Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions on this important issue. I know it is one about which people feel very strongly. I approach this Bill from a simple enough perspective, namely, I feel a duty. People do not agree with me, and I have already heard people over there who do not agree with me on this. However, I am doing what I said I was going to do during the referendum campaign.There are many people, including some referenced in this House today, who campaigned for and referenced that draft legislation. They said that if one voted "Yes", this is what they would do. I accept Senator Ruane's point that it represents a deviation from the report of the Oireachtas committee but the draft legislation published in March, which people had sight of and on which I and Members of this House were questioned up and down the country, contains what I committed to doing if the people voted "Yes". Many people on the "No" side said we could not trust politicians and that we would say we would do something as regards the threshold if people voted "Yes" but would come back into the Oireachtas and do our own thing. I believe words matter and commitments matter.

I campaigned with many doctors and politicians from across the spectrum in what was a very collaborative effort, and I believe that what we promised was important. That is how I approached this legislation, in the Dáil and in this House. That is not to say I should not be scrutinised on how that works or that we should not tease out whether it actually does work and I welcome the opportunity to do that today.

Some things are statements of the obvious and, as a man, I do not feel comfortable telling female Members of the Oireachtas but, medically, I am advised that pregnancy is a risk to health. It is clinically more risky to a person's health than not to be pregnant. There is a risk attached to any individual's health from being pregnant. It is a medical fact advised to me by the chief medical officer, as well as many obstetricians and gynaecologists. We are all aware of the evidence that an early termination of pregnancy, if done safely and according to best medical practice, would always pose less of a risk to a woman's health than continuing the pregnancy to delivery. If done correctly, legally, safely and in the early stages of pregnancy, it is less of a risk to a woman's health to have an early termination than to carry a pregnancy to full term. We considered this point at some length during the drafting of the legislation and the reason the qualification "serious" was included in section 10 was to clarify, from a legal perspective, that the nature of the risk to a woman's health goes beyond that normal risk of harm to a woman's health which pregnancy would pose to anybody, including a healthy woman. We are, therefore, not talking about the risks associated with being pregnant, though many people who campaigned on the "No" side suggested we were. We always talked about a higher bar than the regular risk to somebody's health. We talked about a serious risk and that is what we are endeavouring to deal with in the legislation. What we are not doing in the legislation is defining what serious harm is, something that was in the committee's report. To do this would be, quite frankly, appalling because then we would be stepping into the shoes of doctors and making medical judgments which very few of us, if any of us, are qualified to make. We are telling the doctor that it is up to them to decide.

To answer Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell's question, there is no exhaustive list because there cannot and should not be one. We are providing further safeguards for the doctor by a reference to his or her reasonable opinion, formed in good faith, of whether serious harm would be caused. The definition of serious harm is different from woman to woman and from pregnancy to pregnancy and it will be the subject of a clinical judgment. Two doctors will have arrived at a viewpoint, in consultation with the woman, that there could be serious harm to the woman's health. At this stage, a woman wants to be pregnant but something has gone wrong. Clinical guidance is being drawn up and that is the place for this as I do not feel suitably qualified, nor is it my role as Minister and legislator, to tell doctors what any guidance should include. It is my role to clarify what we mean to the Irish people. We are not talking about normal harm and normal risk. We mean a serious risk but we allow our doctors to decide what that is.

In answer to another of Senator O'Donnell's questions, this does not involve presuming there is a risk to life. We have broadened the grounds so that it includes a risk of serious harm to health or a risk to life. It could include a situation where a woman has serious diabetes and is at risk of losing her eyesight and going blind.Under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, nothing could be done to help that woman because she was not dying. She will not die as a result of going blind but it is a serious risk to her health. That is what we are trying to get to here. We are trying to debunk some of the offensive - I have to use language correctly - suggestions or arguments put forward during the campaign to the effect that this was about minor health issues. That is not what it is about. Women do not choose to have an abortion for a minor health issue. This is about a situation where something has gone wrong in regard to a woman's health. The statutory threshold in this law is that two doctors share a reasonable opinion formed in good faith. Guidelines can, should and will play a role but it is for the doctor to determine if the risk is serious and not a matter for the law. The word "serious" is required because risk alone is too low a bar. That is what we are trying to get at here.

Senator O'Donnell asked if it is enough that it is predicted risk. The answer is "Yes" because it is a medical opinion that there is a serious risk. Does that risk need to be permanent? No. Does it need to be a risk to one's life? No. I am trying to answer as many of the Senator's questions as possible. We are not defining that risk to health. It could also be a risk to life.

Senator Norris asked about the situation regarding rape victims. It is the truth that the outer limit for accessing termination without specific indication is 12 weeks. We know the overwhelming majority of women, even today when they have to travel, access termination much earlier than that. That is desirable from the woman's perspective as well.

As these services become embedded as a normal part of the Irish public health service, it will be important that there is adequate information available to women at an early stage, including through sexual assault treatment units and the like to ensure women get access to the full spectrum of information at the earliest possible stage. However, in light of the important issues the Senator raised regarding the Rape Crisis Network Ireland, I will ask that Dr. Boylan and others meet representatives of the network and make sure we take on board its viewpoint. I think that would be very helpful.