Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief in following my colleague, Deputy Mick Barry. This will be the last speaking slot to be taken by Solidarity-People Before Profit in the Second Stage debate because we are very anxious to see the legislation progress and take effect as soon as possible, particularly in the light of the Government's precarious position.

I will make a few brief general points and two specific points to complement what Deputy Mick Barry said. I register the historic nature of the legislation we are debating and the victory it represents, not for any of the establishment parties but for a movement and all those who fought for decades and, in particular, since the death of Savita Halappanavar, for large elements of it. Those who did it are the ones who marched, organised, mobilised, canvassed, distributed and made accessible abortion pills which showed that the existing legislation could no longer hold, as well as all those who came out to vote. The scale of the victory is seen in contrasting what has happened with the debate that would have been taking place a year or two ago which would have seen this legislation as completely unrealistic and the legislation of radicals, whereas it is legislation that is far more in line with international norms than the restricted legislation anticipated in the earlier stages of the debate. Until a year ago, all of the discussion was about fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and what, possibly, was seen as the most developed position, health only grounds. Those of us who were fighting for the right to choose were seen as off the wall and jeopardising the possibility of repeal of the eighth amendment. This really is an historic victory and a very important step towards the full right of women to choose. On the one hand, it is a victory for those sections of the population which mobilised, in particular women, young people and LBGTQ people, but, on the other, it is a defeat for the conservative forces in the State who believed or liked to pretend to believe they had a silent majority on their side, which clearly they did not. It is a defeat for the Catholic Church and leads to all of the other struggles that are needed to have full separation of church and State, take the church out of the areas of education and health and provide them as public services free of church influence and control, while respecting the right of every persons to practice whatever religion he or she wants.

It is also part of a global women's struggle that has emerged particularly strongly in the past few years which had its counterpart in massive protests in Argentina in fighting for abortion rights, where, unfortunately, the conservatives held on and won the vote in the Senate. However, that movement is regrouping, will grow again and, ultimately, will win a victory in that country. It also has a counterpart elsewhere in Latin America, in Brazil, where there is now an all-out struggle by women, workers and left organisations to try to defeat the possibility that the far-right candidate, Mr. Bolsonaro, will come to power in the presidential election. We express our solidarity with all those involved in that struggle.

I want to raise two specific issues for the Government to which I would like it to respond. They relate to the more oppressed sections of the population that will be seeking to access abortion services under this legislation. The first which seems in reading the legislation to be very problematic concerns transgender men and non-binary people who will be seeking to access abortion services. The word "woman" is used throughout the Bill in referring to who can access abortion services. The Bill states: ""Woman" means a female person of any age". When read in conjunction with the Gender Recognition Act, it seems that this will create a real problem where transgender men have the capacity to become pregnant, as do non-binary people, who under a restrictive Bill will be unable to access abortion services. I would like to hear the response of the Government on whether it accepts that this provision presents a legal problem. Even if it states there is no such legal problem, that the matter will be covered, etc., to use transgender and non-binary inclusive language, it should simply replace the word "woman" with "pregnant person" throughout the Bill.

The second issue is criminalisation because a 14-year prison sentence for those who assist persons in accessing abortion services outside the framework of the Bill will remain in place. This is contrary to the recommendation of the committee on the outcome of the Citizens' Assembly on the eighth amendment and international best practice for two reasons, one being that the existence of a draconian 14-year prison sentence, a hangover from the eighth amendment and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, will have a chilling effect on doctors operating even within the framework of the legislation.

They might be very concerned, for example, that they are going over the 12 weeks limit and this will inhibit them in their actions. The second reason is that it will criminalise those such as friends or relatives who are assisting someone in a crisis pregnancy to access an abortion outside the framework of this legislation. Only reckless or dangerous abortion should be criminalised, just as a reckless medical procedure or whatever would currently be criminalised. It seems to be very dangerous to maintain this provision it currently stands. The Government should follow the advice of international experts and the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and have decriminalisation of abortion and whatever new law is necessary in that regard.

See this speech in context