Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy Lisa Chambers, I attempted to write a speech in preparation for this debate. To be honest, I found it difficult. I will probably ramble for the next 20 minutes as I try to get out everything that is in my head and it will probably come out in no particular order. I could not write a speech. Given everything we have heard in the past four months, it is impossible to explain in a condensed 20-minute contribution why I went into the committee with one point of view and came out with a completely different one. I do not think I could put it on paper or explain it in 20 minutes. To be honest, I do not think I have to explain it to anyone as I have come to terms with it myself. I know the reasons for my change of opinion and they are valid.

I will touch on some of them in my contribution.

I was taken by Deputy Clare Daly's comment that the reason some people were surprised by the outcome of the Citizens' Assembly was that they had not been listening up to that point. I was one such person. My parents were very religious and I was brought up to respect my faith. My upbringing was strongly influenced by the church whose influence on my parents was passed on to me. I always considered myself to be pro-life and never questioned or had to question my view on abortion. Part of me probably did not want to question my pro-life position because the questions would have been very uncomfortable. However, I realised when I was appointed to the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution that I would have to face these questions and find answers to them.

Many people have said this issue is a matter of conscience. While I do not disagree with that view, as legislators, we cannot afford to legislate based on our conscience. I am bound by and happy to articulate Sinn Féin party policy. Whether I agree or disagree with it is irrelevant because the forum for expressing agreement or disagreement with policy is internal to the party. I have taken a pledge to represent Sinn Féin and I will articulate the party position. Rather than being a matter of conscience, this issue should be approached as a matter of public health policy.

I have learned that the terminology people use to label themselves and others is not helpful. As I stated, I consider myself to be pro-life. Some people in the pro-life movement would probably disagree and ask how I could describe myself as pro-life given the views I am articulating. I believe all Deputies are pro-life. While my next point may sound idiotic, to be honest I do not care because it is a conclusion I have reached. I also believe all Deputies are pro-choice because they have chosen either to support or not support terminations. There is no contradiction in the statement that everyone is pro-life and pro-choice because I believe we can be both. While others will disagree with that view, it is my personal opinion.

We need to move away from the terminology of pro-life and pro-choice because it does not help the debate. The debate must focus on women's health care and what is best practice based on the evidence presented to us by the medical profession which oversees women's health care. In the months ahead, I hope the debate will focus on this issue.

I do not believe this debate will be as divisive as some have suggested. I draw confidence from the manner in which members of the joint committee conducted themselves in our deliberations and from the proceedings of the Citizens' Assembly. I accept that this is a personal issue on which people have differing and, in some cases, steadfast views. Last night, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae stated he would never change his opinion on abortion under any circumstances. I respect his view because he is entitled to his opinion. I will not make disparaging remarks about any Deputy who takes a different view from me because I probably would have shared Deputy Healy-Rae's outlook on this issue not so long ago.

I was influenced by a couple of aspects of the committee's deliberations. As I stated, regardless of how I may have been influenced as a member of the committee, I am, in any case, bound by my party's position. Nevertheless, I genuinely changed my position on abortion. Last night, one speaker argued that those of us who stated we were on a journey had been forced on this journey by advocacy groups and initiatives such as the abortion bus and the abortion train. I disagree as I was not forced on this journey but willingly took part in the committee's deliberations. My mind was changed by the people who presented evidence to the committee. The evidence presented by people such as Dr. Abigail Aiken, Dr. Anthony McCarthy, Dr. Rhona Mahony, Professor Fergal Malone, Mr. Gerry Edwards and Ms Claire Cullen-Delsol changed my opinion.

Last night, Deputy Anne Rabbitte stated that her one regret was that a vote was taken at the joint committee before all three modules had been concluded. Other members of the committee were also uneasy about taking that vote. I had a logical reason for proposing the vote. Deputies who did not follow the proceedings may not be aware that the committee dealt with three separate modules. In the first module, we considered the eighth amendment, its constitutional impact and how it could be changed and we were presented with six options for change. The second module involved examining circumstances in which terminations would be allowed. I believed there was no point in proceeding to the second module if we did not first decide that the eighth amendment should not be retained in full. If the committee had voted to retain the eighth amendment in full, it would have been unnecessary to proceed to module 2 and examine the circumstances in which the option of termination should be made available because many of these circumstances could not be provided for if the eighth amendment was retained. We saw the difficulty the eighth amendment presented in 2013 when the Oireachtas sought to introduce legislation to give effect to the judgment in the X case. For this reason, I proposed that the joint committee first decide on whether it wanted to recommend retaining the eighth amendment in full.

At that point, the committee did not vote to repeal or replace the eighth amendment. We took a straightforward vote on whether we supported the retention of the eighth amendment in full and members decided they did not support its retention in full. We then proceeded to consider the various options. The majority view in the committee was in favour of the first option, namely, repeal simpliciter. I am aware that the Attorney General is flagging difficulties with the decision taken by the committee. The difficulty with legal advice is that one will never get every legal mind to agree on an issue. The committee decided in good faith to support repeal simpliciter based on the legal advice available to it. I believe this was the right option and one from which the Government should not deviate.

I propose to address the issue of allowing terminations up to 12 weeks' gestation and the proposal regarding termination on the ground of rape. I found this to be one of the more challenging aspects of the committee's proceedings. While I cannot speak for all members, the majority of those who spoke did not envisage a scenario in which a victim of rape who became pregnant as a result of that vile act would be forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth.

The difficulty became how to legislate for that. I agree with what has been said to date. As Deputy Kelleher said last night, it is virtually impossible to legislate for it. Technically, that is not true. We have seen other options on legislating for it, but we cannot compassionately legislate on the ground of rape without having the 12-week period in place.

Let us consider the other options presented to the committee. We had what was referred to as a certification process whereby someone who was raped and who became pregnant would have to certify the fact either to the police or to the Judiciary. They were the two options presented to us as a possible way of legislating for rape. Several countries have these options in place. There is a certification process carried out by the police for termination on rape grounds in Mauritius, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Latvia, Morocco, Argentina, St. Lucia, Colombia and Uruguay. It is interesting that only two EU countries are on that list: Cyprus and Latvia.

Other countries have a judicial certification process, whereby a victim of rape has to go before a judge and state that she was raped and seek a termination on that ground. The countries that have a judicial certification process in place are: Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Bolivia and Panama.

Every other country that has tried to deal with the question has come to the conclusion that the only way to treat women with compassion rather than re-traumatise them by forcing them to go down the route of a certification process is to have a timeframe to access a termination on any ground. The periods we considered were between ten and 12 weeks. The committee came down on the side of 12 weeks. That is how we came up with the 12-week period.

Prior to joining the committee I would never have imagined supporting a report that contained a 12-week period on any grounds to access a termination. However, having examined the evidence, especially on the grounds of rape and incest, it was clear to me that there was no other compassionate way of dealing with it. I urge people who have not read the transcripts of the committee and the evidence presented to us to read them. Those who have concerns around the 12-week period should examine the committee's work and the transcripts. Having done that, they would see the clear evidence on which the committee based its decision.

Another area was the issue of risk. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act refers to where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman. That was something I had a particular interest in. I asked the same question to everyone who appeared before the committee - Deputy Durkan will testify to that. I asked the medical professionals whether they could categorise risk and whether they could assign risk into categories such as "real and substantial", "serious" or "moderate". The answer was that they could not because risk is different for every individual woman and circumstance. Any attempt to put in place a category of risk into legislation would frustrate achieving what we set out to do, that is to say, protect women's health. The only way to do that was to support the Citizens' Assembly recommendation that there should be no categorisation relating to the risk to health, mental health or life of a woman to ground access to a termination.

That is important as well. Several people have asked why we did not support termination only where there is a real and substantial risk or a serious risk. The answer is that it is not practical when it comes to implementation by the medical profession. We need to listen to the doctors who have to work within the confines of this legislation. We have to take on board their opinion.

The last area I want to touch on is adoption, which was put forward by members of the committee as one of the solutions or one of the reasons we should not have abortion in the State. If a woman who is in a crisis pregnancy makes a decision to go ahead with the pregnancy, gives birth to that child and puts the child up for adoption, then she should be supported in doing that. I do not believe anyone in the Chamber would disagree with that. If that is what a woman wishes to do, then the State should put every support in place to allow someone to do that. However, there is something obscene about forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that, for whatever reason, she decides she is unable to continue with in the hope that at the end of the pregnancy there may be someone willing to adopt that child. I find that obscene. It is like saying to a woman that the State is forcing her to be an incubator for the following nine months. Just as we should put in place supports for people who wish to carry on with a pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, we need to put in place the supports for women who do not wish to do so.

That is a summary of four months in 20 minutes. I could go on and on. I concur with Deputy Lisa Chambers on some of the commentary we have received. I am probably one of those who are damned forever now, because I considered myself pro-life and I will probably never be allowed to use that label again. To be honest, given some of the stuff I saw outside the gates today, including some of the vile posters outside the gates at the moment, it is probably not a tag I would ever want to use again. I now consider myself a realist when it comes to women's health care.

See this speech in context