WHY ABORTION LAWS NEED REFORM

By Dr Margaret Sparrow DCNZM MBE

National President ALRANZ (Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand)

What is the case for law reform?

Firstly the laws have not been successful in curbing the demand for abortions as intended by the legislators in 1977.  There has been a steady increase in abortions since accurate statistics became available in 1980. Some would say that this was only to be expected. Throughout history women with unwanted pregnancies have been driven to abortion for various reasons, most often because of their socio-economic circumstances. Abortions have occurred regardless of what type of legislation has been in place. If legal solutions have not been available, illegal activities have flourished, women often risking their lives in unsafe procedures. This we will not forget. To see our History Project click here.

Secondly the unnecessarily complicated laws are expensive to administer. The system of certifying consultants alone cost taxpayers $3.8 million last year. This money could be better spent on prevention. Certifying consultants were devised to be the gate keepers. They have been given the statutory duty to decide who shall have abortions. Women were considered incapable of making a responsible decision. The irony is that in reality the final decision is still made by women, as it should be. We could easily dispense with this ridiculous charade.

Thirdly the laws do not conform to best medical practice and hence they are not respected and not strictly adhered to. The procedures are unnecessarily complicated and  introduce procedural delays which impact on the safety of women’s health. According to the law the woman must first be seen by a surgeon but in most clinics this is the last person the woman sees. According to the law it is the role of the certifying consultant to advise the woman that counselling is available but in most clinics the counsellor is the first person that the woman sees.

Fourthly the laws are unrealistic. They ignore the importance of socio-economic circumstances in making a decision and 98% of abortions are done on the grounds of mental health. While acknowledging that enforced pregnancy is no good for anyone’s mental health this is patently hypocritical. The fact is that most women want to give children the best start in life and think very seriously about the decision to abort and how it will impact on themselves and their families. To dismiss the woman’s plight and to admonish that she shouldn’t have got pregnant, is insensitive. To err is human and to punish women for their contraceptive ‘mistakes’ is unhelpful. No method of contraception is 100% protective. Even ‘saying no’ is of no help if she is raped or intoxicated or drugged.

Fifthly the laws are well and truly outdated. Society and women’s role within society is now very different from what it was 27 years ago. The attitude to women reflected  in the legislation is now seen as patronising and disempowering, consistent with the perspective of the predominantly male parliamentarians of the day. In the intervening years there have been advances in medicine. The laws were written primarily for surgical abortions and the possibility of early medical abortions using mifepristone (RU486) was not anticipated in 1977. Abortion should now be treated as any other medical procedure, as a medical matter not a criminal matter. Any safeguards should be a matter of health not justice.

Sixthly the laws should not be used as a blunt instrument to enforce moral issues. In a democratic society there should be tolerance for different beliefs. There will always be a conflict between differing values such as the absolute right to life versus quality of life, women’s rights versus foetal rights, personal rights versus public responsibilities, the right to privacy versus the right to know. Anti-abortionists tend to take the moral high ground in these arguments but they should not be allowed to impose their views on others. In a perfect world all children would be wanted and loved by their parents.

In conclusion the present laws are indefensible. We need wise legislators who will allow for the expression of different beliefs within society, where priority is given to the prevention of unplanned pregnancies, and where women who decide to continue a pregnancy and women who decide to abort are both respected and supported in their choice.

ALRANZ is committed to reproductive choice.

[Article edited February 2005, previously published in ALRANZ February 2004 national newsletter.]