Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I had the privilege of being one of the members of the joint committee. I compliment the members of the committee and, in particular, the chairperson, who has gained a great deal of respect. People see her as somebody with a great deal of patience and professionalism. We spent a solid three months in public session listening to evidence. It was a two-phase process. The first phase was the Citizens' Assembly, which comprised many people on either side of the debate. A significant volume of material is available which people can read or listen to as a consequence of that phase.

I would like to challenge something that has been said about the process. A total of 33 witnesses appeared before the committee comprising: two from the World Health Organization; two from the GPs' association; a retired Supreme Court judge; a senior counsel who had direct experience of the X case; the obstetrician who wrote the report into the death of Savita Halappanavar; the masters of the three largest maternity hospitals in the State; the chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; a representative of the HSE; and academics and people with scientific and administrative backgrounds. The list was balanced. It is the kind of list that one would invite to speak if one wanted to hear evidence and that is what we did. We decided we would not repeat the work of the Citizens' Assembly but add to the expertise that it brought forward.

Dr. Peter Boylan stated:

Article 40.3.3° gives rise to significant difficulties for doctors practising in Ireland and has caused grave harm to women, including death. The two outstanding examples of which I have direct personal experience are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 and the case of Miss P in December 2014. These are only two examples of cases where doctors in Ireland continue to be put in the inappropriate position of having to interpret the Constitution in the course of caring for sick women.

It is significant that a former master of a maternity hospital would say that.

When we go to hospital when we are ill, irrespective of the illness, we sign a form to give consent to treatment if we face a medical procedure. However, that does not happen when a woman is pregnant. She cannot sign a consent form as she has no right to consent or no right to health. Ms Mary O'Toole, who was the senior counsel on the X case, told us that the Supreme Court has the firm view that the right one has is an equal right to life and one does not have a right to health. I addressed the issue with Professor William Binchy who was very much part of the 1983 process. I am pleased he appeared before the committee, given others did not. I asked him whether health is a fundamental right and he replied that it is. However, it cannot be a fundamental right, except when a woman is pregnant. Women are not something separate. They are wives, partners, sisters, daughters and mothers.

Dr. Boylan said:

A major difficulty with the Act is that it is entirely the responsibility of doctors to determine how close to death or how sick a woman must be before legal termination can be performed. The woman herself has no input into the decision.

That is pretty profound and that serious impediment was addressed at the committee. People listened and there was a respectful attendance in the main. He also said: "It is equally well documented that countries with liberal laws and easy access to contraception have lower rates of abortion than those with restrictive laws." If we want to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies, we have to take up the issues that were addressed in the report in respect of contraception and reproductive rights. Dr. Boylan continued:

If Ireland were to enact legislation in line with EU consensus, including termination without restriction up to ten weeks, our law would be among the most conservative in Europe [...] Without access to abortion in the UK, it is inevitable that Ireland would have an epidemic of illegal abortions and a massive increase in maternal mortality.

Our proximity to the UK is a significant issue.

On the issue of rape, we heard from Mr. Tom O'Malley who is an expert in this area. He said that it takes 865 days on average, or almost two and a half years, to prosecute a rape case. The 12-week abortion limit was decided on in that context from the point of view of not putting a woman through another process after she has experienced rape. It is impractical to deal with rape without looking at how it can be practically dealt with. That is part of the reason 12 weeks was decided on in respect of one the recommendations by the Citizens' Assembly.

Professor Veronica O'Keane, who is an expert on mental health services, told the committee:

The brain controls the body so that while one may feel sad in one's heart or anxious in one's gut, this is being directed from the brain. Feeling emotionally distressed and highly anxious happens in one's body and leads to medical disease. The dialogue between the body and the emotional brain is never stronger than during pregnancy [...] Pregnancy is associated with increased anxiety and depressive symptoms and is the highest risk period in a woman's life for depression.

She was making the connection between the body and the mind in regard to the issue of suicide, mental health and depression. These were the kinds of things we listened to. I could pick out so many pieces of information that were really important. I cannot say I went along on any day and did not come out knowing something more than when I went in, and I think that was the case for the vast majority of those who attended the committee.

I believe the idea of anything other than a straightforward repeal would be a mistake and a complete abdication. As was said by Deputy Kelleher, we all only have one vote in this when it comes to a referendum. The people of Ireland deserve a referendum. I am one of the few who sat on that committee who had an opportunity to vote in 1983. As it happened, I voted not to include the eighth amendment in the Constitution. I thought it was a mistake then and still believe it was a mistake. However, I think we have moved on. We have the ability to take the responsibility that this Dáil should take in implementing the legislation, should the amendment be carried. We accept the all-party report. Although I voted for things that went beyond the report, we still accept the report. However, I am very concerned about some of the things I have heard in recent days about the prospect of deviating from straightforward repeal. This was an issue that was interrogated in considerable detail and I think it is most definitely the way it should be proceeded with.

We hear figures for what the Irish abortion rate is but we do not know what the Irish abortion rate is. We know there are women who will give an Irish address in the UK and we can be guaranteed those addresses will not be from one part of Ireland but from every city, town, village and rural area - from right across the country. It was very interesting to hear the academic evidence from some of those who came in front of the committee about the identity and age cohort of women availing of abortion in the UK. One thing that is very evident is the number of women who are now using pills to procure an abortion and doing so without medical supervision. This is incredibly dangerous and may lead to significant health issues, not just at that point but perhaps in the future by virtue of the fact there is not the kind of medical oversight that is required. The one thing we cannot have is that people fear seeking medical assistance in situations where there is a law which, while it has not been used, could potentially criminalise both a woman and a doctor, and impose a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. There was very strong support for decriminalisation and we included some very strong suggestions in the report in regard to how that might be achieved.

I believe this will be a difficult campaign. I hope we will have a referendum, if not in late May, then in early June. I hope it will be for straightforward repeal, which I think will encourage more people to get out on one side or the other. I respect the fact people come from different viewpoints and have different opinions. I think the tone has been set by the Citizens' Assembly, by the committee and also by this House tonight. I hope that lead will carry out into civil society groups and the wider public. A very important point is that we need to bring the information we heard into a much wider forum. The responsibility for this lies with the media, with political parties and parliamentarians and with civil society groups, which I believe will be the main drivers in this campaign. As I said, I believe anything other than straightforward repeal would be a monumental mistake and I hope that is a decision we will see sooner rather than later.

See this speech in context