Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I am sharing the time remaining in this slot with Deputy Thomas Byrne.

I welcome the opportunity again to speak on this topic. I have been speaking on it from this bench for a number of years. It is quite amazing that after the outcome of the referendum we are now here talking about the legislation to enact the will of the people. Reference was made to the fact that the heads of the Bill were published in advance of the referendum. It is an important point to make because we do not want to rerun the referendum.

It is important that the legislation that flows from the heads of the Bill, which we are debating, is in sync with what was published in advance of the referendum. There should not be much deviation from that beyond perhaps technical and administrative reasons, but the principles that were put to the people should remain intact in the context of the legislation. Once we start to move from where we were, we will open up the whole debate again and it could become divisive again. As referenced by Deputy Donnelly, I suggest that in terms of the heads of the Bill, we keep it as it was. I sat on the committee. It was an experience one would draw from in the context of the debate we had during the referendum. It must be acknowledged that, by and large, from my perspective, it was a respectful debate in terms of others who had a very different view, both on the doors, in the streets, in the studios and in this Chamber. I hope it remains that way because we are talking about healthcare for women. That is the principle of the issue. It is about ensuring women have access to healthcare in this State.

Reference was made frequently to people going on a journey, so to speak, in terms of their transition to having different views on the issue of the repeal of the eighth amendment and what should replace it in terms of a constitutional referendum, the wording and now the legislation that is flowing from that. The fundamental issue from my perspective is that we, as a State, should be obliged to provide healthcare for women in this State. In my mind, it was a simple debate, and I believe the people, in adjudicating on the issue in terms of the referendum, distilled it down to that fact. Were we going to continue to export our problems, tragedies, difficulties and our shame to other states or would we be mature enough, as a nation, to deal with them here? The results of the referendum were emphatic in that the people said that we must deal with our problems and challenges in this country and give women the healthcare they need and deserve. In my view, it was a straightforward debate in that context.

With regard to the legislation, as my colleague, Deputy Donnelly, stated, if we are to be honest with ourselves in terms of providing healthcare around the issue of terminations up to 12 weeks for the reasons outlined by the committee and now endorsed in this legislation, and I hope it will be endorsed by this Parliament when the debate is concluded, equally, healthcare should be free for women who do not seek a termination. That is an issue that must be examined very quickly in the context of this debate because from 1 January, the Minister will be providing for abortion services in this country. For the first time, abortion services will be provided in this country free of charge. Equally, all other services for pregnant women should move to be free of charge as well. That makes obvious sense from that perspective.

The other issue raised in the report, which was not debated in great detail during the referendum because what we were talking about was quite specific, was ancillary services. We have a good deal of work to do in the context of sex education and supports for women in crisis pregnancies. That is an area on which we fall down from time to time. We fell down because we knew these issues were being dealt with elsewhere. We kept our head in the sand. There is an obligation on us to ensure that women in a crisis pregnancy have all the supports available to them for them to make up their minds as to how they go forward and the decisions they reach. Until recently, we did not do that very well. We depended on organisations that should not be involved in that.

The State itself should be involved in this through its role of providing healthcare for women. I urge the Minister to look at that issue, and that we would not become dependent on organisations with varying views on this issue that come at it from different perspectives. The State must step up to the plate. We need to start ensuring that we have proper facilities in place with regard to bricks but also supports for women when they are pregnant.

There were a number of reasons we arrived at the 12 weeks but the reasons became very obvious when we listened to the medical evidence. A medical termination could take place up to around 12 weeks, and I accept that it may not always be possible to carry out a medical termination in the community setting up to 12 weeks. The fact that the Minister is talking about medical termination being available from nine to 12 weeks in an obstetric setting is clearly because of medical advice. I also accept this. If, however, we are to provide terminations under an obstetric setting from nine to 12 weeks, I do not want to see a situation where we have difficulties. We need to have enough obstetricians to provide that care and to make sure it is accessible.

On the matter of conscientious objections, I respect everyone's entitlement to object on conscientious grounds, but equally no woman should be put at risk because of conscientious objections.

See this speech in context