Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the Bill and I support the repeal of the eighth amendment. Should the referendum pass I will support the recommendations of the committee and, for the most part, the contents of the Government’s policy paper. The first step, however, is dealing with the eighth amendment and this needs to be differentiated from the legislation to follow should the referendum pass. I have spoken many times in the Chamber about the need to provide abortion as a health care service. Today I shall challenge some of the reasoning behind retaining the eighth amendment and I will then address the Government’s policy paper.

First, I shall address the issue of adoption as a solution to a crisis pregnancy, as suggested by some Deputies. A considerable amount of time in the committee was spent on this issue. This is a misogynistic view that sees women as nothing more than vessels. It suggests that women should go through life-changing trauma if it will help out a childless couple who cannot have a baby of their own. This is forced birthing and it is being proposed in a State with a history of forced births and forced adoptions by religious orders. It is an absolutely terrifying and nightmarish scenario. How would this idea be implemented in practical terms? This concerns women with crisis pregnancies and some may even be suicidal. Are the Deputies planning to detain these women forcibly? How would the babies be handed over to these childless couples? Would the women then have to be declared unfit mothers or become wards of state? This is a deeply shocking and extreme view. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will falls under the legal definition of torture, but have we not done this to women in Ireland for a long time?

During statements on the committee recommendations I spoke about the committee’s 12 weeks without reason recommendation and how it is specifically intended to care for women who are pregnant as a result of rape. To some people the "without reason" clause may sound like a radical liberalising of our abortion laws. This is not the case and I say this as someone who favours much more liberal abortion laws. Personally, for example, I do not believe a woman must be raped before we should feel compassion for her. The clause is simply an attempt to provide compassionate, non-directive, non-judgmental care for victims of rape who have a crisis pregnancy. Yesterday the Minister said that most people in Ireland agree with providing terminations for victims of rape. If Members agree with this I urge them to support the Bill. Presumably Members will do so as it is very clear that repeal of the eighth amendment is necessary to accommodate victims of rape in terms of abortion legislation. I urge them also to support the committee’s recommendation, which is included in the Government’s policy paper, if the referendum is successful. The inclusion of a specific rape ground in legislation is neither a compassionate nor a workable means of supporting women in these circumstances, for two main reasons. First, it is simply not possible to prove through a medical examination that a rape has occurred. Second, the requirement to disclose what they have experienced in order to access abortion will likely re-traumatise and re-victimise such women. If a victim of rape must convince others that she deserves access to support, that person is disempowered all over again. This is the context for the without reason clause.

I am aware that there are many Deputies and members of the public who do not believe that terminations for women who are the victims of rape should be permitted, that we should not change things or repeal the eighth amendment. Of course every rape is different, but I ask these people to imagine themselves in the shoes of such victims. Imagine the waves of nausea and vomiting, the feeling of complete and utter contamination, the pain of vaginal penetration, the pain of vaginal ruptures and torn skin, bleeding and infection, the pain of the restraining, the hitting, punching and choking and then imagine you are pregnant as a result. Now imagine you are 14 years old, the same age as the girl at the centre of the X case. Imagine the psychological trauma of carrying that child to birth: the real, physical weight of that child and the pain of childbirth. Think about this: a 14 year old girl who is pregnant as a result of rape and forced by the State to remain so. Imagine the practical reality of this. Does she continue to go to school? As she gets bigger and bigger, does she continue to wear her school uniform or is she granted an exception? Does she tell her friends and all the people in her class that she was raped? How else does she explain the fact that she is pregnant? Does she tell her teachers? It is very, very difficult to hide the signs of pregnancy. Should she tell her neighbours and her cousins that she was raped? The context for this situation is a pervasive rape culture where sexual violence is trivialised and where victims are often blamed, so much so that most rapes are not even reported. Imagine this is your own 14 year old daughter and consider the practical, everyday reality of this. How would you explain this to her younger brother or sister? How would you feel sitting down to dinner every evening and looking at her as her body changes or in the morning when she has morning sickness as a result of rape? How on earth would you deal with this reminder every minute of every day of the extreme violation of your daughter? Maybe your daughter would be happy to carry this child to term and raise this child and maybe you would be happy with this and support her, but surely we should give her a choice in the matter. It is inhumane not to give her a choice.

With regard to the Government’s policy paper, I am slightly concerned about the proposed time period between the request for a termination and the abortion pill being accessed. A cooling-off period like this in legislation may become another access barrier. I welcome the Minister’s comments today and recently on the importance of repealing the eighth amendment, but this proposal will look like the Government does not yet fully trust women and it risks replicating a damaging and patronising stereotype of women. The World Health Organization has said that waiting periods like this “demean women as decision makers”. France, Spain, Finland and Denmark do not have these time lapses. Waiting periods will only lead to delays in accessing treatment. If a woman decides to have an abortion, when she presents to a GP or elsewhere for treatment she will have already devoted a considerable amount of time and effort in making this decision. It is not a decision taken lightly. It is often, for a number of different reasons, a very emotional and distressing process. I believe that this proposed cooling off period sounds like a sop to placate those who seem to think women have abortions as a contraceptive measure without giving a second thought to it.

One of the most upsetting and devastating aspects of this debate which some people seem to misunderstand is that women and couples who choose abortion often desperately want to have the child. Amanda Mellet desperately wanted her child. She was told the foetus had congenital defects meaning it would die in the womb or shortly after birth. Last year, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Ireland had subjected Amanda Mellet to "discrimination and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" because of its laws against abortion. While I appreciate the Minister's thinking regarding informed consent, it is important we respect the decisions of these women.

The first positive legislation to provide for abortion in Ireland was introduced just over six years ago in this Chamber by Deputy Clare Daly. We have been very slow to do the right thing. Let us help to make it happen at last.

See this speech in context