Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I would like to use my time to share with the House an email I received from a constituent on the issue of Down's syndrome. We all know that in the coming months we will face into a referendum campaign but the more we keep saying that it is going to be divisive, the more likely it is that it will be thus. I do not believe that it necessarily has to be divisive, unlike in 1983. I have spoken to my mother at length about this because both she and my father campaigned against the insertion of the eighth amendment into our Constitution. I am both grateful and proud of them for that, as it goes but of course, they were not alone in that. When I was appointed to the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, my mother was very nervous. Even though I am a grown woman, my own mother was very nervous because she remembers what it was like in 1983. She was worried that I would come home to find people in my front garden or people outside my office. She was not worried that I would be physically harmed in any way but that I would be subjected to what amounts to emotional abuse. Some of us are on the receiving end of such abuse on social media and all of the rest of it. She was very concerned and we had discussion about it. I told her that there was no need to worry because it will not be like that this time. There is a wealth of information out there and we are in the position now, happily, where we can have a fact based discussion as grown ups and can come to a conclusion. I am not sure that she is convinced and we will have to wait to see what happens. However, the more we talk about this being a divisive issue, the more likely it is that this will be a divisive campaign.

This is a settled matter for a large number of people. I did not have a vote but will join with everybody else and admit that in 1983, I was ten. People can work that one out. I did not have a vote but I grew up in a house where issues of reproductive rights would have been spoken about. We would have had very open and vocal conversations when we were growing up.

I remember the Kerry babies case well. I remember the case of Ann Lovett. I remember how upset my parents were about the idea that this young woman died on her own. As I have said previously, I recall it being mentioned on the radio that it was dark when Ann Lovett and her baby died in the grotto. That stuck with me because it was so awful. We have to grasp the opportunity we now have to ensure this will not happen again.

I do not think the debate will necessarily be divisive because people have been reflecting on cases like those of Ann Lovett, the Kerry babies and Sheila Hodgers. Sheila was a very good friend of my parents who died, along with her baby, at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. The hospital would not give her any pain relief because she was pregnant. If I live to be 1,000, I will never forget the expression on my mother's face when she came back from visiting Sheila. It was absolutely horrific. I do not think there is a person in this State who wants to go backwards on this issue. We are all talking about journeys. I think we all agree that we have to go forward. We might not agree on how far forward we should go. Some people want to go one stop, two stops, three stops or 50 stops ahead. My party is still engaged in an internal discussion on this matter. That will continue, which is appropriate. It behoves all of us to take a look at the past, to consider what has happened since 1983 and to reflect on the society we have and the society we would like. We need to think about our daughters, granddaughters and sisters and look at what the law does to them. We have to embrace the opportunity this will present. It is unhelpful to say that the debate is going to be divisive.

When we put people into the mix, we should be able to get a full and rounded picture. For that reason, I would like to read an extract from an email that was sent to me by one of my constituents:

My wife and I have a beautiful daughter who has Down Syndrome, and it's important for us all to let our TDs know that we have no use for the 8th Amendment and the pro-life activists who claim to care about children like my daughter do not speak for us. There are ableist attitudes and there are ethical issues regarding pre-natal screening, for sure, but the 8th Amendment ... and its continued existence does not solve them.

I am happy to have an opportunity to share this powerful statement, which has already been highlighted on social media, with the House. I ask people to reflect on my constituent's statement that "we have no use for the 8th amendment" before they start throwing into the mix spurious claims about the stages of a pregnancy when Down's syndrome can and cannot be detected. I support the request made by these parents for us not to use their daughter in our row. It would not be right to do so. It is not right for us to throw spurious arguments out there. It is not right for us to try to distort the debate. If we stray from the facts and the evidence on which the committee focused, it is almost a guarantee of a divisive debate. As Deputy Rabbitte and others have said, we spent a huge amount of time at the committee considering evidence, rather than opinion. We heard from experts. We did not choose people based on their views of the eighth amendment. We chose people based on their expertise and the evidence they could provide. We did not choose them for their opinions. We all have opinions. Evidence is what guided us at the committee. Before the debate adjourns, I want to thank the members of the committee, including the Chairman, and all the people who gave freely of their time and provided information.

See this speech in context