion issue.

If we are now facing into a referendum on abortion, it is precisely because the passage of the Eighth Amendment ensured that we in Ireland must be consulted on this life-and-death issue. If, however, we repeal the Amendment, the chances of being consulted again on the substantive issue are likely to be slim indeed.