Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In years to come, when we look back on this legislation and see current practice, we will realise that putting it on the Statute Book may have been historic, but the content of the legislation will not be so controversial. My expectation on reading the legislation for the first time was that groups and individuals who support a more pro-choice regime would have been the ones who were up in arms. It seems that when it comes to matters relating to the uterus of a pregnant Irish woman the political response can often be utterly unpredictable. The controversial aspect of the legislation relates to suicidal intent. I would have expected the support of the pro-life lobby for the highly restrictive nature of the legislation, coming as it does from the Supreme Court judgment, but in fact the opposite has happened. That does surprise me.

During the course of the debate in recent months the most throwaway remark ever must have been “to open the floodgates”. It is important to put on record the political and legislative history of women’s reproductive rights in this country. When Mr. C. J. Haughey was Minister for Health, one could only get the pill to regulate one’s cycle. This country had an enormous number of women with irregular cycles. In fact, one had to get a prescription to buy a box of condoms, and one had to be married in order to get such a prescription. That was the situation in my lifetime. That was when po-faced elderly men who saw themselves as the guardians of a woman’s cervix lectured to me when I was a teenager. I found it absolutely ridiculous. That is not that long ago.

It is interesting how quickly a situation can evolve. Three things happened. A woman could get a tubal ligation or the morning-after pill, or have a coil inserted into her uterus, all of which prevent implantation. According to the purists, they are all abortifacients, yet there was little if any controversy around those issues. In fact, it has now got to the stage at which the morning-after pill will soon be available without prescription. It is certainly more accessible than people think. Unfortunately, there are also concerns, about which we must be vigilant. There is an abortifacient pill, known as RU-486 when I was in medical school – I am not sure of the current medical name for it – that women can now buy over the Internet. My concern is that younger women who are not aware of the complications that can arise are buying it. There is a need for us to be open-minded about this type of debate in order that we can genuinely protect women and not just pay lip service to that aim. Much of what was done in terms of tubal ligation, the morning-after pill and the prescription of oral contraceptives to women helped to save their lives.

Women with large families who had one birth after another experienced untold morbidity. They had problems with incontinence and poor health and some women also lost their lives. Irish society has changed quite dramatically, much of it for the good. In the meantime, we have witnessed the ultimate double standard, in that we have put into the Constitution the right to travel to Manchester for termination. However, were one to do the same for any woman in Ireland, one would be told it would lead to a fall in the standards of care to pregnant women in Ireland. This sort of doublespeak and doublethink actually puts the Taliban in the ha'penny place with regard to talking about women's reproductive rights. Moreover, it also is highly insulting to the doctors and midwives in the health care system.

Members also should bear in mind that on average, each general practitioner, GP, encounters two women in his or her practice who seek a termination outside this jurisdiction each year. Ireland is evolving. We have had terminations in this country for years and we have a health care system that allows women to have much greater control over their reproductive lives. Members should consider how the system is evolving. They are not opening floodgates and in fact are doing very little in this regard. While they may think they are doing a lot, very little is being done. Members are way behind the curve as to how patients and women think about themselves. I am bringing that experience as a doctor to the debate. I am pro-life and do not like the idea of terminating a pregnancy. However, I also respect the right of every woman with regard to how she wishes to live her life. Moreover, I do not wish to be judgmental towards women or anyone else because I have seen people at their weakest and I know how frail is human nature. This spirit also should be brought into this debate with regard to how Members legislate and look after people in this society.

See this speech in context