Anne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. Like Deputy Naughton, I have been on a journey. I am of a particular pro-life view, but I joined the committee with an open mind. I thank all of the committee members. Going into the debate was daunting and nerve-racking, given the two strong viewpoints. I would not like to believe that I would ever let anyone tell me what to do or control my thinking process, so I had not engaged with either side of the debate. I went into it with an open mind because I wanted to engage and to listen. Many committee members probably read between the lines quickly and knew what my position was, but they gave me the space to develop, listen, evolve, reach conclusions and become comfortable with asking questions.

It is not an easy topic on which to have an open discussion. It was not an easy place to be, with 20 or 22 reporters sitting there. Some days, there was not enough space for all of those reporting on the meetings. Despite that, we were discussing something that people might not have been comfortable discussing previously, namely, the health of women, how they were treated and how they felt. Listening to their experiences, I quickly realised that my viewpoint or beliefs were not shared by all and that I was in the minority. That I was in the minority was no fault of my own, but it is where I was. However, it did not make me feel any less valued as a committee member. Rather, it encouraged me to partake further thanks to the good chairmanship of Senator Noone and other colleagues. They allowed me the opportunity to speak at the end of meetings and ask questions when other members might have already asked the awkward ones. That is how I did it. It is what settled me in, and I appreciated the opportunity.

I have just left my parliamentary party meeting. While I was on my journey with the committee, other Members came along with me. They would speak to me regularly while I was going to or from its meetings and I would tell them how the work was going week in, week out.

The committee started with Ms Justice Laffoy, who set the stage. The masters of the Rotunda Hospital and Holles Street then appeared before us, as did the World Health Organization. When experts appear before a committee, it paints a picture that one might not have seen previously.

I had a regret halfway through our work. It concerned the vote. I dissented that day because I had still not heard everything and wanted to hear more. I was disappointed that a vote was being taken even though no one had attended to articulate what I believed in and what my point of view was. However, the vote was taken and we moved on. Regrettably, people and groups then chose not to appear before the committee.

8 o’clock

People formed the opinion that the committee was biased, that it really did not have much basis, that the game was up and that it was over. However, it was not over. In fact, that was when the committee got into good discussions. We had representatives of various groups before us, including GPs and the Rape Crisis Centre, as well as many other witnesses who discussed health and education. That meant a lot to me because the people who were saying that the committee was biased were the first to stand up every day and leave. They were the first people not to engage and the first to take cheap shots at other members of the committee who were willing to articulate their viewpoints. While I say that this was a very private position for me, other people had campaigned for months and years to arrive at that day. This was their day and they wanted to be strong and to articulate their viewpoint.

I respected the committee all the way. I respected it to the very end and even attended the launch of the committee's report. I did not change a particular pattern when I voted. To me, the 12-week limit was a step too far. On my journey I got to a point where I was very comfortable with addressing the issues of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities. The day that fatal foetal abnormalities were discussed in our committee room was a defining one for me. A man spoke about travelling to Belfast with his good wife. He talked about wondering how he would get there, how he would get back and how he would bring the baby back. He and his wife could not no longer continue with the pregnancy, knowing what they knew. They wanted the choice to abort a child that they had been told was not likely to survive. That man battled for 11 years in terms of addressing what he had to go through. One could feel it in the room that day that he still relives that experience. He was very brave to come before us and share his experience. He did so because he does not want anybody else, ever again, to go through what he experienced and neither do I. I do not have the right to tell any couple that has conceived a baby in love, a child that is wanted, and who have been told that their child is not likely to survive, what to do. I do not have the right to legislate or choose for them and tell them that they must leave this country. How dare I? I do not have that right. That baby was wanted and loved by the couple in question. The decision as to how they revere that child, bury that baby or bring that baby home from a hospital is theirs. They should not have to put their baby in the boot of their car and scurry home, hoping not to get caught. I cannot stand over that. My conscience will not allow me. I have a free vote and it is a vote of conscience. I would never want to put any family through that. That was a defining day for me and I thank the people who came before us because they were amazing. Tears dropped in our committee room that day. Some people looking in here this evening think that the committee members are just heartless, that we came to it from a particular position or that we are heartless people for saying something like that. I am not heartless; I was probably one of the most compassionate people on that committee. Indeed, we were all compassionate when we were sitting in that room listening to those stories. Some of the ladies and gentlemen have heard this down through the years and they articulated their position in the committee.

I have some regrets around the process. As I said, I did dissent on a lot of the votes at the committee. I voted in the negative because I would have liked more conversation around peri-natal hospice care, after care for women in this country and education. While I accept what the Professor from Galway said at the committee that we cannot legislate for rape and incest, I do not know if the committee went far enough on that issue. A lot of people who are looking in this evening would be more comfortable with allowing abortion on the grounds of rape and incest as opposed to the 12-week recommendation as it has been presented. That said, I will most definitely support a referendum when a vote is called on that in the House. I believe in democracy and that the people themselves will choose. I have only one vote and I urge everyone else to vote. This is a very divisive and emotive issue and the Oireachtas should enable the people to have a referendum and allow them to have their say. I did not vote in the last referendum and I would like to have my say in this one.

See this speech in context