Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The 2002 referendum was my first referendum vote. I worked in the private sector for 15 years and then headed up different children and youth NGOs, both in a voluntary and professional capacity. In these roles, I have always listened to the debate but I have never had to actively formulate a position. I am a little nervous now because this is the first time I am publicly stating how I feel on this issue.

The hearings we held, both in January and over the past three days, have given me an opportunity to form a definitive position. I want to begin by thanking all of the experts, both in January and over the past three days, for their informative and sometimes contradictory testimonies. All have been extremely useful. I thank my colleagues, the secretariat and, in particular, the Chairman, Deputy Buttimer.

I can now say in confidence that I support the Government's decision to legislate. These heads of the Bill only deal with difficult, rare and complex circumstances.

Of course, I would add some caveats. I am concerned about us separating out physical and mental health. In the wider public debate, it will be a step back for us. Therefore, I believe that heads 2 and 4 should be merged. I have not heard legal reasoning - obviously, I have heard contradictory reasoning - but from what I have taken, I do not believe that they should be distinguished. As noted by the expert group, differentiated treatment does not appear to be required for medical or practical reasons. Dr. McCarthy stated that suicide in pregnancy is a real risk; it does happen. There is no distinction in Article 40.3.3° and, therefore, to exclude it in these heads of the Bill would be to change the law. I do not believe that we should have any differentiated treatments.

I am concerned about the scope of head 19. It is extremely broad, in fact, too broad. It covers a wide range of activities, including and beyond those previously covered by sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Some of the scope is unclear about what exactly is covered and the penalties are disproportionate.

I have concerns over the appeals process timelines and conscientious objection. We need a further discussion exploring this issue.

I am concerned about the silence in relation to children, specifically young girls. I believe we need specific legislation to address many of the issues raised over the past few days. I am troubled that we will compound the situation of voiceless children who are in the care of the State in this legislation. The hearings have also highlighted the importance of the assisted decision-making (capacity) Bill, which is urgently needed.

I found any association, actual or implied, between abortion in Europe and the Holocaust to be distasteful in the extreme. Besmirching the memory of millions of murdered Jews by turning them into a pawn in the abortion debate displays a woeful ignorance of the Holocaust and a woeful disrespect to the memory of the victims. Whatever one's opinion on the abortion issue and the debate between well-intentioned persons on both sides of the argument, there are no two sides of the Holocaust. I would respectfully encourage my colleagues to desist from making this highly offensive connection during the continuing debate. We must not allow the 6 million victims of a diabolical premeditated attempt to eradicate an entire people to be dragged into this abortion debate.

I was appointed by the Taoiseach, particularly in recognition of my work on children's rights. Advocacy on children's rights has not been an easy road to travel. Therefore, on this decision and in talking about child protection, I had to consider my position, but I stand here in confidence and I will continue to constructively engage with care, conviction and compassion.