Pro-choice Doonesbury

For those of you who didn’t see this on line during the week, there was a series of Doonesbury comic strips focusing on the Texas law requiring pregnant women to receive a transvaginal ultrasound and then wait 24 hours before having an abortion. A number of US newspapers refused to publish the comics, and others moved it from its usual spot in the funnies to the opinion pages. The full series was leaked on the internet during the week but they have now all run. A full-colour version of each strip is available on the official Doonesbury page, starting on March 12. There is some background information about the  series and the forced ultrasound law here and here.

Abortion Access Back in the Dock (Part I)

The nearly 7-year Right to Life v Abortion Supervisory Committee case is back in the Supreme Court in Wellington this Tuesday, and there’s a lot at stake. (BTW, court hearings are open to the public, and generally start at 10 a.m. The Supreme Court is located at 85 Lambton Quay.)

This case has cost the Crown hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend and has so far been considered by fourteen judges in various courts, before winding up in the lap of the Supreme Court. ALRANZ has a timeline of the case, from its beginnings in May 2005 when Right to Life (RTL) filed a mandamus in the High Court in Wellington against the ASC for its alleged failure to fulfil its statutory duties. Its claims included the failure of the ASC to ensure that the human rights of unborn children received the full protection of the law, the failure to hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions they authorised and the failure to stop abortion on demand.

Numerous courts have looked at all of RTL’s claims over the years, and in 2011 in the Court of Appeal, RTL eventually lost on two parts of its case – (i) the claim that the fetus has a legal right to life from conception and (ii) a challenge to the current abortion counseling regime. But after a subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court decided to allow it to advance its argument that the Abortion Supervisory Committee is not fulfilling its statutory duty. Here is a pdf of the Supreme Court decision allowing the appeal, which is worth reading in order to understand what’s going on in this case.

As it stands, that part of the case is essentially focused on whether or not the ASC should be reviewing (second-guessing) certifying consultants’ decisions regarding the lawfulness of abortions they approve. (Background: Abortion in New Zealand is covered by the Crimes Act 1961 under which it is only legal if approved by two certifying consultants under a limited set of grounds. Those grounds are: where continuing the pregnancy poses serious danger to the life or mental health of the mother, cases of severe mental or physical handicap of the fetus, incest, or severe mental subnormality of the mother. Around 98% of all abortions are approved under the mental health ground – another indicator of the bankruptcy of the current conservative law.)

In its defence, the Crown has argued that medical decisions like those made by certifying consultants are not open to external review, a defence that reaches back to the precedent-setting 1982 Wall v. Livingston case in which an anti-choice doctor challenged the abortion approval for a pregnant 15-year-old. Several judges have shown sympathy to this part of Right to Life’s case, in particular Justice Forrest Miller in his 2008 ruling calling into question the lawfulness of many abortions in New Zealand, and Justice Arnold, who offered a dissenting decision in the case at the Appeals Court stage. Some lawyers who have looked at the Court of Appeal decisions see the dissenting opinion as the stronger — something that’s pretty sobering to pro-choice supporters, and could auger badly for the Supreme Court case.

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? As the latest ASC report, issued in February, pointed out, the numbers of certifying consultants are already falling, with some regions severely underserved, meaning there are already unacceptable delays for many women seeking abortion care.

This is how abortion access is lost … slowly, expensively, ponderously, through the courts, with (almost) no one really noticing what’s going on. Meanwhile, despite ongoing complaints from the courts and the ASC itself that Parliament needs to do something to bring abortion law into line with practice, our politicians have steadfastly maintained a deafening silence — one of the recent honourable exceptions being former Labour MP Steve Chadwick.

Women In Pursuit of Justice

On this, International Women’s Day, we thought we’d try to give a bit of a précis of the impressive 168-page UN Report on the Progress of the World’s Women in Pursuit of Justice, which came out late last year. But it’s so impressively thorough, this post leaves a lot out! (And includes a few digressions…). You can download it for yourself at the UN.

The report begins with a foreword from the head of UN Women, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet in which she extols the progress made. Among her supporting evidence: “Today, 28 countries have reached or surpassed the 30 percent mark for women’s representation in parliament, putting women in the driving seat to forge further change.” Wow, a mere 28 countries have “reached or surpassed the 30 percent mark”. Rather than indicate how far we have come, it suggests how far we have yet to go. And brings up an issue that sticks in the craw of New Zealand pro-choice advocates: When New Zealand’s current abortion laws (more on them from a global perspective below) were passed, women comprised 4.6 percent of our elected representatives, all of whom voted against it. When anti-choice advocates seem to be taking cases to human rights courts and tribunals every other week in an effort to roll back New Zealanders’ reproductive rights, it’s sobering to note that there appears to be no legal remedy for a law that is all about women’s lives but which was imposed by men. How about that for a Human Rights complaint?

We digress.

The report is made up of two parts, plus recommendations. Part I is titled “Making Justice Systems Work for Women”, while Part II looks at “Gender Justice and the Millennium Development Goals.” Part I comprises four chapters, (i) Legal Frameworks (looking at the progress, of lack of progress, in reforming legislative and constitutional frameworks on gender equality and women’s rights); (ii) The Justice Chain (looking at the implementation of laws in the formal justice system); (iii) Legal Pluralism and Justice for Women (exploring how to make justice systems work for women); and (iv) Justice for Women During and After Conflict.

From Our Files: Enter WONAAC

Background: The two main pro-choice groups active in the 1970s were ALRANZ and WONAAC, the Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign. ALRANZ was formed in 1971 and WONAAC in 1973, coming out of an abortion action conference held 14-15 July 1973 in Wellington. Both groups still exist, though ALRANZ is the most active. The following is an excerpt from WONAAC’s first Newsletter, dated August 1973. Ahh, the optimism…nearly 40 years, and still waiting…

—-

Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign
Newsletter No. 1 August 1973

National Women’s Abortion Action Conference
There is good reason to believe that New Zealand women will be running a close race with their overseas sisters in winning the right to abortion. The National Women’s Abortion Action Conference held July 14-15 was an encouraging indication of the potential there is to build the kind of campaign that can win repeal of abortion laws.

The front page of WONAAC's first Newsletter, August 1973.

Participants came from seven cities and represented many different organisations, age groups and interests. Only a tiny few who came to the teach-in were opposed to abortion, and the spirit throughout the weekend was very positive as women listened, discussed and shared experiences on how to win active support. There were nearly 200 present for the teach-in, 100 attended the film ‘Stand Up and Be Counted’, and over 70 women returned for the workshops and conference on Sunday.

…
General Perspectives Resolution
To build an ongoing national women’s abortion action campaign around the following demands:
Repeal the abortion laws!
Free, easily available contraception for all!
Voluntary sterilization!
…
Our Name
Partly because of the confusion which arose between the conference name and the National Organisation for Women, and the fact that so many organisations begin with ‘National’, we have changed the name of the campaign to Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign. We will be using the initials WONAAC … thus linking the campaign with its inspiring counterpart in the U.S.
*****
This entry is part of an occasional “From Our Files” series in which we dig through ALRANZ newsletters and related files to give readers a bit of insight into the recent history (usually post-1960s) of the struggle for reproductive rights in New Zealand. All the entries are listed here.

Remembering X

–Post by ALRANZ National President Dr. Morgan Healy–

Any anniversary offers a good opportunity to stop and assess: where have we been and where do we want to go? On 6 February 2012 Ireland stopped to remember that same day 20 years earlier. That was the day the Republic of Ireland (and the world) was rocked by the X Case: an Attorney General charged with maintaining the law, seized a 14-year-old rape victim’s passport and interned her within the State, forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. For those who were not around in 1992 or do not remember, the X Case brought to the fore yet again the ‘contentious’ issue of abortion in Ireland.

The short history of abortion in the Republic is that it is still covered in the 1861 Crimes Act (part of Ireland’s colonial past). Abortion has never been widely available or legal in Ireland. However, this was not sufficient for the vociferous anti-choice movement. So in 1983, a constitutional amendment was passed by the people and enshrined within State law that equated the right to life of the mother with that of her fetus. Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht na hEireann reads:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

1983 to 1992 would be one of the most oppressive periods of the anti-abortion regime in Ireland. [See Senator Ivana Bacik’s piece on the X Case and her role in the pro-choice movement while a student at Trinity]

However, it was not until 1992 that the people of Ireland experienced the full meaning of Article 40.3.3. On learning that their 14-year-old daughter had been raped by a family friend and was pregnant, X’s parents contact the police to ensure that DNA from the terminated fetus could be used in evidence against the perpetrator. X and her family were told that any attempt to abort the fetus was against Irish law and that X would have to continue with the pregnancy (in accordance with Irish law the only life that was at risk was that of the ‘unborn’).

The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the judges found in favour of X, ruling that because X was suicidal her life was at risk and she should be allowed to go to England for a termination. (At no time was it assumed that the termination would be available in Ireland). X is reported to have miscarried before the termination was done.

The then Government’s response was to put forward three referenda: two of which were passed by a majority: one on the freedom to abortion information and services outside of Ireland and the other on the right to travel outside of the country for an abortion. The third, which tried to roll back the ruling in the X Case, outlawing suicide as a reasonable defense, was defeated.

This has been the state of Ireland’s abortion laws for the last 20 years (with several more cases like X before the Court and one more attempt by the Ahern Government in 2002 to roll back the X case again). It was only in December 2010 that any shift in the status quo has become a possibility. That was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Ireland had contravened the right of C, a cancer patient who was denied an abortion. Happily this has instilled a new sense of fire and urgency in the Irish pro-choice movement. Using the X Case as a catalyst for change, pro-choicers have been holding various events across the country and calling on people to put pressure on the Government.

What will happen remains to be seen. The Kenny Government has abdicated responsibility and chosen to appoint a 14 member expert panel to assess how best to proceed with meeting the requirements of the ECHR ruling. Ultimately, what the majority of pro-choicers are calling for (and what they have been calling for the last 20 years) is legislating for the X Case ruling, of which the majority of Irish people support. Earth shattering, I don’t think so. If it happens, will the flood gates open and Irish women will be falling over themselves to have a termination, international trends refute the likelihood. But what we all should remember is that the lived reality of repressive and criminal abortion laws on those that suffer the most – women.

X is 34 this year. Her identity is still unknown. I wonder what she thinks about Ireland’s continued desire to criminalise women for their reproductive decisions?

Oh, Karl du Fresne

“Police nags should halt their moral tut-tutting about alcohol”. So read the title of Karl du Fresne’s column in the Dominion Post three weeks ago (17 January 2012). Buried underneath the main part of the column about police involvement in liquor licensing, du Fresne managed to sneak in a personal attack on Dr Gill Greer. As regular readers will likely be aware, Dr Greer was made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in the British New Year’s Honours List, for her work in the area of international health and women’s rights. Or, as du Fresne likes to put it, for being a “high priestess of sex education and abortion”. You can read the column in its full glory here. I think the fact that he quotes results from a Family First survey says almost all that needs to be said about it.

In response to the column, Dame Margaret Sparrow wrote a letter to the editor, which was not published. Dame Margaret kindly agreed to my reproducing her letter here:

Karl du Fresne (Dominion Post Tuesday 17 January) calls Dr Gill Greer a high priestess of sex education and abortion. This is inaccurate and insulting. She is a highly respected New Zealander who has achieved international recognition for her role at the helm of the London based International Planned Parenthood Federation. The statistics presented by du Fresne are also inaccurate. Take for example the figures on abortion. In the 2011 annual report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee it is stated that the total number of abortions performed in very young teenagers are small in comparison to other age groups and the figures are trending downwards.  Furthermore there is a noticeable downward trend in the under 20 year old range which is not replicated in the older age groups. It may well be that young persons are responding to educational efforts.

Dr Greer also responded to the column, highlighting the important work the International Planned Parenthood Federation do internationally.

From Our Files: Moral Decline, Still Just Around the Corner

In light of comments by the metamorphosed columnist (from ex-NZ Herald to current Bay of Plenty Times) Garth George about the continued decline of  “the fabric of our nation through the breakdown of the traditional family unit” etc. etc., all of which, (need you ask) is primarily caused by abortion, I thought it might be fun to jump back to the 1950s, when Sexist White Men were making almost exactly the same dire warnings about the decline of the fabric of the nation through the breakdown of the traditional family unit.

From 21 October 1979 originally published in The Guardian's Le Monde section. The headline was John Paul II Addresses the World.

But wait, how come, if abortion is the main cause of this decline, and almost no one had access to legal abortion in the 1950s, there was still a decline? Hmm, the cause of the 1950s decline must have been something different. But wait, there was no TV or internet, which GG lists as secondary causes of the current degeneration, and the primacy of men in society (the decline of which is another factor, says GG) was still, well, in its prime. True, in the 1950s, there was “greed generating poverty and a growing deprived underclass”, (I appreciate GG’s focus on poverty and greed!) though not so much multiculturalism.

It starts to look suspiciously like analyses by Sexist White Men about the imminent collapse of society reflect whatever it is at the time that they find particularly threatening. Then: radio, high wages for adolescents, mothers having jobs, etc. Etc. Now, abortion, abortion, abortion, TV, Internet, multiculturalism, poverty and mothers having jobs. Wouldn’t it be cool if just one time they did some actual research and ran a few tests on their “abortion is the primary cause of everything that I think is wrong with society” analysis.

Roe v. Wade, 39 Years On

–Post by ALRANZ National President Dr. Morgan Healy–

On the 39^th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the seminal US Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal up until the point of ‘viability’, I want to take a moment to think how New Zealanders can play a role in ensuring abortion rights are protected in the 21^st century. Remember Roe v Wade is not simply a celebration (or a call to arms) for American pro-choicers, but should be extended beyond the national context of America and considered within a wider campaign for reproductive health and rights. To this end, I want those of us here in New Zealand to consider what will it take for us to reform our own abortion laws?

2012 Blog for Choice Day (US)

Jan 22nd marks the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that effectively legalised abortion in the USA. It is also the seventh annual Blog for Choice Day in the US, organised by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Over at NARAL’s website there is a huge list of bloggers and activists who have contributed blog posts in honour of the day. Some have responded to this year’s Blog for Choice day question: “What will you do to help elect pro-choice candidates in 2012?”, while others have written more generally about the importance of Roe v. Wade.

I’m working my way through the posts, and thought I’d share a couple of my favourites so far. I’ll add more to this list later today.

Blog for Choice Day! Yes, that choice. Valerie at Capitol Records asks why Roe is still important, and nicely summarises some of the recent challenges to Roe that chip away at the right to choice in the United States.

Make 2012 the Year of the Pro-Choice Voter. Colleen at Get off My Soapbox writes about how important it is for pro-choicers to talk about abortion, and suggests we could learn something from the LGBT movement in terms of personalising the issue and telling our own stories.

First, we’d actually have to find a pro-choice politician. Anna at The Feminist Librarian reframes this years question, and wonders “how do you go about taking action to ‘help elect pro-choice candidates’ when, essentially, you don’t feel there are any pro-choice candidates?”

Blog for Choice: The 2 Battles of Choice. Madeline at Fem 2.0 urges us to “stop hiding sex, contraception and abortion and put it out on the table to discussion and education.”

Blog for Choice Day, a letter of thanks/apology to Roe vs. Wade. Megan at STFY Fauxminist apologises for taking Roe v. Ward for granted.

What Would An Abortion Ban Look Like?

With news of a new Lancet study showing abortion rates tend to be higher where abortion is illegal,  it’s worth revisiting the question: What Would an Abortion Ban in Aotearoa-New Zealand Look Like? ALRANZ blogged about that (over at our old place) in November 2009. It’s something those campaigning through the courts and elsewhere to ban abortion in New Zealand don’t tell the truth about: No, an abortion ban in New Zealand would not mean no New Zealanders had abortions (an outcome only supportable if it’s the result of there being no unwanted pregnancies); Yes, an abortion ban in New Zealand would likely mean scores of women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, but many many more would instead seek out other ways to end those pregnancies. Thus, abortions would shift from being safe and legal to being illegal, often unsafe, via Internet pills or backstreet operators or DIY abortions. For those who could afford them, safe and legal abortions could still be had via trips to Australia or elsewhere.

Back in the 70s, before Misoprostol and Mifepristone and the Internet, women tried all kinds of ways to end unwanted pregnancies.  Dr. Rex Hunton, the medical director and one of the founders of the AMAT clinic, which opened in 1974 and helped prompt the panic that led to our current backward law (yes, we have good abortion care, but that’s despite an archaic restrictive law), gave evidence to the 1975-77 Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion on the self-care methods his patients told him they had tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to end unwanted pregnancies. (This was at a time when very few legal abortions were performed in NZ):