Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Subsection 12 of the amendment should refer to section 12 and section 12(1) of the Bill instead of section 11 and section 11(1), respectively, as this relates to the section providing for termination in the case of emergency. It is similar to the previous case.

Information is an entity that provides the answer to questions or resolves uncertainty. We can agree in the House that information is a common good and a positive thing.

For years, we have had a culture in the country in which information has been withheld from women. For years, we have had a paternalistic and patronising attitude towards women to the effect that either they are not worthy of information or not strong enough to handle that information.

I had thought we had reached a point in the evolution of the State where we trusted people with information, even if that information was difficult information. Yet, we are in the House in the closing days of 2018 and we are on the verge of introducing an abortion regime in the country that is radical in international terms.

The Bill has at its heart a sentence stating, "The termination of pregnancy means the ending of a life of a foetus or an unborn child." So controversial is that particular sentence that the Deputy sitting beside the Minister argued the point vociferously at the committee that she did not want the sentence in that particular form. That is a fair representation of the discussion in question. Even those on the pro-choice side baulk at the sobering element of that sentence. That is the sentence we must vote on. That sentence will be part of the new regime in future. It reflects a decision that is being made each time an abortion is had.

We had a discussion last week around abortion regret. There are many women in the country who have experienced abortion regret. We had a Deputy in the Dáil today who said that abortion regret was a made-up issue. What if that came from our side of the debate? What if we disrespected individual women who had such difficulties in their lives? I am referring to serious difficulties in their lives. If we said those women were lying or not telling the truth about their experience, then it would be headline news all over the broadcast and print media. This is because it is a shocking thing to say that and to deny a person her feelings with regard to her particular experience.

I have met women who have had abortion regret. They have stated to me that they rue the fact that they did not have all the information at their disposal when they made a particular decision. They wish they could turn back the clock to have the information in question brought to them.

This is a serious issue. Informed consent is a logical and a good thing when people make serious decisions for themselves. The Bill highlights the seriousness of the matter. It states that a person who is guilty of an offence under the section in question shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to both. The Bill understands the gravity of what we are discussing.

There will be people in the Chamber who will state that information will be used in an effort to shame individuals or to make their decision more difficult. Such people will find reasons to withhold that information. We had this debate on Committee Stage. People said that the one thing they did not like about amendment No. 46 was the mandatory delivery of information. I sat back and decided to propose taking the mandatory element out of it. I included the word "offer".

We know the whole referendum was dressed up in clothes of choice. The view was that people could make a decision one way or the other. By putting the word "offer" into the amendment several times we have made the information not mandatory but a matter of choice. It is a choice that can be declined if a person does not want the information given to her. Surely in that situation the person can say she was given all the options but chose not to take the information and proceed. Such is the extremity of the position at the moment that even amendments which do not attempt to limit access in any way - they simply ask whether the woman would like information - are not being accepted.

Based on the feedback we are getting from Government Deputies, the amendments are not going to be accepted. Receiving information is positive. It provides answers to questions or removes uncertainty. If one is pro-choice, one will be in favour of offering information and seeking to allow a woman in a crisis pregnancy to have the choice about whether she wishes to receive it. We want to provide factual information that is medically accurate and which allows informed choices to be made.

There are two amendments before us. Before people get really angry about one of them which involves a mandatory provision, they should know that there is a second amendment which does not involve a mandatory provision. It only seeks to ensure the woman involved would be asked whether she wanted to receive the information; it could be declined. How we vote on that issue will show where we are as a country.

See this speech in context