Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The noise is very irritating, a Cheann Comhairle.

The purpose of the amendments, as proposed, is to bring the legislation into line with what doctors want. In the case of amendment No. 16, it is to do what we said we wanted to do, that is, to trust women and put them at the heart of this legislation. It includes a reference to consulting the woman, where possible. In compiling the amendment we were cognisant of the possibility of a woman not being able to engage fully in that consultation, for whatever reason. It is simply states, "...where possible".

Amendment No. 17 references the term "serious harm". Again, for all of the reasons we have stated, it is not possible to grade harm and risk in that way and it will just continue the chilling effect.

On the deletion of the word "avert" and its substitution with "reduce", the reasons for it have been outlined and I do not propose to go over them. We have had a debate about including the word "access" which is only mentioned once in the offences section. It does not send a brilliant message about what we are trying to do. It is important to include a reference that explicitly puts the woman at the centre of the legislation. That would send a very clear message to those who voted "Yes" in what has been called a landslide result in the referendum. It would send a message to them that we had heard them, that we wanted to make the legislation as good as it could be and that we wanted it to deliver for those who need it.

See this speech in context