Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have seen really despicable tactics being used in some of these protests, including the appalling practice of displaying small coffins. This is taking place outside maternity hospitals and in a context where they may cause obstruction and intimidation to patients who are accessing all sorts of different services, and their families. We should all reflect on that as we see these so-called protests taking place. These protests amount to an undermining of the democratic will of the people in requiring us to provide abortion services and access to abortion services for women.

We have unfortunately a long history of denying services to women. I am thinking of contraception services, which were denied to women and men until the 1990s, around the time when I was in college. We had a condom machine in the student union building at Trinity College Dublin in 1989 and 1990. It was being vandalised every week but it was also in huge demand because at the time it was one of the only places in Ireland where somebody could buy condoms. It is extraordinary to think that was in 1989. The other place was the Virgin Megastore on the quays. The Irish Family Planning Association was providing condoms at the time for a donation because it could not sell them. There was a huge amount of obstruction for so long and highly restrictive rules around access to contraception that would be unthinkable now. There was huge, similar obstruction around access to vasectomies, procedures that we now see as utterly routine and non-contentious. Family planning clinics were regularly vandalised and people were intimidated. Brave and courageous doctors were in some cases just defying cultural repression and Catholic teaching by providing services that we now take for granted. When we are debating the protests, protestors and safe access zones for abortion care, we have to reflect on the fact that, unfortunately, there has been a long history in this country of obstructing access to services around pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and even around contraception.

As I said, and as the Minister has also pointed out, there are complexities in drafting this legislation. We acknowledge that. There are particular complexities around the balancing act required to achieve a balance between the right of access to services and the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. I have reviewed some of the submissions to the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of this debate. Many submissions objecting to the concept of safe access zones cited concerns around freedom of expression. The constitutional provisions on freedom of expression, assembly and association are clearly framed in a way that is absolute. These are not absolutely protected rights. Women have the right to bodily integrity and the right to privacy. Therefore, the introduction of these zones, when narrowly defined and framed in such a way that provides safeguards, constitutes a constitutionally robust and proportionate restriction on the right to protest.

I know there has been some focus on section 4 and the provision of a warning from a member of the Garda, which is an extra and additional check on the framing of the offence. There is a valid concern around the evidential requirement about the recording of the warning. The Joint Committee on Health examined this matter in detail. Section 4(3) requires that a garda, when recording the warning, must also require that the person given the warning has to state his or her name and address. The fact that a name and address has been provided to a garda will give some comfort to those who are concerned about how it can be proven that the warning was recorded. The fact that the garda will have the name and address and can repeat that back will be important in practice.

We welcome this Bill. It is constitutionally robust and we are very committed to seeing it pass into law and to seeing safe access zones instituted in our law. We have looked for them for some time.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the other barriers to women's access, not just the geographic issues or the numbers of GPs and hospitals providing such services but the barriers that still exist within the legislation and which were the subject of Marie O’Shea’s recent review. I pay tribute to Marie O'Shea, Dr. Catherine Conlon and those involved in carrying out the review because its recommendations are strong, evidence-based and focused on addressing unnecessary structural barriers to women's access to abortion services.

Along with many others, the Labour Party made a substantial submission to the review process. Among the changes we called for was the abolition of the three-day waiting period, a mandatory requirement which we believe is paternalistic and unnecessary and imposes an unnecessary and completely non-medically required barrier on women's access. We also called for an end to the criminalisation of doctors who do not conform with the legislation. It is not in keeping with our laws on healthcare, as the Minister for Health will be well aware. Again, that creates an unnecessary chilling effect on medical providers, particularly those who may be contemplating becoming a provider of services.

We have also called for review of definitions. In Dr. Conlon's research, and when we hear from our constituents and others, we hear about women still travelling to Britain because they cannot access abortion care at home. We hear about awful scenarios, including of women awaiting diagnosis as to whether a foetal anomaly is "fatal enough" to enable a termination within the terms of the legislation. Doctors tell us that the definition of fatal foetal anomaly is simply not aligned with medical practice and medical and healthcare understandings. I know the Joint Committee on Health is looking at the Marie O'Shea review recommendations but we need to see urgent movement on implementing those recommendations.

I welcome the statement by the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, at the weekend that she personally is in support of removing the three-day waiting period imposed on women who have already resolved to seek a termination but who are forced to have a second visit or consultation with a doctor. I hope the Minister will be joined by more of her Government colleagues and that there will be a shift away from the rather disappointing commentary we have seen since the O'Shea report was published, including, for example, comments made by the Taoiseach which seemed to be less supportive of the recommendations than we might have hoped.

I am conscious that we debated Deputy Bríd Smith's Bill in this House and had a debate on some of the recommendations in the report. Let us move swiftly on this legislation and implement those strong recommendations that are evidence-based and seek to remove structural barriers to care. Without the removal of those barriers and without the necessary reform of the 2018 law, we are still going to see the sort of paternalism that characterised the eighth amendment and the case law under it. We are going to see that paternalistic shadow still cast over women and women in crisis pregnancy.

While I am glad the Government is tackling the clear and overt harassment and intimidation that unfortunately is still going on and being used against women seeking abortion care, I would also like to see the Government take on the structural barriers in our legislation which have the effect of frustrating, intimidating and restricting women who are seeking an abortion. These barriers are also creating this chilling effect upon doctors and medics who are trying to provide care.

Reproductive healthcare should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. Without removing the unnecessary structural barriers to reproductive healthcare, the Government will still be failing in its duty to women, in particular the thousands of women who continue to experience crisis pregnancy each year and the many hundreds who are still having to travel abroad years after we voted to repeal the eighth amendment and so long after we voted for compassion in a crisis. This is something I feel strongly about, having been involved in pro-choice campaigning for as long as I have. If I had been told 30 years ago that it would take so long to achieve a position where women in crisis pregnancy could access healthcare rights here in Ireland, I would have been desperately frustrated, particularly at a time when we were being threatened with prison just for giving women a phone number of a clinic in England. Again, that was a time when we could not even access condoms legally. Clearly, huge strides have been made but that is 30 years ago. We are still debating a three-day waiting period that is clearly medically unwarranted and, as we all know, was simply put into the draft legislation at the last minute before the referendum took place. It was unwarranted. There were already enough restrictions in the legislation.

It seems extraordinary that we are still debating this issue when we have seen such a clear vote from the people and we are increasingly seeing doctors who are stepping up. I want to finish on that optimistic note. Doctors and healthcare providers are stepping up. It was incredibly powerful to see how many came to a conference that was explicitly for abortion providers and about abortion providers hearing from each other in Ireland about how they are providing services and how they can best meet the needs of their patients. It was incredibly powerful to see that happen in a country that, as recently as five years ago, still did not have legal abortion in place. We have made huge strides but it is time to up the pace and increase the momentum with which we are making the necessary changes. We all recognise that they must be made. They include the removal of the three-day wait period, the removal of the criminalisation of doctors and revisiting the definitions in law that are unnecessarily restrictive and mean that women are still having to travel for healthcare we should be getting here at home.

See this speech in context