Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On Friday, 25 May, the people were asked if they wanted to remove the eighth amendment from the Constitution. There were deeply and genuinely held views on both sides of that question. The debate in people's homes, on the doorsteps and the airways and in Parliament was passionate and, in the main, respectful. We should reflect on this and be proud of it. Around the world, public and political discourse is becoming more extreme, divisive, aggressive and hateful. Bucking that trend in Ireland, a largely respectful debate was held on this most sensitive of issues. Ultimately, the people voted by a large margin to take the eighth amendment out of Constitution. They did so for many reasons. Some believed women should have unfettered access to abortion services. Others believed termination should be available in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality. Others believed that, if termination services were available abroad, we must provide them here in order that Irish women would not have to travel. The eighth amendment is gone and it is up to us to legislate. The question now is what form that legislation should take.

Two months before the referendum the heads of a Bill were published, providing much of the detail of what the legislation would look like if the eighth amendment was repealed. It was largely, although not fully, in line with the recommendations of the Oireachtas all-party committee. It stated, for example, that there would be no restrictions on terminations up to 12 weeks. It stated that after 12 weeks terminations would be allowed in specific circumstances, including where there was a risk to the life or serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman. It stated doctors would be able to conscientiously object and much more. The details of the heads of the Bill formed part of the national debate on radio, television and the doorsteps. It is my view that when the people voted to repeal the eighth amendment, they did so with a clear understanding that the legislation that would follow would reflect the heads of the Bill published in March.

Having examined the Bill before us, I believe it reflects the heads of the Bill and, as such, it reflects the will of the people and should be supported by the people's Parliament. I am sure there will be plenty of time on Committee Stage to tease out the details to make sure the legislation is robust, clear and workable.

Given the conversations I have been having in recent days, and which I sure many Members have been having, it is clear that across the spectrum of views on abortion, from those who are pro-life to pro-choice and everything in between, people have many issues with this Bill. I am sure people are approaching every Member of this House about many amendments, changes and tweaks. Some people believe it should be more liberal, some believe it should be more restrictive and some believe it is about right, but that there are technical issues that need to be teased out in the legislation.

There are aspects of this Bill with which I do not agree. For example, I do not agree with the three-day waiting period. It did not form any part of the committee report. It was not included on the basis of international evidence. My understanding is that it was political and that it was included at a time when a certain member of Cabinet was expressing concerns about supporting repeal of the eight amendment.

See this speech in context