Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I begin by thanking Senator Noone for her very good chairing of the committee and thanking all those who appeared before us for giving the evidence they gave. I will briefly respond to Deputy Fitzpatrick's point about balance. I know we have said this before but as I am the next speaker it is important that I say it again. It is regrettable that people declined our invitation. We did not have any control over that. However, if the Deputy is suggesting that the Irish College of General Practitioners, the masters of our maternity hospitals or the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission are advocates of abortion, I completely reject that. They appeared as representatives of bodies and they give their views. We need to knock that on the head again because I believe this committee has done its business fairly. Its membership was drawn on a proportionate basis from representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and I think that we have done our job with diligence. I am pleased that we are coming to this point today.

I also am pleased that we heard evidence from the Department of Health last week that it is already working on drafting the possible legislation that might accompany a referendum. We are face a very tight timeframe and it is important that work is ongoing because we need to meet the various deadlines if there is to be a referendum in May of next year. I urge the Government to set a date as soon as possible. I believe that we will be able to make our report on the 20 December, as we have been asked to do.

I will speak first of all about module one and about the Constitution. I think this is by far the most important element of our work. The most important thing for us to do is to make a recommendation around a referendum on removing Article 40.3.3 from the Constitution. I believe that question should be put to the people in a clear way, and that it should simply propose that we repeal Article 40.3.3. Any replacement wording would perpetuate the ambiguity that has prevailed since 1983, whereby we have had subsequent referendums, court challenges domestically and in the European Union and appeals to the UN Human Rights Committee. Furthermore, as more than one witness has described, we have had real practical difficulties for the medical profession in making crucial decisions about when it can legally intervene if a pregnant woman's health rapidly deteriorates. We have had descriptions of how that can happen very quickly, and of the difficulty for doctors to practice medicine in a way that treats their patients appropriately with the current constitutional position.

For all those reasons I will be voting for repeal simpliciter.My preferred second option would be option three, that is, that legislation would be published in tandem with the proposed wording of a referendum, which would be to repeal Article 40.3.3⁰.

My preferred second option is option 3, that legislation will be published in tandem with the proposed wording of a referendum which would be to repeal Article 40. 3.3^o. I do have serious concerns about replacing it. We have been told there is no legal certainty under any of the options. I am not a legal expert but I think that is true. I would be worried about putting the alternative wording the Citizens' Assembly recommended into the Constitution. Senator Ruane has outlined the background to that and I will not go into it again.

There is a danger in setting that type of precedent where, as far as we know, it is only emergency legislation which provides that the courts cannot get involved. My preference is for repeal simpliciterto be put to the people. That kind of wording can be easily explained and it is important in the context of any constitutional referendum that what we ask people to decide on is clear and does not involve any ambiguity. I hope that whenever the referendum is to be held, we have a debate that is based on facts and is respectful of different viewpoints, regardless of whether we share them. The committee and the members of the Citizens' Assembly have had the opportunity to give detailed consideration to factual information and I hope that kind of information will be part of the public discourse in the referendum campaign. Having campaigned in previous referenda on various issues, I know the discourse can go off on tangents. I sincerely hope that, in this instance, it will remain focused on the facts.

I also believe that we should make a recommendation on decriminalisation. I suppose we will have to do some work on how that might be worded. The committee should consider it even though it was not a recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly.

On modules 2 and 3, my position is best summed up in a document, Every Woman, produced by the National Women's Council of Ireland, NWCI, which states:

... we are proposing a needs-based approach including the following elements:- Constitutional change

- Protected period

- Protected treatments

The NWCI is a very representative body, with women's organisations throughout the country affiliated to it. The document to which I refer also states:

... NWCI advocates for a complete removal of the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution. Every pregnancy is different, every decision is personal. The complexity of healthcare decisions has no place in the Constitution.

It further states:

We also advocate for legislation that will allow for the availability of abortion in early pregnancy for all women who need it. During this 'protected period' the ending of pregnancy is permitted under medical supervision and considered a private matter with patient-doctor confidentiality protected. This would allow for early abortion care on the basis of need, including in the case of rape or incest, and allow medical professionals to care for women and girls in an appropriate medical setting in Ireland. Limiting this period to early pregnancy will help to minimise the need for later term abortions.

Where a wanted pregnancy turns into a crisis pregnancy at a later stage in pregnancy, we advocate for legislation that would allow for restricted access to abortion where it is considered medically necessary to protect the mental and physical health of the woman, and where there is a nonviable pregnancy. These 'protected treatments' would allow medical professionals to care for women in sometimes extremely difficult and distressing circumstances and support women, couples and families in making the decision that is right for them and their personal circumstances.

That puts it very well and the language summarises my approach to the issue.

I support all of the ancillary recommendations. Deputy Niamh Smyth referred to education and I agree with her. The recommendation about contraception and costs to the effect that an enhanced contraception service should go hand in hand with a less restrictive abortion regime is really important. Much of the evidence we heard, particularly from Britain, related to the importance of contraception advice, particularly post-abortion. This was shown to reduce the number of successive abortions - in other words, women having more than one abortion. It is important that access to contraception is not financially restricted, that it is affordable and money is not an object and that it goes hand in hand with whatever measures are introduced.

The most important action is to remove Article 40.3.3^ofrom the Constitution. We will not be doing that but we will make recommendations that will go to the Houses. I presume that this, in turn, will result a proposal being drafted by the Government - in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General - and that the matter will then be put to the people. Ultimately, it will be a choice for the people but it is important that we make clear recommendations as to how that should proceed. It will be a decision for the people by way of referendum.