NZ abortion change coming
THE sweeping vote to loosen Ireland’s abortion laws will have impacts far beyond its borders.
The Irish constitution gives equal rights to the foetus and the mother. In effect, abortion is only possible if the mother’s life is endangered. Even incest is not grounds. Proposed is legislation allowing abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, in certain cases up to 24 weeks.
The fact what had once been a conservative nation where the Catholic Church held sway could opt so decisively — almost twothirds of votes cast were for reform in Ireland’s weekend referendum — for change, adds impetus elsewhere.
Discussion, naturally enough, has turned to New Zealand’s laws. While access to abortion is not as difficult as it might be, it still comes under the Crimes Act, as well as under the 1977 Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act.
Before then, abortion was only legal if the mother’s life was in danger.
Now, abortions can be performed, with the approval of two certifying consultants, at up to 20 weeks under various conditions. These include to save the women’s life (including after 20 weeks), foetal impairment, in incest cases, and to preserve the physical or mental health of the women. Cases of sexual violation and social factors like extreme young age can also be considered, although are not full grounds in themselves.
Use of the mental health provision has some critics arguing New Zealand has de facto abortion on demand, it being used in about 97% of the 12,823 induced abortions in 2016. Abortion numbers have been steadily falling since 2003, when 25% of pregnancies ended that way. The proportion has dropped below 18%.
Law reformers on the other side point to serious faults in the 1977 law. Highlighted are lack of accessibility (abortions are carried out in hospitals in larger centres), poor integration of medical abortions (the legislation did not envisage the effectiveness and simplicity of taking pills in early stage pregnancy rather than aborting surgically), and delays (in part because of the certifying consultant rigmarole).
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made it clear she favoured reform, and Justice Minister Andrew Little and Labour have been active. He has sought comment on possible change from New Zealand First and the Greens, and referred the matter to the Law Commission to make recommendations.
In the wake of the Irish vote, Mr Little sensibly said yesterday the Law Commission should be left to do its work in the meantime.
When it reports back, the debate will feature implacable opposites: one that unborn children are killed in statesanctioned murder and the other that any woman’s reason for an abortion is a good one. Proabortion advocates say women have rights over their own bodies and must be trusted with that.
As with euthanasia, many will be along a spectrum of beliefs. And there are questions like: When should any rights for the foetus come into play? Should the 20week limit be maintained? Should it go as far as Victoria where abortion is legal and accessible up to 24 weeks? At what stage, and in what way, should the rights of any person to do what they deem best be affected by others and by the society they live in?
It is likely, as with several ‘‘progressive’’ issues, that attitudes towards abortion have steadily shifted. The Law Commission, examining what Mr Little has put before it, is likely to reflect this.
While the debates will be difficult, momentum is towards change. Add most of Labour and the Greens and a portion of National and New Zealand First in what will be a conscience vote, and Parliament will liberalise the 41yearold Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act and will want to remove abortion from the Crimes Act.