In accepting the extremist anti-abortion group Right to Life New Zealand’s argument that many abortions in New Zealand are being performed ‘illegally,’ High Court Justice Miller may have opened a can of worms, so I’ve decided to provide a capsule summary of the abortion debate in New Zealand for the uninitiated.

In the seventies, availability of inexpensive and reliable contraception, combined with an economy in recession, the emergence of a mass feminist movement, increased access to higher education, and Norman Kirk and Rob Muldoon’s extreme social conservatism, meant that when the Auckland Medical Aid Centre, New Zealand’s first abortion clinic, opened in 1974, there was a police raid.

Modelling themselves on British counterparts, two rival pro-choice and anti-abortion groups materialised to support the antithetical sides of the debate. ALRANZ (the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand) supported a woman’s right to choose safe and legal abortion access, while Catholic-dominated SPUC (later “Voice for Life” as of 2000) wanted to impose their religious dogma about zygotes, embryos and fetuses on the majority of New Zealanders who didn’t share them.

The anti-abortion movement routinely lies about the development of zygotes, embryos and fetuses, selectively concentrating on particular isolated phases of anatomical development and physical appearance. The pro-choice movement has had the upper hand in the New Zealand abortion debate for the last quarter century, because it soberly and factually presents data about the health benefits of abortion for women, reminds people about the scourge of deaths from backstreet abortions,  and also provides continual rebuttals to the mendacious pseudo-science and imported propaganda that originates from the US National Right to Life Association and kindred organisations.

Incidentally, most VFL and RTLNZ members opposed decriminalisation of homosexuality back in 1986, the Human Rights Act in 1993, and civil unions in 2005, because they are conservative Catholics and fundamentalists. RTLNZ has strong links to the Society for Promotion of Community Standards, for example.

The Kirk, Rowling and early Muldoon administrations tried to pass the Health Act 1974 and the Hospital Amendment Act 1975, but Rowling called a Royal Commission into Contraception and Abortion, which reported back in 1977. As a result of that, Parliament passed a Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1978, which incorporated grounds for abortion as long as requirements included in Section 187A of the Crimes Act 1961 were met. These include serious risk to the life and/orphysical health of the woman, serious risk to the mental health of the woman, incest/child sexual abuse and foetal abnormality. Unlike British legislation, socio-economic status is not included. Shamefully, nor is rape, although it can be taken into account.

Initially, these laws were interpreted restrictively, leading the early feminist women’s health movement to organise trips to Australia for women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies. Over time, the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s actual regulatory powers were pruned back. For example, it couldn’t unappoint certifying consultants, nor could it refuse an operational license to AMAC when it applied to reopen, given its service standards. In 1983, anti-abortion doctor tried to interfere with the certifying consultant approval of one of his young patients, who had a cardiac condition. Quite rightly, the Court of Appeal threw out his case in Wall versus Livingston [1982], arguing that the legislation included no reference to the zygote/embryp or foetus, and that in any case, due to medical confidentiality requirements, certifying consultant decisions were not subject to judicial review from interfering anti-abortionists. Never one to stop pandering to the far right, anti-abortion National MP Doug Kidd prepared a private members bill, the Status of the Unborn Child Bill 1983, to try to ban abortion. It failed, and the Muldoon administration had no more opportunities to pander to the Christian Right once it was thrown out of office in 1984.

In the late eighties, the anti-abortion movement tried again, and resorted to abortion clinic property invasions, importing the discourse, tactics and strategy of the militant US “Operation Rescue.” Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal upheld Wall versus Livingstone, and the conservative ‘mainstream’ of the anti-abortion movement gradually became reluctant to contribute funds to Operation Rescue, leading the organisation to splutter and fade away.

In the late nineties, anti-abortion Health Minister Bill English tried to force a biased booklet entitled Considering An Abortion? What Are Your Options? under the guise of voluntary ‘informed consent’ provisions. ALRANZ made several Official Information Act requests, which were enough to prompt the Ministry of Health to bin the booklet.

At the same time, cracks were developing in the previously unified anti-abortion movement over tactics and strategy. In its newsletter Footprints, Christchurch SPUC began to advocate the resurrection of the Status of the Unborn Child Bill 1983 (the aforementioned prohibitionist anti-abortion bill). National SPUC was more bleakly realistic about its prospects, given the sharp inroads that mortality, illness and infirmity had carved into its elderly religious membership, and preferred incremental restrictions against abortion access. As time had gone on, women were able to find their way to certifying consultants with greater and greater ease of effort, and in any case, the Australian and New Zealand College of Obsteitricians and Gynaecologists and New Zealand Medical Association threw their considerable professional expertise behind the pro-choice movement.

In 2001, the Clark administration allowed the importation and use of mifegyne/RU486 into New Zealand for pharmaceutical-assisted early abortions, after MedSafe and Pharmac had witnessed the related clinic data that Istar, the importing company, had provided for them.

In 2003, the National Party found that out when it foolishly pandered to the Christian Right over Judith Collins’ attack on the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act’s provisions which allowed a competent young woman under sixteen access to abortion services. Outrageously, Collins initially tried to abolish that provision, and replace it with a ‘parental notification’ clause. She backed down, but United Future fundamentalist MP Murray Smith resurrected it, only to have it lose heavily in the second-term Clark administration -dominated Parliament.  After National’s pandering, it found that its once-impressive, Orewa-driven opinion poll lead had vanished, given that most female voters were enraged by this.  Indeed, it may have contributed to National’s narrow defeat in 2005.

Today, the abortion debate is liberally deadlocked. It is deadlocked because the status quo provides theoretical quasi-criminal status which satisfies the miniscule and shrinking divided anti-abortion movement, and because in reality, women’s actual abortion access has accelerated as obstacles from diminishing would-be ‘gatekeepers’ lapse.

It would be unusual to see the High Court result unchallenged. My guess is that one of two things might happen. Given past history, I suspect that the Court of Appeal may overrule the lower court, arguing that it exceeded its jurisdiction. Alternatively, Labour may decide to follow the lead of the Australian Capital Territory and Victorian state ALP administrations, and junk the whole outmoded cumbersome Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, decriminalising abortion altogether. ALRANZ (the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand) endorses this option, and argues for it. I’ve copied their case below:

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE LAWS?

1. They are expensive. In 2004-5 the fees to certifying consultants alone amounted to over $3.5 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 most 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 women are disadvantaged.

5. The laws result in inequitable services. In part they are responsible for the geographical variation in abortion services throughout NZ.

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

7. They are outdated. For example, there have been advances in early medical abortions but the laws are written primarily for surgical abortions.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. They are ineffective. If one of the intentions was to reduce abortions, they have failed.

ALRANZ BELIEVES:

• That abortion services need to be complemented by a comprehensive programme of education plus freely available contraceptive services. Since no method of contraception is 100% reliable, abortion will always be necessary as a backup.

• That unsafe, self-induced and backstreet abortions must never be allowed to return. Restrictive laws mean poor women suffer and rich women go elsewhere.

• That health professionals who conscientiously object to abortion should not be required to participate in the procedure. High ethical and medical standards must be maintained when abortions are carried out. Women should not be made to feel guilty. ABORTION IS NOT A CRIME.

 It has been over twenty years since male homosexuality was decriminalised in New Zealand (1986), and sex work followed in 2003. Why, then, do we still maintain this ridiculously antiquated sectarian pandering to a misogynist past?

Decriminalise abortion now.

Essential Reading:

http://www.alranz.org

Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand.