Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

These are key amendments in our deliberations. They were discussed at length at committee. I want to echo the points made about where this came from. When this was discussed at the committee, to be fair, the Dutch representatives were incredibly good and this certainly did not come from them, so any idea we are basing it on the Dutch model is wrong.

It was designed to facilitate and encourage careful decision making. The Dutch service is very much based on women consulting with their doctors but the woman's decision and input is the key one. No woman makes this decision lightly. When she decides to make an arrangement with her doctor she has already given the issue an incredibly serious amount of thought and we have to see this provision in the context of other provisions and restrictions that are there. It is the combination of those factors that make the waiting period a barrier. It is not like the Dutch service where abortion provision is much broader. It is not on as strict a clock of 12 weeks. The circumstances where they can access abortion are far more broadly available. The decision to implement it here in this way if it is not amended will act as a substantial barrier and other Deputies have made the point that if we are keeping the three-day limit, which is the case, we have to get real on when we say that. It should be the date on which an appointment is requested for all the reasons highlighted, including the geographical inequality, the problems in our health service, the difficulty in getting a doctor's appointment and all the rest. That is a reality and by combining that with the provision as currently constructed the clock could tick and women who are in danger of exceeding the 12-week limit would be in a situation where they are forced to travel or access an unsafe abortion which was one of the key situations that people in putting forward this legislation did not want because it causes delays and delays mean harm. It is critically important that it be the date on which the appointment is requested.

Amendment No. 34 is key also because it states that unless the three-day period is overly burdensome to a women, including because it might contribute to her exceeding the 12-week limit. This is critical in the context of those vulnerable groups. I used the example last night of the challenges for deaf women, that the helpline, the phone option, is of no value to them. A website is not of much value either when a large chunk of the country does not have access to broadband and all the rest. It is still not good enough. When a deaf woman needs to see a doctor there is the added burden of procuring an Irish Sign Language interpreter to go with her. There could be a significant shortage of qualified interpreters available, and an even smaller number who are experienced in a medical setting which is difficult. The woman may not want to bring her family along for privacy reasons. She may live in a rural part of the country where it is even more difficult to get a sign language interpreter and not to mind all of the other barriers. In circumstances like that, there has to be an option for a waiving of the three-day period if there is a risk of it going over the 12 weeks. I am particularly worried and I would hope the Minister would say how he envisages the situation of a woman in a domestic violence scenario or one who is coming from a remote direct provision centre is to attend the second appointment after three days. The Minister kind of led us to believe on Committee Stage that section 12 might be used to waive the waiting period but we need to put that on the record because there has to be a facility for waiving that period. Otherwise we are in danger of forcing people to continue to travel who are at that juncture.

See this speech in context