Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill today. There is no doubt that this Bill, regardless of one's position on it, will go down in history and will be spoken about for many years to come. Hundreds of people were here last night to express their serious concerns about this legislation. I am conscious of the fact that people have strongly held views on both sides and we must respect that. Since I have been elected to Dáil Éireann I have been careful to ensure that, while I have my personal view, I have always been willing to talk to people from both sides of the argument. That has led some people to abuse me online but that has happened to Deputies on both sides and we have to accept it, given our position. In the interests of covering every aspect of this Bill, I have spoken to members of the public from both sides. I have also spoken to social workers who have a lot of experience in supporting vulnerable women facing difficult pregnancies. They are very concerned about the lack of protection for vulnerable women in the Bill as drafted.

I appreciate that this Bill addresses issues that are difficult for many people to discuss. Abortion can be a divisive issue and has been thus for many years. I do not take issue with people's stance on this, provided they are open, honest and do not shy away from making their voice heard. I agree with many of my colleagues on both sides of the debate who have called for a respectful and reasoned debate. As my colleague, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said earlier this year, if one does not stand for anything, one will fall for everything. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on this topic. I respect the fact that the people have spoken through their vote in the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. I am not standing up to try to change anyone's mind but I am standing up to protect and promote the right of all mothers to receive the genuine support to which they are entitled.

Many people who voted Yes in the referendum were acting in the interests of choice and compassion for women facing unexpected and challenging pregnancies, but they are not necessarily on board with the more extreme aspects of the Bill before the Dáil today. Exit polls showed that many Yes voters had very serious concerns that they hoped would be addressed to have a reasonable, restrictive regime put in place. These specific issues must be addressed through amendments to the Bill.

It should be noted that the Minister declared in the Chamber in March that he would not debate the details of the draft heads of the Bill because the people would not vote on the Bill but on the removal of the eighth amendment. The Referendum Commission stated, in its booklet, as confirmed in the High Court during the summer, that people were not being asked to vote on any legislation as there was no guarantee the proposed legislation would ever come to pass. Therefore, to claim the Irish people have voted on this legislation and no deviation from these proposals can be allowed is to speak out of both sides of the same mouth. It is also extremely disrespectful of the democratic process. The Irish people are entitled to have the legislation that comes before the House debated. There is too much at stake to rush this Bill through the Dáil with undue haste, which is the approach the Minister seems to favour.

It is also important to note there are a number of areas of major difference between what the people were led to believe before the referendum and what is proposed in the legislation. The Minister repeatedly stressed that early delivery would be mandated after viability, yet the Bill makes no mention of early delivery and instead allows for the deliberate ending of a baby's life at any point in the nine months of pregnancy in certain cases. The Irish people did not vote for that. It was stressed that unborn babies would be protected against discrimination on the grounds of disability. I can find no such protection in the Bill. The Minister owes it to the Irish people to add those protections about which he spoke.

Irish people were not told their taxes would fund procedures that will end the most innocent lives in homes, abortion clinics or hospitals. We now know that a poll in August suggested 60% of Irish people are opposed to their taxes paying for abortions. How much will it cost the State? Will it be €12 million or €20 million?

Additionally some sections of the Bill have already been amended by the Minister to widen the grounds on which abortion would be legal and available and reduce the protections for vulnerable babies and healthcare workers. I am specifically referring to the redefinition of the term "viability" to exclude life-sustaining medical treatment to which a premature, wanted baby would be entitled, to require that a baby with a life-limiting condition be likely to live for 28 days after birth and to narrow the grounds for conscientious objection. This Bill does not legislate for restrictive grounds for abortion beyond 12 weeks, as many were led to believe it would. It does not contain many of the protections the Minister promised Irish people it would contain for healthcare workers, vulnerable babies or mothers.

Irish people were not asked to, and did not, vote on this extreme legislation and there is no obligation on any Member of this House to put his or her name to a Bill that so utterly disregards the lives of the most vulnerable members of our human family and so dismally fails to provide genuine support for mothers or freedom of conscience for healthcare workers.

Prior to the referendum, I made the point that if we offer abortions instead of real support services and compassion to pregnant mothers, we are failing those pregnant mothers and their unborn children. I still stand strongly by this point. In order to provide adequate support services and compassion to pregnant women, we need to consider the following points. An important question is whether there will be a three-day or a 72-hour cooling off period. For example, if a woman visits her doctor on Monday evening at 6 p.m., under a three-day cooling off period, she will be able to have her termination at 9 a.m. on the following Wednesday because under the three-day cooling off rule, the day of the doctor's visit and the day of the termination are both considered one of the three days. Under the rule, therefore, a woman may only have to wait 39 hours before her termination. It is important that every woman is given a minimum of 72 hours from the time she visits her doctor until she makes her final decision and a termination is carried out. This is where the supports I mentioned are vital for a pregnant woman. It is clear that, after a woman visits a doctor to discuss termination, she should have a minimum of 72 hours to digest the information given to her by her doctor and to contact any support service that may be able to help her access choices available to her.

During the cooling off period, I also suggest that a booklet be provided to all women with unbiased information on all her choices, all support services available and any other information that is relevant to pregnancy and termination. It is vital that any girl under the age of 18 be accompanied by a parent or guardian if she is seeking a termination. We do not allow the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to persons under 18 for their own protection and, for a girl under 18 to make a decision in respect of termination, it is vital she is accompanied by a parent or guardian for her own protection and support.

My main concern continues to be the protection of all mothers. A free counselling service should be made available to all mothers who are facing unexpected or challenging pregnancies and in particular for those women considering termination and post-abortion support for those women who have terminations. If women are to be adequately cared for, support services must be widely advertised and fully funded with ring-fenced moneys.

If the health service is to cope with the upcoming demand for terminations, safeguards need to be put in place to ensure the care of other patients is not compromised. There are already huge waiting lists in the country. A person could wait for five years for a simple procedure like a 15-minute cataract procedure. It is vital the Government provides an adequate level of funding and resources to meet the future demand of terminations and also that other waiting lists do not get longer as a result of this Government not supplying adequate resources.

If a woman is seeking a termination on mental health grounds, one of the doctors involved must be a psychiatric doctor, a comprehensive mental health assessment must be completed and appropriate mental health supports must be provided before any decision is made and following any termination provided. We all heard the shocking figure that one in every five pregnancies in Britain ends in abortion. The vast majority of those, 98%, are performed on the grounds of mental health. Either the UK has a mental health crisis of epidemic proportions among pregnant women or that ground is being widely abused. Section 10 of the Bill provides for grounds that are extremely similar to the grounds used in Britain. It is imperative that protections are included to protect against similar abuse of those grounds here and to ensure pregnant women with genuine mental health concerns are identified and supported.

Accurate dating of the pregnancy must be carried out with ultrasound equipment as one measure by a medical practitioner. This is vital to protect both mothers and doctors against the medical, legal and life-threatening complications that can arise from inaccurate dating of pregnancy.

Protections also need to be placed in this legislation for the unborn child. For example, with all the recent outrage over the Tuam babies, some of whom are reported to have died before birth, there can surely be no objection to an amendment that will require the remains of terminated babies to be treated with respect. There should be respectful arrangements with regards to burial.

As the Government seems determined to ensure most women terminating their pregnancies do so at home, consideration must also be given to how the tiny babies’ bodies are delivered and taken care of thereafter.

We need also to address the harrowing scenario of babies who are born alive after a failed abortion. All necessary care should be given to the baby. This should go without saying, but we know in many other countries where abortion is legal babies born alive during failed abortions are all too often left to die alone and uncared for.

It is also of note that the Minister has taken it upon himself to completely redefine how the term "termination of pregnancy" is understood in our health system. Currently our medical guidelines acknowledge that it may occasionally be necessary to perform a termination of pregnancy where a mother’s life is at risk, while giving the baby a chance. This Bill now clearly redefines "termination of pregnancy" as a medical procedure intended to end the life of a foetus. While it is occasionally medically necessary to end a pregnancy to protect a mother’s life or health, it is never medically necessary to intentionally terminate the life of a child. Early delivery must always be mandated beyond viability and babies born alive must always be given necessary medical treatment to give them a chance to live.

The Minister's Bill would more accurately be titled the Regulation of Termination of Life Bill as it currently stands.

Protection also needs to be put in place for anyone involved in any activity linked to termination. I believe, in line with international practice in many countries, medical practitioners such as doctors, midwives, pharmacists and also any other persons such as cleaners etc. should be allowed the decision on conscientious grounds whether or not to be directly involved or indirectly involved in any services that support terminations. Some medical professionals have approached me and expressed their concern that they would be indirectly involved in a termination if they referred a patient for a termination. There is a system in New Zealand which is an opt-out regime. Those willing to provide a direct or indirect service that links them to termination could opt in. I feel this would be more respectful for anyone working in the medical profession. Writing into law a positive right to freedom of conscience would be the best approach to guarantee the desired outcome. As I said earlier, I am not here to change any voter's mind on the decision voters made on the eighth amendment to the Constitution but I want to ensure that life-affirming choices are incentivised and also to ensure that women will not feel under pressure to terminate.

The Minister, Deputy Harris, seem to be extremely concerned that cost will never be a barrier to accessing terminations but if he truly wants to support women then will he ensure that cost will never be a barrier to a woman continuing a pregnancy or raising her child? In light of the fact that the Oireachtas committee noted that the majority of terminations were for socioeconomic reasons, and had nothing to do with rape or life limiting conditions, this is even more crucial. I want to make it clear that while I am opposed to much of the contents of this Bill and will be voting against it, I intend to support reasonable amendments as I respect the people have spoken. As I said earlier, I did my best not to direct any hit at any party or group here but I am disappointed, especially in one political party which did its best to stop somebody from speaking and even criticised that person who was speaking here today. That same party was censored from speaking for many years in this country.

See this speech in context