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

Last night, in Limerick, a group of doctors who want to provide the service - perhaps they are conscientious providers rather than conscientious objectors - and want to provide healthcare for women were hounded out of the original venue for their training. The good news is that they found a place. That emphasised the need for us to include exclusion zones, if not as part of this legislation then as part of legislation that must follow, because there are people, not necessarily Members in this Chamber, who cannot understand or accept the result of the referendum. They are just not quite there yet. We need to provide protections for those doctors and healthcare professionals who wish to provide the healthcare for women for which we voted.

With regard to a comparison that was made between legislating for hedge cutting and legislating for women's healthcare, I do not think any offence was meant but it was an unfortunate turn of phrase. It is not true to say that this debate is being rushed. We have been having this debate for 35 years. All of my adult life up until recently, I was on the losing side of that debate and I had simply to suck it up and deal with it, or regroup and keep campaigning. No one could say that this is rushed or that there are arguments that have yet to be rehearsed. We have made all of those arguments.

I have been contacted, just as other Deputies have been, by doctors and healthcare professionals who may be seen on social media using the hashtag #wewillprovide. What they say, to women, legislators and their colleagues, is that a significant majority of doctors and healthcare professionals are willing to provide terminations and access to terminations and abortion healthcare for women, which is a good and positive development. One of them contacted me. I will not use his name but he asked me to state that saying nothing does not meet professional standards, and that while doctors are perfectly entitled to hold a conscientious objection for religious, moral or other reasons, they also have a duty of care. That duty of care is to ensure that those sitting in front of him get access to the healthcare that they need. In that regard, conscientious objection provides for them not to be the provider of that service but they must refer on. Anything less - this comes from a doctor, not me - will fall below what is required by professional standards.

I have heard that no GP will be compelled to provide this service. We need to make clear that no person will be compelled to provide that service. There is already a facility for conscientious objection in place. I do not know the purpose of the amendment because the facility to object conscientiously already exists.

I do not believe that there is a significant majority out there who do not want to provide this service. The majority of doctors and healthcare professionals want to provide it. In any event, nobody will be compelled to provide it. We need to ensure that where there is a conscientious objection, that is respected but that the person who requires healthcare can access that healthcare. As it was said to me, saying nothing does not meet professional standards.

See this speech in context