Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Two of my amendments are to this section, namely, amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I welcome the few hours we spent with the Minister and doctors yesterday. This is one of the areas on which I have been persuaded a little, whereas I was not convinced by the argument against deleting the word "serious". It is important that these important points are not debated in rooms elsewhere. It is better to have them on the record of the House. Amendment No. 17 deals with how a threat to a woman's life or health might arise from her living circumstances and the possibility that she may have to see a doctor on two or more occasions to access the healthcare she needs. We got to a point yesterday where there was an acknowledgement that some women do not believe they have the ability to advocate for themselves, their healthcare and their rights, perhaps because they are members of a minority group or another group or for reasons of low educational attainment. It is all well and good talking about a public campaign and helplines but these do not always reach everyone. The important point for me was how these women would know that they would come under an emergency provision or even that they could inquire of their doctors about an emergency provision. What became apparent to me is that in regard to all health inequity, a certain amount of awareness training is needed for doctors who work in areas of deprivation to ensure they understand the social context in which they work.

It is about being able to understand the situation of a woman in poor living circumstances and, in a primary care setting, to be able to make that woman aware that there are provisions available to her, rather than expecting that she would already know about them and be able to advocate for access to them. We had some discussions on this yesterday. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that in respect of amendment No. 17. Programmes exist to train GPs to work in areas of deprivation and it would be helpful to know whether the provision of terminations and the related services will also be included in this training for that group of women.

On amendment No. 18, it is something on which we have never had a clear answer. Where a woman's first access to a doctor results in a conscientious objection, having waited for an appointment and visited the doctor only to be told that an abortion would not be provided for her, I want to ensure that once she had subsequently found a provider who would give her the service she needed, that she did not have to wait a further three days. Awareness campaigns do not always reach every community. Will the Minister justify why we would not allow for the three-day period to begin from the first doctor's appointment, even if it resulted in conscientious objection?