Women win in Ohio

Last year, the Republican Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Roe v. Wade precedent, allowing Republican states to state banning abortion. But that isn't turning out how the Republicans planned: voters in Kansas and Kentucky have already rejected state constitutional bans, while Ohio voters have just added abortion rights to their state constitution:

Ohio voters have added the right to access abortion care to the state's constitution, NBC News projects — another major political victory for abortion-rights advocates in the nearly 17 months since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The passage of the Issue 1 ballot measure inserts language in the state constitution guaranteeing every person in Ohio the right “to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion,” and barring the state from “burdening, penalizing or prohibiting” those rights — though it specifies that abortion will remain prohibited after the point a doctor judges a fetus would most likely survive birth, with exceptions to protect the woman’s life or health.

(They also voted to legalise marijuana, so they're ahead of Aotearoa on that...)

Somehow I don't think this was what Republicans had in mind when they said they wanted states - or voters - to decide. And it bodes well both for further referenda, and for overturning Republican political majorities.

Blowback on abortion

At the end of June, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, putting abortion rights in America under threat. The move was unpopular - abortion rights have had clear majority support for decades and only a tiny minority of religious bigots think it should be illegal in all circumstances - but Republican theocrats didn't care, and started enacting (or activating) abortion bans. One of these efforts was in Kansas, where Republicans ran a referendum to overturn a state supreme court ruling and remove abortion protection from the state constitution. Being Republicans, of course, they didn't want a fair vote - so they ran a physical vote parallel to the Republican Party primary (where Democrats and non-aligned voters wouldn't be voting), and pulled out all the usual scams to trick people into voting the way they wanted. And despite all that, they just had their arses handed to them:

Kansans secured a huge win for abortion rights in the US on Tuesday night when they voted to continue to protect abortion in the state constitution.

The race was called by a host of US groups like NBC News, the New York Times and Decision Desk HQ.

The move will be seen as huge a loss for the anti-abortion movement and a major win for abortion rights advocates across America, who will see the result as a bellwether for popular opinion.

And this is Kansas, about as red a state as you can get. If Kansas won't vote to eliminate abortion rights - by a margin of 60 - 40 - then it seems unlikely other states will if given the choice. And Republican legislators pushing for abortion bans may find themselves getting massacred at the ballot box come November.

Still digging

Over the weekend, the US Supreme Court followed through on its threat, and overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively outlawing abortion in much of the United States. People were outraged, in America and around the world. And in Aotearoa, this meant a lot of sudden questions for the National Party, which is led by a fundamentalist anti-abortionist, stuffed with fundamentalist anti-abortionist MPs, and which tends to take its lead from whatever crack the US Republicans are smoking this week. While National's fundy backbenchers celebrated the imposition of forced birth in America, Christopher Luxon desperately tried to backpedal on his past views and reassure the public that National had no intention of changing the law. Except that today, he's doubling down on being anti-abortion:

When asked about his views on Monday, he told Newshub he still has a pro-life stance.

"I acknowledge I have a pro-life stance at a personal level," he said. "Simon has his own views as do others in our Caucus. They should be free to express that but in this case, it was actually being misinterpreted as the National Party position and therefore it wasn't appropriate."

When asked what he thought about people who chose to have an abortion, Luxon reiterated his pro-life stance.

"As I said I have a pro-life stance. It's a very difficult and a very agonising decision," he said.

He is yet to clarify whether he still believes abortion is tantamount to murder despite Newshub asking early Monday morning.

Which rather casts doubt on all those prior "reassurances", doesn't it? But the real problem for Luxon is that, given that US conservatives have literally perjured themselves to gain power to impose theocracy, we just can't trust anything he says. Sure, Luxon says he won't change anything - but so did Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. And we know how that turned out. We should not make the same mistake here.

Going full Gilead

Today's big news from America: the Supreme Court has reportedly voted to overturn Roe v. Wade:

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

As the article points out, the votes do change over the progress of a case. But if this draft opinion becomes final, it would end abortion rights in America, and a lot more besides. Key decisions legalising homosexual sex and same-sex marriage depend crucially on Roe, so they are also clearly in the gun. Under the Republicans' stacked court, America is going full Gilead.

Which is precisely why the Republicans stacked the court: so they could use it as an instrument to impose minority rule (and it is minority rule: abortion rights have had clear majority support for decades and only a tiny minority of religious bigots think it should be illegal in all circumstances). In normal countries, the courts are a neutral arbiter of the law. In the US, they're just an appointed shadow-legislature, unelected despots who get to decide what sort of medical care you can have, who you can marry, and even who you get to fuck and how. And that's simply not compatible with being a modern, democratic, human rights-respecting normal country.

The United States needs to fix itself, and quickly. Or else they're going to end up being the Taliban with nukes. And I don't think that's how most Americans want to see themselves at all. As for how, political courts demand a political response. Expanding the Supreme Court and appointing some actual judges to balance out the frothing Republican stooges seems to be the minimum requirement. But of course, the Democrats are too chickenshit to do it, as usual.

Progress in Europe

There's a lot of votes in Europe today, and the headline after the German election is that the Swiss have voted overwhelmingly for marriage equality in a referendum:

Swiss voters have decided by a clear margin to allow same-sex couples to marry, in a referendum that brings the Alpine nation into line with many others in western Europe.

Official results showed the measure passed with 64.1% of voters in favour and won a majority in all of Switzerland’s 26 cantons.

Switzerland’s parliament and the governing federal council supported the “Marriage for All” measure, and pre-referendum polls showed solid backing. Switzerland has authorised same-sex civil partnerships since 2007.

Its good news, which officially brings Switzerland into the civilised world while further marginalising the bigot-states. Marriages should start in a couple of months.

And in other good news, Berlin voted to expropriate its large corporate landlords. Its a non-binding referendum, but the acid is really going to be on the politicians to obey. And San Marino finally legalised abortion.

Drawn

A ballot for five Member's Bills was held today and the following bills were drawn:

• Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2) (Shane Reti)
  
• Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill (Louisa Wall)
  
• Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill (Sarah Dowie)
  
• Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill (Gerry Brownlee)
  
• Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill (Matt Doocey)
  

I'll leave comment on the medicinal cannabis bill to the serious drug policy commentators. But Wall's bill will correct the mess David Seymour managed to make of abortion decriminalisation earlier in the year. I look forward to it passing.

None of these bills will be voted on before the election. Instead, it'll be for the next Parliament to decide on them. and hopefully that will be a Parliament with a strong majority against law-and-order bullshit.

68-51

The Abortion Legislation Bill has just passed its third reading, 68-51. NZ First MPs bailed because their referendum amendment didn't pass, but there were plenty of MPs to provide a majority without them. The bill is a long way from perfect - most significantly, it subjects pregnant people who need a late stage abortion to the wagging finger of society, just like the old law did - but it is a massive improvement. And it'll be in force within a couple of days.

There's still work to be done - both in making it truly a medical decision, and in establishing safe zones to protect pregnant people from harassment by bigots. But Parliament has done a good job today. Except for those who voted against: they're bigots, arseholes, or both, and we should de-elect them all.

Labour are chickenshits on abortion

Last night, inattentive MPs caused a major fuckup on the Abortion Legislation Bill, with David Seymour's amendment to remove safe zones being passed on a voice vote without anyone noticing. It was a procedural error, and the government has multiple options to fix it. But do they want to? Of course not:

Justice Minister Andrew Little will not try to re-introduce "safe zones" into his abortion legalisation bill after a procedural snafu saw them removed on Wednesday night.

[...]

Little said in a statement he would not be attempting to re-insert the safe zones into the bill.

"The safe zone provision was always the most marginally supported," Little said.

He said it wasn't clear if Seymour's amendment actually had the numbers but he would not be pursuing further change as the "substance of the bill" remained.

Another example of the complete chickenshittedness of this government. Its too much effort to find out where Parliament actually stands (rather than sleeps) on this, so they won't bother. But hopefully, some other MP will step up to lead where Little is refusing to. And if not, its an obviously subject for a member's bill once the main bill is passed.

A heckuva job on abortion reform

I'm currently watching the voting on the Abortion Legislation Bill, and it looks like inattentive MPs have made a major fuckup. One of the major reforms is provisions establishing safe areas around abortion providers, so people seeking an abortion do not have to face intimidation or run a gauntlet of hate to get a medical procedure. ACT's David Seymour (naturally) opposes this on free speech grounds, and has put up an SOP to remove it. Earlier this evening, the first part of that SOP, to remove the definition of "safe area" from the interpretation clause, was voted down. But then, later on, the second part, which would remove the actual clauses relating to safe areas, came up. And it passed on the voices, with no personal vote being called. MPs didn't realise what had happened until Marama Davidson's amendments to strengthen safe areas were ruled out of order as the issue had already been voted on. Someone did seek to roll things back by leave, but of course that was denied. And so, inattentive MPs have just cost women a world of hate.

Heckuva job, folks. Maybe you should drink more coffee next time?

81-39

The Abortion Legislation Bill passed its second reading last night, 81-39. Its a comfortable margin, and it bodes well for the bill passing. But which version of the bill? As presented to parliament it was a compromise, watered down from the Law Commission recommendations. It was further watered down by the select committee. Given the numbers, I think its unlikely that it will get any worse (though National's bigot MPs will no doubt put up amendments for the usual bullshit, as well as bad-faith measures intended purely to delay matters). But can it get better?

Fortunately, Jan Logie is on the case. She's put up SOPs to make abortion a purely medical decision and remove the bullshit hoops put in by politicians who want to shame women, to ensure remaining criminal clauses protect pregnant people rather than attempting to criminalise them, and to ensure that the law would apply to all pregnant people rather than just women. I'm hoping that there will be a majority for these amendments. Fortunately, the bigots with dead baby photos on parliament's lawn seem to be doing their best to ensure one.

Reported back

The Abortion Legislation Committee has reported back on the Abortion Legislation Bill and recommended that it be passed with some amendments. Unfortunately, the latter include even more hoops to jump through for those seeking abortions after 20 weeks, including a time-wasting requirement to consult a second doctor. No-one casually seeks an abortion that late, but those whose circumstances change or who discover an unforeseen medical problem will still have to endure the wagging finger of society over what is a basic medical decision. The committee has also strengthened the ability of "conscientious objectors" to obstruct the process and waste people's time, and explicitly allowed them to do so to victims of sexual violence. And that's just a bit shit IMHO.

I expect there will be a lot of amendments offered on this bill at the committee stage. Hopefully we'll see some MPs put up amendments to create the liberal regime the Law Commission recommended, rather than the worst option that the government chose (which has then been made worse by the select committee process). This bill was passed by a huge majority, and hopefully there's a majority within that for a far better law than the bullshit compromise the government is offering. And otherwise, well, this is still a massive improvement on the status quo, but it still stinks that reform has been watered down like this.

Submit!

The Abortion Legislation Committee has called for submissions on the Abortion Legislation Bill. I urge everyone who wants reform to submit - the bigots certainly will be, and they've monopolised this conversation for too long. As for what to put in your submission, I'd suggest listening to health professionals, and pushing or "option A", which would require removing new section 11, and amending new section 10 to remove any reference to a time limit. While its not in the bill, expressing opposition to a referendum on a fundamental human rights issue may also help focus the minds of MPs on opposing NZ First's SOP when it comes up.

Submissions can be made at the link above and are due by Thursday, 19 September 2019.

94-23

The Abortion Legislation Bill just passed its first reading, 94-23. Its a far bigger margin than I expected, even allowing for the Winston factor, and it reflects the overwhelming support there is in this country for reform. but that support isn't a new thing - it has existed for literally decades. Which invites the question: why has it taken our chickenshit politicians so long to get around to this?

"Blindsided"

So, Winston Peters is defending his last-minute demand for a referendum on abortion by claiming he was "blindsided" by the bill. Really? The bill is a government bill. It has been working through the cabinet approval process since December last year. As part of that process, NZ First was consulted, given the chance to negotiate amendments, and agreed to the bill. And here's a report from May on that [paywalled; depaywall script]:

Justice Minister Andrew Little confirmed he expected to be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, after reaching agreement with NZ First this week.

[...]

NZ First minister Tracey Martin confirmed that on Tuesday this week, the party's caucus had agreed to the reform going to Cabinet. "It's now finalised, and the Cabinet paper is on its way up to Cabinet."

The Government's response to a Law Commission paper on abortion reform is now almost six months overdue, partly because NZ First has baulked at treating it as a government measure, given it was a conscience vote.

Martin said she had taken the precaution of getting the NZ First caucus to agree to it to make sure it was not gazumped at the last moment, as had happened to Labour's plans to repeal the "three strikes" legislation.

And here's a further report from last month, in which Andrew Little talks about "very helpful" discussions with NZ First.

This bill was consulted on. It was approved by the NZ First caucus. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who is acting in bad faith here.

Abortion reform has the numbers

The Abortion Legislation Bill will have its first reading tomorrow, and while NZ First is making noises about a referendum, it appears the bill will pass regardless of what they think:

The Government's abortion bill will pass its first hurdle with an overwhelming majority, with or without NZ First's support.

Stuff has spoken with a majority of Parliament's 120 MPs, 67 of whom said they would support or be likely to support the Bill at its first reading on Thursday.

Just seven said they would vote against it, with another four indicating they would be likely to vote against. Another 12 were still deciding, alongside NZ First's nine MPs who are refusing to confirm their position.

Overall they're expecting the bill to pass with at least 73 votes. NZ First's votes are not needed. Which means their last-minute demands for a referendum can be safely ignored.

A referendum on abortion?

This week, the government introduced its (underwhelming) Abortion Legislation Bill. And despite having negotiated the text of the bill through the coalition process, Winston Peters is now suggesting that he will demand a referendum on it:

NZ First leader Winston Peters has hinted that his party may only support the Government's abortion changes if they go to a binding referendum.

This last-minute positioning - after months of negotiation with Labour - has angered Justice Minister Andrew Little, who said any such position would be completely new to him.

Peters on Tuesday refused to clarify how his party would vote on the bill, which is up for its first reading on Thursday, or whether it would be a party-position or up to individual MPs.

NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell had suggested to media that the way NZ First considered the issue should go to the public.

This is a vile idea. Abortion is a matter of fundamental rights, and like marriage equality or torture or freedom of religion is simply not something we should be having referenda on. What part of "her body, her choice" remotely suggests you or I getting a vote about it? The whole point of law reform is to get other people out of that decision entirely.

The good news is that the bill is a conscience vote, and I don't think there's a majority there for a referendum. And if he tries throwing his weight around within the coalition over this, the Prime Minister should call his bluff and call an election on the issue.

Labour chickens out on abortion

When she was standing for office, Jacinda Ardern promised she would take abortion out of the Crimes Act. Labour followed up on that by referring the issue to the Law Commission, which duly produced a series of options. Health professionals were crystal clear in supporting complete decriminalisation. But instead of that, Labour has taken the most conservative option, then made it worse, imposing a test for women to access an abortion after 20 weeks. Such abortions are almost always performed for medical reasons, and so should be a health issue, but instead Labour is going to make women continue to endure the wagging finger of society if they need proper medical care.

While the bill is obviously an improvement on the status quo, the additional test is simply bullshit, and another example of Labour chickening out. They promised to listen to medical professionals, and they haven't. While a technical delivery on their promise, its a substantive failure.

The bill will get its first reading this week, and go to select committee. While this is a conscience issue, the select committee will reflect the government's agreed position with its coalition partner, so we won't see substantive policy change there. If we want that, then someone will have to try and amend the bill at the committee stage to remove this odious provision and make abortion a purely medical decision. The question is whether Labour MPs will support that, or whether they will refuse to in order to avoid upsetting their bigot rump and their conservative coalition partner.

Equality comes to Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland is the Alabama of the UK: a backwards region where women and gay people are denied fundamental rights. But Westminster has just decided to fix that:

MPs have voted resoundingly to extend same-sex marriage and access to abortion to Northern Ireland, bringing the region into line with the rest of the UK on the two significant social issues.

The two historic votes, arriving within little more than a quarter of an hour of each other, were greeted ecstatically by equalities campaigners. With ministers promising to respect the results, they could have vital repercussions for people in Northern Ireland.

[...]

The changes came via amendments to an otherwise technical government bill connected to budgets and elections for the devolved assembly. In the first amendment, tabled by the Labour MP Conor McGinn, a longstanding campaigner for equal marriage in Northern Ireland, the Commons voted 383 to 73 to extend it to the region.

Its good news, and yet I'm also disquieted, because this vote violates fundamental UK constitutional norms. Northern Ireland has a devolved administration, and marriage equality and abortion rights sits squarely within that government's jurisdiction. Westminster overriding devolved administrations and legislating for them in their areas of competence without their consent is Not A Good Thing. Instead, it just seems like more odious English colonialism, no matter how well-intentioned.

And on the other hand: thanks to the DUP's antics, Northern Ireland hasn't had a government for the past two and a half years, and Westminster is having to legislate for them anyway out of necessity in order to ensure things keep working. But this goes well beyond keeping things ticking over, and its part of a disturbing trend of Westminster overstepping the constitutional mark and purporting to legislate for devolved regions (e.g. self-governing overseas territories and the Channel Islands on money laundering).

And on the gripping hand: if Northern Ireland doesn't like this, they can always declare independence, or unite with the Republic of Ireland (which has both same-sex marriage and abortion now). Or just stop pissing about, get their devolved parliament working again, and repeal it. Except they won't be able to, because there's in fact a parliamentary majority at Stormont for marriage equality, and the only thing which kept it illegal was the special rights of Ulster bigots under the Good Friday Agreement. So, this law probably isn't going anywhere, and the bigots are just going to have to get used to it.

Labour chickenshitting on abortion

When she was standing for office, Jacinda Ardern promised she would take abortion out of the Crimes Act. And to be fair, there was some early action on that, with an immediate referral of the issue to the Law Commission to look at options for reform. But the Law Commission reported back in October, and since then, the government has done... nothing. And its still doing nothing today:

[T]he Government has yet to publicly reply to Law Commission advice released in October or confirm what changes it plans to put up to a conscience vote in Parliament.

Last year, Little said he expected to have a Bill ready to go in early 2019, but it stalled in talks with NZ First.

In May, he said an announcement was weeks away, after a breakthrough.

It was still weeks away on Tuesday.

"Constructive discussions have been ongoing regarding abortion law reform and I'm pleased with where it's at," Little said in a statement.

"I expect to have an announcement to make in a matter of weeks."

And he'll probably say the same thing in a couple of weeks as well. Because when it comes to actual action, Labour are chickenshits, unwilling to confront the bigots in their coalition partner, let alone their own caucus. But as the article points out, the bill will be a conscience vote, so it doesn't really matter what those bigots think. They'll vote against, others will vote for, and I'm confident that in today's social environment, it will pass. That is, if MP's are allowed to vote on it.

Meanwhile, from this, and climate change, and poverty, it seems that the value of the Prime Minister's campaign promises is zero. They're just pretty lies told to secure election - and voters should treat them accordingly.

Reforming abortion law

During the election campaign, Jacinda Ardern promised that if elected she would decriminalise abortion. Labour followed up on that by referring the issue to the Law Commission for consideration. Today, the Law Commission reported back, with three options for reform:

• Under Model A there would be no statutory test that must be satisfied before an abortion could be performed. The decision whether to have an abortion would be made by the woman concerned in consultation with her health practitioner.
  
• Under Model B there would be a statutory test. The health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.
  
• Under Model C, there would be no statutory test until 22 weeks of a pregnancy. After 22 weeks, the health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Doctors overwhelmingly supported model A (which is used in Canada and the ACT), with a tiny fraction supporting model C. Nobody seems to have supported model B, and its pretty obviously there as salmonella. But what's worth noting is that any of these models is going to mean repealing the Crimes Act provisions and regulating abortion under the existing regulatory framework for health services, and ending the requirement for women to jump through hoops, declare themselves mentally ill, and endure the wagging finger of society. Abortion will be a health service, between a woman and her doctor.

And now its a question of which option the government will choose. Which is going to be a matter of ugly horse trading between Labour's young progressive women, and its old conservative / bigot rump and coalition partner. Because it will be a conscience vote, they'll also be looking across the House for liberal National MPs to secure a majority (assuming there are any: it seems any ambitious Nat feels obliged to grovel to the bigots and misogynists). It would be good if National's supposed liberals stepped up and made it clear which options they would support, but that would require them to display both principle and courage. And sadly, that seems to be too much to expect from politicians.

The full report can be read here.