Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Points have been made about the committee being farcical and pro-abortion. One member referred to 1916 and asked if it is what our forefathers gave their lives for. The people who fought in 1916, certainly in the case of James Connolly, were advocates of women's rights and I assume would have been open to women having bodily autonomy. The sands have shifted in society. People who had a hegemony in the past are now struggling to find anyone in authority who will back up their desire to retain the eighth amendment. That is the real problem. We have had a vote on not maintaining the eighth amendment in full and the public should be apprised of the words in full. That was the wording that was given to the Citizens' Assembly and is quite pointed. It was not just about retaining the eighth amendment. One can see how the Citizens' Assembly would have arrived at the decision it arrived at. It is fine to vote for that but we cannot leave it at that. We now have to go on to look at the options. It would be a bit ridiculous to make that decision and then tell the public we will come back and review what we do with the eighth amendment and the Constitution in five weeks. People are saying we have made a decision but to the public it would be seen as though it were a snail's pace decision. Why are we here? We are here because there is a problem with the eighth amendment. We all knew this was a forward-only process. It was not a backward process. Let us not try to pretend this is earth shattering.

I want to deal with some of the options that have been put forward and then some of the motions. Six options have been suggested by the legal adviser. Three or four of them are similar in that they still envisage some kind of amendment or replacement of the eighth amendment that would either entrench legislation in the Constitution or list grounds that would be in the Constitution. There is no legal certainty with those because any of them could be challenged by a woman whose rights are being violated and she could take a case. The United Nations would continue to challenge it. It would also be politically unacceptable to most people for us to deal with this issue in the Constitution in a restrictive way when most people see there is a reality we are meant to be dealing with.

The Citizens' Assembly took option six and it was said either in this session or during the private session that we would be going against the Citizens' Assembly if we went for a simple repeal. That is not the case because the intent of the Citizens' Assembly was clearly to repeal the eighth amendment to allow abortion legislation to be introduced on a very widespread basis judging by the vote it took the following day. It received legal advice that convinced 53% of the assembly to go in one direction which was that some kind of clause was needed to make sure there would not be a challenge to that legislation. It went with that advice. When Ms Justice Laffoy attended the committee, it could have been put to her there was an overemphasis on the dangers of a simple repeal and not enough consideration in the Citizens' Assembly because it is dangerous to put any wording into the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the option suggested in the wording, although the Citizens' Assembly did not write it, politically would be quite dangerous. It would mean that any legislation could be immune to challenge by an individual in the courts. If that were to be put to a referendum, I do not believe that it would be acceptable to people. Therefore, a simple repeal would be best.

My motion is still on the table because we need the eighth amendment to be repealed. I do not think this discussion will be concluded tonight. I do not know how many people have indicated.