Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I welcome and support the report and commend the committee on its work. I particularly join in commending its chair, Senator Noone, on her calm, reasoned and fair approach throughout and I express the pride of the Civil Engagement group in our own representative, Senator Ruane, who made an always insightful and strong contribution to the work of the committee. The committee was respectful of the very important work of the Citizens' Assembly, which should also be acknowledged. However, as was appropriate, it subjected the assembly's recommendations to further scrutiny. Not all of those recommendations were carried forward but they were given very full and proper consideration. I commend the thoughtful and measured way in which the committee members approached their questioning of expert witnesses and encourage everybody to look at the transcripts of those sessions because they are very illuminating and, at times, inspiring.

The committee, having noted concerns around the question of constitutional wording, spoke to several legal experts and decided by a large majority to support a simple repeal. I also believe that was the right decision and I know the Minister will now go through his process of examining that issue. I hope he can do so in a timely manner to ensure that we move forward. I hope that the outcome of that is a simple repeal because it deals in the clearest way with the questions at issue.Ultimately, in the referendum people will be voting on the question of repeal and the removal of decisions around women's bodies from the Constitution. This is very appropriate. Regardless of one's views on the legislation, it is important to note that we as the legislators step up and take responsibility for producing legislation for our citizens and for women in Ireland.

I first marched for repeal in 1992 as a teenager. I was moved and shocked by the X case as what was happening to another teenager in Ireland. I was also moved by the Magdalen laundries stories. At the time, friends of mine in the Galway Youth Theatre were taking part in the first performances of Patricia Burke Brogan's Eclipsedwhere we learned about other ways that young, pregnant women in Ireland had been treated in the past. It makes me very sad that there are still teenagers who are travelling alone or who are taking medication in secret, and that there are still young women and men who are having to campaign out on the streets on this issue. I am glad that we may now be able to move forward on it.

It is clear, however, from the evidence that has been given to the committee that the 12 women a day who travel from Ireland are not just teenagers. Dr. Patricia Lohr told the committee that 70% of the Irish women who receive abortions in the UK are married or with a partner. Nearly half of the women had had at least one previous birth. Many of the women who seek a termination are already loving parents and they well understand what is involved in their decision to proceed or not with another pregnancy.

This is an issue that affects every woman and every kind of family. We are often told that abortion is a divisive issue but I do not know if that needs to be the case. I believe that we are learning how to talk to each other about this issue. We should all resist those who seek to make this an automatic point of simple division. I believe that it is actually a diverse issue. Each pregnancy experienced by each woman and each decision to terminate a pregnancy takes place in the context of that woman’s own life and circumstances. Those circumstances may include rape, incest, mental or physical concerns or complex personal situations. That is why the 12 week provision is so important even though it is still very conservative by European standards, as has been pointed out.

People who make one choice during one pregnancy may find a different choice is right for them in another pregnancy. I was struck by Dr. Boylan's comments to the committee that some who choose to carry to full term despite a diagnosis of fatal foetal anomaly may, if they receive the same diagnosis on a subsequent pregnancy, not feel able to make the same decision again. I strongly welcome the recommendation in the report around fatal foetal anomaly and I commend the dignity and bravery of those who shared their difficult and personal stories - and indeed all those with different experiences who shared their stories over the years. They contributed to the breaking of a silence and to the movement of the issue from the symbolic or abstract realm into that which is experienced by real women in real time.

It was also clear from the evidence to the committee that the eighth amendment has had a very real constraining and sometimes dangerous impact on already difficult clinical decision making in our hospitals, particularly around the determination of risk to life or health. Reference was made to the Savita Halappanavar case and that it showed the failure to apprehend that a woman's life was in danger. How much more difficult and complex is it to apprehend that risk when one is doing it in a criminal context - as it was described to the committee? At the committee doctors spoke of the dynamic process where circumstances can change. Other doctors asked how a risk of death is to be determined - is it 10% or is it 80% - and they noted that each woman would also have a view on what level of risk might be acceptable or not in her circumstances. The eighth amendment means, unfortunately, that women’s views are currently given little consideration in these decisions. Women are even excluded from the legal rights afforded to other patients.

Garret FitzGerald, speaking against the eighth amendment in 1983, spoke of the possibility that the lives of mothers who were saved in the case of ectopic pregnancies or cancer of the womb would be endangered. We have since seen that sadly this is case and where the eighth amendment has indeed endangered or cost women’s lives. It can also be very difficult in practice to truly draw lines between risk to life and risk to health. There has been very little scope to respond to risk to health of the woman in cases, for example, where a pregnancy may cause severe or long-term damage to a woman’s body or well-being. We heard earlier about Anita's case. I heard from Anita about the very difficult choices and decisions she has to make about her mental health and pregnancy.

I strongly welcome the committee’s recommendation that termination of pregnancy should be lawful where there is a risk to life or health of the woman as assessed properly by medical specialists. Hard decisions are already being made in hospitals every day. Repeal of the eighth amendment will give women and medical professionals the space in which to make those decisions properly. It is very significant that the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists supports the recommendations of the committee as do groups such as Midwives for Choice. In many cases the medical experts who testified are not campaigners. They are practitioners on the front line, right across the country, and they need to be listened to.

The eighth amendment affects all women but some are far more vulnerable to those impacts; those who are in poverty, those who are transgender, those who are young, perhaps those in rural areas, migrants and those who cannot travel. There is a concern that many of those women will still be vulnerable, even with the 12 week limit. This needs to be monitored. My time today is limited but I would like a discussion - at another time - on specific vulnerabilities. My colleague Senator Ruane spoke very passionately on this issue, especially around economic vulnerability.

One of the most crucial learnings from the committee is that criminalising abortion is not the way to prevent abortion. Evidence from around the world from countries that have roughly comparable levels of abortion availability, either those with liberal or restrictive regimes, shows that the safety of abortions is what is at stake. Reference was made earlier to the UK as the obvious comparator. I would question if the UK is the obvious comparator for Ireland in this regard. It is quite a different country with a different history. Perhaps the most useful comparators to look to are countries that had restrictive regimes and then had change. For example, in Italy and Turkey the legalisation of abortion led to a reduction in the levels of abortions. In countries where a move was made from a restrictive abortion regime to a more liberal regime we have not seen a massive spike in the numbers of women accessing abortion.

The threat and cruelty of the Magdalen laundries did not stop women getting pregnant. The shadow of the eighth amendment and 14 year prison sentence has not stopped women seeking abortions. Measures that actually reduce the rates of crisis pregnancy of abortion are the greater availability of contraception and the provision of supports for those parenting alone. Many of us who are here today supporting this report and calling for repeal have also done the work on these issues. I have been proud over the last year to speak on the need for serious improvements in how we treat lone parents in Ireland. Being serious about choice is being serious about making sure that all choices are properly supported. That is why the ancillary recommendations in this report are so important. They call for better sex education outside of one specific ethos. They also call for access to free contraception and properly resourced reproductive care, including proper access to scans that would allow pregnant women to look at the development of their foetus.