Ms Christina Zampas:

I will begin with the Deputy's first question on grounds-based regimes and how they function. The only one of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe that has a minimum grounds-based regime which international human rights law speaks to is Poland. Ireland has the second most restrictive law in Europe. Malta has a total ban, Ireland has a life exception and Poland has these four grounds. As was referenced earlier by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, there have been three cases before the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Poland's abortion law. Those cases did not seek an expansion of the grounds but challenged the fact that these two women and one girl, in separate cases, did not get access to lawful abortion services in Poland.

One case concerned a woman's health, one was a case concerning rape and the other case was a foetal impairment case. These are essentially the grounds in Poland. In each of those cases, women were not allowed to access abortion and in each of those cases the women who experienced those violations were vulnerable women. One woman had a disability, another was a child, and another was on a low income. These are the people who restrictive laws impact. In each of these three cases, the court found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in Poland's failure to actually implement its law. The court said that a right cannot be theoretical or illusory. It must be real and practical and the state must implement practical measures so that women can access lawful services. It found that, in these cases, it did not. In two of the cases, the court also found a violation of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment in not allowing the women access to lawful abortion.

It is very difficult to regulate a grounds-based abortion regime, first of all because there are usually exceptions in the criminal code. There is criminal liability, which creates a chilling factor. It is also very difficult for the Legislature to define a health risk specifically. Human rights bodies have not done that, and neither has the European Court of Human Rights. These bodies tend not to go into a medical analysis of whether or not there is a health risk. They just do not like to do that because most of them are lawyers and not doctors or health care providers.

New Zealand also has a minimum grounds-based approach and human rights bodies have heavily criticised New Zealand for its multiple provider authorisation. New Zealand has something like the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 in that the approval of multiple doctors is required. It is far less restrictive than Ireland but there is still a requirement for numerous doctors to approve. It really impacts rural areas where doctors are just not available to give approval. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, has called it a convoluted law which strips away women's autonomy and does not really grant them the right to abortion in the cases provided for in New Zealand's law.