Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their presentations. What jumps out at me is the sense we are almost back to where we were when we started with the eighth amendment. Dr. Henchion stated that 90% of doctors do not provide care. Rather than saying that 10% do, the fact that 90% do not demonstrates the lack of services for women in this country. Moreover, there is a lack of mandatory provision in maternity hospitals. When we remind ourselves of why we had a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment and why we needed to ask people whether they should have the right to have a say over their own health, lives, material futures and so on, a question on which we got a huge majority in favour, we need to look at the legislation in this review and address the issues that are holding us back. Half the population - women and girls - are being held back by this legislation.

Ms Taylor said she thought it was good that socioeconomic reasons were not included in the reasons for which women or girls could seek an abortion, yet when we were dealing with this in committee in the lead-up to the referendum, this was one of the stickiest issues. It was put to a very close vote and it was some other members and I who really pushed it. I would have thought socioeconomic reasons would be very important. When we think about teenagers, migrants, women living with domestic abuse, disabled pregnant people and so on, it disproportionately affects the most vulnerable.

Maybe Ms Taylor could address that.

I will ask a few questions in a row. The reason for this is that once I hear the answers, I will have to leave to go the Dáil to speak. My next question is on the impact of the protests outside abortion providers. Does the panel of presenters here not think the Government is now presiding over a situation in this country where women are still being denied access to essential the healthcare for which people overwhelmingly voted because of anti-choice zealots and religious zealots in the main? How urgently must that be addressed? I would have thought that was one of the most urgent and important issues we have to deal with, along with the question of conscientious objection being allowed to block women from accessing abortion care. We just had some discussion on conscientious objection. However, do we know from the research carried out by the National Women’s Council or by the family planning services how much the criminalisation of abortion acts as a chill factor, rather than the conscientious objection? If a doctor or a practitioner thought, “Well, if I am challenged on that I could potentially face 14 years in prison”, how does that chill factor impact on the non-delivery of services?

I have another question about the scans and the delays women are experiencing because they are not able to get a scan on time. Is there any evidence that is connected to the fact the scanning services have been outsourced by the HSE to a private company? Is there any evidence, or am I just barking up the wrong tree, to suggest there is a discrimination against women in maternity services on those grounds?

My last question relates to the two ancillary recommendations of the citizens' assembly. They arose from the joint Oireachtas committee before repeal was voted on. One of them has been partially acted on while the other has not been acted on at all. One is the provision of free contraception to all those of sexual activity age. That has been partially acted on, but not fully. The other relates to the introduction of a non-ethos-based sex education programme at school. These were looked at and recommended to be implemented because, as is evidenced all over Europe, including in Britain and Holland, where the facilities of free contraception and a non-ethos-based sex education programme exist, the level of crisis pregnancies is reduced. Could the panel please comment on those questions?