Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My amendments Nos. 17 and 20 follow on from the initial discussion on the definition of termination of pregnancy and the consequences of using certain language. Then Deputy Tóibín spoke and the gist of what he said - and I ask him to correct me if I am misrepresenting what he said - is that it states in the Bill that the termination of pregnancy is ending the life of a foetus. Some people are using that definition today, with which many of us had an issue at the outset, to support this. This is the consequence of that definition.

If we come to an agreement between now and Report Stage on the definition that will reflect the wording I propose in amendments Nos. 17 and 20, that will change the definition.

Regarding the front-loading of the offences, I proposed that in my amendments but I was informed by the Bills Office that it cannot come from a committee member, that the reordering of a Bill has to be done by the Minister and the Bills Office. I think the Bill will be legislation that will be referred to and picked up and if it is humanly possible to reorder it, I would like it reordered.

There is also a chronological issue in that we should be moving through the gestation period of pregnancy as opposed to hopping from fatal foetal back to early pregnancy as I think there is a natural progression through pregnancy.

I agree with Deputy Donnelly because he made clear the connection between what was in the heads of the Bill before the referendum and what we are doing now. Again many raised the issues of what could happen. Deputy Coppinger, who has left the room, referred to abortion pills which are safe up to 14 weeks. Yes, they are licensed for use up to 14 weeks, but between ten and 14 weeks, to the best of my knowledge, their use must be under the supervision of a doctor. One could have a very complicated situation if, for example, a mother ordered abortion pills for her 14 year old child who is pregnant with twins. Were she to give them at 16 weeks, we would have a very dangerous situation. I would not like to have any involvement in a situation where that 14 year old girl would bleed out for whatever reason. This all goes back to our discussion on access, cost and barriers because these are the issues that would cause people difficulties.

I will not be supporting amendment No. 16 because we had said what we were going to do before the referendum. I believe there are difficulties and very dangerous consequences if the provision in section 5(1) is not included.

We have to be very conscious of the arguments that are used and how it relates back to that element of life in the definition at the outset.