Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the thousands of people who contacted me on this issue by phone, e-mail and letter. I thank them for their contribution, even those who were less than amicable. I have learned a lot about interaction and about myself and I am grateful. Like other speakers I reject that the Bill is about women's rights and reproductive rights; it is about providing legal and medical clarity on existing rights for women in pregnancy. We need to keep this clear.

As I have stated before, and will do so again although it is personal, I believe that life, from conception to natural end, is a gift bestowed on us by a God in whom I very much believe, and because of this I genuinely reject some of the comments made earlier by my colleague regarding groupthink. I also absolutely and fundamentally reject the view that just because I think differently it makes me a lesser person and a lesser Christian with a lesser moral and ethical code. I absolutely reject this and the guilt associated with it.

Section 7 centres on the case of Ms C. There is no doubt the reason she took her case to Europe was because she could not find a clear path. The Bill absolutely and fundamentally provides a clear path by providing assurance for the doctors and the practitioners that there is security in the law. What is contained in section 7 is no different to what is contained in section 21 of the current medical guidelines. The difference is the legislation provides security for the medical practitioners carrying out the services which they have always wanted to carry out.

Section 9 seems to be the section causing problems for most of the people who are against the Bill. This is interesting, as the basis of their argument is that we are introducing for the first time in Irish medical practice - I love this term - the "deliberate destruction of human life". I researched ectopic pregnancies last week. They occur in one in every 50 pregnancies in Ireland. Unfortunately, the only possible medical intervention when a woman presents with an ectopic pregnancy is either the destruction of the foetus or the destruction and removal of the Fallopian tube. In this context, a termination is the only means of saving the woman's life. Not one e-mail, telephone call, item of correspondence or statement to me in the past year mentioned ectopic pregnancies. From this, I take it that no one has a problem with the medical reaction to a woman presenting in a hospital with an ectopic pregnancy.

However, people have a problem with a medical reaction in respect of a pregnant woman who is suicidal and for whom all other treatments have failed. I sincerely reject the inference that a woman will pretend to be suicidal to access a termination. I cannot understand why any woman would put herself through an examination by two psychiatrists, her general practitioner, GP, and an obstetrician when she had the legal right under the 2002 referendum to get on an aeroplane or boat and access a legal abortion or termination across the water.

Our debate boils down to a question of location. When we voted overwhelmingly in 2002 for the right of women to travel and to have access to information, we were more or less saying that abortion was okay as long as it was not done on our doorstep. I have never met a woman who believed that getting on a boat or aeroplane to England to do what she had to do was a jolly dance. Women in this difficult situation make the journey lonely and distraught. They suffer tremendous guilt afterwards. That is what we do as women. They have the legal right to travel.

The argument is not that the floodgates could open to UK levels, but that it would become available in Ireland in the first place, but this legislation is not about liberalising abortion. It is about providing legal clarity to the very few women who have genuine medical conditions in pregnancy that cannot be treated by any other means. The important phrase is "where the risk to life can only be averted by a termination". Words are important. Funnily, I have only learned this in recent years. If something can only be averted by a certain action, it means that other actions have been tried. The idea that this is a box-ticking certifying exercise for psychiatrists and that people will pretend to be suicidal is ludicrous and does psychiatric practitioners a disservice.

Psychiatrists treat patients. They will continue to treat them if this legislation is passed. Nothing will change. Under today's medical guidelines, one psychiatrist - not four, three or two - has the ability to sanction a termination should a woman present with a risk of suicide. If this legislation is passed, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician must agree, in conjunction with the lady's GP, that a termination is the only medical treatment that will save her life.

I regret my colleague's comments about surrendering to groupthink. I have had endless sleepless nights in the past year thinking about this issue and wrestling with one argument or another. I have been curious about how other people reached their decisions. It has taken me a long time to reach a decision. I am happy with my position, that is, supportive of the Bill.

I received an apt text from a friend this morning. Things come to one in the right time and place. The text quoted a famous French proverb: "There is no softer pillow than a clear conscience." I support this Bill. My conscience is very clear and I am happy with my decision.

See this speech in context