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

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 33 and 34. Insofar as I want to challenge what has been said in regard to this being in the heads of the Bill that was put to the people, which got us the vote to repeal the eighth amendment, I want to make the following points. As has been said, it was not a decision or a recommendation, it did not even form part of the discussion for those of us who sat on the joint Oireachtas committee, and it was not a recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly. It came into the political discourse as we were clearly moving towards a referendum and the heads of Bill were then published with this in it. I remember thinking, "Where did that come from? I am quite shocked." The only reference I could remember to a waiting period from the time one would contact a doctor was from the Netherlands, where there is a waiting period of up to five days, although it starts from the time one contacts the doctor to make the appointment.

As has been said, it is making an assumption that no full thought is given to the request that is being made to the doctor, which is pretty patronising. However, let us say full thought was not given to it and that it was just an impulse along the lines, "I will pick up the phone now and look for a termination but I have not really thought it through." The Minister said he envisages a 24-7 helpline that would guide people towards a practitioner who would give them an abortion or deal with their request for an abortion. It is just a thought, but what if such a helpline was geared to say to people who call that they have to get a doctor's appointment and that their request has been noted, that it is 28 November and that in three days' time, 2 December, if they have not had an appointment, at least it will have been noted that they requested one and that three days have to elapse before their doctor gives them the pills they require. That would make sense, given a helpline is to help, so questions can be asked and the person can be referred to a counselling service.

Nonetheless, I can tell the House this will apply in very few cases. It is a big decision in one's life to seek a termination, and it is not something anyone does without thinking about it. This is an obstacle to access. We are going to hear this again and again, just like we did in the last discussion. If we want to create an accessible service for women in crisis pregnancies, then we should not put these obstacles in the way, and I see this as an obstacle. There are many provisions in amendments Nos. 33 and 34 that would allow for the three-day period to be inclusive of when the appointment was first sought. It could be sought by email, by text or by phone call, for example, through the 24-7 helpline. Whichever way it is sought, there are means of recording the three-day period after it is sought.

The measure is cruel and highly political. When we went to the people with this as part of the heads of the Bill, it was not part of the major discussion but neither was it completely clear that the three days would start from the time the termination is sought. That was ambiguous in the heads of the Bill and this needs to be taken into account when one makes the argument that we must deliver on the outcome according to the heads of the Bill. As I said, the heads of the Bill were ambiguous. We need to take cognisance of the fact this did not form part of the discourse of either the Citizens' Assembly or the joint Oireachtas committee.

See this speech in context