Do You Reckon Existing Abortion Laws In New Zealand Are An Affront To Woman’s Rights?
Currently this is the status of abortion in my country:
Current New Zealand law allows for abortions to be performed for the following reasons, providing the abortion is approved by two certifying consultants:
to save the life of the woman
to preserve the physical health of the woman
to preserve the mental health of the woman
foetal impairment
in cases of incest
Other factors which may be considered, but are not in themselves grounds for abortion, are:
cases of rape — because rape is a term with unclear boundaries
certain social factors (e.g., the girl’s age in a teenage pregnancy)
Abortion is not allowed under any circumstances after 20 weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother’s life.
As the annual statistics for the Abortion Supervisory Committee have repeatedly noted, mental health grounds are the predominant grounds for most certified abortions in New Zealand. The high numbers of abortions in New Zealand for mental health grounds have led pro-lifers to express concerns that the mental health exception is being used to allow abortion on demand.
Also recently a bill was introduced into parliament suggesting that in a case whereby the law on abortion could be reformed in line with other medical procedures so that “informed consent” must be established before any such procedure can be carried out. It was struck down
I’m only familiar with specific state laws in the US as they apply to abortion, and in the US the legal constraints are within the bounds of State legislation. Although the laws in NZ appear a bit more restrictive, I’m of the humble opinion that they are medically sound reasons. There will always be disagreement between those on either side of the aisle, but it seems like those that enacted such legislation were being rather thoughful. Relaxing some of these restrictions may open up the flood gates to some frightening practices and the possibility or highly irresponsible sexual behaviour, or late term abortions when there really is no gestational risk to either the mother or the foetus. This is per my convictions, purely.
The last part with respect to requiring informed consent is a bit ambiguous for me, frankly, as any medical/surgical procedure in the US requires informed consent (otherwise it’s deemed assault/battery in most US jurisdictions). So, I’m not sure how a physician can protect her/himself from criminal litigation in the absence of informed consent for any procedure (even treatment of a headache).
I’m not sure what the medical litigation climate is in NZ, but it’s a major problem for physicians in the US, so without obtaining informed consent from the patient (or a legal surrogate), it’d be opening oneself up for criminal prosecution.
Just to be clear, informed consent in the US simply means that the procedure, indications, possible complications have been properly explained to the patient and the patient agrees to go through with this procedure. Without the patient’s permission, we are engaging in assault/battery against the patient.
Informed Consent protects the rights of the patient and is a sound practice. If I’m going for a dental procedure, I want to know what I’m looking at and possible complications before I sign the dotted line, and so informed consent (as defined in the US) is a rational concept.
ADDENDUM: Okay, I see now this is more a matter of a minor requiring the consent of the parent/guardian for this procedure. In this instance, I don’t feel that the minor should require parental consent as it’s really a very delicate issue, so if, indeed, parental consent is required for a minor, then I find this too restrictive.
For any other medical/surgical procedure in a minor, I’m of the opinion that parental consent is critical. Abortion is the one exception, in my opinion.
I think that taking the right to abortion, whether right or wrong, away from the woman and putting it into the hands of a doctor definitely violates women’s rights. The mother should be the ultimate decision maker in abortion cases, not the doctor. It basically says that doctors have the right to dictate the bodily functions of a woman without her consent, and that attitude in a partner is easily indicative of an abusive or controlling person, so why is it ok for doctors to have that attitude? They are responsible for diagnosing and treating diseases, nothing more.
I think the law is the same here in most Australian states, yet they appear to be performed basically on demand, I assume with the explanation of preserving the mental health of the woman. I think those laws are too strict but they are applying them more liberally here and maybe there.
Harriet
I wish the laws in the US were similar. I have a serious issue with abortion on demand when there is a perfectly normal child that will result in 7 or 8 months.
Personally, I think those are too many boundaries.
I think 20 weeks is enough time to get it done.
Interesting. I wonder if the same people who want to enforce ‘informed consent’ for abortion want to do so also for rape? Yeah I know, it’ll never happen.
Australian laws vary state to state, it’s pretty much the same here, but activists remain committed to getting abortion removed from the criminal code, and putting the matter where it belongs ~ in the hands of the woman concerned and her doctor, or whoever she chooses to advise her.
With regards to your edit, that is a major concern here (Australia). With majority community attitudes in favour of abortion as a private matter, there hasn’t been too much need to change the law as a matter of urgency. But with a very right wing nutjob just gaining a LOT of power in federal parliament and the state governments being increasingly infested by religious fools, it will only be a matter of time before politicians once again decide they know better than the people involved.
Funny how the one freedom people on the right always want is the freedom to stick their nose in the affairs of others.
Hopefully the NZ population will not let politicians and radical right wing religious judges and zealots take away their hard won rights.
Cheers