Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I have told the House before, I first marched for repeal in 1992 as a teenager who was shocked to hear what was happening to another teenager in the X case, someone who was the same age as me. Knowing what she was encountering at that time at the hands of the State was a shock to my system. I never would have believed at the time that some years later we would still be hearing such stories. Last week we heard about the 12-year old who had to travel, and other children have had to face these cases. Nonetheless, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be here for what is a very important, solemn and historic opportunity to address the eighth amendment and its consequences for our society.

I commend the Minister, the chair of the committee, Ms Justice Laffoy, the Citizens' Assembly and all those, including my colleague, Senator Ruane, who contributed to bringing us to this place in what has been a thoughtful and reflective manner. I want to address a couple of points.

We need to be clear that the eighth amendment has not stopped abortion in Ireland. In 1982, the year before the eighth amendment to the Constitution was inserted, 3,650 Irish women had abortions in the UK. In 2002, 6,522 women had abortions in England. We know now that women are not just being exported in terms of accessing reproductive health care but that abortion pills are being imported into the country.

It is also important to note that repealing eighth amendment will not necessarily lead to a large increase in the number of women making the very difficult decision to have a termination. We were told during the divorce referendum that if we voted for divorce Ireland would have the same rate of divorce as the UK. Decades later, divorce in Ireland is about a quarter of the rate in the UK. The fact is that we are different countries with different cultures and histories. We also have the capacity to put in place different supports around reproductive health care in all its forms.

Rather than looking to the UK, we should look to the example of Switzerland. In 2002, abortion up to 12 weeks was allowed for those who needed it without restriction as to reason. Since the introduction of early access to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy the number of terminations have decreased. Studies examined the reason for that. The rates are low even on an international level. They are lower than, for example, the UK - less than half of the rate.

The factors that Switzerland has recognised as genuinely reducing the number of crisis pregnancies and people feeling they have to a termination involve sex education, contraception and the thoughtful ancillary measures and real supports the Minister, Deputy Harris, set out today and which were discussed at length by the committee. They are the things which prevent crisis pregnancy and allow people to make different choices.

It is also important to be clear that the eighth amendment is not a neutral safeguard. It is doing real harm. This involves not just the litany of cases which others in the House have described, be they names or letters of the alphabet, all of whom are all real women who have endured great harm. There are real cases in terms of our medical practice.

Somebody said earlier today that the eighth amendment has somehow made Ireland safer in terms of maternal care. I do not know what that is meant to mean because I would assume that our maternal care is in place regardless of the eighth amendment. Is it the case that maternal care is only there because of the restriction of the eighth amendment? Maternal care, obstetrics and gynaecology should be the best we can provide regardless of the position of the eighth amendment. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Harris, was very clear that he intends to improve the supports which are offered in that area.

Let us be clear. When there is honesty and we no longer have the chilling effect of the eighth amendment we will have better health outcomes. Dr. Peter Boylan, the chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, was very clear that the eighth amendment has impeded medical decision-making.

The Minister spoke about the fact that women's main right now is only the right not to die. Determining the risk of death, as the committee heard from many doctors, is a difficult decision. When should action be taken? When there is a 20%, 40% or 60% risk of death to a woman? These are the kinds of questions which are being asked in a legal rather than medical context.

I welcome that serious harm is properly recognised in the proposals which will be put forward at a later stage. We heard about the many cases where a much wanted pregnancy is accompanied by a separate diagnosis of cancer, a risk of blindness or severe and dangerous conditions. We heard about the internationally recognised physical and mental suffering of those who experience the tragic situation of having a child with a fatal foetal abnormality.

We also know that children are forced to travel, such as the 12-year old I mentioned whose case was highlighted last week. Let us be clear. That is not just unfortunate; it is deeply dangerous. Last week a 14-year old girl died in Paraguay while giving birth because of the restrictive rules in that country. Her body was not able to be pregnant and deliver a baby.

I want to genuinely appeal to all those who are strongly and passionately anti-abortion. Those who are anti-abortion can and should vote for repeal. The debate is not about their personal choices or preferences and what decisions they would make in particular circumstances. Rather, it is a vote on how we treat or engage with pregnant women as people with the capacity and compassion to make complex decisions in often difficult circumstances.

I have heard people talk about wanting to support women to make different choices. The reality is that there are women in all of our lives who are in their teens, 20s, 30s and 40s who are the victims of rape or incest, are facing health situations alone or are married with children already and are making hard decisions. Right now, in many cases they cannot speak to anyone and will not be able to talk about what the alternatives might be. They will not be able to discuss the supports which may be there.

We need to say that we can talk to women rather than threaten them. Even if one is passionately anti-abortion, one should want to talk to them, engage with them and have discussions about compassionate supports rather than engage in coercion. Let us be clear. The eighth amendment is an instrument of coercion.

I know there are other supports which I will not discuss, but I will be very clear. I proposed measures in the House and have debated them, such as supports for lone parents. Many of those who speak passionately now about how they want women to make different choices were not there for those debates. If people are serious about supporting women and making alternative options available, and genuinely want to reduce the rate of crisis pregnancy and give people real options, let it happen in the light.Let it happen openly. Trust and engage with women. Trust and engage with the electorate by giving them the chance to vote. Let us not have a silencing any more.