A Brief History of Abortion Laws in New Zealand
Abortion Laws: Why we need a change
Having an Abortion in New Zealand
Illegal Abortions in New Zealand - a History Project
International Perspective - abortion in other countries
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABORTION LAWS IN NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand law was based on English law
1803:
Before the 19th Century in England, common law held that an abortion was permissible if carried out before quickening (foetal movements) i.e. about 18-20 weeks gestation. In 1803 in the reign of George III, Lord Ellensborough’s Act, a repressive “law and order” measure made abortion a felony both before and after quickening, although the penalty before quickening was less severe. This was the first time that abortion before quickening had been included in statute law. The Act brought together and expanded the law on a group of felonies for which penalties were death or transportation to the colonies. Lord Ellensborough was the Lord Chancellor at the time.
1861:
The English 1861 Offences Against the Person Act revised penalties and also criminalized for the first time anyone other than the woman herself who, whether or not the woman was actually pregnant, attempted to procure a miscarriage. It was still an offence for the woman herself to procure an abortion.
1866:
New Zealand adopted the English law, an exact replica of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
1893:
New Zealand passed the Criminal Code Act, which reduced the penalty for the woman to a maximum of seven years imprisonment and life for others.
1908:
The Crimes Act defined when a child becomes a human being within the meaning of the statute. Section 182 relates to the “killing” of a child before or during birth. This section is to protect the obstetrician who may have to sacrifice the child to save the mother.
1939:
Dr Aleck Bourne, a prominent London gynaecologist brought a test case, after the rape of a 14 year old girl. Mr Justice Macnaghten helped define “unlawfully”. The defence was that the abortion had been carried out because continuing the pregnancy would make her a “physical or mental wreck”. The rape occurred in April 1938, the termination in June 1938 and the trial in July 1938. The formal publication of the judges’ ruling was in 1939. The ruling influenced the interpretation of the law in New Zealand.
1961:
The Crimes Act was revised in 1961 with no changes to the section on abortion. During the 1960s public opinion on several issues became less repressive. A more liberal law was passed in the United Kingdom in 1967 which allowed socio-economic circumstances to be taken into account, but New Zealand did not follow suit.
1969-71:
Court cases in Australia gave a more liberal interpretation to State laws which varied from one State to another. Mr Justice Menhennit in Melbourne in 1969 and Mr Justice Levine in Sydney in 1971 both gave a liberal interpretation to what was lawful. New Zealand women with means could now obtain a legal abortion in these two States of Australia (Victoria and New South Wales).
May 1974:
Reflecting changes in medical and public opinion, the Auckland Medical Aid Centre opened in May 1974 to carry out abortions in a private facility. In September 1974 the clinic was raided and police siezed 500 files. On 10 January 1975 the Court of Appeal ruled that the search warrant had been invalid but the files were used to bring the operating doctor, Dr Jim Woolnough to trial. (see below). He was subsequently acquitted but because of a change in the abortion laws he could not continue operating. The clinic closed in December 1977 as a result of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act (CS&A Act) and did not reopen until August 1979 after a legal battle to obtain a licence.
August 1974:
The Hospitals Amendment Bill (Wall Bill) was introduced in August 1974 in an attempt to restrict abortions to public hospitals. This was passed in May 1975 with Mr Highet’s amendment extending operations to licensed hospitals. A system of notification of abortions was introduced. In September 1975, Mr Justice Speight ruled that the law was invalid because it related to the wrong section of the Crimes Act (Section 182).
1975:
New Zealand trial R. v. Woolnough. Dr Woolnough was charged on twelve counts of procuring unlawful abortions. The first trial under Mr Justice Speight resulted in a hung jury (21 August 1975). The second trial under Mr Justice Chilwell resulted in acquittal (27 November 1975). The Court of Appeal upheld the not guilty verdict. Dr Woolnough held an honest belief that there was a danger to the physical or mental health of the twelve women.
1975-77:
Due to intense public debate a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion was established by the Labour Government under Prime Minister Rowling. The six member commission under Mr Justice McMullin was appointed in June 1975 and deliberated for 21 months.
1976:
The Gill Bill, introduced by National’s Minister of Health, Air Commodore Gill, like the ill-fated Wall Bill, attempted to restrict abortions to public hospitals. National’s Mr George Gair moved that any action be deferred until after the release of the report of the Royal Commission.
March 1977:
The report of the Royal Commission was published. It was very conservative and very controversial. It recommended 12-14 abortion panels throughout New Zealand.
August - December 1977:
National introduced the CS&A Bill. After many amendments and one all night sitting, it was passed on 15 December 1977. Parliament also amended the Crimes act and seven other Acts including the Guardianship Act relating to girls under 16 years being able to make a decision in their own right. Panels were discarded in favour of “certifying consultants”. The new procedures for obtaining an abortion came into effect on 1 April 1978 under the supervision of the new body, the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
July 1978:
The new legislation proved unworkable. Many women had to travel to Australia for an abortion. Due to public clamour, the Abortion Supervisory Committee recommended changes to the Crimes Act, with foetal abnormality to be included as a ground and deletion of the phrase “and the danger cannot be averted by any other means”. In the CS&A Act the procedures were altered so that a surgeon must first agree to operate.
1982:
In Wall v. Livingstone, anti-abortionist Dr Melvyn Wall of New Plymouth challenged the decision of two certifying consultants who had authorised an abortion for a young girl. He lost and the Court of Appeal confirmed that he had no standing to represent the fetus.
October 1983:
Two private members Bills, one liberal (Marilyn Waring) and one restrictive (Doug Kidd) were both defeated.
October 1989:
Helen Clark, Minister of Health in the Labour Government, tried but failed to simplify the certifying procedures (any two doctors, one with obstetric or gynaecological expertise). However Parliament agreed by a substantial margin to repeal Section 3 of the CS&A Act relating to contraception and under 16 year olds. This removed restrictions on the provision of contraceptives to under 16 year olds and information and instruction on their use.
1980s and 1990s:
Anti-abortionists have tried via trespass cases to represent the foetus but these have failed, including one which went to the Privy Council in London.
April 2003:
A High Court Judgment by Mr Justice Durie clarified Section 18 of the CS&A Act with respect to “performing” medical abortions stating that women must take the medications in a licensed facility but women do not need to stay there between taking the two sets of tablets (48 hours apart) nor is it compulsory for them to stay in a licensed hospital or clinic until the fetus is expelled and the abortion is complete.
November 2004:
The Care of Children Act was passed. Amendments to Section 37 by Judith Collins (National), Murray Smith (United Future) and Dale Jones (NZ First) were all defeated by a substantial margin. The amendments attempted to make parental notification a requirement for under 16 year old girls seeking abortion.