Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also believe that this is a public Dáil committee. Therefore, if comments are made at this committee, people should be entitled, and have a responsibility, to comment.

This links with the point that was made about the lack of sexual and reproductive health education in Ireland. Regarding the term "a baby's heart beats at 21 days", an embryo does not even have a four-chamber heart at 21 days. People are throwing these claims out, so they should be commented on and challenged.

Do the witnesses agree that the opposite of abortion on demand is forced pregnancy? Is that not the alternative? If we put restrictions in the way of someone who is seeking an abortion, we are forcing her to stay pregnant.

The witnesses might comment on a point that was made about the idea of abortion being another form of contraception. It is highly insulting. Abortion involves pain, expense - no matter what way it is procured - and a significant amount of difficulty, particularly for someone in Ireland, so it is belittling to suggest that. Do the facts from various countries that the witnesses have put forward not speak to Ireland's abortion rate being no less than any other country's where abortion is available? The idea about saving lives seems to be a myth.

Regarding sexual health, or the lack of it, Professor Mullally called for a scientifically objective policy. This committee should use scientifically objective terms. Last week and this, a number of members used the word "child". The scientific terms are "morula", "blastocyst", "zygote", "embryo" and "foetus". There are stages, and most people see the difference between them. It is not the case that everyone in Ireland is undivided on this. A minority of people may believe that the stages are equal, but most see the difference. I just wanted to challenge some points.

Do the witnesses agree that it is significant that a State-sponsored body such as the IHREC has proposed at a public forum like the Citizens' Assembly the idea that there needs to be abortion provision for socioeconomic reasons if people's human rights are to be upheld?

On the issue of rape, the witnesses stated that they opposed intrusive medical examinations for pregnant women. Do they agree that, if a rape provision is included in any abortion legislation, it would run counter to that, given that there would have to be some element of examination or the person would have to meet a certain threshold?

Professor Mullally stated: "The commission is of the view that a new framework for access to abortion should place the decision-making process primarily in the hands of the pregnant woman in consultation with her physician." Does she agree that the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation of abortion on request or without restriction up to 12 weeks would fit in with the idea of a pregnant woman being able to attend her own general practitioner, GP, and being prescribed the abortion pill, which is used in many abortions in Europe, or surgical abortion?