The problem with Mr O'Connor's amendment and his proposed amendments in clause 7 of the bill in proposed new section 11 is that it creates a set of criteria that are more restrictive than the current legislation and, arguably, even more restrictive than that proposed by Agnes Loheni. So he requires that the woman has to be more than 20 weeks pregnant, and there is a risk to the life or serious harm to the physical or mental health of the woman, and the fetus is so medically impaired as to be unlikely to survive beyond birth, and it is appropriate to carry out the birth in order to avert the risk—it refers to "the" risk but there are multiple risks referred to. So that would suggest that the woman might be seriously compromised but if the fetus is not so seriously compromised, then the woman's life is to be expended. Conversely, if the fetus is severely compromised but the woman is not subject to serious physical harm or mental health, then the pregnancy must continue to term. That's what that provision means, Mr O'Connor, and I can't support it and I won't be supporting it. 