We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Abortion law reform

Summary

Deputy Bacik called for further reform after the repeal of the eighth amendment, especially the removal of the three-day waiting period and better access for women facing fatal foetal abnormality. The Taoiseach said the people had voted for change, acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue, and said the amendment’s progress would depend on the Oireachtas and committee process.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. No woman who lived under the shadow of the eighth amendment will ever forget its impact. Many of us will recall the X case, the A, B and C case, the PP case and the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. We all know that there are thousands of other women who were harmed and whose lives were deeply impacted by Ireland’s constitutional ban on abortion between 1983 and 2018. Thousands had to travel abroad for necessary healthcare. In later years, many self-medicated with pills purchased online and far too many, in the early years, had to resort to using underground phone lines to get abortion information. As students union president in Trinity in 1989, I will never forget taking calls from women and girls in crisis pregnancy who were seeking the phone numbers of abortion clinics in England and had nowhere else to turn. Women who were panicked and desperate would describe their terror to me. Their bodies were no longer their own. Their futures were no longer their own. Due to the eighth amendment, they had to resort to calling a Trinity student’s phone line to ask for help.

After many decades of campaigning, we succeeded in repealing the eighth amendment in 2018 and in legalising abortion here. That was very welcome but far too many women are still travelling. At least 1,500 have done so since 2019. Women across Ireland are still feeling the loneliness of rejection by their own health service, so we must address the barriers to accessing necessary reproductive healthcare. Resources are not the issue. The constitutional ban is gone. What is preventing women from getting the care they need is political squeamishness and cowardice.

Comment on this

It is a residual, insulting, patriarchal mistrust of women that forms the basis of the mandatory three-day wait and the Government's unwillingness to engage with the evidence that other change is needed.

I welcome the Taoiseach's confirmation that he will vote in support of the Private Members' Bill to remove the three-day wait on Second Stage tonight, but even if that reform is introduced, it will not be enough. It will not be enough, in particular, for women who receive a devastating diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality and who still have to travel abroad because of the unnecessarily restrictive provisions in the current law.

The Taoiseach asked barrister Marie O’Shea to lead a review into how abortion care was working in Ireland. Her report was published three years ago. From that moment, he and his colleagues were on notice the system was failing women and that arbitrary and paternalistic processes were failing women and, indeed, doctors. Therefore, we need to go further than removing the mandatory three-day wait. We need urgent reform of the overly restrictive provisions on fatal foetal anomaly and implementation of all the recommendations from Marie O’Shea’s report.

The three-day wait is just one serious obstacle and women cannot wait any longer for it to be repealed, so can we have a timeline for this change? None was forthcoming from the Government yesterday. Three years on from the O’Shea review, when will we see all of her recommendations implemented to deliver effective reproductive care and abortion rights?

Comment on this

First of all, I recognise that this is a very sensitive issue and I appreciate the Deputy raising it in the manner she has. She campaigned consistently over a long period for the abolition of the eighth amendment. On reflection, in my view, this area should never have been in the Constitution in the first instance. It came out of a particular era in the 1980s.

Be that as it may, the people spoke in the referendum. In the context of that referendum, there was a general debate on what would follow. If we look at what has happened, there is now safe and equitable access to termination of pregnancy services. The Deputy did not really acknowledge that in her presentation. Significant steps have been taken in this regard, including the expansion of hospital services, a sustained increase in community providers - there are about 492 now - the introduction of safe access zones and the continuation of the revised model of care for termination in early pregnancy. These measures have substantially reduced barriers and increased access to services for those who need it.

There is a broad spectrum of sincerely held views on this issue. We should respect that, and the Government respects that insofar as we have a conscience vote on these issues, and we have had. The constituent members - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Independents - allow for a conscience vote on this. That is what will happen in respect of the vote this evening on the three-day wait period, and we should respect everybody's perspectives and views on this question.

Comment on this

On the three days, it is interesting if you look at the unplanned pregnancy and abortion care, UnPAC, study commissioned as part of the review of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. It explored the experiences of individuals accessing abortion services under section 12 of the Act. The findings indicate that the mandatory three-day waiting period was a recurring feature of discussions across the majority of interviews conducted. Participants expressed a range of views regarding its value and impact. While some regarded it as a procedural requirement that had to be navigated, others viewed it as a barrier or deterrent to accessing care. Very few participants considered the waiting period to have been beneficial to their own decision-making process, although some acknowledged that other women might value additional time for reflection. Those availing of the services now illustrate the degree to which the services have proved to be quite comprehensive in scope and access.

Comment on this

I absolutely acknowledge the progress that has been made since 2018 and since the legislation commenced in 2019, but we still have to acknowledge we are failing far too many women.

Comment on this

Fifteen hundred women is not a small number, and in each situation, there are really difficult circumstances. I am glad that we are seeing a change of heart from the Government on the three-day waiting period after years of insisting that, because it was inserted into draft legislation late in the campaign just prior to the vote, the Government was prevented from looking to abolish it.

I welcome the Taoiseach's change of heart on this but supporting this modest measure through the first stage of a multi-phase legislative process is not enough. We need a timeline for its passage into law, if indeed Government is going to support that.

We also need to see the crucial change on fatal foetal anomaly. I am looking at Marie O'Shea's report. She talks about the challenges in clinical practice and the potentially unfair outcomes for parents arising from implementing the current section. I have spoken with doctors and with women and couples affected. We need to acknowledge the language in that section needs change. That is another crucial part of the reforms necessary to guarantee women and their partners decent healthcare.

Comment on this

The timeline for the amendment is subject to the Oireachtas. It is going to go to the committee if it is passed; if it is not, it will not go to the committee. That is where we are. It will be subject to the vote this evening and, subsequent to that, it will be considered by the committee. The Minister has already engaged with Deputy Cullinane on this. The Minister will be co-operative and in constructive mode if the amendment is carried this evening.

We have to be careful when generalising about the reasons every single person had to go to the UK. One of the issues here is every case can be different. Legislative attempts to deal with that could have unintended consequences. I voted against the Social Democrats Bill two weeks ago because I felt it went too far. Legislatively it was imprecise and poor in terms of wanting Government to interfere in clinical decision-making. Maybe that was unintended but it was clearly in what was proposed. This is not simple. We will continue with a conscience vote in terms of the members of our party.

Comment on this