Kiwiblog

AFP reports at the NZ Herald:

An Oklahoma lawmaker has proposed legislation to ban any use of foetuses in food in one of the more bizarre twists in the emotive US battle over abortion.

The bill comes after wild rumors began circulating online and among anti-abortion groups that soft drink giant, Pepsi, was using aborted foetuses in its products.

I always wondered why I preferred Coke to Pepsi. Obviously I don’t like the taste of aborted foetuses!

I wonder if some evil Coke executive was responsible for starting the urban legend. You can just imagine the marketing team brain-storming ideas, and one of them saying “Hey, why don’t we start a rumour that Pepsi uses foetuses in their products”.

The company has denounced the urban legend as completely false.

“PepsiCo does not conduct or fund research that utilises any human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos,” spokesman Peter Land told AFP.

They would say that, wouldn’t they.

Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey said he has been researching the issue for about a year and is concerned there are no rules preventing the use of embryonic stem cells or fetal tissue in food and other products.

Oh my God. This is urgent. Imagine all the products out there which may have been using fetal tissue in their products. I mean, does anyone know what really is in a mince pie?

There could be other rules needed also. I’ve been researching the issue for about three minutes and there are also no rules preventing the use of human brain tissue in food products. Shockingly, not a single rule prevents a chef from cutting out his own heart, and including it in a tasty curry.

Family First have released the results of some polling done amongst 16 to 21 year old New Zealanders by Curia. The summary is:

When asked “Do you think sex education in schools should teach values, abstinence and consequences such as pregnancy, or just teach safe sex?” only 19% supported just the ‘safe sex’ message currently being taught in schools, with one in three (34%) wanting ‘values, abstinence, and consequences such as pregnancy’ taught instead, and a further 42% asking for a combination of both – especially amongst older teens. The support for just the ‘safe sex’ message dropped even lower for the older teens. …

When asked “Provided it won’t put the girl in physical danger, should parents be told if their school-age daughter is pregnant and considering getting an abortion?” 59% of young respondents thought the parents should be told. 34% disagreed. More young men than women agreed, but both had majority agreement.

When asked “Do you believe an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born?” 56% of youth respondents said they believed an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born. Slightly more young women than young men agreed – 58% to 55%. Those aged 15 to 17 were strongest in support – 66%.

It was intriguing that young women were slightly more supportive than young men of there being a right to be born for an unborn child or foetus.

The parental notification results may surprise some, but thinking about it it is normal that most young people would expect to talk to parents about any unplanned pregnancy. The question did not specifically say “Should the law require parents to be told …” but at a minimum it makes clear that a majority thought parental notification should occur.

Note that of course the results do not necessarily represent my personal views.

Bronwyn Torrie in the Dom Post reports:

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court judge’s ruling that unborn children do not have a right to life.

It also dismissed comments made by the judge about many abortions being granted “on request”.

It’s that second paragraph which is more significant. The High Court commented that we effectively have an abortion on demand system in New Zealand (which effectively we do – the number of abortion requests declined is close to zero), while the law says abortion should be granted only when there is serious risk of physical or psychological harm from having the birth.

Now personally I don’t think women should have to prove psychological harm to be able to have an abortion, so I have no problem with the current practice. However I was not surprised the High Court pointed out the apparent mismatch between the law and the practice. My solution would be to update the law to reflect the practice.

However the Court of Appeal has disagreed, and struck out the comments of Justice Miller. This means that we are likely to continue for some time with the status quo.

Andrea Vance in the SST reports:

POLICE MINISTER Judith Collins has pledged to support a call for laws to prevent girls under 16 having abortions without their parents being told.

Collins said she would support a private member’s bill requiring parents to be involved before a termination could take place.

She could not introduce it herself, because ministers can only introduce legislation related to their own portfolios, but her stand comes after the Sunday Star-Times revealed a mother’s anger that a school counsellor arranged an abortion for her teenage daughter.

While in opposition in 2004, Collins proposed the Care of Children Act be amended to make parental notification mandatory for girls under 16. The act allows a female of any age to consent to an abortion. Collins proposed that if a girl objected to parental notification, a doctor would contact the district court to arrange an appointment for the girl to see a judge in chambers within 24 hours.

I’m not a fan of changing the law, but if you were to do so, it is important to have a procedure where notification does not occur – especially vital in cases of incest.

I would hope that any child who has an abortion does tell their parents, as how can the parents be there to support them if unaware. But as I said, I am not sure it is a good idea to make notification a legal necessity – it could lead to a pregnant teen trying to do a back street abortion. 

In 2009, 3950 girls aged 11 to 19 had abortions.

That isn’t a very useful number. The relevant number is how many aged under 16 had abortions. The stats don’t tell us for under 16, but in 2009 only 79 abortions were done for those aged under 15. That’s 79 too many, but it is also far from a tidal wave. In fact the number of abortions (all ages) has been declining for the last two years.

UPDATE: Family First have supplied me more detailed stats, and n 2009 there 299 abortions on under 16 year olds.

Derek Cheng in the NZ Herald reports:

Parliament had a rare personal vote yesterday when Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia sought to appoint a doctor strongly opposed to abortion to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Mrs Turia’s amendment threw a spanner in the works of what was meant to be a simple vote on a motion to appoint Dr Tangimoana Frances Habib and reappoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway and Rev Patricia Ann Allan to the committee. …

In addressing the House, Mrs Turia said the issue of abortion was central to family well-being. “The protection and preservation of whakapapa and genealogy is fundamental to the broken health of our whanau.

“I think about the precious heartbeat of every child, and I think about the comment that Ngati Whatua leader Naida Glavish once made, that there is no such thing as an unwanted mokopuna.”

She asked for a personal vote on the amendment to appoint Wellington doctor Ate Moala to the committee instead of Ms Allan.

Dr Moala has advocated chastity and abstinence, and last year was a guest speaker at the All For Life conference in Nelson.

The article lists who voted which way. Around 20 Mps were absent and one abstained. The only party with split votes was National. All four Maori Party MPs voted in favour. No ACT, Green, Labour or United MPs voted in favour. Hone voted against. Of the 52 National Mps who voted, 27 were in favour, and 25 against. I’m relatively pleased with that. A few years ago I suspect many more National MPs would have voted in favour. National has a blend of socically conservative and socially liberal MPs – and it is a strength to be in a party tolerant of diverse viewpoints. But my concern in the past has been that there hasn’t been enough balance – ie too few social liberals. Things seem to be moving in the right direction (from my point of view)

Bob McCoskrie blogs:

The majority of New Zealanders think women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives. 

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research this month, respondents were asked “Would you support a law that would require a woman considering an abortion to first see a doctor, who is not an abortion provider, to be informed of the medical risks and alternatives to abortion?” 

64% supported this proposed law, 29% disagreed, and the remainder (8%) were either unsure or refused to answer. Interestingly, women were slightly more in favour of informed consent than men.

Now my company did this poll for Family First. I was very surprised by the result, especially the fact more women (65%) than men (62%) were in favour of the proposed law.

I should make clear that my personal position is that the law should allow abortion on demand, during the period a feotus would not be viable. I would have answered “no” to the poll question.

When the result came out, I asked a couple of female friends what they thought, as I was puzzled that more women said they supported a law effectively making it more difficult to have an abortion. Their answer was that women want safety and quality in their healthcare, and many would interpret that question as leading to more rigorous process. I’m not sure if their view is why that result was obtained, but it is plausible.

One salient question I would pose on this issue is whether such a procedure would actually lead to some women not having an abortion due to “better” information, who do currently have an abortion – or would it just be an extra hassle and cost for every woman seeking an abortion, and not actually change anything.

The Herald reports:

A Labour MP has taken the controversial step of proposing a new law to legalise abortion on request for women up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Steve Chadwick, a midwife and former associate health minister, is gauging support for what would be the first changes to abortion law since 1978.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee has repeatedly urged Parliament to review the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, which states the legal grounds for abortion, but MPs avoid the issue.

A judge has questioned the lawfulness of most abortions.

Last year, 17,550 abortions were done, compared with 17,940 in 2008.

Mrs Chadwick’s Abortion Reform Bill would take abortion out of the Crimes Act, making it solely a health matter and a choice for the patient, at least in the first part of pregnancy.

I support this. We have had de facto abortion on demand for the last two to three decades. Around 99.9% of termination requests are granted. Either the law should reflect the reality or the law should be enforced properly.

I have no desire to live in a country where women are refused legal abortions, and have to flee to Australia to terminate a pregnancy and/or have a termination done illegally and unsafely.

I would like to see fewer abortions, but I believe the way you achieve that is through education and health services, and reforming the Adoption Act.

But because MPs were divided 50-50 on abortion, she would not proceed until sure of majority support for the bill – in what would be a conscience vote in the House – to go to a select committee. She had not yet sought Labour caucus approval to put the bill in the parliamentary ballot.

Steve may not be doing Labour many favours with this bill. While I support it, there would be fierce opposition, and Labour could end up being seen as obsessed with carrying on its social engineering reforms of the last Government.

Prime Minister John Key did not answer Weekend Herald questions about the bill yesterday. Labour leader Phil Goff said he hadn’t given the matter much thought.

Ha. I can just see the conversation. Hey John/Phil – I’ve got a journalist on the phone wanting to know if you will support Steve Chadwick’s bill to legalise abortion on demand …. long pause ….. hello ….. hello …. are you still there …. door opens to find an empty room and a smashed window.

AFP reports:

A BORN-AGAIN Christian who said he killed a prominent US abortion doctor to save the lives of unborn babies has sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 50 years.

Scott Roeder, 52, was pulled out of the courtroom screaming “you have the blood of babies on your hands”‘ after the sentence was handed down.

Mr Roeder should be more concerned about his own blood. He is obviously totally unrepentant and would kill again if released, so it is good he will effectively never be freed.

In a move that critics feared could provide cover for acts of political violence, Roeder had sought to convince jurors he was only guilty of voluntary manslaughter.  Under Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter can apply when actions are taken based on an unreasonable but honest defence that he or she is preventing a greater harm.

Now does that sound familiar? Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their religious beliefs place them above the law.

The Herald reports:

The Vatican’s top bioethics official yesterday dismissed calls for his resignation following an uproar over his defence of doctors who aborted the twin fetuses of a 9-year-old child who was raped by her stepfather.

Monsignor Renato Fisichella said he refused to respond to five members of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life who questioned his suitability to lead the institution.

Fisichella wrote an article in the Vatican’s newspaper in March last year saying the Brazilian doctors didn’t deserve excommunication as mandated by church law because they were saving the girl’s life.

A common sense and humane view from the Archbishop.

It is no surprise that it took a Kansas jury just 37 minutes to find Scott Roeder guilty of the murder of George Tiller. Dr Tiller was a provider of legal abortion services, and Roeder is a religious fanatic who thought it was okay to kill him because he disapproved of what Dr Tiller did.

Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which organised protests against Tiller’s clinic, said “pro-life was not on trial. An insane man doing an insane thing was on trial”.

All religions have their fanatics. The good thing with Christianity is the religious leaders always condemn people who murder people in the name of God. In Islam, you often get shall we say a mixed message at best.

Roeder could be considered for parole after 25 years. But prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would seek to ensure that he serve at least 50 years before being eligible for parole. Sentencing was set for March 9.

I don’t think he can ever be let out, as someone convinced they have a right to kill people is always going to be dangerous.

Roeder, the sole defence witness, testified on Thursday that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller’s church, put a gun to the doctor’s forehead and pull the trigger.

Tiller was wearing body armour, due to the threats against him – that in itself is a sad reality.

NZPA report:

Researchers who examined the medical history of more than 500 women have concluded abortion “leads to significant distress in some”.

Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems, the Otago University study found.

I am not surprised. I can think of few things more challenging that the decision to have an abortion.

I find it interesting that amongst female friends I have discussed abortion with, almost all of them are 100% pro-choice, yet almost all of them say they would not have an abortion if they got pregnant – even if the father was not someone they are in a long-term relationship with.

Professor David Fergusson, of the department of Psychological Medicine, and his team studied data from women who had been interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.

More than 85 per cent of women reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment. …

The study found that women who reported at least one negative reaction had rates of mental health problems “approximately 1.4 to 1.8 times higher than women not exposed to abortion”.

Which sounds significant.

The report concluded: “This evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.

“There is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience.”

The current law is a convenient fiction. We effectively have abortion on demand. I think it would be appropriate to amend the law to reflect the practice.

It said the findings did not support the extremes of either the pro-abortion, or pro-life camps. They were “not consistent with strong pro-life positions that depict unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion as having devastating consequences for women’s mental health”.

Nor did they “support strong pro-choice positions that claim unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion is without mental health risks”.

Extremes are rarely right.

Earlier findings from the same study, when the women were aged up to 25, found more than 40 per cent of those who had an abortion suffered depression afterwards, nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant.

The comparison I would fin d most interesting is between those who had an unwanted pregnancy and gave birth, and those who had an unwanted pregnancy and had an abortion.

Of course that will merely reflect an average. Each situation is unique, which is why I support it being a personal choice for each woman, not a decision for the state.

Readers recall my satirical post about the Green Party advocating compulsory abortions, to fight climate change.

Well again sometimes fiction gets close to truth.

John Holdren is President Obama’s Science Czar. In 1977 he co-authored a textbook which has some views which are, well … read for yourself. Now to be fair to him he says today he does not advocate compulsory population control, but it shows that such extremism is not as far away as we like to think.

So what did he say:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

That compulsory abortions could be constitutional to save the planet!

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

1977 was not that long ago. Now again to be fair to Hodren he doesn’t quite endorse forcing solo mothers to marry or abort, but he describes the possibility without disapproval.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Mass sterilisation so long as it doesn’t affect pets ro livestock. Today the Greens might argue it is a bonus if it sterilises the cows also!

Involuntary fertility control
…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
…
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Maybe he once consulted to China? Who need toasters when you can use a sterilizing capsule.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

This could be a private members bill for ACT – the reproductive responsibility act

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Well if you have too many wives, you are forced to divorce all but one of them. So what do you do if you have too many children?

Toward a Planetary Regime
…
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Now from my reading of this he wants the UNEP, now probably part of the UNDP, to control planetary population and resources. I’d say Helen Clark is liking her new job more and more.

Thank God this fruitcake doesn’t have any influence, such as being chief science advisor to the President of the United States of America. Oh wait a second ….

I’ve just blogged at curiablog, on a morality poll by UMR. Respondents were asked how morally acceptable (or unacceptable certain activities were. Below is the morally acceptable score for each activity and the net acceptable score (acceptable less unacceptable)

From most to least acceptable, they were:

1. Divorce 81%, +68%
2. Sex outside marriage 77%, +59%
3. Having baby outside marriage 71%, +48%
4. Stem cell research 63%, +38%
5. Homosexual relations 61%, +29%
6. Euthanasia 55%, +18%
7. Abortion 55%, +21%
8. Gambling 52%, +10%
9. Animal medical testing 52%, +12%
10. Wearing or buying fur 48%, +4%
11. Death Penalty 43%, -7%
12. Animal Cloning 27%, -40%
13. Suicide 20%, -48%
14. Married people having affairs 13%, -70%
15. Polygamy 11%, -74%
16. Human cloning 7%, -81%

Now this was asking about moral acceptability, not legality. So while only 55% think abortion is morally acceptable, that doesn’t mean only 55% think it should be legal.

Now what would my answers have been. None of the first ten I would regard as morally unacceptable. I do regard the death penalty as unacceptable – not keen on states being able to kill it citizens. Tend to regard suicide as morally unacceptable in most circumstances but not all (ie terminally ill). While generally I think it is not a good idea for married people to have affairs (and if married I would not), I’m wouldn’t label it as morally unacceptable as it is between those two people. I don’t think polygamy should be legal but nor do I regard it as morally unacceptable. And finally I don’t believe human cloning is automatically morally unacceptable.  I favour very very tight restrictions on it, but think there are potential benefits.

So bottom line is there is very little I believe is always morally unacceptable. Mainly just the death penalty really.

I’m sure very few here will agree with me!

The Green Party today released a further policy on how New Zealand can make a goal of a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

“We realised our previous policy of de-stocking dairy herds was not going to be enough. Yes Cows fart and belch more methane than humans, but they don’t travel in cars and use heaters” said the Green Party.

New Zealanders emit 7.4 metric tons of carbon emissions per capita. The more New Zealanders we have, the more emissions we have. Hence the solution is to have less New Zealanders”

We have decided abortion is the best way to reduce the number of New Zealanders, as this is preferable to euthanasia. In 2007 the abortion rate was only 22.2% of pregnancies. If we can triple that to 67%, that will mean 37,000 less New Zealanders every year.

Over 10 years until 2020, that is a massive 370,000 fewer New Zealanders. That will reduce annual emissions by 2.8 million tons of carbon emissions. And by 2050 that will see annual emissions down by 14 million tons.

The Greens wish to make it clear they are not proposing that abortion be compulsory for all New Zealanders.

“We propose a lottery, like the US green card for immigrant visas. Every month all pregnant women will be entered into the lottery, and only two out of three of them will have to abort their pregnancy. One in three women will be allowed to keep their pregnancy viable. Of course they may miscarry, which will be great for the environment, but that is just an added bonus.

We wish to make it very clear, in case our opponents scare-monger, that a woman who has to have an abortion for the sake of reducing our carbon emissions is allowed to get pregnant again. So really it is just a small delay in having children for most women.

Some parties may decry this policy as extreme, but they should remember that unless carbon emissions in New Zealand are reduced to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020, the world is doomed and we will all end up aborted. So this is about saving the planet for the one in three who are allowed to be born.

AP report:

Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was detained some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.

Although Stolz refused to release the man’s name, Johnson County sheriff’s spokesman Tom Erickson identified the detained man as Scott Roeder.

More evil from religious extremism. A very sad day.

The Herald reports:

There were 18,380 abortions in New Zealand in 2007. The rate (20.1 abortions per 1000 women in the 15-44 age group) is high compared to other countries, putting us on a par with Australia, the United States and Sweden.

Unlike those countries, we have what has been described as “one of the most restrictive pieces of abortion legislation in the Western world” – contained in the Crimes Act and the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act passed in 1977.

Yet despite our draconian law – abortion is a crime unless it is authorised by two certifying consultants – we have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. What gives?

On June 9 2008, High Court Justice Forrest Miller gave voice to what some had suspected for some time – there is “reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants” in New Zealand.

We effectively have abortion on demand, even though the law says an abortion should only be granted if there is physical or psychological harm by not having one.

Despite his “powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions”, Justice Miller notes that “Parliament appears untroubled by the state of the abortion law” and the previous calls for reform have gone unheeded.

Most MPs can think of nothing worse than an abortion law debate. Personally I think it may be necessary to change the law to reflect the practice.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, despite both factions being clearly unhappy with the state of our abortion law, and Justice Miller’s concerns that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended, our politicians speeches are much shorter.

“The Government has no current plans to reform the abortion laws,” says Justice Minister Simon Power in reply to the issues raised by Justice Miller.

There are some arguments for doing nothing – the law, despite being outdated, does actually allow women to get abortions, even if they do have to go through a cumbersome, some say demeaning, process that sees most of them granted an abortion because of the danger to their mental health.

On the other hand, the law is doing the opposite of what it set out to do – to provide restrictions on abortions. As Right to Life argued before Justice Miller, the effect of the law is that “New Zealand has abortion on request.”

The irony of the situation is that both factions in debate actually agree on one point – the law is an ass.

Nevertheless, I doubt we will see any change.

The Herald reports:

Women should be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound scan of their baby before they decide to abort it, the Health and Disability Commissioner says.

Anti-abortion group Right to Life complained to the commissioner after finding four district health boards Auckland, Waikato, Wairarapa and Canterbury did not offer women the chance to view the scan before going ahead with an abortion. Waikato DHB said it was an “infringement of the patient’s rights” to offer it.

Commissioner Ron Paterson said any pregnant woman should be told of their right to view an ultrasound, and it was up to them whether they did or not.

I am pro-choice but agree with the Commissioner that the woman should always be given the opportunity. The attitude by Waikato DHB is ridicolous and paternalistic.

It is a debate that is raging in the United States, where a number of states are considering passing laws that would force women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Some want them to listen to a fetal heartbeat as well. Critics have labelled the proposals “emotional blackmail”.

And that would be as wrong as Waikato DHB’s practice. Both deny the woman a choice.

Garth George says:

I have said it before and I say it again: The number one cause of abuse against women and children is abortion.

I disagree.

I think there would be less child abuse if there were more abortions.  The would would be a better place if those who are not suited to be parents did not become parents.

Family First has rated every party leader for their “family friendliness” as they see it. This is a great idea, as those who agree with Family First’s values can use it as a positive guide, and those who disagree can use it as a negative guide. More lobby groups should do this sort of stuff.

The overall ratings (in order) for each Leader is:

1. Winston Peters 77%
2. Peter Dunne 69%
3. Pita Sharples 57%
4. Tariana Turia 54%
5. John Key 54%
6. Jim Anderton 38%
7. Rodney Hide 31%
8. Jeanette Fitzsimons 15%
9. Helen Clark 8%

Winston is the poster boy for social conservatism which is why it is so hilarious that so many on the left are doing everything possible to defend him.

There were 13 issues or votes they judged the Leaders on. I list them below, along with how I would have voted on it if I was an MP.

1. Prostitution Bill- DPF support – 0
2. Civil Unions – DPF support – 0
3. Relationships Bill – DPF support – 0
4. Parental Notification for under 16 abortions – DPF support – 1 (I support notification, not approval)
5. Euthanasia – DPF support – 0
6. Care of Children – DPF oppose – 1
7. Marriage Amendment (define as man/woman only) – DPF oppose – 0
8. Anti-Smacking – DPF oppose – 1
9. Easter Trading – DPF support – 0
10. Easter Sunday Trading – DPF support – 0
11. Drinking Age to 20 – DPF oppose – 0
12. Street Prostitution (Manukau) – DPF oppose – 0
13. Electoral Finance – DPF oppose – 1

So if I was a party leader I would be scored 4/13 or 31% – the same as Rodney Hide.

Another huge move to the centre by Obama. He has just come out against late term abortions unless there is a serious physical threat to the mother. He has specifically rejected mental distress as grounds for late term abortions.

A late-term abortion is generally regarded as being after 20 weeks, but this does vary.

No Right Turn posted yesterday some links on the abortion law issue. He chided The Standard for (at the time) not having posted on the issue, and if he allowed comments I was going to suggest it was because they hadn’t found a way to blame John Key for it yet!

The Standard now do have a guest post by Julie Fairey with the title “If you’re against abortion, then kindly don’t have one”. Very true. If only they would apply the same logic to Easter trading – if you’re against it then kindly don’t shop on Good Friday!

A story in The Press yesterday demonstrated to me the gap between our laws, and our practice. To quote:

Christchurch GP Pippa MacKay, who performs abortions at Lyndhurst Hospital, said women needed access to safe abortions.

“For as long as people have been having sex, there have been abortions,” she said. “Unplanned pregnancies won’t go away because abortion is illegal. That would be putting women’s lives at risk.”

MacKay said she was disturbed by the implication that she and other doctors were not operating within the law. “As far as I’m concerned, I apply the law. If someone says to me they will suffer depression if they have a child, then I accept that.”

Now Dr MacKay has honestly explained how almost all doctors interpret the law. They ask the woman wehther having the pregnancy would cause them depression, the woman says “Oh yes it will” and the doctor says “Okay”.

Now it really is a farce. I mean it is hardly utilising 10+ years of medical training to just ask someone if hypothetically they would be depressed and use an affirmative response to judge them at “serious mental risk”. A receptionist could do the same, or even an online form.

I don’t mean this is any way as a criticism of Dr MacKay (who is a very respected practitioner) – it just shows how much of a gap there is between the law and how it is operated.

We have de facto abortion on demand in NZ, and have had so for some decades. The thought of forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will is repugnant to me. So why continue with the charade of requiring two doctors to certify if someone “qualifies” for an abortion if we know all they do is ask “Would having an unwanted baby depress you”.

While an update of our abortion laws might be a painful experience to go through, I have little doubt the vast majority of NZers would support and vote for abortion to be safe and legal on demand. I would also hope one could look at how to reduce the level of abortions through education and counselling as there is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

In my experience with abortion debates, no-one who is pro-choice or pro-life is open to persuasion to change their views. WIth that in mind could I suggest that comments might more usefully be focused on the pros and cons of having a law change.

I was impressed that we have a semi-sane debate on abortion law a week ago.

A few other bloggers contributed to the debate also. One which I found very moving was a female blogger talking first hand about an abortion she had, and the immense physical and emotional trauma it was. It nicely brought the debate down to a personal level.

I also thought Matt Flannagan’s post is worth a wider readership. Now I disagree with Matt (his post is specifically rebutting me) but he makes an argument for his view point and as his PhD was on the “ethics of killing a fetus”, he has spent a lot of time on this issue.

Anyway no comments on this post. I just thought I would mention the contributions on the other blogs. I don’t intend to generate another debate.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS about a group called Voice for Life which ran adverts (which I did not see) a couple of weeks ago which said:

“We don’t want to change the [abortion] law – we want it to work as it was intended.”

Now my personal position on abortion is it should be legal, safe and preferably rare. As cessation of brain activity is what effectively marks death, I tend to regard life as the start of such brain activity (as measured by ECG, not just electrical activity) which is at around 20 weeks.

But the Voice for Life group do have a point.  In NZ we effectively have abortion on demand. Yet this has never been decided by way of legislation. The actual law basically restricts abortion to cases where there would be physical or psychological harm to the mother. Over the last 30 years or so, it has just been effectively ignored by way of an interpretation regime where all mothers qualify under the psychological harm criteria.

Voice for Life want our practice to reflect our law. Well I don’t agree with that – would be horrific to go back to a regime where women are forced into carrying unwanted pregnancies.

The issue for me, is should our law be updated to reflect our practice?

Part of me says let sleeping dogs lie. I love being able to tell friends in the US that our last major abortion debate was in the 1970s and that abortion hasn’t been a major issue in an election campaign in living memory.

But the purist part of me says it is wrong that we have never allowed the public through our representatives to have a say on whether or not the law should allow abortion on demand. I believe the majority of NZers and majority of MPs would vote for the current practice to become law. But it could be a fairly ugly debate. However do we do ourselves a dis-service by dodging the debate?

This is an issue which generates intense emotions on both sides. Some see abortion as incredibly evil and akin to murder. Others see restrictions on abortions as turning women into property who do not control their own bodies. It would be good if people could try and keep the rhetoric controlled.