Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I strongly disagree with the Deputy. He seems to be assuming that the referendum is over and that the proposition will be defeated. I believe that the referendum and campaign are ongoing. I was on the doors in Clonsilla in my constituency as part of a cross-party canvass, listening to people, hearing their views and answering some of their questions. I believe that this referendum will carry. The people have not spoken yet. When they have spoken, we will count the votes and determine what they have said. It is somewhat arrogant for anyone to assume the outcome of this referendum already. At the start of this campaign, I said something that I really believe, which is that this campaign should always be respectful and should never be personalised. By and large, I am glad that has been the case so far. Unlike previous abortion referendums, this campaign has largely been respectful and has rarely been personalised but I regret the extent to which some people, including Deputy Mattie McGrath, have sought to personalise this against the Minister, Deputy Harris. That is absolutely wrong. The Minister, Deputy Harris, is putting forward a proposal that the Government is making following an all-party committee, following a Citizens' Assembly. The people will have their say on that. I do not think he, or anyone on any side of this referendum, should be targeted personally in any way, whether through posters, demands for one-to-one debates, or anything of that nature. It is wrong and it is not what people want.

Amnesty International's current campaign is registered with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. It is above board and I do not believe anyone has produced any evidence to the contrary. The Deputy is referring to a different campaign it ran maybe a year or two ago, against which SIPO has made some negative findings. That matter is now before the courts. Its current campaign on this referendum is registered with SIPO just like any NGO campaign of this nature. It is wrong to confuse the two. Perhaps it is deliberate but it is wrong either way.

On the legislation before us, the legislation that the Government has produced allows for a woman to decide to end her pregnancy if she decides she does not want to go ahead with that pregnancy up to 12 weeks into it. That is ten weeks from conception. It allows for the termination of pregnancies after that on the grounds that there may be a serious risk to her life or health, or in the case where the baby she is carrying will not survive as a result of a fatal foetal abnormality. It does not provide for the termination of pregnancies beyond viability and that is in the heads. There is an important point that we need to make and understand, which is that if there is not a yes vote, there will be no legislation at all. If there is not a Yes vote, things will remain exactly as they are now. There will be no legislation. Women who are victims of rape, who are pregnant as a result of incest or who are just children themselves will not be able to get the help they need in this country. Those who are advocating a No vote need to explain why they would turn their backs on those women and give them the cold shoulder. That is what a No vote would mean.

See this speech in context