Loading

What is wrong
with these laws?

1/ They are expensive.

In 2009 the fees to certifying consultants alone amounted to around $5 million. This money could be better spent on preventing unplanned pregnancies.


2/ They are unrealistic.

They ignore the importance of socio-economic factors in making a decision. It is hypocritical that almost 99% are carried out on the grounds of mental health.


3/ They are punitive, punishing women for contraceptive “mistakes”.

To err is human. Enforced pregnancy is not in the long term interests of society. Women want to give their children the best start in life.


4/ The procedures are unnecessarily complicated and erect barriers to good health care.

Vulnerable and rural women are disadvantaged. The system of certifying consultants is not only expensive but unnecessary.


5/ Because of the complicated procedures delays in the system are inevitable and result in abortions being carried out later than is desirable for safety.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee states that it is best practice for abortions to be carried out before 9 weeks. In 2009 only one third of abortions were carried out before 9 weeks and only 11% before 8 weeks.


6/ The laws result in inequitable services.

In part they are responsible for the geographical variation in abortion services throughout NZ.


7/ Because they do not conform to best medical practice the laws are not respected and are not strictly adhered to.

For example, counselling, according to law should come after the decision has been made by the certifying consultants. Most services provide counselling before certifying, some even insisting on it, although this is not what the law says. The referring doctor may accompany the woman to see the certifying consultatn but in practice this never happens.


8/ There is a problem for abortions on the grounds of fetal abnormality.

This is a ground up to 20 weeks but sometimes the diagnosis is not made until after 20 weeks and the abortion must be done on the grounds of serious permanent injury to the mental health of the woman. In the past the Abortion Supervisory Committee has pointed out this anomaly to Parliament more than once but no action has been taken. This situation is distressing for the woman and her family.


9/ They are outdated.

There have been many changes in society since 1977 resulting in a change of public attitudes towards abortion and other reproductive health issues. There have also been advances in medical technology. The laws were written primarily for surgical abortions. In 2002 it was necessary for the ASC to seek a ruling from the High Court (under Section 28 of the CS&A Act) with respect to the procedures for carryig out early medical abortions.


10/ They are disempowering for women.

ALRANZ firmly believes that a woman should decide whether or not to continue her pregnancy, not parliamentarians with a conscience vote and not state-funded doctors. With respect to informed consent they do not conform to The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.


11/ Self-abortion is a crime subject to a penalty of up to $200.

Prior to 1977 the penalty was up to seven years imprisonment. In the 21st Century this should no longer be a crime and in practice no prosecutions are made.


12/ The sections on conscientious objection (Sect 174 HPCAC duty to refer) and the referral to a certifying consultant (Sect 32 and 33 CS&A Act) are confusing.

There are differing interpretations on the need to refer a woman seeking an abortion. The Medical Council's draft guidelines (March 2009) are being challenged by a group of eight anti-abortion doctors in the High Court. There must be a balance between the right of doctors to freedom of beliefs and the patient's entitlement to appropriate care and treatment.


13/ They ignore the human rights of women.

They are not in accordance with international treaties to which New Zealand is a signatory expecially with respect to the Convention on the Elimintion of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Sexual violation is not a ground for abortion but only a matter which can be taken into consideration. It is a matter of discrimination that women are not entitiled to make a decision on having an abortion.


14/ They are undemocratic.

In a democracy there should be tolerance for different beliefs and anti-abortionists should not be allowed to impose their views on others, however sincerely these views are held.


15/ They are ineffective.

If one of the intentions was to reduce abortions, they have failed.