Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

One aspect of the case of Savita Halappanavar was doubt and hesitation about at what point there was a risk to life. If this legislation has a purpose, it is to clarify the position and remove the doubt or anything that contributes to hesitation on the part of doctors to intervene decisively to save a woman's life as soon as there is a real and substantial risk to her life. Part of the Supreme Court test which has been deliberately included to clarify the point in determining what is a real and substantial risk is that the risk has to be real and substantial; it does not have to be immediate or inevitable. That is a very important clarification which can give confidence to a doctor to intervene where he or she believes there is a risk.

When we put forward this amendment on Committee Stage, the Minister used the word "superfluous". I point out that his previous amendment inserts in each individual section what was included in the definitions section, namely, the need to balance the right to a lawful termination in a situation where there is a real and substantial risk with a reminder to the doctor. The Minister has said we need to include it in every section because the doctor may not read the definitions section. It is a reminder to say he or she must protect the right to life of the unborn before he or she makes that intervention to protect the life of the woman. That, it appears, is not superfluous but our amendments are.

In considering how to vote on the Bill, as pro-choice Deputies, we want to see movement.

We wanted to vote for the Bill but this is another example, if the amendments are not accepted, of how all of the concessions made during the course of the debate have been to one side, which wants to restrict as much as possible the intent of this Bill which is to protect the life of women. When we table amendments which seek to clarify for and given certainty to doctors on when and how they can intervene to the protect the life of a women, the Minister states they are superfluous. The Minister refuses to accept such amendments from us and shoots them down. That is an indication of a fudge which is problematic and can lead to the sort of hesitation which can be decisive in the case of women's lives when they are at risk. Maybe the Minister will prove me wrong and accept these amendments which are entirely reasonable and accord with the Supreme Court judgment.

See this speech in context