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

Cowardice, conservatism, misogyny and a patronising attitude towards women has characterised the treatment of women in this country for virtually the entire history of the State. These attitudes led to the obscenities of the mother and baby homes, the Magdalen laundries, the Bethany homes and to tens and tens of thousands of women having to flee abroad under a shadow of stigma and shame for abortions in another country. All this history of conservatism, misogyny and patronising attitudes towards women was rejected and overwhelmingly rejected in the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. The exit poll made clear that the people of this country, in their overwhelming majority, trusted women and believed they should have the right to make choices about their own lives and bodies. Despite generations of politicians and priests trying to prevent women having those rights and the tactics of delay, delay and delay of the political establishment here, they were eventually forced to allow for this referendum.

I put it to the Minister that in putting forward this proposed amendment to this legislation, he is guilty of the same conservatism and patronising attitude towards women as has characterised the treatment of women hitherto. It is absolutely shameful that mothers and parents who have wanted pregnancies but then receive the devastating diagnosis that their wanted child will have a fatal foetal abnormality and will not live still have to go to Britain for abortions rather than have these services provided here. This is the case because of a ridiculous legislative provision concerning this issue, which Marie O'Shea's review has rightly insisted must be changed.

I know about this issue because I had a daughter who had fatal foetal abnormalities. She was a wanted child but, tragically, she was destined to die. She was born because we did not know in advance that she had such fatal foetal abnormalities. The doctors and we had no idea and they could not possibly have said how long she would have lived. She would have been 21 this year and I wish she was here. We would have had no idea and the doctor could not possibly have said how long she would have lived. It is absolutely ridiculous therefore to have this arbitrary 28 days. People in this tragic situation who decide they cannot go through with a pregnancy where there is a wanted child whom they know will not survive are being forced to go to Britain for an abortion. This is what Marie O'Shea's review is telling us.

It is also telling us that doctors, fearful of 14 years in prison if they make a wrong judgment about whether a woman's life or health is at risk, do not feel confident they can provide her with an abortion and that women in that situation then have to go to Britain to seek an abortion. In truth, this is because the Government does not trust women or has legislated to the effect that it does not trust women, or, indeed, doctors for that matter.

These are things that cannot wait. I refer to the idea that we can wait another year or, in reality, until after another general election, when this sort of thing continues to happen, as well as the lack of equal access for women to these services. There is a situation where we say women should have the right to abortion services but in reality many of them actually do not have such access. The three-day wait is there partly to try to shame women but it is also obstructing their equal access to a service to which they should be entitled. It is just wrong. This is what Marie O'Shea's review states and there is no justification for the Government to delay in this regard, as it clearly is doing. I ask the Minister, therefore, to withdraw his amendment and allow this legislation to progress. The Joint Committee on Health will be discussing this legislation in any event at a meeting.

See this speech in context