Guest Column: Abortion: Putting it back on the agenda

By Anita

Once, in staunchly Catholic Guatemala, I was asked if abortion was legal in New Zealand. In my halting Spanish I replied "Si, es legal, es un derecho": yes, it is legal, it is a right. The conversation stayed with me and the next time I had a chance I checked whether abortion was, in fact, the right I thought it was. I was disturbed how large a lie I had told: in New Zealand abortion is not a right — it is not even truly legal.

In 1977, after a divisive hard-fought campaign, a compromise made its way through Parliament. The Crimes Act maintains the original section imposing a penalty of 14 years on anyone who kills an unborn child but subsequent paragraphs now define some kinds of killing as not unlawful. The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act then went on to create a structure around the control and oversight of abortion.

The key parts of New Zealand’s abortion law are:

• A limited series of grounds on which an abortion may be "procured": if the pregnancy would endanger the life, or physical or mental health of the woman; a high chance of the child being seriously handicapped; or if the pregnancy is the product of incest.
• A process which requires a woman to gain approval of two certifying consultants before an abortion.
• An Abortion Supervisory Committee made up of three political appointees which supervises and controls the process.

For years the ASC and certifying consultants have been interpreting the "mental health" grounds sufficiently broadly that women in New Zealand have effectively had access to abortion on demand. Abortion has not been uniformly available — famously West Coast women have had to visit certifying consultants in Canterbury or Nelson — but abortion on demand has been the norm in New Zealand for many years now.

On the surface we have found the perfect apolitical solution to the controversial issue of abortion. It appears to have removed the visible political hand from the abortion issue for most of the last 30 years; we leave the decisions up to a committee of experts and a couple of hundred certified doctors.

But the political element is as strong as ever; worse still, it is without public input or consultation. Every three years Parliament (in practice Cabinet) decides which three people will make up the ASC and supervise and shape the provision of abortion services. The recommendation is voted through Parliament without public input.

Last year in Parliament two failed amendments were attempted trying to replace the government's status quo nominees with anti-abortion ones. One attempted replacement was a doctor who has worked for an anti-abortion counselling service. The amendment was put forward by Peter Brown (NZ First) and supported by all the NZ First MPs who voted and 21 of the 36 National MPs who voted. His supporters included John Key, Bill English, Tony Ryall and Judith Collins — the four hoping to be Prime Minister, Deputy PM, and Ministers for Health and Social Development. The second attempted replacement put forward by Gordon Copeland gained similar levels of support.

If those amendments had succeeded, they would have restricted access to abortion without public discussion or comment. Restriction of abortion is only a parliamentary vote away.

Abortion is an intensely personal issue, one many of us would hate to see subjected to political and parliamentary drama. Yet the status quo benefits no-one. Whatever your personal position, a political appointment process which excludes public comment is not what we need.

We need to start the conversations and debates, start discussing how we want abortion to be in our country. We need to accept that the personal is political, as the political is personal. I'll be there arguing for the right I once believe existed, and many of you will be arguing against me. Maybe we will find a solution we agree on, and maybe not.

Either way we will have faced the issue and taken control back from a silent political process which can change the abortion rules in under two hours.

Parliament and abortion

Today is World Health Day. And across the blogosphere, people are taking the opportunity to argue that abortion is a health issue, not a criminal one.

Inadvertently, the government seems to be joining the debate. Because top of the Order Paper today is the triennial motion to appoint members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Hon SIMON POWER to move, That, pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway of Dunedin and Reverend Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Dr Tangimoana Frances Habib of Hamilton as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, each for a term of three years from the date of appointment, and appoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway as Chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

This should be a formality, but instead will be treated as an excuse for anti-abortion fruitcakes such as Bill English and Judith Collins to rant about the evils of abortion - something no MP really wants to sit through. Which is a mirror of the wider debate itself. The reason we have not reformed our absurd thirty-year-old abortion law, which effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill to access a basic medical procedure, is because no politician wants to subject themselves to that toxic debate. In effect, a radical religious minority are exercising a heckler's veto over our society, and the fundamental right of women to control their own bodies in particular, because our political leaders are too chickenshit to stand up to them.

But stand up to them they must. The present law is fundamentally demeaning. It creates real problems around access. And its currently being challenged in court. If that challenge is successful, we may find that abortion is - overnight - illegal in New Zealand, or subject to such tight restrictions as to make it inaccessible in practice. That outcome is possible because we continue to rely on an outdated law. If we want to prevent it, then we need to bring abortion law into the 21st century, and make it clear in law that abortion is a medical procedure, not a crime.

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.

Abortion law reform in Victoria

The Victorian State Government has introduced a bill to decriminalise abortion. The bill [PDF] is the result of an investigation by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and would significantly liberalise the law. Currently abortion in Victoria operates under similar restrictions to New Zealand - it is a crime, but lawful if a doctor believes it necessary to prevent "a serious danger to [the woman's] life or her physical or mental health". The big differences are that the ordinary dangers of pregnancy are specifically excluded from the equation, termination must be a "proportionate response" to the risks, and that the regime has been established by a court judgement rather than by statute. However, abortion rates in Victoria are similar to those in New Zealand, so the law doesn't seem to create any great barrier (there are however significant geographic barriers for anyone living outside Melbourne).

The VLRC presented the government with three options: codification of the existing law, abortion on demand, or a two-tier system, with abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, and restrictions similar to the existing scheme after that. The government has gone for the latter option. However, they've significantly changed the framework for post-24 week abortions. Instead of one of the proposed variations on the existing "preventing serious danger" standard, the bill instead allows abortion if two doctors believe it is "appropriate in all the circumstances", including "all relevant medical circumstances" and "the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances". The loss of the proportionality clause means this is likely to be somewhat looser than the current regime - but we'll probably have to wait for a court case to find that out.

The bill will also repeal existing offences around abortion and "child destruction", replacing the latter by including it in the definition of "serious injury". Abortions performed by "unqualified persons" will still be criminal, and carry the same penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Unlawful abortions performed by medical practitioners will simply be a medical disciplinary problem. All existing common law around abortion being a criminal offence will be repealed for clarity.

This bill doesn't go the whole way towards complete decriminalisation and treating abortion as a purely medical issue. But it is a significant improvement on the present situation. The question now is whether it will pass.

[Hat tip: Larvatus Prodeo]

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.

Abortion back in court

New Zealand's abortion laws are back in court today, with Right To Life New Zealand's appeal against the Abortion Supervisory Committee going before the Supreme Court. At stake is whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee has the power to second-guess the clinical decisions of medical professionals in certifying abortions - and ultimately whether women can access abortion at all:

Success for RTL on this front would almost certainly curtail abortion access in New Zealand. Opening medical decisions up to review by a politically appointed statutory body (the Abortion Supervisory Committee), would, at the very least, have a chilling effect on certifying consultants. How many will want to take on the job knowing political appointees will be looking over their shoulders?

Last year, in the wake of the Court of Appeal decision, I was confident Right To Life would lose. But the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is not so confident. And when they're worried, we should all worry.

Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if Parliament had stepped up and passed an abortion law fit for the 21st century, rather than a 70's relic aimed at shaming and stigmatising women. But apparently, that's too much to expect from our cowardly politicians.

The Greens support abortion

The Greens have become the first party to formally support a woman's right to choose:

The Green Party has ratified a formal policy on abortion, making it the only party in Parliament to have one.

It would legislate to decriminalise abortion and protect the right to end a pregnancy.

Having an abortion in New Zealand is still a crime under the Crimes Act, unless a pregnant woman faces a danger to her life, physical or mental health.

Abortion law has always been a subject about which politicians have tried to steer well clear, despite repeated calls for the laws to be reviewed and updated.

Green Party MP Jan Logie said it is time that abortion is removed from the Crimes Act, and brought out from that shadow of judgement and mistrust of women, because ultimately it is a health issue.

The full policy is here. While there's an obvious focus on removing our absurd thirty-year-old abortion law, which effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill to access a basic medical procedure, it also addresses availability, requiring medical professionals who object to abortion to provide an effective referral, and ensuring that women don't have to travel hundreds of kilometres for a basic medical procedure. It would be a major positive step, and I look forward to the Greens bringing a bill to implement it.

"Stood the test of time"?

Last week, Prime Minister Bill English told New Zealand that our abortion law, which effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill to access a basic medical procedure, didn't need to be changed because it had "stood the test of time". Today, the Abortion Supervisory Committee, which oversees and administers that law, called bullshit on that:

Current wording in New Zealand's abortion law is offensive and not updating it is an "indictment", a Government-appointed committee has told MPs.

The strong criticism of aspects of abortion law comes amidst increasing political debate about the issue, with Labour, the Green Party and Act Party all calling for change.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) made its annual appearance at Parliament's justice and electoral committee today, when it reports on how abortion law has been managed.

While calling for the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, passed in 1977, to be updated, the ASC made clear the larger issue of more significant changes was a question for the public and Parliament.

However, the outdated wording in the current legislation was creating problems for health officials and allowing anti-abortion groups to launch legal challenges.

Basicly, the law is a 40-year old sexist mess in desperate need of updating. That hasn't happened because of the cowardice of politicians - they simply don't want to deal with the backlash from New Zealand's tiny fundamentalist community. Instead, they sacrifice the fundamental right of women to control their own body so they can have a little peace of mind.

That's simply not acceptable. This law needs to change. And politicians who don't want to do that, or don't want to think about it or risk upsetting the fundies? We should vote them out and get better ones.

Time to reform abortion law

For the past thirty years, New Zealand has had an uneasy compromise on abortion. Technically, the law limits abortion to cases of rape, abnormality, or serious danger to the life or physical or mental health of the woman. In practice, the latter clause is interpreted liberally by certifying consultants to allow abortion on demand (though with far too many hoops to jump through). This has allowed us to avoid the ugly abortion politics seen elsewhere (e.g. the US) and get on with our lives in peace and quiet. Only the Christian fundamentalists have really continued to care about the issue, and in an overwhelmingly secular society (particularly when it comes to issues of sex and reproductive rights), who listens to them?

Unfortunately, it seems the High Court did. And as a result, we have a judgement which questions the lawfulness of many abortions done in this country.

The full judgement is here [PDF]. The key findings are that there is "reason to doubt" the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants (later the judgement talks of "wholesale non-compliance by certifying consultants"), and that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has the power (and under s14(a) of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, the duty) to inquire into those decisions (or at least report it to Parliament). Judgement is reserved on declarations, but together these judgements break the compromise and signal a more conservative interpretation of the law. That poses a direct challenge to the right of women to control their own bodies. And that challenge is likely to be unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders.

If the compromise is broken and we are going to have a debate, then it is time to push for New Zealand to join the modern world and introduce abortion on demand. If its been the effective practice for the past thirty years and most of us have been happy with the status quo, then we might as well formally codify it. And while some are likely to be uneasy with that recognition, I think most are likely to be even more uneasy with the alternative of fundamentalist Christians forcing people to have kids.

Of course, for that to happen, someone is going to have to bring a bill. So, who's game?

Churnalism from Garth George

The Herald's Garth George has already got a reputation for plagiarism, and he's at it again, lifting the core of this morning's column on the evils of the Greens from a press release from Right To Life head Ken Orr. Compare and contrast: here's "George":

As a pro-life mate of mine reminded me this week, in 2008 the Greens in the Victorian Parliament voted for the decriminalisation of abortion. This meant that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child and Victoria now has the most permissive abortion law in the world. It provides that any woman can demand an abortion for any reason.

The Greens in Australia also support same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption, and an education system which teaches that homosexuality is normal.

Last year the Greens promoted bills to legalise euthanasia in the New South Wales, Western Australian and Victorian Parliaments. Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens in the Australian federal Parliament, has said that passing euthanasia laws is a top priority.

My mate reckons that the New Zealand electorate ought to recognise that in our Parliament the Greens represent a threat to the protection of the right to life of unborn children, the elderly and the ill and to the institution of marriage as exclusively between one woman and one man.

He points out that the Green Party in Germany has similar policies.

And Orr:

The election of 14 Members of Parliament from the Greens Party is a matter of grave concern. The electorate should be aware of the hidden agenda of the Greens Party.

In 2008 in the Victorian Parliament the Greens voted for the decriminalisation of abortion which meant that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. Victoria now has the most permissive abortion law in the world. The law provides for abortion on demand and a woman can now demand an abortion for any reason.

The Greens in Australia support same sex marriage and same sex adoption. The Greens also support the education system teaching that homosexuality is normal.

In 2010 the Greens promoted Bills to legalise euthanasia in the New South Wales, Western Australian and Victorian Parliaments. Senator Bob Brown the leader of the Greens in Australia has said that passing euthanasia laws was a top priority.

The electorate should recognise that the Greens represent in our Parliament a threat to the protection of the right to life of unborn children, the elderly and the ill and to the institution of marriage as exclusively between one woman and one man. The Greens Party in Germany has similar policies.

This is pure churnalism, a word-for-word regurgitation of PR with no additional research or journalistic work. While its par for the course for time-pressed hacks, its a bit odd to see it in an opinion column. Surely the Herald is paying George for his opinion, not that of whichever press release last crossed his desk?

The giveaway was that he used Australian examples. Ironically, he didn't need to - there are plenty of examples of the New Zealand Greens supporting equality and human rights for all. They put up a bill for same-sex adoption in 2006, they support same-sex marriage as a matter of party policy, and they recognise the danger of homophobic bullying in our schools. While they don't seem to have policy on it, they've overwhelmingly supported death with dignity and abortion rights. If George had bothered to spend five minutes with Google, he would have learned all that - and avoided looking like a lazy plagiarising hack in the process.

For abortion reform

Steve Chadwick has finally announced her Abortion Reform Bill. The bill is modelled on the reforms Victoria passed in 2008, and would remove abortion from the Crimes Act and allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Its a good bill, and I support it completely. Our current law, which effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill in order to access a basic medical procedure, is medieval; it is aimed solely at stigmatizing women and making them face the wagging finger of society rather than providing a proper legal framework. Its long past time the law in this area was dragged into the 21st century.

Chadwick is currently gauging support before putting the bill in the member's ballot. Currently, she thinks MPs are "divided 50-50". I don't think so. Its more that most of them don't want to touch the issue with a barge pole. After the toxic debate over Civil Unions (and with memories of the even more toxic debates of 1986 and 1977), no-one wants to go through that again, at least not if they can avoid it.

But they may not have a choice. The Christian Taliban are currently challenging the legality of the current regime and the mental-health bypass in the Court of Appeal. If they win in any substantial way which affects abortion access, Parliament will have to act. The New Zealand electorate is quite comfortable with effective abortion on demand, and will not tolerate its restriction. And there would be a strong case for urgency to restore the legal status quo ante pending real reform.

Even if things aren't pushed that far, and the bill is progressed through the ballot, I have no doubt it would eventually pass if drawn. This isn't 1977 anymore. We're a far more secular country now than we were then, and far more liberal. As noted above, we're quite comfortable with abortion on demand. While there are still a few dinosaurs in Parliament, most are part of that consensus (though some would vote against if they had the luxury of doing so, just as people did in 1986 and 1977). The debate would be nasty, but choice would ultimately win.

The real danger here isn't that the law wouldn't pass, but that it would be amended to reduce access for specific groups. In 2004, the National Party backed parental notification and consent laws, which would basically have turned teenage girls into brood mares. It was a nakedly opportunistic political pose, aimed at pandering to the Christian Taliban, but most National MPs at the time (including "liberal" John Key) cynically went along with it. There's no guarantee they won't do the same again; the only way of stopping it is if they understand they will face an electoral backlash for selling out women for the sake of Christians.

The Hand Mirror is suggesting writing to MPs to let them know you support the bill. I'll certainly be doing that, and I hope you will too.

Abortion safe for now

Right To Life's legal battle against abortion seems to be over. Justice Miller's ruling was released yesterday, and he once again refused to make any orders, this time on the basis that the functions of the Abortion Supervisory Committee have been "clarified" and that Parliament would hold them to account. The good news is there will be no restriction of abortion rights, and Right To Life's case has effectively failed. The bad news is that Miller's impugning of the legality of most abortions performed in New Zealand (seemingly based on nothing but his own feeling that there are too many of them) will be allowed to stand. As before, no orders means no appeal is possible. So we get the status quo, with some bonus slander.

The fundamentalists are apparently happy with that, but I'm not sure how long that will last. The flip side of no orders is that Miller's "clarification" is a fiction which holds no actual legal weight. So, the Abortion Supervisory Committee can continue leaving clinical decisions in the hands of medical professionals as before. And its only a matter of time before the fundamentalists realise this and drag the issue back into court again - in the process putting the basic right of women to control their own bodies under threat.

This isn't good enough. Now that the immediate case is over, its time we stepped up to prevent it ever happening again. It is long past time we reformed our abortion laws, joined the modern world, and allowed abortion on demand. The Australian state of Victoria has provided the model; its time we adopted it here.

Correction: Now that I've seen the actual judgement, it is clear that the ruling can be appealed. Right To Life can appeal the decision not to grant any orders (and they may very well want to do that), while the ASC can appeal Justice Miller's interpretation of the law in his earlier judgement. So, its not over yet after all.

England and Wales to decriminalise abortion?

Abortion law is back in the news, thanks to Bill English's claim that our 40-year old law, which criminalises abortion and effectively requires women to declare themselves mentally ill to access a basic medical procedure, has "stood the test of time". But looking overseas, it seems that not everyone thinks that. England and Wales have a near-identical law, which is a decade older. And there, MP's have just voted to decriminalise abortion:

MPs have voted to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales.

MPs have backed a bill by 172 votes in favour, versus 142 against.

The bill, which was introduced as a Ten-Minute rule bill, will now go to a second reading on 24th March, before it can be passed into law.

There are other stages too, and the majority for change is only 10% of the number of MP's who didn't bother to turn up (again, England's "democracy" is broken), but its a good start, and a good sign that change is coming. And England isn't even a particularly fast mover on this - the Australian state of Victoria completely reformed its abortion regime nearly a decade ago. We should follow suit.

Editorials on abortion

So, what have our newspapers been saying about last week's decision by the High Court questioning the lawfulness of many abortions? It's been a week, and the major dailies (and one provincial paper) have now spoken. Here's the summary:

• The New Zealand Herald calls for the defence of the status quo, in Gains made a generation ago should not be eroded today
• The Dominion-Post says Abortion reality check overdue, but talks mostly about the need for Dutch-style sex-education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
• The Press, in an editorial unimaginatively titled Abortion review, says that the decision is "hardly surprising", and argues that "the law should be changed to bring it into line with 21st-century attitudes."
• The Timaru Herald, in Abortion on demand, says that politicians will finally have to face up to the issue, but that they should find it easier to liberalise the law than their predecessors did.
• The Otago Daily Times calls for a full review of the Grounds for abortion, and asks "whether we have, in 30 years, achieved an appropriate balance of rights where unborn children still have little legal status and negligible privileges, and where abortion is by far the most common medical surgical procedure our young women receive."

So, two outright liberal, one cautiously liberal, one avoiding the question while pretending to address it (like the politicians, really), and one apparently conservative.

It might be interesting to see what line these papers took back in 1977. Anyone?

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.

Trotter, National and abortion

In his Dominion-Post column today, Chris Trotter highlights the threat to abortion rights posed by the High Court decision, and draws the obvious political conclusion:

So, all of you young, confident women of the 21st century urgently need to pause and reflect upon what is happening – especially all you young, confident women thinking of voting for the National Party.

Why? Because behind National, hidden by all those glossy placards depicting the handsome John Key, marches a much less appealing army of fanatical right-wing activists, all of whom are impatient to advance the conservative causes that nine years of Labour-led government have held in check.

Predictably, National supporters are calling this a "beat up" (e.g. comments here). And I'll happily admit Trotter is wrong on this point. The Taleban aren't marching "behind" National - they're within it. Don't believe me? Just look at their voting record. In 2004, 23 of National's then-27 MPs voted to require teenagers to notify their parents before being allowed to have an abortion. Six of them voted to require parental consent, effectively allowing parents to turn their children into brood mares. National's "liberal" leader John Key sided with the Taleban in the first vote, but not the second. In 2007, National MPs sided with NZ First and United Future in attempting to appoint anti-abortionists to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. Key again collaborated with the Taleban in this.

I think that that record speaks for itself. While National contains a few liberals on this issue (Dr Jackie Blue and Dr Paul Hutchison being notable examples), it has a seriously disproportionate number of conservatives and outright medievalists. Those who favour abortion rights are right to be concerned, and may wish to cast their vote for a party with a higher proportion of liberals on this issue.

Of course, National could address this concern instantly by stating publicly that they will legislate to preserve the practical status quo of abortion on demand if the High Court decision has any impact on access. But I think that's about as likely as their being honest with the public about their other policies.

Queensland decriminalises abortion

When running for election, Labour promised to take abortion out of the Crimes Act. That promise has been shunted off to the Law Commission for the moment, but while Labour is pissing about and covering its arse, over the Tasman Australians have stolen a march on us, with the Queensland state parliament voting for decriminalisation:

Nineteenth-century laws making abortion illegal in Queensland have been scrapped, in one of the state's biggest legislative reforms.

The government's controversial plan to decriminalise pregnancy termination passed through state parliament with a comfortable margin of 50 votes to 41.

The laws mean abortion will be available, on request, at up to 22 weeks' gestation.

It also allows an abortion to take place after 22 weeks if the medical practitioner performing the termination has consulted with a second medical practitioner and both agreed that "in all the circumstances" the abortion should be performed.

So how long will it take in New Zealand? The Law Commission says they will be providing a response to Andrew little "within eight months of the Minister’s 27 February 2018 request", which is around the end of this month. Which means we should see legislation passed next year.

Time to step up on abortion

Right To Life's court case against the Abortion Supervisory Committee is back before the courts this week, with the ASC appealing against Justice Miller's decision (based seemingly on nothing but his own prejudices) that there was "reason to doubt" the lawfulness of many abortions performed in New Zealand. Meanwhile, Right To Life are also appealing in an effort to get the foetus defined as a person whose life is protected under s8 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The result will either confirm our policy of de facto abortion on demand - or see a dramatic restriction of abortion rights in New Zealand.

The Abortion Law Reform Association is calling on MPs to step up to defend the social consensus that has developed around abortion over the past three decades, and its a call I support. I know that MPs do not want to touch the subject with a barge pole, preferring to quietly support the status quo and not get into a pointless screaming shitfight with religious fanatics, but Right To Life's court case may deny them that luxury. If the worst happens and Justice Miller's ruling is upheld, women may not be able to freely access abortions in the way they do at the moment. Which means in turn dangerous backstreet abortions, expensive trips to Australia, dangerous smuggled Chinese pharmaceuticals, and women being forced to have children they do not want. Bill English may be happy with that, but it is not acceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders, and hasn't been for thirty years.

If the case goes badly, then Parliament must be prepared to legislate immediately to restore the status quo. Patch-up legislation to clarify the law and restore the status quo in the wake of a court case is one of the few real justifications for urgency, and given the severity of the consequences, it would be entirely justified in this case.

Abortion reform progresses in Victoria

Victoria's Legislative Council has begun debating the Abortion Law Reform Bill. The bill (quick overview here) would decriminalise abortion, allowing abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, and where two doctors believe it is appropriate afterwards. This doesn't go as far as it should, but its an improvement, and a model that could be adopted to lever open access in new Zealand.

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is a clause requiring medical practitioners with a conscientious objection to abortion to provide an effective referral to someone without such barriers to assisting their patients. The Catholic Church regards this as a violation of freedom of conscience, and are threatening to close their hospitals in Victoria if the bill passes. But based on the stories emerging about how these people use their freedom of conscience to victimise women and outright endanger their patients, that looks like a highly desirable option. For example, there's this horror story recounted by MLC Candy Broad during the debate yesterday [PDF, p. 32]:

A senior clinician in a public hospital in Victoria recounted to me his experience of providing advice to a woman in a very advanced stage of pregnancy, which showed very clearly on the information he had available that the pregnancy was incompatible with life and that the pregnancy had no earthly hope of proceeding to term. He had to commence the process of working through those issues with the woman and her partner and of arranging the necessary counselling for that couple to make a very difficult decision.

When that very senior clinician went back and reviewed all the information available about that case he realised the information he had available to him at that point had been available to another clinician much earlier in the woman’s pregnancy. That clinician, because of his moral position, had not informed the woman of the situation at that earlier stage.

Or there's this one, reported in The Age on Monday, from a senior doctor who has worked in a Catholic hospital:

He said one doctor withheld ultrasounds showing a foetal abnormality until it was too late for an abortion. The child was born and died a slow, unpleasant death, the doctor said.

Then there's the inspiring news that Victoria's Catholic hospitals are refusing to refer rape victims to rape crisis centres because they'll be able to get emergency contraception. These people are simply monsters, using their religion as an excuse to sadistically abuse women, endanger lives, sentence children to short "lives" of pain and suffering, and generally act like arseholes. And if this law drives them out of (this part of) the medical profession, then I think we're better off for it.

An incitement to murder

South Dakota has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in America. Because of Roe v Wade, abortion is legal - but only after women have been forced to attend counselling, wait 24 hours, view a sonogram of their fetus, and sit through an inaccurate anti-abortion lecture delivered by the doctor who is supposed to be helping them. The result is a service which is inaccessible in practice to women; there are no abortion providers in the state (Planned Parenthood flies one in), and women need to travel up to six hours if they need an abortion.

But all of that isn't enough, apparently, and so the Republican-dominated state legislature has hit on a new plan: make it legal to murder abortion providers:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

This bill will pass the Republican-dominated House. It will pass the Republican-dominated Senate. The state's Republican Governor will sign it. And then some whack-job will use it as an excuse to murder someone. And all of those people will wring their hands and say "we never expected this", just like Sarah Palin never expected people to start shooting Democratic legislators she was putting on hitlists and sticking crosshairs on.

Its time we called them on this bullshit. What is going on here is an incitement to murder, using the state as its vehicle. And if the Republicans don't want to own their shit, then maybe they should stop doing it.