Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Táimid tagtha go dtí an pointe seo tar éis turas fada. Le linn an thurais sin, d'fhulaing a lán mná agus fuair cuid acu bás. Is í seo an chéad chéim chun é sin a cheartú agus chun seirbhísí a chur ar fáil do mhná ar bhonn atá bunaithe ar chearta daonna.

I welcome the Bill. It has been a very long journey to get here with unnecessary deaths and suffering, repeated condemnation by various international courts, including the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, UN committees and people power on the streets.

It is possible, of course, to start that journey at different significant points depending on one's viewpoint and experience. We could start with section 58 of the 19th century Offences Against the Person Act, the Victorian legislation. As a result of my own experience I will start with the death of Sheila Hodgers. I pick her, as I have done on other times when I have spoken on the subject in the Dáil, because her death on 19 March 1983 happened prior to the eighth amendment being inserted into the Constitution. She died unnecessarily after giving birth to a premature baby who died almost immediately after birth. She died because she was refused treatment for cancer. I will not go into the details of that case. I mention that because that was prior to the eighth amendment and this country then went ahead and inserted that article into the Constitution, using black and white terms, knowing well that it was a complex matter and that difficulties would ensue.

We had the X case in 1992. The Supreme Court judgment laid out exactly the difficulties, almost ten years after the passing of the eighth amendment. Sometimes the facts of that case are lost and I will not go into them. I am sure they are very painful for the family to hear repeated. It is important to say that we are talking about a 14 year old girl pregnant as a result of rape. Those facts were not even discussed in Irish society, as represented by those who took High Court action to prevent her from travelling. That was of more concern to them, rather than the circumstances of the rape.

I am only picking a few of the cases. In 1998 we had A and B v. the Eastern Health Board, Judge Mary Fahy and C. We are talking about a 13 year old girl under the care of the Eastern Health Board who was raped and again prevented from travelling.

I jump to 2011 because there are so many cases where women and children suffered as a result of the eighth amendment and as a result of certain sections of society dealing with complex issues in a black and white manner. In 2011, the A, B and C case went to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled no effective remedy was available to the women in theory or in practice. As a result of that case, Michelle Harte came forward. She had become unintentionally pregnant when she had cancer. Her doctor quite sensibly recommended a termination but a subsequent hearing of an ad hocethics committee in the hospital determined she could not have a termination. She had to be helped onto the plane.

Still the Governments in power took no action. It took another death in my city, that of Savita Halappanavar, a 31 year old woman who was 17 weeks pregnant and died on 28 October 2012. I accept there was a basic lack of care in that hospital, which continues to have serious issues with the service it gives. One of the major issues was a refusal to consider a termination for her. That tragic death, which should not have happened, led to the introduction of the 2013 legislation. That legislation was to implement the Supreme Court judgment of 1992. It took the deaths of those women and that suffering to introduce that limited legislation where we still persisted in criminalising women who had an abortion or those who helped them. Unfortunately we are still doing it in this Bill.

It continued right up to 2016 with Amanda Mellett going to the UN Human Rights Committee, followed by Siobhán Whelan in 2017 and still we did not learn. It took people power on the streets with people of every age coming forward to force us into holding the referendum on 25 May of this year when 2 million people cast their votes. There was a landslide victory for "Yes" with a majority of 66.4% to 33.6%. However, all the while women have had to continue travelling outside this country. It must be remembered we help people onto a plane, including in the case I mentioned, to go over to England because we have refused to provide those services. Most significantly all of those women are excluded from the health service and continue to be excluded from the health service. Therefore, this Bill is extremely important because for the first time we have been forced to bring it forward.

I thank the Minister of State present and the Minister, Deputy Harris, for introducing this Bill. Finally we are at the stage of doing our job as legislators and this Bill is the first step in that important process. We have a duty to ensure that the legislation enacted is robust, fit for purpose and actually capable of dealing with the myriad of challenges and problems facing a pregnant woman at any given time. These include a woman suffering from cancer and a pregnant woman with a diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality.

It is, of course, essential to highlight that no woman takes a decision to terminate a pregnancy easily. It is also vital to recognise that the Bill is to provide a health service. We need to move away from the patronising and patriarchal language, and we need to trust women. If we have learned anything from the cervical smear scandal and all the other scandals, it is to trust women and give the maximum information to empower them, to put them at the centre of every decision-making process. With that we will have a much healthier society.

I generally welcome the Bill. However, a number of problems need to be teased out. I hope they will be teased out on Committee Stage. I do not sit on that committee, but I will certainly keep a careful eye on the Bill and look at amendments. It has to be woman centred. There is a contradiction in a Bill providing a health service while at the same time providing for penalties. I do not believe offences or penalties have any place in the Bill. If the Government insists on providing for penalties, it should be in separate criminal legislation and not in a health service Bill. It gives contradictory messages and does not help. The woman needs to be at the centre of the decision-making process.

The definition of health must be as broad as possible. I would recommend, as the organisations on the ground have asked us to recommend, the very comprehensive definition provided by the World Health Organization.

As has been mentioned, the waiting period has no medical rationale other than a patronising, patriarchal attitude that a woman really does not know her own mind and that we need to give her more time so that she comes to her senses. I do not hold with that type of logic. If the Government insists on putting in the three-day waiting time, it is very difficult to know when that begins. If it begins from certification, what about the delay in getting that certification?

What about the delay if the initial doctor refuses that certification? These are practical problems on the ground that need to be teased out.

The storage of information and the right to access information in regard to a decision made or not made by a medical practitioner, as well as the review of that, is an issue that has to be looked at. With regard to the early pregnancy section, whereby one is allowed to have a termination up to 12 weeks, if a doctor refuses, what is the position and what are the consequences for that doctor? Does the pregnant woman have to go from doctor to doctor to try to get a doctor who will give her permission? The make-up of the review panel has to be scrutinised and a much broader range of professions and experience brought into it. I have no difficulty with conscientious objectors but the result and consequences for a doctor refusing must be tied down.

We also need to clarify who is entitled to this service. I welcome that it is free, although I should not say "free" because everybody pays taxes for services, one way or another. Nonetheless, I welcome that the service is being provided as a universal service without extra cost. In regard to medical guidelines, like others, I welcome the appointment of Professor Peter Boylan because we are going to need robust medical guidelines in regard to many of these issues, which will be dealt with better under medical guidelines rather than in legislation.

See this speech in context