Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, I welcome the Bill and the fact that the Government is dealing with this issue comprehensively and expeditiously. This responsibility rests not just with the Minister and the Government, but with all of us in this House. For far too long the Irish people have waited to have a say on this. What we are doing is giving them a platform to decide precisely this matter for themselves. When we do this, we must put party and personal views behind ourselves and say this is a personal, private health care matter. The idea that it ever had a place in our Constitution is really frightening. I respect the fact that many of our citizens have very different views on this subject. They are entitled to those views and to have them respected, but the only way everyone's view can be respected is if we repeal the eighth amendment and allow people who feel they need to choose abortion that right. People who do not want to choose abortion, for religious or other reasons, already have that right respected, and I fully respect and stand over that.

I find it strange in some ways how much the debate has moved on since those days six years ago when Deputy Wallace, Deputy Joan Collins and I introduced the Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill. At the time we were very apologetic that the only legislation we could put forward was to provide for abortion in circumstances in which a woman's life was in danger. However, even on this limited ground, the vote was 110 to 20 against. Not just the position reflected in the vote, but also the content of the discussion has moved on so much in the intervening time, and that says a lot. In some ways what it says is that everything is different but legislatively everything has remained the same. We need the eighth amendment repealed to be able to recognise properly Ireland's abortion reality.

I also welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court this week. It is helpful. The fact that the court was clear in its ruling clears the way for us to recognise fully at last the rights of pregnant women, who, as I said, should never have been put in this position in the first place by the insertion of provisions concerning abortion into the Constitution. In saying this, it is important to say also that this does not mean the unborn has no rights, an argument that has started to be put forward already. That is not true. What the judgment says is that the unborn has no constitutional rights other than that outlined in the eighth amendment. How do all our peers across Europe and what we would call our compatriots in the advanced world treat the question of the unborn? They do not say foetal life has no value. No one says that. What is being clearly said is that foetal life does not have a value equal to that of the life and worth of a fully grown woman. Other societies have adopted measures whereby foetal life gets a certain amount of protection, particularly as the pregnancy develops, which can be reflected in legislation, but it is not the same as for a fully grown woman, a woman who may have other children, a husband or a partner - or not, as the case may be. It is important to say this.

In the six years since we introduced our Bill, there have been consequences of the inaction of this House. Some 6,500 Irish women have ordered abortion pills online without being able to get appropriate assistant treatment from their doctors. It is a relatively safe pill but still, they should not have had to make that decision because of our inaction. It should not have been the case that almost 20,000 women were forced out of our health care system to access safe abortion in the UK in the six years since we discussed this. The barriers to legal and safe abortion have exposed these women to added harm. I will not go over the cases to which other Deputies have referred: Savita Halappanavar; Ms Y, who came here seeking asylum and had her rights violated again by effectively a forced pregnancy following rape; the case of Amanda Mellet, which has been highlighted already; and the families who have received a diagnoses of fatal foetal abnormality and who so bravely championed their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

We have had many chances to deal with this before now. Members of this House have said Irish society was not ready but actually, it was the politicians who were not ready. Irish society has long been ready to deal with this issue. What we have seen in recent years is an awakening of the silent majority, the people who did not go out on the streets but who believe this is a private, personal matter and who want to respect the views of all people but do not want to go out and lobby on the matter. These people are now making themselves known more. As I said, it was the politicians who were not ready. I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken the helm on this. That is appropriate. All Members who say they are in favour of repeal have a responsibility to go out and campaign for it. Why would they not? To say one wants to protect women's health, lives and choices is something to be very proud of and I think the Irish people are capable of understanding that message.

The Citizens' Assembly played a great role and the joint committee was a really useful exercise. If anyone has concerns or doubts about this issue, they should take the time to read what has been published online by both the committee and the Citizens' Assembly. What was dealt with in these fora was strong, factual, evidence-based information from medical and legal experts, as well as women who have the direct experience. This is what should mould this discussion. It is not a question of whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion or whether one is pro or anti-abortion. Abortion exists and happens and will not stop happening. It did not stop happening in the six years during which we did not deal with it and it will not stop happening in the future. The idea that the floodgates will open if we bring this measure in is just not scientific, evidence-based or factually correct. We do not know how reliable the Irish figures that are quoted are because many people do not give Irish addresses when they travel and so on. Therefore, to say our abortion rates are lower is not scientific. Outlawing abortion does not mean there is no abortion. The choice is not between abortion and no abortion; it is between safe and unsafe abortion.

Deputy Wallace and I were in Malawi last week visiting a refugee camp. Because we have an interest in prison issues, we also took time out to visit some prisons there. We visited the women's prison in Lilongwe, the capital. Most of the women in prison in Malawi are either there for infanticide or, because abortion is outlawed there, may have miscarried and have been convicted on the basis of induced abortion. Looking back on Ireland's history, one can see there were high levels of infanticide. Women should always have the right to have children when they want and when they feel they are capable of parenthood, and we should support that.

Our shortcomings as a State in allowing backward attitudes to sexuality absolutely must change. I imagine most citizens want to keep abortion numbers down. I certainly do. I do not want anyone to have any medical procedure he or she does not need. However, if one really wants to reduce the number of abortions, all the evidence shows that the way to do so is not through restrictive legislation but through comprehensive sex education and widely available contraception. These are the ways to reduce abortion rates and it is what we need to do. We need safe abortion through our health service, not someone else's health service.

It would be remiss if we did not mention the debt of gratitude we actually owe to medical practitioners in the UK in particular, who have provided safe abortion for 170,000 Irish women since 1983. I really hope the future of the country will not be reliant on other people's health services. We need to raise the standard of health care for women at home. I agree with Deputy Wallace that some of the measures in the legislation need to be changed, but generally it is heading in the right direction. If we bring this in it will mean earlier and safer abortions without the risks and cost entailed in travelling and without the stigma of criminality, and the facts indicate this will have a positive impact on women's health.

I do not have time to develop other points, but last week the EU Commissioner for human rights made an excellent speech in the European Parliament. He warned about the danger of backtracking on women's rights and warned about complacency. He made the point that gender equality has not been achieved in any EU country and it will take vast cultural and economic changes to get anywhere near this. Some of us are further behind than others and we have to stop paying lip service to women's equality. This means fair pay for fair work, protecting women's rights in the workplace, affordable child care and access to full reproductive rights. In his remarks, the Commissioner addressed the issue on a European basis, stating restrictive laws should be brought into line with international human rights standards and best practice. Best practice is achieved by ensuring abortion is legal and on a woman's request, and that it takes place in early pregnancy and thereafter is made available throughout pregnancy to protect her life, her health and her freedom from ill-treatment. This is what we should strive for. Any practical and financial barriers, along with criminal penalties, need to be removed. It is a human rights issue and a health issue and it is something we as a society should begin to embrace because it is incredibly positive if women and their partners, if they have one, are having children when they want and when they have the means and wherewithal of supporting those children.

See this speech in context