Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 8 Dec 2021
HEALTH MINISTER STEPHEN Donnelly has said that “ease of access” for abortion services has not yet been achieved three years after new laws around pregnancy termination were enacted.
Donnelly was facing questions from TDs this morning ahead of next month’s deadline to initiate a review into abortion legislation.
He said this review has now formally begun as the Department of Health this morning commenced a public consultation, allowing members of the public and advocacy groups inform the review of the abortion laws.
Donnelly said he was not yet in a position to name an independent chair to lead the second phase of the review as this position required a public tender.
The terms of the review have also been criticised by campaigners and politicians after Donnelly said they would focus on how the current laws operate and not whether the policy itself.
The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act came into force in January 2019 and gave effect to the Eighth Amendment referendum the previous May.
Under the law, a termination of pregnancy is available on an unrestricted basis up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Terminations beyond the 12-week limit are only lawful in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or a risk to the life or serious harm to the pregnant person.
The operation of the Act is required to be reviewed after three years.
The review is to be overseen by an independent chair but campaigners have expressed repeated concerns about the delay in announcing the chair.
The chair is likely to have significant scope in shaping the direction of the review, which the minister has promised will take a three-part approach that involves service users, service providers and a public consultation.
In his introductory remarks to the Oireachtas Health Committee, Donnelly did not say who was being appointed as the independent chair but outlined that they “will assess the extent to which the objectives of the Act have been achieved”.
“The chair will assess the extent to which the Act’s objectives have, and have not, been achieved and will make recommendations to address any barriers identified,” he said.
Asked by Sinn Féin’s Seán Crowe TD for a timeline on the appointment of the chair, Donnelly said that a tender process would select the chair “early in the new year”.
“Then what I would hope to see is that the report is submitted in the summer or autumn of next year,” he said.
Donnelly also said that “women’s experiences of termination of pregnancy services” would also be “a critical source of information for the review”, adding that this was “the most important part of the first phase”.
The Health Minister said he had hoped to appoint directly but that this was not possible due to the amount of public money involved.
“I was informed that a procurement processes was necessary for the work, which is unfortunate as we had identified a number of excellent candidates and I’d much rather be announcing a chair with you here today,” he said.
Principal Officer in the Department of Health Geraldine Luddy said there hasn’t been a final figure put on the cost but that “it could be up to €100,000″.
During the hearing, it was revealed a tender has been published to conduct research ”to inform the review” but that the position of the chair had not yet been advertised.
Speaking after the hearing, committee member Bríd Smith TD of People Before Profit said it was “farcical” that these details were not provided to members in advance.
Issues
Campaigners on both sides of the abortion debate have sought changes to the laws as they currently operate.
Pro-choice campaigners have cited a lack of access to abortion services, with one survey this year finding that just one in 10 GPs are offering abortion services. They have also criticised the legally-mandated three-day wait period between a consultation with a doctor and the abortion taking place.
Anti-abortion activists have highlighted what they say is a lack of information around the provision of abortion services. They have also pushed for legislative changes that would require doctors to administer pain relief to a foetus during abortions after 20 weeks.
Under the Programme for Government, the minister has already committed to legislating for exclusion zones to prevent protests outside abortion providers.
Under questioning from Fine Gael’s Bernard Durkan TD, Donnelly said that he “would not currently be satisfied with the provision of services geographically” and that he doesn’t believe “ease of access” has been achieved.
Despite this, Donnelly said there has been “a significant reduction” in people travelling to the UK to procure a termination and this was “one of the big questions” that had to be addressed before the 2018 referendum.
“Certainly the numbers of women involved and traveling versus the number of terminations provided here would suggest that that objective largely has been achieved,” he said.
However, there are still a number of women who are traveling and I think that for example, would be one of the things that would be covered in this review. Why are they traveling why do they feel the need to travel?
Addressing this question, Luddy said that information from clinics in the UK suggested that 375 women travelled there from Ireland for terminations in 2020.
“They were made up from different reasons but predominantly for women who had a diagnosis of a fetal anomaly that wasn’t fatal,” Luddy said.
And also for women who were over the 12 weeks, so in our own Act there is unrestricted access to terminations when you’re under 12 weeks but over that there has to be clinical reason.
Terms of reference
A number of deputies expressed frustration that the terms of reference for the review had not been provided to them ahead of today’s meeting. Donnelly apologised for this and the terms were subsequently provided to the committee.
Among the issues the review will examine are extent to which the Act’s objectives have not been achieved, with the review to make recommendations to address these barriers.
It will examine the extent of service provision in the community and service provision in hospital settings.
In his opening statement, Donnelly said that the review of the legislation will be focused on “the operation of the legislation, rather than on the policy underlying the Act”.
Sinn Féin TD David Cullinane asked the minister whether the underlying policies would therefore be examined “at any point”.
“We do need to be very clear here that this is not a review of the policy. The policy is agreed. It’s a review of the operation of the policy, if the operation of the policy uncovers issues that require recommendations on the policy that is within the scope, but we’re not reopening the question of Repeal,” Donnelly said.
Cullinane said he “understands the point” the minister was making but he described it as a “Yes Minister answer”.
Cullinane then specifically asked about the question of the three-day wait period for a termination and inquired whether this could be revisited if issues were identified during the review.
In response, Donnelly said:
The waiting periods for example, they’ve been raised with me by many people, some people think they should be gone, some people think they should be longer. The review is not about examining that as a policy question. That’s a decision that has been arrived at by the Oireachtas. However, the review is going to look at the operational implications of that waiting period.
Pushed further on this by Fine Gael TD Seán Kyne, Donnelly said:
“We can’t preempt what the report is coming back with and what is linked to operation difficulties. It is possible that the report comes back and says ‘the operationalisation of this three days is very difficult, we recommend it moves to two days or it moves to four days’. The chair can recommend whatever they want so long as it’s linked to the operation of the of the Act. And then obviously it’s for all of us in the Oireachtas to review that.”
Asked later about the 12-week limit on unrestricted abortions, Donnelly said it was “not in scope” to look at changing this limit but that the operation of how this works for healthcare professionals would be examined.
Reacting to today’s hearing, advocate group the Irish Family Planning Association said it was “deeply concerned” about the planned review.
“The delay appointing a chair and confusion about the review’s scope may jeopardise this opportunity to improve access to abortion care and reproductive autonomy for women and pregnant people,” the group said.
Committee member and SocDem co-leader Róisín Shortall TD said that the operation of the laws and the policy are “inextricably linked” and both should be on the table.
“There are ongoing problems relating to accessibility that need to be examined as part of this review. Clearly, the operation of the law needs to be reviewed – but the operation of the law is informed by the legislation. Therefore, the operation of the policy and the law are inextricably linked,” she said.
The minister should confirm his willingness to amend the law if there is a strong view, from service users and providers during the consultation process, that its operation is being hindered.
Following a review
After the report is completed next year it will then be presented to the Health Minister and then likely sent to the Health Committee.
Speaking before today’s hearing, committee member Green Party TD Neasa Hourigan told The Journal she had written to the minister to suggest that a legislative review similar to what was undertaken when the Gender Recognition Act was being reviewed could be repeated.
She said that, while the issues are different, during that review process the review panel “listened to the people who are really affected”.
Hourigan estimated that such a review could take six months and that any further consideration by the TDs would have to reach the “high bar” set by the Oireachtas Eighth Amendment Committee in 2017.
In statement after today’s meeting, spokesperson for Pro Life Campaign Eilís Mulroy said that the review process was “wholly one-dimensional”.
“The one-sided approach adopted by the Minister this morning would leave one to believe that the three year review will be a cold house for those who hold a pro-life viewpoint and who represent a sizable portion of the electorate. The minister cannot simply ignore the experiences and views of those with different perspectives on abortion,” she said.
Earlier this year, the Minister for Health said the initial stages of legislative review had been commenced and that he has held meetings with a group of civil society organisations brought together by the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI).
Speaking to The Journal, the NWCI’s Alana Ryan said the minister met with representatives in the summer but they are yet to find out who will chair the review.
“The minister did promised back in June when NWCI representatives from our Abortion Working Group met with him to appoint an independent expert chair in reproductive health to provide oversight of this critical review process, but since that meeting we haven’t heard any more,” Ryan said.
“We don’t know whether an expert has been appointed, there’s been no public announcement. And it really is crucial that we do have a chair who’s an expert in reproductive health and equality-based healthcare in position for the review so we can be confident in the process.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
They have no voice, are not seen, and 40 million of them are terminated globally every year. It’s so profoundly sad.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: heartbreaking. 100% agree.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan:
But what’s the solution? Genuinely.
Reproductive Laws pushed on men? Like reversible vasectomies? Men have the source.
Women want to have full control over their bodies. Would you let someone live off your body, or in your house, for 9 months?
Do you complain when your taxes go to child benefits and council houses?
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: and all your mock pity won’t make the slightest difference .. it’s legal the world over and will always be so .. woman’s body woman’s choice. End of !
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: sadder than them being born into a dreadful life in poverty and neglect awaiting them? Sadder than having no bodily functions and having to receive 24 care ..never being able to walk or speak or feed themselves ? I think your definition of sad is different than others
@Elaynehb: I agree so let’s start killing the old and sick as well it will save a fortune
@paul whelan: I’m for that. As long as you are one them.
@paul whelan: you see this is why your arguments dont stand up..when someone brings a logical point to the table, its immediately met with nonsense.
@Elaynehb: I liked the original post but tend to forget about the solid point you’ve just made. I sometimes forget that if the child isn’t wanted, they’re not in for a nice life. But then it occurs to me as I type this that adoption is the happy medium there (provided the biological mother is able and prepared to carry and deliver the baby(/foetus/whatever people want to call it) to full term. Or 3/4 of the way through, if that’s any easier. Sometimes ~30 weeks is enough. I wonder if people are always made aware of that
Got a bit reckless with the aul’ brackets there. Apologies
@JusticeForJoe: Adoption and abortion are 2 completely different issues and Adoption should not be seen as the “solution” to unwanted pregnancies. Adoption inflicts childhood trauma on children and that’s zero to do with abortion
@Paul Jude Redmond: I know a handful of adopted people that would tell you to sit down.
@JusticeForJoe: well you really said it yourself, if someone is able and prepared to carry to term and many people do not want to for a myriad of reasons and that is their choice. Pregnancy isn’t exactly a walk in the park and many people do not want to. After 12 weeks abortion isn’t available except in very specific circumstances. You talk about less than 30 weeks, but the people who get to the viability stage (from about 24 weeks onwards) when seeking abortion are those who have serious health risks to life or a fatal foetal abnormality. Adoption isn’t a solution to abortion, because of a) the process itself to get there, b) the reasons noted above about post 12 weeks and c) people don’t owe children to those who want to adopt.
@Jensen Bhroin: I get that. I’m not saying it’s a blanket solution at all. In some cases, it can be. That’s all i’m saying.
@Elaynehb: your logical point is that people are better of dead that living a life in bad circumstances. Kill the poor as it were.
More waffle incoming
@Brian Dunne: Abortion is no more dangerous than trampolines
@Brian Dunne: Every abortion is a tragedy and should always be treated as such by those emphasising the “choice” aspect as well as those who see it as inhuman. The post abortion women is in a new place in her life and the medics that assisted her are in a new place also. It is a sad not a no-consequence event.
@Tom Molloy: “The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
@Felicity Hensen: the risk of death with an abortion is 100%
Don’t expect him to directly answer any questions, especially as he won’t be able to blame NPHET…
Every human being whether born or preborn is entitled to its own life.
@Charles Barker: not really. Someone who isn’t born relies on someone else to be born. One realised and vital life takes precedent over an unborn potential life. Seeing them as equivalent is de-humanising to the living and breathing person that would have to bring a child to term against their will.
(checks journal comments)
Oh, it looks like covid hasn’t killed off all the anti-abortion anti-vax loopers yet.
(sets reminder to check back after the Omicron wave has passed)
@Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty: I found the author’s choice of labelling interesting.
One side is pro choice not pro abortion as that term has negative connotations.
The other side is anti-abortion not pro life as that term has positive connotations.
No guessing where the author sits on this one.
@GrumpyAulFella: Nobody is pro-abortion. Those that avail of it do so because they feel it’s the least worst option.
@Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty: it’s a for and against thing though isn’t it? So you’re either in favour of the usage of abortion (pro) or against the usage of abortion (anti). The phraseology is always interesting as it’s always slanted one way or the other depending on the commentators beliefs.
@GrumpyAulFella: but everyone wants fewer abortions, including the people having them. Before it was a legal choice in Ireland, many travelled, with the consequence that the abortions happened later, which again nobody wants. Consequently, the anti-abortion people actually just want no abortions in this State, and dam-n the consequences. But it’s done now, legally, and we’re into “operational difficulties”.
@Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty:
Hate lumping all pro life people in with the loud minority of anti vax covid deniers (and anti most things also). 33% of people in this country didn’t want the 8th repealed but these people typically get less than 1% when they stand for election. Still think these people did more for the Yes side than the No, as many middle of the road people chose to vote Yes, even though they weren’t in favour of unlimited access to abortion in every circumstance.
@GrumpyAulFella: Fair point… Pro choice… very liberal and fair sounding, but there are only two choices, one is life and the other is death.
He can’t legislate for safe Zones on public footpaths
@Maurice O Neill: He shouldn’t have to. It should be safe for every women to access proper health care at clinics and hospitals. No woman, for whatever reason they are attending, and no one knows why, should have to put up with being verbally and physically accosted. Especially by decrepit placard carrying old men and rosary swinging bitter old women.
https://aai.gov.ie/en/who-we-are/domestic-adoption.html
https://www.tusla.ie/services/alternative-care/foster-care/
For the usual “abortion is murder” brigade, I have linked the above that explain the process for adoption or fostering in Ireland.
Considering you are “pro life”, I’m sure all of you will sign up to adopt and foster as many children as possible.
@Mike Ryan: Have you any idea how long it takes to adopt a child in Ireland? From people I know who have tried to go down that route, the waiting list is enormous and the process takes years, as demand is multiple times supply available, and there are almost no domestic adoptions. Not sure of the statistics for fostering, but it takes huge patience and a very loving understanding family to be able to deal with sometimes very difficult circumstances of some of the children needing foster care. Understandably, the vetting process for fostering needs to be very through to not further damage some of these children.
@Mike Ryan: very bumptious comment indeed. There are many couples desperate to adopt but end up having to resort to foreign parts because the adoption process here is so unreal. If that was better then most unwanted babies would have a loving home in days.
@Mike Ryan: You are representing the 4% “hard cases” abortions while others are representing the 96%. Difference of opinion is inevitable not unreasonable. Abortion in the case resulting from an assault IS the death penalty but is administered to the child of the attacker not the attacker The abortion in 96% of cases are not for the hard cases used to have it legalised.
@Mike Ryan: so Mike I take it you’re available to do Terminations /perform abortions as you are “pro choice” I can send you a link as to what’s required if you don’t have the qualifications.
@DERRY1973: Oh I’m absolutley not available to do that, no. Simple reason being that it s none of my business and I dont have the right to get involved in another persons bodily autonomy.
@DERRY1973: i’d happily help someone source the healthcare and pills they need to safely carry out an abortion. But once it reaches the need for a medical abortion I wouldn’t have the required skills but would accompany someone to their appointment if needed. Why would I force someone to carry a child to term, that is barbaric and if it was done to me I would consider it tortuous. DIY surgical abortions are unfortunately a reality in many parts of the world and people die from them so I think your point misses the mark by a mile. Abortions happen anyway, the main difference when legal is that they can be safe and people can get the support they need, which is how it should be.
@Jensen Bhroin: is it not barbaric to kill your own offspring?
Can this fellow talk straight at all .
To all the crackpot anti abortion loonies on here, a woman’s body or her medical health choices are non of your business. If you want that kind of society I’d suggest moving to some middle Eastern countries, your misogyny would fit right in. Alternatively you could just stop hating on women.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: Nothing more looney and absolute lack of morality than people screaming for unlimited abortion.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: what a m0r0n you are. You haven’t a clue. Most see this as a Catholic fire and brimstone issue. Believe me, it isn’t. I’m a lapsed Catholic that’s now pagan, but I still see abortion as wrong. It’s the taking of a human life, whatever way you look at it. No earthly being has the right to decide the life or death of another earthly being. Assisted suicide is fine, as it’s the choice of the actual person re their own life but abortion is so different. How people can be so callous is beyond me.
@Anna Carr: Again, a woman’s choice on her medical care is non of your business. I can’t state this clearly enough, it’s non of your business. What’s your solution, treat women ike beasts of burden?
@David Bohane: Nobody is screaming, just stating the reality that it’s non of your business, move along.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: beasts of burden? Is that what you think. I pity you. The most wonderful gifts I was ever given were my 2 children. One is doing very well and the other will need care for the rest of his life. I never saw myself as a beast of burden, what a horrendous comment. I see myself as blessed, very blessed. They will always be the highest achievements of my whole life. I don’t understand you. I truly don’t, in fact, I pity you.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: Ya you are screaming for it and its as much anyone’s business as it is yours, move along yourself to a communist country where you would be more at home.
@Anna Carr: Not only have you insulted me by calling me a m0r0n, now you pity me and think I’m horrendous, for simply stating that women’s medical health care is absolutely non of your business. I notice that you didn’t attempt to offer an alternative to this reality instead opting for the emotional sympathy angle. It still remains non of your business btw. Thank you and I hope you and your family keep well.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: Your first comment warranted you being insulted as it was totally m oronic, get over your sense of self importance and grow up.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE:
Abortion is not a private matter, it is a publicly funded service which affects the whole of society.
A law which allows a citizen to kill is certainly everyone’s business.
@David Bohane: You don’t seem to understand words, communism eh?
@Mary Fallon: If you suspect a citizen of killing another, then report it. In the meantime keep your nose out of women’s healthcare because again, it’s non of your business.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: I understand it perfectly well, just seems that you would be more suited somewhere debate is not allowed and people have no say, looking at your chosen name here id hope you are still a teenager for your own families sake.
@Maximus_Demonus #FBPE: thank you. But the life of the unborn is, and will continue to be my business, till the end of my days
@Anna Carr: You are welcome and if it’s your unborn then I fully support your rights to make your own decisions.
@Anna Carr: You chose to have two kids so you love them. But forcing someone to have kids against their will is treating them like beasts of burden, like incubators and that is wrong. Your feelings about something doesn’t mean someone else feels the same way. Someone else’s choice about their body is in fact none of your business, despite you attempting to make it yours. Having your kids is your highest achievement, well done for you. For others it will be a horrific experience or just the wrong time for them. That is their choice, they aren’t blessed simply because you think they should be.
So you would force a woman go full term, just because that is what you want? The choice is hers and hers alone
Hail Satan and his minions
@O’Brien: Ivory Cummins is looking for you… aren’t you one of his minions? Lmfao
@O’Brien: Hush now child the adults are talking .. hysterical blah blah
@O’Brien: you ok lad?
Around 20 carried out each day since this was all implemented
@Sean Casey: your point? The number of those who travelled or took pills from online prior to repeal was approx 5000+ a year (some years 7000+) and that is only based on the figures we have from the UK and Women on the Web. The difference is that people can access it more quickly and without the added trauma of travelling. Most abortions remain prior to 12 weeks and are pill based rather than surgical. Your comment implies that somehow there are more abortions happening. There aren’t. And if you want less abortions then the best approach, based on analysis of abortion rates per 1000, is to legalise it while providing better access to contraception and adequate sex education. We have one of the three and are making progress on the second but we won’t see numbers really reduce until we have all three. Indeed the countries with the highest rates of abortion per 1000 are those that criminalise it and restrict the other two (e.g El Salvador, Colombia). Those with the lowest have that wonderful trifecta (e.g Switzerland and the Netherlands). But those who oppose abortion aren’t really interested in reducing the number, they are so focused on ‘no abortions’ (which has never been the case anywhere) that they ignore the research that shows how to actually reduce the number of abortions.
If it was men who were the ones who could reproduce. You would be able to years ago and would be like getting a tooth removed.
@Nickwhick: are you saying men cant reproduce? Be careful you could get in trouble for such opinions.
The feeble minded, ignorānt and stūpid comments being made about abortion here are truly profound
Is a ‘pregnant person’ as referred to in the article not a woman?
@Gerard O’Sullivan: not all people who can get pregnant identify as women. And they can and do get abortions. So pregnant person includes women and other people who can get pregnant such as trans men and non-binary people. Considering healthcare providers try to make services inclusive so that people don’t avoid them (this is an issue for many trans people who may avoid vital health screening etc as a result of a lack of inclusivity and awareness) it makes sense that they are using inclusive language when referring to the broad range of people who access services.
have your say