Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear Ms Justice Laffoy's response to that. I do not think it is as difficult as some people are making it out to be. I suggest that quite a clear pathway has been signposted by the Citizens' Assembly. Ms Justice Laffoy said in her presentation that the members of the assembly carried out their role "with exceptional maturity, compassion and respect". She mentioned that they listened to 17 groups over 80 hours of active participation and heard directly from six women who have experienced crisis pregnancies. She referred to them as "a varied cohort of citizens" who are "representative... of modern Irish society". Would it be fair to say that they listened to the reality of why most women have abortions in this country and came up with a set of proposals that deal with the reality of why most people have abortions? Before the assembly met, we heard a lot of talk about the hard cases that involve risk to life, fatal foetal abnormality or rape. The assembly heard about the reasons ten pregnant people leave the country every single day. As Ms Justice Laffoy has said, importantly, each day three women have abortions in their own bedrooms with safe medical abortion pills.

Ms Justice Laffoy made the point in her concluding remarks that the results of the Citizens' Assembly "caused surprise across some sections of society". She said she truly believes those results "were reached not by chance or accident". An attempt has been made very quickly to cast aspersions or undermine the assembly. When RTE was reporting on the conclusion of the assembly the following day, it was suggested that the task of the committee that is sitting now "is essentially to water down these proposals [so that they are] not politically toxic". Is it not the case that the Citizens' Assembly showed us that members of the public are pushing for further advancement in the more liberal provision of abortion? For example, the use of the word "socio-economic" was insisted on by the members of the assembly, having heard direct evidence about those who have money, etc. They were made aware that 15% of Irish people who go for abortions have passed the 12-week timescale because of the difficulty of saving money and making bookings, etc.

The citizens removed the qualifier of "serious" so that the previous reference to "serious risk to health" now refers merely to "risk to health". It is far from the case that the politicians have to educate the public. It looks like the public is educating the politicians on issues like abortion. Would Ms Justice Laffoy agree that we now have an opportunity, arising from the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations that we should have abortion on request up to 12 weeks without a reason having to be given by the woman, which is the basis for most abortion laws around the world, and that abortion on other grounds should be possible after 12 weeks? It is now a question of whether the parties will take a strong and courageous stand to vindicate what the Citizens' Assembly has recommended, or will continue with an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

I would like to ask some specific questions. The first issue to be considered was whether the eighth amendment should be repealed or replaced. Obviously, this has been the subject of some discussion. I want to ask about the intent of the Citizens' Assembly in narrowly deciding to replace rather than repeal. Would Ms Justice Laffoy accept that this decision was made from a position of cutting out any legal uncertainty? A significant portion of the presentation they were given - I think it was six pages - referred to the legal uncertainty that might arise if a replacement for the eighth amendment was not included in the Constitution. Would Ms Justice Laffoy accept that more time is needed to discuss the dangers of replacing the eighth amendment with particular wordings? Maybe more time should have been given to that.

I want to clarify what Ms Justice Laffoy thinks the assembly meant in its second ballot. According to her report, "Put simply, most of the members voted that they wanted to remove Article 40.3.3° from the Constitution and for the avoidance of doubt to replace it with a provision in the Constitution, which would make it clear that termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman are matters for the Oireachtas". In other words, there would not be anything in the Constitution about the rights of the unborn. According to the Citizens' Assembly, it should be a matter for the Oireachtas to legislate for. I think there is confusion on that. I believe the assembly recommended that the rights of the pregnant woman or the unborn should be dealt with separately from the Constitution and, therefore, the Constitution should not have any reference to those rights. Is it not clear that this is what the members of the assembly meant, given that they recommended the following day that abortion should be available on request up to 12 weeks?