I had intended to raise a different issue but I might get around to it during my address. During the Order of Business we regularly hear stories from our national newspapers, be it the Irish Independent or The Irish Times. They dominate what is said in the House and I find it annoying. The House should lead public opinion rather than be led by it. However, it would be remiss of me, having been given the opportunity to lead for my party, not to address the lead stories today by both of our main national newspapers. I refer to the story of the poor woman named Savita Halappanavar.

I ask the Senator to refrain from naming people who are not here to defend themselves.

The case has been well documented. The story resonated with me given the age of the woman and her husband and the fact that they were expecting their first child. It was a happy time for them. I know from my time spent working and teaching in England and from my experiences of the Hindu people that they are peace loving and abhor violence of any kind. This morning my thoughts and condolences - I speak for my party - are with the family.

The case will bring to a head the debate that surrounds abortion here. Both sides have debated the matter in the Chamber but the subject has polarised Senators. I know that as a politician, going door to door in County Limerick, one does not like when the subject is raised and perhaps we try not to deal with it. Members of this House, on both sides, must take some degree of responsibility for the polarising effects of the debate. It is not the kind of debate that should take place in the corridors of Trinity College Dublin. What happened to the lady in Galway could have happened to my wife, to any of our daughters or any of our granddaughters. It is 20 years since the Supreme Court ruling and two referendums have been held. It is time that the Government grasped the nettle and introduced legislation.

The Senator is running over time.

I shall finish on my next point. I am not pro-choice. I am not pro-life. I find it difficult to understand what those terms mean. I speak for many members of the parliamentary party of the Labour Party when I say that we do not want to see abortion on demand but we cannot allow a repeat of the situation in Galway.

I welcome the fact that Senator Heffernan has raised the matter so sensitively. It is clear that the matter must be addressed. A young woman in the prime of life and full of vitality was taken from her family. Apparently certain facts have been established. She was admitted to hospital suffering from severe pain. It increased and got worse after a day and she and her family requested a termination. At that point the baby could not have been born alive and the death of the child was inevitable, medically. She again requested a termination. If the newspaper reports to which Senator Heffernan referred are accurate she was told not once, but on several occasions, that the law meant that as long as the foetal heartbeat was detectable, even though the child was inevitably going to die, she could not have the procedure. Apparently she was also told - this is very worrying - that this was a Catholic country.

This is certainly a country in which there is considerable respect for the Roman Catholic Church historically. The overwhelming majority of people give adherence to that belief. However, I would not like to think, as somebody who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that this was a Catholic state. We have made provision by removing an Article from the Constitution to ensure that all beliefs should be treated separately. The husband apparently indicated that he was neither Irish nor Catholic but a Hindu like his wife.

We stand condemned because of our lack of courage in facing the issue. It is many years since the X case and we have been rebuked by the courts for not providing legislation. That is due to a lack of political courage, perhaps an understandable one. Three questions need to be answered by legislation. Minimal legislation allows a woman to travel from the country but we have been warned by the European Court of Human Rights that there is opacity in the law. That makes it difficult for doctors or anybody else to determine what is the situation. It seems to me that there are three questions that require an answer. First, at what point in a health crisis can the mother legitimately seek a termination? It is legitimate, apparently, under the law but we do not know at what point. We need to answer the following. At what point can she legitimately seek a termination?

Second, to what extent can a patient be denied access to this treatment because of the conscientious objection of a consultant? Third, to what extent is a patient entitled to a second opinion, how quickly and also alternative appropriate treatment? These are very important matters that need to be dealt with. I have tried to be factual in as far as I understand the case. I have indicated that this is a tragic situation. Of course one sends one's sympathy to the bereaved family. We must face up to the situation. I believe I have isolated three clear questions in a neutral, non-controversial and non-aggressive manner that we, as legislators, need to answer.