Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is an historic moment. This is an issue that has spanned many decades of Irish life. Like others, I applaud those who took a very difficult stance in 1983 in highlighting the concerns, dangers and consequences for women that would come about with the introduction of the eighth amendment. Even if our recent referendum was difficult, the 1983 referendum was extremely difficult for those who campaigned against it and it had consequences for them. Of course many of the concerns they raised at that time came to pass. We have had many cases since then.

I first became aware of the issue in the early 1990s during the X case because it affected a teenager, as I was at the time, and that was when I first protested for repeal. As a teenager protesting at that time I did not believe it would take this long. I assumed people would realise the terrible consequences and things would change. Of course, it has taken decades since then. As has been described by others, we have had hundreds of thousands of women living their lives under a shadow, having their rights compromised, having their voice silenced, and having their experiences hidden. It is wonderful that we are able to move forward and open the topic up, and that Ireland is a country in which we can talk about these issues, respect each other, respect women and can trust each other to come with good faith to the legislative process, trusting women to make the choices that are right for them. It was clear from the exit polls on the night of the referendum that people trust women in the choices and decisions they make.

I pay tribute to the Citizens' Assembly for engaging in discussion with open minds. Their deep consideration and analysis was a model in respect for conversation and what that could be for Irish society. I give credit to those, including colleagues in the Labour Party, who first put the issue on the agenda for the Citizens' Assembly.

I particularly give credit to the Oireachtas committee and my colleague, Senator Ruane, who was the voice of the Civil Engagement group on that committee and, of course, the committee Chairman, Senator Noone. We were told the committee would entirely consist of heat and argument but, in fact, due to the contribution of those who steered it through, it actually shed light on issues that needed to be seen. Some of its very important recommendations were carried through in the Bill, particularly the recognition that the 12-week period was the only practicable way to deal with so many situations, including that of rape. That is a very positive aspect of the Bill which has many other positive aspects.

I also highlight some concerns. When people voted to repeal they did so because they heard about people's real stories - the real issues that affected women and their real experiences. They also heard of doctors' real experiences. I worry that parts of the Bill contain hard lines and hard absolutes that will not address the messy reality of people's experiences. A word such as "avert" is too hard a bar to reach. For example, does it cover cases where, for example, a 60% risk is reduced to a 20% risk? These are the kinds of questions that came up in the testimonies. I recognise that the three-day period will be there. As we continue to trust women, we will realise that this period is not necessary. I worry about the hardness of the interpretation regarding those three days in circumstances where there are situations that push people right over the line. I also worry about how the 12-week period might be interpreted because we do not want situations whereby intrusive medical practices will happen simply because doctors are worried about one or two days. Clarity is not necessarily always provided by hard absolutes with sanctions attached; clarity is achieved through guidance and good faith.

This brings me to my key concern regarding the Bill. There are a number of other issues we should address. There are other concerns about which the Minister has given us assurances about matters such as LGBTQI issues. In respect of the transgender issue, he has provided some assurance but there are people who are intersex or gender-fluid or who will not necessarily still be covered by what is laid down in the explanatory memorandum. That is a matter of concern. There are issues concerning conscientious objection. The Minister provided assurances in the Dáil last evening. When he returns to the Seanad, I will ask him to assure us that we will not see institutional conscientious objection coming into play in any way, be it by means of the letter or the practice. For example, we know that, in practice, there are many hospitals in Italy where people cannot access their rights. I agree that there is an obligation on every institution to deliver the service.

My key concern, which we will debate at length, is the question of criminalisation. People voted not to police women and their health. They voted to support them. There is no place in this Bill for criminalisation. If we need to address these issues, there is medical sanction. We have the Offences Against the Person Act. Placing criminal offences like this in the Bill dilutes the spirit and intent behind it. I am particularly concerned about section 23(4). We have been told this relates to force. This does not relate to coercion. We have debate coercion at length in this House and will have the opportunity again. Not only does this section leave well-intentioned people at risk of prosecution and not only is its terminology and the grammatical placing of it poorly phrased, there is a real concern that it does not do what it claims to do, which is deal with coercion. Rather, someone who is innocently counselling and helping the pregnant person and who has that individual's health and well-being in mind may face prosecution whereas an abuser may not. There is a real problem with that section that needs to be addressed. I know we will have an opportunity to address this.

This is a chance for us to try to get it right, learn globally and make sure we do not bring in any inadvertent or unnecessary obstructions. Let us pay attention to what has happened elsewhere in Europe and try to approach this in good faith. Everybody wants to make this workable and real. I look forward to that and I hope we will have no cases involving the letters "X", "Y" or "P" in the future. I am not confident we have guarded against that.