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

The cheap political jibes and the red-baiting are beneath Deputy Kate O'Connell. They are also beneath the seriousness of a debate about women's lives and futures. Frankly, if I hear the expression "the moderate centre" again, I will scream. The moderate centre has not ruled women's lives. The Catholic Taliban, instead, has ruled women's lives in this State for decades, with the support of the two major political parties. The disciples of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid and their oppressive doctrine have led to the abuse, the stigmatisation, the torture, the incarceration and the enslavement of women in this country for decades. These were shameful decades of mistreatment of women as second-class citizens. It brought us the shame of the Magdalen laundries and symphysiotomy, as well as driving 250,000 women since 1970 out of the country under the shadow of shame, stigmatisation, and criminality.

The persistence of that oppressive and abusive regime is manifest in the eighth amendment. The eighth amendment is responsible for the tragedies of X, Y, C. It is responsible for the death of Savita Halappanavar. It brought us tragedies like Ann Lovett, Amanda Mellet and countless more who have been the victims of rape and who have suffered as a result of wanted children suffering from fatal foetal abnormalities, as well as the tens of thousands of other women who just felt they could not go through with a pregnancy for whatever reason. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

The Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, said how difficult and complex all this is and the Minister of State, Deputy Catherine Byrne, talked about how we have to strike the right balance. For the women who have suffered crisis pregnancies and are forced to go to Britain under the shadow of stigmatisation and shame, it is complex and difficult. The issue at stake is not complex and difficult, however. It is very simple. It is about whether women should decide their own fate, control their own bodies, decide what medical procedures they need and want, decide when they should have children or if they should not have children. It is about whether politicians, lawyers, anti-abortion groups, the Church, or, for that matter, a randomly selected Citizens' Assembly of 99 people, instead should have that choice. Do we trust women and believe they have the right to make that decision or does somebody else have the right? That is the issue at stake.

I know there are people who support this delaying tactic and do not want this Bill to pass because they believe it is acceptable for the law or politicians or somebody else to decide the fate of women, to draw the lines as to when women can decide their own fate and when they cannot. For those, who gave a pledge before the last general election that they supported the repeal of the eighth amendment and they believed women have the right to choose, to pander and make concessions to those who do not believe women have that right is a shameful disgrace. It is a dangerous move, indeed. Members opposite may think it is tactical. It is the opposite. The people who oppose a woman's right to choose are the people who want to confuse and obfuscate, turning it into a debate about where we draw the lines. That is what will lose us the referendum or prevent us from ever getting it. Those who believe in a woman's right to choose should stand up when the vote is taken on this Bill and vindicate that right and fight for it. Otherwise, that right will not be achieved. A referendum and its victory is not inevitable unless we fight absolutely, unconditionally and unequivocally for a woman's right to decide her own life and control her own body.

See this speech in context