Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Appendix 2 to the IFPA document says that "IFPA services are operated in line with best international practice". In light of that, I want to go back to some of the issues raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick. An exposé that was reported on in the Irish Independenta few years ago was done by a group of women who had anecdotal or personal experience of having abortions or who knew women who subsequently came to regret their decisions and felt they had been badly and, in some ways, illegally advised by counselling agencies in receipt of funding from the State. This is a very serious matter. It was investigated by the Garda. The evidence showed that women were told to hide their abortions from their own doctors on five occasions. In four of those five cases, it was IFPA counsellors who told them to do so. In one case, a woman was told that if complications arose after a surgical abortion in Britain, she needed to tell medical staff in hospitals that she had had a miscarriage. Nothing was said to her about whether she would be criminalised. There was no evidence that this would ever happen. I think the strong understanding of people is that it would never happen. She was simply told she needed to tell medical staff she had had a miscarriage, as opposed to an abortion.

The then Master of the Rotunda Hospital, Professor Sam Coulter-Smith, criticised the danger surrounding this type of advice. He said that complications during an abortion procedure could result in perforation of the uterus, which could be life-threatening if not known to the woman's doctor. I put it to the IFPA that this was the action of a rogue agency. It did not just happen once; it happened on at least five occasions and the IFPA was involved on at least four of those. Contrary to the implicit suggestion that the counsellor was an inexperienced person who was led into giving this advice, in the case of one Dundalk-based counsellor it was a very experienced person. Does the IFPA deny that what was recorded took place? Why has it never issued a statement acknowledging wrong practices within the agency or, indeed, proposing to make amends? Was that not very reckless?

On page 4 of its presentation, the IFPA clearly criticises the importation of abortion pills as dangerous and describes this as "an unregulated and unsafe practice". On the occasion of the investigation to which I have refer, women were told at two IFPA clinics how to purchase and import illegal abortion pills by visiting a named website. One counsellor advised a woman that she could have such pills posted to a post office box in Northern Ireland. A counsellor at the Cork IFPA service who discussed the illegal importation of the abortion pill with a woman emphasised that the IFPA was not encouraging her to break the law or get into trouble while pointing out that this could be done. The counsellor got the woman to write down the relevant information because he or she did not want to be arrested for providing it. The counsellor was aware that this was not the kind of information he or she should be providing. Is that not also the action of a rogue agency?

I will summarise my questions. Does the IFPA acknowledge that there is evidence that some of its people have engaged in actions that were fatal for unborn children and had potentially dangerous consequences for women? While this evidence was reported to the Garda and led to some commentary in the Dáil, the Seanad and at the Oireachtas health committee, the IFPA neither deigned to issue an explanation of past wrongdoing nor showed any desire to investigate or to get to best practice. Does that not show how little the IFPA actually cares for women's health? The report or investigation I have mentioned also found that Marie Stopes was criticised by IFPA counsellors, who advised people not to go to Marie Stopes services because they had received many complaints about them. If the IFPA really cared about women's health, would it not have gone public about this matter rather than quietly advising people not to go to Marie Stopes? Would this not have been seen as a public health and safety question? I would be very grateful for answers to those questions.