Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As I said yesterday, I welcome this opportunity to change our Constitution. We have listened patiently - perhaps a little impatiently at some stages - to today's debate. I was glad there was at least an acknowledgement that the Article is not reflective of reality and not to include more - the parents - was unfair and unrealistic. However, going back to the previous debate, we have to acknowledge what the family is, what it has become and what it actually always was and have that acknowledged in our Constitution. We must also acknowledge that the mother - the woman - is not the only person involved or the only one with the responsibility or duty. We need that change. I also find bizarre the argument that this was some sort of social good that the Constitution gave to lower class people - as Senator McDowell said, it was there to protect poor people. It did not. What good did that Article about life within the home and "not to neglect their duties in the home" do? It did not help anybody. It did not help me nor did it hinder me but it did not help my granny, mother or aunt. No positive actions were taken from that Article to support women. It is no good to them. It is perverse how some have twisted it. Earlier in this debate and in the previous debate, it was said it was a disgrace that some were taking men out of the argument and that they were deleting men. We have moved on to this debate and we hear the rambling that it is a disgrace that we are deleting women from the Constitution. It is ludicrous. You cannot say one and the other and mean both. It is singing to the choir. There was a lovely clip for a Twitter post that will get loads of likes and follows, which is empty of any substance or progressive move for this country. It is infuriating.

I hope this referendum is passed because, as Senator Seery-Kearney said, it is a progressive move that sees care in itself as an action and a positive that will be acknowledged in the Constitution. There are many types of care which this can encompass. We have discussed this at length in many different types of debates. There is a huge failure of the State in supporting community care and care outside the come but this is a positive Article. It acknowledges the family and care. It includes the fathers, aunts, grannies, grandads and uncles who provide care because of their bonds and acknowledges that care is so important that the common good cannot be achieved without it. It is symbolic and important that our Constitution acknowledges care and deletes "duty". I am not sure which Senator said it was not fashionable to have "duty" included but duty is there. We all have a duty but to put a perceived legal obligation in the Constitution that a woman must fulfil or not neglect her duty is not appropriate. "Duty" is a very strong word. I will not miss my Constitution telling me, because of economic necessity, that I am neglecting my duties in the home. This country will not miss it. We do not need it. It did not help us. It did not hinder some. The Constitution might not have been the origin of discrimination against women but it was the origin of its support. When policies were enacted, there was a societal drive but also a constitutional stamp.Like Senator Seery Kearney, I congratulate the Minister and his officials on their work because this is a progressive, positive move that encompasses all people who do care because "of the bonds that exist among them", which is a lovely phrase.