Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I directly disagree with the previous point. I and many other Deputies in the House canvassed throughout the campaign for weeks and not once in the thousands of doors upon which we knocked did the issue of the three-day waiting period come up. The issue raised was always the substantial one, the issue of whether there were circumstances in which it was justified to have a termination or whether people believe women had the right to choose. On the finer detail we are discussing around the three-day waiting period, not once did I hear that come up. I am not saying that because it suits me to say it. I am telling the Minister as a statement of fact that I never heard it discussed in the course of the campaign. I do not believe that particular point had any bearing whatsoever on the votes that were cast. I do not believe for one second that to question this and to propose amendments that would delete this three-day waiting period is somehow flying in the face of the democratic decision that was made by people. It is paternalistic. A woman might go to the doctor uncertain and she might say she wants to talk it through and think about it or she might say she has thought about it and wants the abortion. The idea that the State will enforce a three-day wait on a woman in that difficult circumstance, whatever her thoughts might be about it, is paternalistic and wrong, and I do not see any justification for it. Deputy Harty asked a very good question of the Minister, namely, could he please explain what the rationale for it is? I cannot understand the rationale for it. I do not believe there is any evidence that it serves any useful purpose and I do think it is a concession to people who are essentially trying to deter women from having abortions. I am very happy to support the idea that we remove that completely and I do not see any problem with that.

However, if that does not happen, and I suspect it will not, although I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in terms of trying to explain his support for enforcing this three-day wait, and if he is going to persist, then he has an obligation to seriously consider the other amendments. What is his answer if that three-day waiting period takes the woman over the 12 weeks? That would very wrong and very unfair to women if that were the case. I do not believe it can be justified. The Minister certainly needs to answer that question about what happens in that dilemma and if he cannot answer it, he has no choice but to support amendment No. 34.

Similarly, regarding amendment No. 33, all the obvious practical difficulties have already been presented to the Minister. Unless he has good answers, and I do not think there are good answers, we know there are difficulties in getting GP appointments and that money, geographic location, disability or difficult personal circumstances for the woman involved can be an issue. They are all real practical problems and impediments that will create barriers for women in a difficult and vulnerable situation where they do not need barriers, obstacles and further difficulties heaped upon them. If the Minister insists on the three-day period, he has an obligation to consider the issue of it being from the point at which contact is made with the doctor and the appointment is made rather than insisting otherwise because, effectively, then, it becomes not a 72-hour period but quite considerably longer than that in many circumstances, and that is unfair.

See this speech in context