Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is with great sadness that we raise this issue again in the House. When it was discussed previously in the context of the death of Savita Halappanaver the words, "Never again", were frequently used. Of course, it has happened again and it will keep happening until we deal with Ireland's abortion reality.

The latest case known as Miss Y concerns a young woman impregnated as a result of rape and violated again by the State, has sickened Irish people to the core. It has exposed very graphically how our lack of provision for abortion in cases of rape has meant that if a person does not have the money or the means to travel, then she is forced to carry a rapist's child. This fact sickens Irish citizens; it is not what women want for themselves, their daughters, their mothers or their partners. It is cruel and degrading treatment.

This latest horror story has again exposed the hypocrisy of how successive Governments have failed to deal with Ireland's abortion reality, where Irish women have a legal right to abortion enshrined in our Constitution through the right to travel, but we simply cannot have that health treatment at home. It is disgusting hypocrisy, a scenario which the UN recently described as contributing to mental torture.

Deputies Mick Wallace, Joan Collins and I raised this issue and moved legislation and we made the point that the root of this issue is the eighth amendment which has resulted in a Chinese wall being put between a woman's right to health and a woman's right to life, rights which are indistinguishable in international human rights legislation, but for Irish women are qualified rights. The recent case means that the legislation which the Minister's Government introduced has not even been able to deal with what it was supposed to deal with, to give a right enshrined under the European Court of Human Rights for a woman to access a legal abortion where her life was in danger. We have seen crocodile tears about the treatment of Irish women and their children in the past but this is an unbroken thread.

Will the Minister finally shape up to this issue and repeal the eighth amendment? We had a very successful event earlier this month, a conference to repeal the eighth amendment at which delegates from across various sectors agreed with me when I said that we would use our Private Members' time in January to move a repeal of the eighth amendment if the Government does not do so. I hope the Minister will take up the challenge and do it first.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In recent weeks the issue of abortion has dominated the headlines once again. News broke that a migrant woman, pregnant as a result of rape, was denied access to an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, even though she clearly expressed the desire to die rather than to carry the pregnancy to term. How can the Government stand over the manner in which this woman was dealt with by the State? Does the Minister agree this amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment? If a woman whose case bears some similarity to the X case cannot access an abortion under this legislation, how can we expect any woman whose life is at risk because of her pregnancy to have confidence in the system? It is not fit for purpose as we warned during the debate.

The UN Human Rights Committee characterised the panel system for assessing pregnant women at risk of suicide as mental torture. Why would any vulnerable woman put herself through this if she has the means to travel abroad for a safe and legal abortion? This case will terrify those who cannot travel. The State took steps to force a rape survivor to continue with her pregnancy against her will. It sought court orders to hydrate her forcibly against her will. This is frightening. Even before we heard about this latest horrific case, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed serious concern about the severe mental suffering caused by the denial of abortion services to women seeking abortions due to rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality or serious risk to health. What are the Government's plans to address the UN recommendation that Ireland should revise this legislation and the Constitution, to provide for access to abortion in these cases?

Will the Government continue to ignore Ireland's obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights? During the UN hearings in Geneva, the State acknowledged that Irish abortion law discriminates against women who are unable to travel abroad. How can the Government stand over such blatant inequality?

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unfortunate we have to squeeze into six minutes our contributions on a very serious case which arose over the summer. We are forced to raise it as a Topical Issue matter instead of time being set aside. A young rape victim who had already been sexually violated was further violated by this State.

She was prevented from having a timely, early abortion and the Government then saw fit to obtain a court order to facilitate her being forcibly hydrated.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was meant to deal with the small number of situations where someone who is suicidal is supposed to have a right to an abortion. However, it has failed the first test and has proven to be completely and utterly barbaric. This is the latest in a long series of the Irish State taking control of women's bodies and their lives. The thread runs from the Magdalen laundries, through the mother and baby homes and on to the practice of symphysiotomy, which led to women having their pelvises broken during childbirth because ideological doctors saw fit to do that to them. The Government is continuing to uphold the status quo. For too long the State has leaned on the Catholic Church for support and given it inordinate power. At a time when support for that church within society is so limited, the State continues to grant it inordinate power over women's lives.

The Socialist Party will be challenging the Government to hold a referendum on this matter in the spring. The constant mantra to the effect that there is no appetite for such a referendum runs completely contrary to the views of young people. Their views and those of the individuals in government are light years apart. This is not an issue for most people in society. The majority of citizens would support the idea of abortion in circumstances where a woman's life or health are at risk, where she has been raped or where an abnormality exists. Is the Government stating that we must wait a further 31 years before we change this medieval law? It should be remembered that no woman of childbearing age had a vote in the referendum held in 1983. Is the Government determined to wait until another poor or sick woman dies as a result of its rank hypocrisy, which is based on the fact that it might lose a few backbenchers and is ideologically opposed to abortion? We must end the hypocrisy of forcing thousands of working-class women to gather together €1,500 in order to go abroad to have an operation, when, for example, they could pay €90 for an abortion pill in this country. It is time for the hypocrisy to stop and for the Government to name the date for the referendum in order that people might have their say.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. The case of the young woman who has become known as "Miss Y" is very sad for all concerned. I do not wish to comment further on it until I have all the facts available to me. It is wrong to jump to conclusions on any matter without knowing all the facts, as I am sure Deputies will agree. What I can say is that the young woman involved arrived in Ireland in late March 2014 and sought and was granted asylum in this State. In early August, she had a termination of pregnancy under section 9 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act by planned pre-term caesarean section. On 18 August, Tony O’Brien, director general of the Health Service Executive, requested that a report be completed for him in order to establish all of the facts surrounding the care given to her.

The purpose of the report is to establish all of the factual circumstances and the sequence of events as they relate to the care provided to Miss Y during her pregnancy, her care and welfare, to include her mental health, and, where relevant, the operation of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013; and to examine and document the chain of communication among different service providers, including referrals between services and the flow of information on Miss Y both within the HSE and externally. In the event that any failings in service delivery are identified, the report is to establish the causes and contributory factors involved in order that they might be addressed. The period to be covered by the report will be from the time Miss Y first had contact with HSE and related services or other agencies and NGOs regarding her pregnancy, until the time that her pregnancy was ended by caesarean section. When the report is submitted to me, I will consider it and contemplate any appropriate action which may need to be taken. I am very keen to have the report sooner rather than later. However, anyone who is referred to in the report has the right to see and comment on it before publication. That is what natural justice dictates and it will determine the final date of publication.

In the meantime, I wish to clarify that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was used in this case and that a termination of pregnancy was performed by means of an early delivery by caesarean section. This was the case as a result of the stage of gestation the child involved had reached. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 was enacted in July 2013 and commenced in January 2014. It provides for lawful termination where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the pregnant woman which may only be averted by termination of pregnancy. It does not allow for a termination on any other grounds. The Act also creates procedures which apply to the lawful termination of pregnancy. The objectives of these procedures are to ensure that where lawful termination of pregnancy is under consideration, the right to life of the unborn is protected, where practicable and as required by the Constitution and that a woman can ascertain, by means of a clear process, whether she requires this procedure. At present, there are no proposals to amend the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in the lifetime of this Government - it will be reviewed, as required, next June - or to hold a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment of the Constitution.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were not discussing the individual case but there is no doubt that the words of warning expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee really ring true in respect of it. The woman in question was treated as, and shown to be, no more than a vessel in the eyes of the State. The legislation in this area has been deemed to be absolutely inadequate in the context of dealing with the very graphic circumstances in this case, which are similar to those of the X case. A woman whose life was in danger and who needed and abortion was not able to get one under the legislation, it is as simple as that. The UN highlighted the fact the way in which the legislation is structured has led to excessive scrutiny of women by members of the medical profession. In essence, the chilling effect remains.

The Minister is a young man and he should wise up. Ireland's abortion rate is pretty much the same as in every other country. This matter has affected all Irish families, whether they know it or not. The only thing that is different is that women are not allowed to avail of the relevant medical treatment at home and surrounded by their families and friends. What this means is that women and couples in situations of crisis pregnancy who have money can access abortion for all of the many and different reasons - none of them easy, all of them valid - that arise. Women and couples who cannot access it either have babies or take risks. That is simply not acceptable in a modern society. Even some of the Government's own backbenchers have realised that we need to face up to this disgusting hypocrisy and legislate for abortion at home.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Government continue to ignore the fact that approximately ten women leave this island each day in order to end crisis pregnancies? Can it continue to ignore the fact that an unknown number of women illegally import abortion pills and risk a 14-year prison sentence by so doing because they are so desperate to end their pregnancies? Does the Government feel any obligation towards these women? No woman of childbearing age had a say in the 1983 referendum. The people of Ireland have never voted to make our abortion laws less restrictive, even though opinion polls have consistently shown that views on abortion have become far more liberal during the past three decades. Does the Government have the courage to face up to its responsibility towards women and hold a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment of the Constitution? The Minister stated that this will not happen. I find it difficult to believe that he can just dismiss the possibility out of hand. A number of Government Deputies have stated that the issue needs to be revisited but not within the lifetime of this Dáil. What is the point of being in power if one is not going to use one's power to good effect? I do not see the point of being in office if one is prepared to leave it to the next Government to take action. Is the current Government more focused on the next election than it is on the suffering caused by the denial of services to women who are seeking abortions as a result of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormalities or serious risks to their health? The former certainly appears to be the case, which is just too bad.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that we must wait for the report on this particular case. When it is forthcoming, we will put questions to the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, regarding their knowledge of events. I am particularly interested in discovering whether the Minister for Justice and Equality knew about this case when she was questioned, and subsequently condemned, by the UN Human Rights Committee and said nothing about it.

The Minister is correct. The constitutional ban on abortion is the problem. As long as a grown woman is equated with a foetus, we will continue to have major difficulties. That women are so degraded in this way by the Constitution is the problem. The ban must go because as long as it is in place, there can be no humane provision of abortion in this country.

The referendums lined up to take place in the spring include one on marriage equality. We could easily have a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment on the same day as the marriage equality referendum. In fact, it would be a double endorsement of progress in this country. It would be a signal to the rest of the world that the Catholic Church's writ does not run despite the wishes of the majority in society and it would be a hammer blow to the Catholic Church's domination of many areas of life in this country. The For Reproductive rights, against Oppression, Sexism & Austerity, ROSA, campaign and Socialist Party Deputies will be calling for a referendum to be held on the same day. It makes absolute sense. The people are coming out to vote and this is a crucial topic that they would like to have a say in. The referendums could be held at that time.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are several issues. I am pleased that we are all agreed that we are not discussing this individual case, because if it transpires or turns out that one of the factors of this case was that this young woman's confidentiality was breached at some point, then that is truly awful in its own right. I believe it is wrong, under any circumstances, to jump to conclusions about any individual case until we know the facts. One of the things that disappointed me about this case was hearing so many voices on the radio in the initial days saying so many things that were factually incorrect. I heard that from both sides of the abortion debate as well as from several State-funded bodies, which, quite frankly, should know better in respect of their utterances.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Her wishes were ignored. We know that much.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In her original contribution Deputy Daly used the expression "never again". I understand where she is coming from in that regard but the sad truth is - this is the truth - it will never be possible to pass legislation that can prevent all tragedies related to pregnancy or abortion. Even if we had liberal legislation, like in the United States or the United Kingdom, for example, we would still have the dilemma of late-term pregnancies, that is, people who are 25, 26 or 27 weeks' pregnant seeking a termination. That happens. That dilemma occurs in the United Kingdom all the time.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She asked for one at eight weeks.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thankfully, it does not make the newspapers. Furthermore, even if we did have abortion on request in this country, we would then have the tragedy of people who can die as a result of a termination of pregnancy - that happens; it is rare but it does happen - as well as people who are injured or who lose their ability to reproduce in future.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That happens when they cannot have an abortion as well.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All of these things are rare but they do happen.

When we have the debate about this matter in this country, I hope that we do not shout each other down and interrupt each other. The problem with this debate in this country is that it has been dominated by the extremes and it is framed in the Catholic versus anti-Catholic view of things rather than what is right and what is wrong. It is framed in terms of Christian ideology versus socialist ideology, being pro-life or anti-life, being pro-choice or anti-choice, as if one could ever reduce it to that. Human experience is not black and white and medicine is not black and white either. The idea that there could ever be perfect legislation that removes all tragedies related to pregnancy and abortion is simply wrong.

Reference was made to the eighth amendment. People calling for its repeal should consider what that means. Simply repealing the eighth amendment means deleting from the Constitution any protection of the life of the mother and the unborn and replacing it with nothing. People need to consider whether that is what they want and whether they want to replace it with a different amendment, for example. Even if we do change the Constitution, it will not change the legislation. The law would not change at all and we would then need to legislate subsequently. I believe it would be a really bad idea in 2015 in the run-in to a general election for us to have that kind of debate in that milieu. We have been there before. That is exactly what happened in 1983. People were put in a position where they made commitments in the run-in to a general election that perhaps they should not have made. Let us not repeat the mistakes of 1983 and have all of that again in 2015. There is a time and a place, I believe, for a considered non-ideological debate and conversation on this matter in this country, but it should not be done on foot of a tragedy or a very hard case and it should not be done in the run-in to a general election.