Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The Minister just said that he has taken this from the front of the Bill and put it in the back because in our discussions and we talked about the chill factor for doctors. I am sure he is not misinterpreting anything but I think he is misplacing the sentiment. What we said and still mean is that having it upfront makes this Bill look like it is about criminalising abortions rather than being about women's healthcare. We have always argued that it has to be centred on women and women's healthcare. Taking the chill factor from the front to the back is like closing the front door and opening the back door and letting the wind come through. It does not get rid of it. The fact that there is a 20-year sentence for a doctor or medical practitioner is still a chill factor and it is part of the legacy of what we are trying to leave behind us and what the country said we need to leave behind and move on from. The 14-year sentence is still there and will be still a big negative to the provision of services. In fact, it could lead to putting the brakes on midwives and doctors in maternity care services participating in the scheme.

I understand that these amendments will technically fall if we support the Minister's but the Minister having put his name to our amendment does not mean we will vote against our own amendment. Now is probably the appropriate time to speak to why we want to get rid of criminalisation, which is why we say "delete", and the Minister's name is now on that, though he is moving it to amendment No. 57. If he cannot do that, will he at least try to lessen the impact of criminalisation, including, as proposed by Deputy Clare Daly, the removal of the 14-year sentence? If one combines the 14-year sentence and criminalisation with the compulsion of notifications for all doctors who administer abortions and the serious harm wording in the matter of where a woman's health or life are at risk, I think the Minister is compounding the fear that doctors and medical practitioners of all sorts will have about providing proper, full, sustainable healthcare for women. It was that chill factor and the question of how they could engage with this process that stopped doctors from treating Savita Halappanavar in the way she should have been treated. I appeal to the Minister not to go down this route and to call out those in his Department and those providing the legal opinion that he must do this. There does not have to be a 14-year sentence.

I think Lawyers for Choice have made recommendations in the case of anybody being coerced or treated violently, and having an abortion forced on her, which would be a rare case indeed. Nevertheless, they argue that this can be dealt with under existing legislation, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, by inserting two small paragraphs. I think the Minister is aware of them. They state that the following two paragraphs could be inserted:

It shall be an offence for a person intentionally or recklessly(a) to cause injury or death to a pregnant person such as to cause their pregnancy to end; or

(b) without consent to administer any drug or substance to a pregnant person such as to cause their pregnancy to end.Section 5(2): It shall be an offence for a person intentionally to coerce or deceive a pregnant person into having [a termination of pregnancy, as defined by this Act,] against their will or without their knowledge.

Surely that addition into other legislation would do what the Minister is attempting to achieve here and do women of this country a service by removing the chill factor that lingers over doctors and medical practitioners.

See this speech in context