Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This island has many dark histories. The scandal of symphysiotomy has been a brutal and inhumane procedure and reality for some time for some women.

With respect, I think the Minister of State missed a certain 2012 study in her contribution that found that many of the victims and survivors of symphysiotomy said that the Catholic Church encouraged, if not insisted upon symphysiotomies. Other speakers have mentioned that was the case due to the preference of the church over caesarean sections and the moral diktat of the day gave women no bodily autonomy and saw them as mere vessels, regardless of the mutilation, health issues and unbearable pain that caused.

Senator Nash brought forward a Bill where we spoke about the exoneration and apology to gay men who were victims of criminalisation. I took the opportunity to talk about the impact of criminalisation for certain sections of society. I hope the reality of today's abortion laws, that similarly condemn women to sometimes devastating health problems, is not lost on the decision-makers here in both Houses. Women and the LGBT community share the most unfortunate commonality, the contemporary and historical criminalisation of their body and of their lives. The misogyny and deeply ingrained sense of prejudice faced by women since the foundation of this State will lead older women to a place where they will actively campaign and have been campaigning for bodily autonomy and a repeal of the eighth amendment.

After years of campaigning, in November 2012, the Surgical Symphysiotomy Payments Scheme was established and Ms Justice Harding Clark, who set out the terms of reference for that scheme, has been said by survivor advocacy groups to be lacking in empathy in the application of the scheme. There can be little objection of what the State owes to these women. It should endeavour to do all it can to provide these women with comfort. Senator Reilly said in his contribution that his concern while Minister was that women who would pursue a legal route would not have access to certain documents. My understanding is that Ms Justice Harding Clark requires records going back over 50 years as proof of significant disability. The difficulty of obtaining such records is obvious to even a lay person. It was an impossible ask to have such records over such a long period of time. A weakness of the scheme is that younger applicants whose records are more likely to be preserved and whose doctors are more likely to be in a better position to confirm that the applicant has had a symphysiotomy would be more likely to benefit from the scheme and to receive redress. For many women, Ms Justice Harding Clark's dismissal of these claims was based on the lack of a document trail spanning many decades.

Ms Justice Harding Clark fails to hold hospitals and medics responsible for keeping that documentation. Those who were unsuccessful in that application had no right of appeal. Not every woman sought redress through the scheme. Some sought compensation through legal action against the State. Their reasoning was clear. It was the State that effectively promoted symphysiotomy as a preferred option to a caesarean section, even when other jurisdictions prohibited that procedure. For some women, it makes sense to sue the State. Taking on the State has its own stresses, of course. It is difficult at the best of times for people to engage in legal proceedings. It is even more difficult if one has been traumatised to engage in such proceedings. It is more difficult depending on one's age and the stress and trauma involved. Women have suffered all their lives with the consequence of symphysiotomy. Some have this impact all of their lives, on their families and on their physical and mental health. I do not think this report has healed old wounds, and in some cases it has opened new ones. In many cases, these women deserve better.