David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I would like to see the Bill pass as quickly as possible, I will restrict my contribution on this occasion and simply quote a group of medical practitioners and professors who have briefed me on this matter to give a specific clinical example. They said:

"Avert" is ordinarily understood to mean "prevent". Therefore, in situations where an abortion would considerably reduce risks to life or health but not fully avert them, there is a legal risk that a pregnant person could be forced to continue with a pregnancy on the grounds that the need for aversion, rather than reduction or considerable reduction, had not been met. Placenta accreta (morbid adherence of the placenta to the wall of the uterus, usually to a C-section scar from a previous pregnancy) is an example of a condition in which abortion at an earlier post-viability gestation would undoubtedly be safer for the pregnant person. This is because the longer the pregnancy continues the more the placenta grows into the scar and the more serious the morbidity becomes. In such a case, ending a pregnancy at an earlier gestation would reduce but not completely eliminate the risk. Under the current wording of the legislation, a person who at 14 weeks gestation requires an abortion due to a condition like placenta accreta would meet the requirements of sections 10(1)(a) (risk to health) & 10(1)(b) (pregnancy has not reached viability), but may not meet the criteria of section 10(1)(c) as the abortion would not completely avert the risk but instead reduce it. That person may thus not be entitled to access abortion and might instead be required to travel for abortion care.

If we are considering compassionately the health and well-being of the patient, "avert" is a dangerous word to introduce in the legislation at this point.