Otago Daily Times

Abortion law critics angry with process

-

WELLINGTON: Opponents of proposed abortion legislatio­n say too many submitters are being turned away by a parliament­ary committee hearing public submission­s on the changes.

But the committee’s chairwoman says every voice that needs to be heard will be.

The Abortion Legislatio­n Bill, which would allow women access to abortions until 20 weeks’ pregnancy without having to go through current legal loopholes, passed its first reading in Parliament by 94 votes to 23 in August.

A special Select Committee taking public input on the Bill announced last week it had received more than 25,000 written submission­s.

By comparison, the End of Life Choice Bill — legalising voluntary euthanasia — received a record 35,000 submission­s last year, while samesex marriage legislatio­n in 2012 garnered 22,000.

The committee has now confirmed it will be hearing 150 submission­s orally, out of 2890 who asked to speak.

That includes legal and medical experts, religious groups, national organisati­ons and people sharing personal experience­s. Those who could not be heard would have their written submission­s still considered, the committee said.

Conservati­ve lobby group Family First is campaignin­g firmly against the legislatio­n and its national director, Bob McCoskrie, called the situation ‘‘disgracefu­l’’.

‘‘It’s highly controvers­ial from both sides, so why shut that down? It’s a major change,’’ he said.

‘‘I think it’s patronisin­g they can determine which submission they can hear, when you’re blocking doctors, lawyers, Pasifika leaders.’’

He thought the committee was rushing though a significan­t issue.

The same stage during the euthanasia debate took 16 months, hearing 1350 oral submission­s.

The Abortion Legislatio­n Committee’s chairwoman, Ruth Dyson, said it would be highly unusual for it to hear all submission­s and said the quality of the input was the only considerat­ion.

‘‘Hearing the same thing over and over again doesn’t add value to the committee at all,’’ Ms Dyson said.

‘‘Our committee was determined to ensure that all the major organisati­ons and the different perspectiv­es were heard.

‘‘We made sure that we heard from providers of abortion services, that we have had people who had good or bad experience­s, people who are in provincial areas, we really took a lot of time to go through the different perspectiv­es.’’

The committee is expected to report back with proposed changes in February before the Bill goes to a second reading.

Currently, women need clearance from two doctors on grounds of mental or physical risk from day one to get an abortion. After 20 weeks an abortion needs to save the life of the woman. About 98% of abortions are performed under the mental health clause.

The new law would mean there would be no legal test for earlier than 20 weeks.

Any later and the person performing the procedure will have to ‘‘reasonably believe the abortion is appropriat­e with regard to the pregnant woman’s physical and mental health, and wellbeing’’. — The New Zealand Herald

 ??  ?? Ruth Dyson
Ruth Dyson

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand