Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

This is a section to which the Minister could readily agree to amendments. People voted in the spirit of the amendments proposed by a number of Deputies. I shall speak to a number of the amendments in the group, particularly amendment No. 15 because I did not speak to it before. I raised the issue on Committee Stage, but I felt it was necessary to insert an new clause into the definition of when a person can access an abortion owing to a risk to life or health. Having two doctors was mentioned, which is fine. Doctors need to have rules about when they can intervene, but it had become obvious on Committee Stage that many were concerned about one aspect; that there was no voice for the person who was pregnant in the horrendously difficult situation where life or health was at risk. I proposed the insertion of the clause "(b) the pregnant woman deems the risk to her life or health to be unacceptable”. This is because the law, as it stands, mentions doctors, but it does not give a voice to the woman. This has echoes of the case of Savita when she asked for an abortion. It was a different situation because the clinicians had deemed that her life was not at risk, that it was only her "health" and that, therefore, they could not act. One can see, however, how quickly that situation developed completely and utterly into a scenario where her life was at risk. The fact that a woman like her was not listened to and that she had to go through that trauma resonated with the entire population. That was the filip or impetus for the abortion rights movement six years ago and it reinvigorated the campaign for the repeal of the eighth amendment to the Constitution.

Let us consider a situation where a woman lands in a conservative hospital where two doctors are to decide. Let us say there is a chilling effect of a law and they are very afraid in a difficult situation that a decision could be challenged. What if they say "No"? What will happen if the woman points out that she believes the pregnancy presents a huge danger to her health or life? She may have her reasons for saying so.

10 o’clock

It may be because of a previous pregnancy, that they know nothing about how that evolved, or it could be for mental health. I am really concerned about this. It is very difficult to judge when somebody's mental health is such that there is a risk of them taking their life. However, two years ago, a teenager was sectioned by a psychiatrist; I do not know what happened since but it was reported that she was sectioned for a period because the psychiatrist had that power. That pregnant person who said that her life was at risk through suicide, due to which she should have been able to have an abortion, was not listened to. I think the Minister has to be cognisant that this is definitely something that people wanted changed in this country, where women themselves do not have their voices heard at all. I echo Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, who appeared at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and whose testimony was among the most memorable we heard at the time. He has dealt with these situations over many years and when he was asked by the committee members if it was possible to define a risk to health in law, he said it was not. People asked what we should do and he said the woman has to be listened to. She is the ultimate arbiter. It is disappointing that this is not being taken up in law. This clause is an attempt to rectify that.

On serious harm, it is disappointing that the wording was changed from what was discussed by the committee, from "risk" to "serious harm". Even taking out the word "serious" would have been helpful. The definition of what is serious is very broad. I agree with the point about the words "mitigate" and "reduce" and stress that the woman should be consulted where possible. If somebody is unconscious, they cannot be consulted. I really cannot understand how no amendments have been accepted all along the line on this one because this is not a case of the Minister breaching faith with the people who voted in the referendum.

See this speech in context