Decision raises fears abortion will be harder to get
Relevant offers
A landmark High Court ruling has raised fears New Zealand could return to the days of the 1940s, when many women died from illegal abortions.
Justice Miller this week delivered a judgment criticising the way New Zealand's abortion laws are applied. The ruling looks set to tighten access to abortions.
In the judgment, the judge expressed "powerful misgivings" about the lawfulness of many abortions.
Data from the Abortion Supervisory Committee tended "to confirm (the) view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request", he said.
The judgment was on a case brought by the Right to Life group, which charged that the committee had failed on five counts to carry out its statutory duties.
The committee oversees abortion in New Zealand. In its 30 years, it had never struck off a licensed practitioner, the judgment said.
"In one case, where a consultant expressed views apparently consistent with abortion on request, the committee verified that she remained eligible."
More than 98 per cent of abortions were authorised on the grounds a woman's mental health was at risk. That seemed "remarkably high", the judge said.
The committee had stated the law was being used more liberally than Parliament intended, he said.
"There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants," he said.
Right to Life has hailed the judgment as the most significant for abortion law in 30 years.
Right to Life lawyer Peter McKenzie, QC, said he hoped it would have an immediate effect.
The judge refused one remedy Right to Life sought (an order to the supervisory committee to carry out its statutory duty). He reserved his decision on another, whether he should issue declarations, until after counsel for both parties had considered the decision.
The declarations would be "a means of translating (the judgment) into workable statements", McKenzie said.
Family Planning chief executive Jackie Edmond said there was a danger the ruling would make access to abortion more difficult for women. "If you start restricting abortion, we know that that actually leads to other things.
"We're talking back into the 1940s and '50s, when New Zealand had a significant number of women die every year of illegal abortions. I don't think that's where, as a country, we want to head."
Christchurch GP Pippa MacKay, who performs abortions at Lyndhurst Hospital, said women needed access to safe abortions.
"For as long as people have been having sex, there have been abortions," she said. "Unplanned pregnancies won't go away because abortion is illegal. That would be putting women's lives at risk."
MacKay said she was disturbed by the implication that she and other doctors were not operating within the law. "As far as I'm concerned, I apply the law. If someone says to me they will suffer depression if they have a child, then I accept that."
The chairwoman of the Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, Gillian Gibson, said there were significant risks in unauthorised practitioners carrying out abortions.
"We do have a safe abortion service and we've got a lot to lose by changing that in any way."
New Zealand Medical Association chairman Peter Foley said the judge's findings had to be respected. "We either have a law and we work to it, or we don't bother with the law and do what we want to."
In the judgment, the judge said Parliament "appears untroubled by the state of the abortion law".
Justice Minister Annette King said it was premature to talk about the implications of the judgment. "When it is completed and a judgment is made, the Government will seek in-depth advice from Crown law on the implications."
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
"A landmark High Court ruling has raised fears New Zealand could return to the days of the 1940s, when many women died from illegal abortions."
Two questions I ask in reply. 1. How many women died from abortion in the 1940's? 2. How many women have died from abortion since it was legalised?
References please because those pushing for abortion in the 70's have since then admitted they lied and made up the horrendous figures they gave.
There are already groups supporting those with unwanted children. http://www.pregnantandworried.org.nz/ Some people do care.
And if you really think the unwanted should die, why limit it to just those in the womb, it would certainly be safer for the mother to give birth then to abort (there is plenty of research to back that up.)
There is a precedent in the twentieth century for eliminating the unwanted. Happened in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Nazi Germany. What does it matter whether the unwanted are in the womb or not?
i am a teenager but i support this idea. my sister had a baby at 17, and while it did lead to stress on her life, she loves my niece so much. I think abortions are far to easy, and the unborn child should not have to pay for the parents decisions.
And i resent that you all seem to think its just males and old fashioned people who think this way.
How to get an abortion: They ask the woman whether having the pregnancy would cause them depression, the woman says ???Oh yes it will??? and the doctor says ???Okay???.
How to get a sickness benefit They ask the person if they are sure they have depression and the person says, ???Oh yes I do??? and the doctor says ???Okay???
How to reduce child abuse They ask the Children`s Commissioner if a smacking ban will reduce child abuse and she says "Oh yes it will" and Parliament says "Okay"
Has anyone ever seen who protests outside abortion clinics? Mostly men! And what do they know of being pregnant when you're a teen or you've already got 5 kids and can't handle anymore? Women have the right to choose.
Well of course the anti-smacking law will have to be further strengthened to prevent smacking deteriorating further into neglect, abuse and murder. Or'Orphanages' will have to be opened to care for these unwanted children, and how about insisting that when women say no that they mean no. Better yet just think of how many back-street abortionists can now resume their trade.
The above is meant to be read whilst LOL.
I think that one particular Press columnist's recent articles should be carefully read and taken to heart by that judge, for he, the judge, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I find it incredible that at a time of growing pollution, starvation and global warming - all due to over population of the Earth - that anyone can worry about abortion.
So what are the plans to assist these women if abortion is not an option? what will happen to the children born? How will they be taken care of? who will provide for them? Women have a right to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies,whether or not to have the child, and the option to terminate the pregancy. I find it offensive that a Judge can side with a right to life group because he /she "has misgivings" this is deplorable the consequences grave and not well thought out. The committee should be investigated before any thing becomes final.
CERA report prompts mall evacuation
Ussher wins fifth Coast to Coast title
Gardener's paradise planned for Chch
Go-ahead limited to urban Kaiapoi
Quake city assets set to be popular
Outlying districts get tough on quake rules
Appeal for funds for boy defended
City council issued building permit for flawed design
Plucky mother intent on recovery
Tension high as lethal log pile cleared
Police name Hawke's Bay crash victim
'Trail blazer' Carmen farewelled in Auckland
Usshers make it his and hers at Coast to Coast
Victim was holding bat, says witness
Gardener's paradise planned for Chch
Danny Lee drops back to pack at Pebble Beach
Obama tries to defuse birth control fight
Police recapture Madonna stalker
Promoter dismisses bike helmet harm study
Will bill make food safer or be a form of control?
Quakes blow Wellington's benchmark
EU courts Kiwis for science grants
Do you support a 4km/h speed tolerance?
News from around Canterbury
All the latest stories from The Mail, The Northern Outlook and the Central Canterbury News
What everyone seems to be missing here is that the only question in the abortion debate is whether the foetus is a person. If so, abortion is murder. If not, abortion is OK. If we are not sure and this really is a "grey area" then abortion is like the case of a hunter shooting at something moving in the bush without stopping to check whether it's a deer or his hunting companion. If there's a person there who he kills, he's committed manslaughter. If there's not a person there, he's still being incredibly foolhardy, and may even be guilty of criminal negligence. What's the rule for a hunter? If you're not certain what your target is, don't shoot! The same thing goes for the abortion debate - until we are certain that the foetus is *not* a person, we shouldn't allow abortion. This is where the debate needs to focus: is the foetus a person? Those in favour of abortion need to demonstrate that he/she/it is not.