Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Bríd Smith.

This legislation is historic. I refer to the millions of women who live in countries where abortion is illegal and unsafe. Obviously, it is still illegal in Ireland. One in eight deaths of pregnant women worldwide are related to unsafe abortion. Banning abortion never stops it. I particularly send my solidarity to our siblings in Argentina, whose Senate, unfortunately, did not have the guts to do what was needed to legalise abortion there. The struggle for abortion rights there is only starting and those seeking it have lit a flame for all of Latin America.

I wish to characterise the nature of the legislation and comment on some of the points made regarding whether it can be changed. It has been a huge achievement to win legislation that is on a par with international norms. Until a year ago, the legislation being discussed in this country was of a very restrictive nature and related to providing abortion where life was at risk, there was a fatal foetal abnormality or in cases of rape. No other grounds were countenanced. However, the reality of the situation involving people travelling for abortions or taking abortion pills was brought home to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The reframing of attitudes was also due to the persistence of a young radical movement which led this campaign, particularly in the past five years, and refused to accept an Irish solution to an Irish problem. The marches in which many people participated in the past seven years in particular, the civil disobedience which was required, the compelling research presented and so on were all critical to winning the referendum and getting to this legislation.

Some Deputies stated that a debate took place on the referendum and the Bill cannot be changed in any way. I do not agree. The scale of the result and turnout show that, if anything, we should be going in a more liberal direction than does the legislation. We got a 2:1 majority which was never anticipated by most of those who have so far contributed to the debate and a massive turnout. The general message was to trust women to make this choice for themselves. In exit polls, choice was the key reason given for voting "Yes". Imagine the discussion we would be having today if the result was a 50.5% majority for "Yes". Deputies would be claiming that people misunderstood the referendum and that we should not have legislation such as that before us.

It is not true that we must remain within the parameters agreed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, as stated by one Deputy. Many matters addressed in the legislation were not agreed by the committee. We have now established that the 72-hour waiting period was not agreed by the committee and was not in the report. Several Fine Gael members tried to claim that it was. When it was debated at the committee, it was pushed back by experts. It is important to bring that out. The case regarding decriminalisation is similar. We are here to legislate and it will probably be many years before we get a chance to change the legislation once it is enacted, so we must do it right and speak about what we believe is right.

The 72-hour waiting period is unnecessary, patronising and patriarchal. Research from countries where it has been implemented shows it acts as a barrier to poor or vulnerable women accessing abortion. It will mean that a working person seeking an abortion will have to take a second day off work in order to make a second trip to the doctor. It could prevent people approaching the end of the permitted 12-week period from accessing abortion. In France, there was a seven-day reflection period but that law has been dropped and midwives are now permitted to perform abortions. The waiting period must be debated. Some may argue that it formed part of people's thinking when casting their votes. I do not know many people who voted one way or another because women were to be made to wait for three days. Rather, people voted based on issues such as the 12 week period for abortion and other key points in the legislation.

I ask the Minister to comment on the change from what was agreed by the Committee on the Eighth Amendment regarding the circumstances in which abortion is permitted. The committee proposed that abortion would be allowable where there is a risk to life or health. The legislation provides for abortion where there is a risk to life or serious harm to health, which raises the threshold. The terminology is very different. That is very important because the case of Savita Halappanavar, in particular, was one of the reasons why people went out and voted in droves. They can relate to how subjective such changes in terminology can be.

Another concern with the legislation relates to who decides to grant an abortion. The legislation provides that the decision is made by two doctors, one of whom must be an obstetrician. It makes no reference to the pregnant woman having any say in the granting of the abortion or the decision being made in consultation with her. That is a betrayal of what people voted for in the referendum because the position put forward by most people campaigning for a "Yes" vote was that the pregnant woman would make the choice for herself in consultation with her doctors, not that her doctors would decide, which is what the legislation provides. The criminalisation of illegal abortions may have a chilling effect on doctors, who may be afraid to make a decision based on a risk to the woman's health for that reason. Two years ago, a teenager was sectioned by a psychiatrist because she was suicidal and wanted an abortion. To put the power to grant an abortion into the hands of doctors and take it away from the person affected is wrong.

On criminalisation, the legislation will maintain a 14-year jail sentence for anyone other than the pregnant person convicted of carrying out an abortion outside the scope of the law. It will be maintained as an offence for doctors, but anybody who aids, abets, counsels or procures an intentional abortion or attempted abortion for a pregnant woman is also liable to conviction. The mother or friend of a pregnant woman who helps her to get an abortion pill at 13 weeks - it is perfectly safe to take an abortion pill up to 14 weeks with supervision - could be arrested. Somebody who is refused within the law, the mother or a friend of a woman refused a legal abortion who tries to help her to access an abortion pill online, could face sanction. Obviously, the judgment of a doctor relating to the risk to a woman's health may also be called into question under that provision.

Abortion should not be a criminal offence. In all countries, people are moving to decriminalise abortion.

Conscientious objection is a difficult issue because nobody wants to take on the idea that we must force somebody to take part in a procedure. However, I am shocked by the emphasis being placed on doctors having a conscientious objection. The woman affected is almost taking second place in the discussion. Conscientious objection is used as a mechanism in other countries to act as a barrier to abortion. In parts of Italy pregnant women cannot access abortion because doctors refuse it. I agree with the point that the wording seems to be extremely loose in that it provides that doctors must refer onwards when they have a chance. The emphasis is on the medic.

I cannot understand the transgender exclusive nature of the legislation because the issue was raised by many people before the Minister had the law written. Transgender, LGBT and non-binary people fought very hard in this referendum and in many ways played a leading role in it. The Minister is reviewing the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Transgender people genuinely fear they could be refused an abortion under the legal definition provided here, which makes clear the person must be a woman. This could be changed very simply by replacing the word "woman" with either the word "person" or the words "pregnant person" or inserting the words "and pregnant person" in the legislation.

I will also mention those who are omitted from the legislation. Clearly, many people will still have to travel, specifically those who have been given a diagnosis of severe, but not fatal, foetal abnormalities. Such case are very difficult and the Citizens' Assembly recommended that they be catered for. Unfortunately, the politicians on the committee did not do so and people did not get to have a say on the matter. That is very unfortunate.

See this speech in context