Bríd Smith: Demands Urgent Abortion Law Reform After Review

Tanaiste today marks the fifth anniversary of the repeal victory, a categoric and historic victory of a campaign that was run and led by particularly young women, but men and women throughout this country, length and breadth and east to west, and it really forced, that campaign really forced the politicians to sit up, wake up and smell the coffee, and what people said at that time mostly was give women a choice, do not force them, to travel abroad. Five years on, we have the review from Dr Mary O'Shea. Dr Mary O'Shea's review is categoric and clear in the recommendations that it makes. Tonight we bring a bill before the Dáil to reform Ireland's abortion laws. Coincidentally, our bill is mostly in line with the recommendations of Dr Mary O'Shea. They include women whose health has been harmed by continuing with the pregnancy are being forced to travel abroad. Two out of every five women who need abortion care because of foetal anomaly are being forced to travel abroad. Teenagers who are less likely to access abortion within the rigid 12-week limit, because they are less likely to realise they are pregnant due to erratic period times, etc., are being forced to travel abroad. Migrants are being left behind, particularly those who are undocumented asylum seekers who face major barriers, including language barriers and difficulties. Women living with domestic abuse and disabled persons are being left behind. We know from Dr Mary O'Shea's report that around 200 women and girls every year since repeal have been forced to travel abroad. Our response to that bill is for your government to try to put an amendment before the bill to say, park this for 12 months and we look at it in 12 months time. During that 12 months, it is likely that at least another 200 women and girls will be forced to travel abroad. But what baffles me is that the government commissioned a review. It was quite sensibly put into the legislation that a review must happen. Simon Harris at the time argued that we need to see in real time how this legislation actually plays out and is it fit for purpose? Does it do what repeal has asked this country to do? It does not, and that is clear from the review. But yet you are willing to park it for another 12 months. It is quite clear and very transparent that this is veiled cover to the people on that side of the House not to touch this issue until we are facing into another election. That this doll does not have the courage to face up to the results of its own commissioned review. It just does not make sense why you would commission review and then not look at it, take it serious and deal with the recommendations within it. Our bill attempts to do that, but you are attempting to kick for touch, give cover to those in the Cabinet and those in the parties across the House who do not want to touch this issue, who never wanted to touch it but were dragged kicking and screaming by a mass movement from below. I would like you to address the issue of that amendment which will kick for touch and how disgraceful we believe it is that you think it is okay for hundreds of more women and girls to have to travel over the next year. First of all, I would not agree with the Deputy's assessment of the Government's position. I would argue that the Irish people did take a fundamental decision in the repeal of the aid in a referendum. But that followed a significant level of constructive engagement, informed engagement and a listening exercise within the then Eroptis Committee on Health, I think Health and Children at the time. And many, many people made presentations to that Eroptis Committee, which was based on the, which was considering the then Citizens Assembly's recommendations. And proposals emerged from that Eroptis Committee, which were then put to the people. And I would argue that that process, which I thought was respectful of people's positions. I thought it was a substantive process. It was an informed process. And that led to a very significant majority, ultimately, in the context of a referendum, to repeal the Eighth Amendment. And part of that we put forward before the people legislation and said to the people, here is what we intend to implement if the referendum is passed. And so the review, we've been through to that in terms of we commissioned the review, the review has now been published. And we're doing exactly the same as we did prior to the referendum. We are referring it to the Eroptis Committee, not putting on long finger, but it does need examination, the legislative aspects of it. There's significant operational recommendations in the review, which are being now progressed by the Health Service Executive, because they're really operational issues. But the issues in the report itself deserve significant substantive and informed consideration by the Eroptis, before legislative proposals are contemplated. I think that's fair. I think it's in line with how we handled this issue prior to it going to the referendum itself. But I think, in my view, the immediate priority must be to expand the availability of termination services in hospitals, and then the uneven geographic spread of GPs providing the service. And I understand the HC are saying to us that they will significantly increase the number of hospitals who are obliged to under legislation to provide for these services. And that, to me, would be a more immediate priority, along with ensuring that we have greater geographical provision and coverage of the provision of such services within the country itself. I understand you don't turn a ship around overnight, but seriously, it took us decades to get to the point where we had a referendum to repeal the 8th. The review was commissioned, it was delayed in being published, it is very categorically clear in its recommendations. For example, the criminalisation of abortion in the law is the only aspect of medicine that is criminalised. The only aspect. That is something that could be dealt with. The three-day wait, which I have read out as forming a barrier to the most marginalised and the most vulnerable women and girls, that could be dealt with overnight. The Health Committee is having two sessions before the recess with Dr. Mary O'Shea and other witnesses. Then they will come back to the Oireachtas. Why do you need a whole year to consider what is clearly a review that was published at the behest of the government? Dr. Mary O'Shea and the researchers are much better equipped than any single one of us to deal with these issues. Remember that how they conducted their research was looking at the lived experience of people who tried to access the service and the lived experience of those who tried to deliver, including doctors who operate under the chill effect and have been criminalised with a sentence of up to 14 years. They are things that could be dealt with immediately. You are definitely kicking to touch on this. There are sensitivities in the government, like the Taoiseach saying I am uncomfortable with this. It is not about his discomfort or anybody else's discomfort. It is about the health and the delivery of proper health care in this country for women and girls who need it. Look, I actually genuinely believe that the approach we took prior to the referendum was the correct approach. This is a sensitive issue. People have different views on this issue. And those views go deep with people. So the idea that you have an Oireachtas committee to look at this in a detailed way shouldn't be a surprise or shouldn't be attacked. And you are attacking that. I am not through the chair looking for confrontation. I am not through the chair looking for confrontation. I am not attacking anybody's motivations or bona fides in respect of this. But I do respect the fact that this is a legislative assembly with people who will be asked in due course potentially to vote on or have a view on legislation relating to this area. The very least that should happen is that the report should be examined by the Oireachtas. I find it extraordinary that you are saying those who are actually doing the legislation should do no examination at all. Do no consideration of it. Do no discussion of it. And just simply, whatever is produced in the report, we will sign it and so on. I do think there is a lot of merit in going through the Oireachtas committee like we did before and develop a constructive, consensual approach to these issues. Thank you. Thank you.