Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have no issue with Deputy O'Connell's motion. I have an issue with the way the motions are grouped because my two motions are excluded even though they seek to include socio-economic as a health ground. We have heard lots of evidence about how some countries and jurisdictions, that have access to abortion on health grounds, also include socio-economic but do not name it as a ground.

I fear at this point that people do not understand how class, being in a minority group or being disadvantaged and suffering deprivation can have an impact. Sometimes these matters only come to light after the 12-week period. I hope the up to 12-week provision captures most of the women who might find themselves in this situation because of their socio-economic status. However, it does not mean that their socio-economic status will not affect them in their 14th or 15th week of pregnancy. They may find themselves on the street at any stage of their pregnancy. Their parents may have put them out of the family home because of the pregnancy. Perhaps the pregnant woman is unable to access supports or the father of her unborn child may have abandoned her. Loads of socio-economic stuff can come up after the 12th week of pregnancy. I hope that we could incorporate socio-economic under the health ground like other jurisdictions do. A vote on Deputy O'Connell's motion will totally rule out our consideration of socio-economic as a health ground. Can we address the matter?

I know that the socio-economic reason is recognised as a ground later on. I feel people are a little fearful to name socio-economic as a ground. I thought that people would be more susceptible to encompassing it as a health ground instead.