Sharon Keogan criticises Assisted Human Reproduction Bill process

Sharon Keogan raised grave objections to the Health Committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Assisted Human Reproduction Amendment Bill, calling the process inadequate and the bill dangerous. She said the report was based on a Department of Health policy paper rather than a general scheme and warned the measure risks commercialising pregnancy.

Main objection

The speaker said the committee's report is not based on a general scheme but on a policy paper from the Department of Health, and noted the committee itself admits this is not best practice. She asked why legislative norms are being bypassed for a complex ethical issue such as surrogacy.

Limited stakeholder input

She pointed out the committee invited only two stakeholder groups to make submissions, both advocates for surrogacy, and criticised the absence of dissenting voices. She said there were no ethicists, no women's rights groups and no child welfare experts among those consulted.

Rights and legal questions

The speaker challenged repeated references in the report to a right to procreate and a constitutional right to private and family life. She asked where a positive right to have a child exists in Bunrockna Heron, the European Convention on Human Rights, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and described reproductive autonomy as a negative freedom, not a contractual entitlement.

EU directive and Attorney General review

She noted the EU's anti-trafficking directive explicitly recognises the exploitation of surrogacy as a form of human trafficking and said this places a binding duty on member states to prevent coercion, deception or exploitation in surrogacy arrangements. She asked whether the Attorney General had reviewed the bill for compliance with that directive.

Oversight and safety concerns

The speaker asserted the bill currently offers less oversight for high-risk international surrogacy than for domestic arrangements and described that as scandalous. She concluded that the bill is not just flawed but dangerous and said she would not stand by while the state legislates the commercialisation of pregnancy and motherhood.