Debate contribution: Endometriosis Care

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .

MLA
Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time
People Before Profit Alliance
Date
29 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Endometriosis Care
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5139507

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention it in my speech, but does the Member agree that what we need to look at is some sort of paid leave for women who are suffering from endometriosis or other conditions? That has happened in Portugal, which allows three days' paid leave per month, and Spain became the first country to offer leave for women who experience menstrual pain. Does the Member agree that that should be looked at as well as the other, more obvious, healthcare measures?

90 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.77
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.20
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.02
No identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:18 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification