Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

It is welcome that we are debating legislation aimed at providing for abortion rights in Ireland. I thank the 66.4% who voted "Yes" on 25 May for making this possible. I also thank the 64% who voted "Yes" in my constituency of Cork North Central for helping to make it possible. In particular, I thank all of the campaigners, including women's rights campaigners, repeal campaigners and left activists, who campaigned in the years and months leading up to 25 May for making it possible.

I do not have time to give all of my views on the proposed legislation, but I will make a number of points which I will preface by saying I am a supporter of free, safe and legal abortion services for all women and pregnant people who need to avail of such services. I will continue to campaign until such time as this is the full legal position in the State. While welcoming the arrival of the legislation, I have some criticisms of it. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into all of the detail. Instead, I will concentrate on two important shortcomings of the legislation and the associated changes that I believe need to be made.

I wish to make a number of points on the question of health. The Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution supported the right to a termination where the life or health of a woman was at risk. However, the Minister's proposed legislation states something quite different. It states a termination can take place where there is a risk to the life or a risk of serious harm to the health of a woman. I put it to the House that there is a significant difference between permitting abortion on the grounds of serious harm to health and permitting it on grounds of health. This represents a significant watering down of the committee's proposal and what people voted for on 25 May. This watering down flies in the face of expert medical advice heard by the committee. The expert medical advice indicated that the person best placed to decide on the level of risk she was prepared to take during a pregnancy was the pregnant person based on medical advice and personal circumstances.

Applying a legal standard of risk to a medical determination of actual risk is neither practical nor in the best interests of the pregnant person. Furthermore, what constitutes "serious harm" is open to interpretation. Given the potential for criminal sanctions under the legislation, it is more likely to be open to a conservative interpretation in the hands of medical professionals. The tragic instance that put the issue of abortion rights and health into the national conversation – the death of Savita Halappanavar – shows the dangers of a conservative interpretation of rigid law-making.

All references in the proposed legislation to risk of serious harm to health should be removed and replaced with the words "risk to health".

I want to deal with the proposed three-day waiting period. According to the World Health Organization, there is no evidence that waiting periods are medically necessary. The evidence indicates that they will not change people's minds because they have already made up their minds but will create practical and psychological hardship for women. That is the reason France decided in 2015 to remove the waiting periods that had applied up to that point. They had had no impact, other than a negative one on women and pregnant persons. As I said, opposition to waiting times is the position of the World Health Organization and was also the position of the Citizens' Assembly that considered the issue.

I raise a question to which I would like the Minister to respond because it is unclear to me in reading the legislation whether the limit of 12 weeks includes the three-day waiting period. Is it the intention of the Minister that the window in which a woman or pregnant person can have a termination is 12 weeks minus the three-day waiting period or is it 12 weeks and three days, minus the three-day waiting period, in other words, a total of 12 weeks? I will be concerned and opposed to it if it is the case that that waiting period effectively makes it eleven and a half weeks, rather than the 12 set out in the legislation.

This is positive legislation and it is welcome that it is being debated. It is down to the campaigning work done by many over many years, in particular, the women and young people of Ireland and all those who came out and voted "Yes" on 25 May. It is not, however, without significant shortcomings. The issues of health and the three-day waiting period need to be debated and the legislation amended and changed to make it better.

See this speech in context