Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for the impeccable way in which he has run the proceedings over the past three days. I also thank the clerk and the secretariat for running the proceedings so well. I feel privileged to have taken part and to have been enabled to take part as a substitute member, that is, as someone who has just come to the committee.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his clarity in addressing some of the issues that have arisen over the past three days. All members are mindful of his comments that they are scrutinising the heads of the Bill to ascertain in what way they can improve the operation of the Bill, bearing in mind their obligation as legislators to ensure an effective and accessible procedure is available for women who seek to access the lawful abortions to which they are entitled where their right to life is threatened by the continuance of a pregnancy.

Like Deputy Conway, I am very proud to be a Labour Party Senator and to be part of a Government that is at last facing up to its responsibilities as legislators in this regard. There has been a compelling need to legislate for the past 21 years, made more stark by the A, B and C judgment in December 2010.

I have a fundamental objection to the wording of Article 40.3.3°, the eighth amendment. Like Mrs. Justice McGuinness, I believe it would be preferable if abortion could be dealt with outside of the constitutional framework altogether, through legislation, but I accept that Article 40.3.3° is the law of the land, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and as upheld by the people in 1992 and 2002. Within that framework the Bill represents a reasonable if conservative attempt to ensure we have an accessible and effective procedure in place for women to access their constitutional rights.

In engaging constructively with the Bill, it has been very useful to hear the comments of the legal and medical experts we have heard in the past three days who have identified specific issues, to which other members have referred, where the operation of the Bill could be improved. I refer in particular to the definition of “appropriate location”, which should be reviewed to cover generally approved hospitals. The definition of “unborn” in head 1 was also raised. The merging of heads 2 and 4 was raised by many of the professional bodies. The requirement that psychiatrists have to be attached to particular institutions in head 4(1)(b) was a concern, in particular of the psychiatrists in the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, on the basis that it was unduly restrictive and that too few psychiatrists would be able to fulfil the condition. Others pointed out in heads 6, 7 and 8 that the timeframe is too long and it should be shorter, for example, 72 hours for each stage of the review procedure to ensure it is accessible. In head 12 there is a need to ensure a woman has access in a timely manner to another doctor where a doctor exercises his or her right to conscientious objection.

Other speakers referred to head 19. Three specific problems arise with the head as currently drafted. First, the language is too broad. The framing of the offence is too broad. Second, the penalty is too onerous and, third, we must look carefully at whether we need to criminalise the woman - or in most cases the young girl - who might be at risk of prosecution under the provision. Dr. Ruth Fletcher’s submission was particularly useful in that regard.