Kiwiblog

Stats NZ has announced:

The number of abortions performed in New Zealand decreased in 2012, Statistics New Zealand said today. A total of 14,745 induced abortions were performed in New Zealand in 2012, 1,118 fewer than in 2011.

The general abortion rate (abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) decreased from 17.3 per 1,000 in 2011 to 16.1 in 2012. This rate is the lowest since 1995, when it was also 16.1 per 1,000. The lower abortion rate indicates that the decrease in the number of abortions was due to fewer women having abortions, rather than to changes in the size or age structure of the population.  

This is good. Abortion should be safe, legal and rarer.

The general abortion rate peaked in 2003 at 20.8. It is now 16.1, and has been dropping every year since 2007.

The ration of abortions to live births is 193 per 1,000, down from a peak of 247 in 2003. So it isn’t so much that there are less pregnancies, it is more than there are fewer abortions.

The drop appears to be amongst women having an abortion for the first time. The raw numbers have dropped 25% since 2003. However the numbers for women who have had two or more previous abortions have increased 4% since 2003.

Some differences by age also. The number of abortions for 11 to 14 year olds has dropped 43% since 2003 (from 89 to 51) and for 15 to 19 year olds dropped by 34%. However only a 10% drop for 25 to 29 year olds. This suggests to me that sex education for younger NZers is proving more effective.

The Herald reports:

An American doctor may face the death penalty after being convicted of the gruesome killings of three babies shortly after their births in his filthy backstreet “abortion mill”.

Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of the first-degree murder of three newborn children, as well as the manslaughter of one of his patients.

A jury in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania also convicted the 72-year-old of carrying out 21 abortions later than the state’s limit of 24 weeks into pregnancy.

The court heard how Gosnell and his unqualified staff persuaded vulnerable women seeking abortions to give birth to live fetuses, whom they killed by “snipping” spinal cords.

What an awful man, and horrible case. Absolutely horrific.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s abortion laws should be changed to reflect the real reasons women decide to terminate unwanted pregnancies, Christchurch researchers say.

New research from the University of Otago, Christchurch, suggests abortion does not reduce the mental health risks of unwanted pregnancy.

I’m not surprised. If you have an unwanted pregnancy, it is highly stressful to either have an abortion or to have an unplanned child.

The best outcome is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Currently, abortion can only be performed legally in New Zealand if there is a risk to the mother’s physical or mental health or if the baby would have a serious disability.

About 98 per cent of abortions are performed on mental health grounds.

Nominally.

Lead researcher David Fergusson told The Press the review did not suggest abortion should be completely illegal but that the current laws should be changed to reflect the real reasons women sought abortions.

“These issues could be addressed if the wording of the current law was changed from ‘continuation of the pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the woman’s health’ to something along the lines that ‘continuation of the pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the woman’s physical, mental, educational, family or financial wellbeing’,” he said.

I agree. The current law does not reflect the practice, and in this case I think the law should be changed to reflect the reality.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is using his personal wealth to make a nationwide drop of leaflets which criticise MPs who do not follow their electorate’s wishes.

His office has published and distributed 200,000 leaflets at a cost of $55,000 – a figure which Mr Craig expects to double as he ramps up his party’s electioneering.

The leaflets have accused MPs of ignoring their electorates in making changes against the wishes of the majority, such as the anti-smacking bill and asset sales.

Mr Craig was especially critical of Prime Minister John Key for backing a bill to legalise same-sex marriage – a move he felt was out of tune with Mr Key’s Helensville electorate.

“This is not an insignificant issue. The majority of people genuinely feel their MP should be guided by their own electorate and not their own opinion.”

I disagree entirely. I quote (again) Edmund Burke:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

Really? Honestly?

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

I doubt it.

When I was at the Gallup site, there was quite a few interesting polls on issues. This is their Roe v Wade graph over time.

Not a lot of change for 25 years of heat. Of course this is not the same as asking views on abortion laws, as you can be pro-choice and think Roe v Wade was a very bad judicial decision (as I do). But they ask on specifics:

• Abortion legal under any circumstances 28%
• Abortion illegal in all circumstances 18%
• Abortion legal under certain circumstances 52%

So in fact only 18% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. And while I am pro-choice I’m not sure even I would quite tick the  box legal under any circumstance as I would not support an eight month abortion unless the mother’s survival was an issue. Most Americans are actually in the fairly sensible middle.

So how about when abortions can happen. the results are:

• 1st trimester 61% say should be legal
• 2nd trimester 27% say should be legal
• 3rd trimester 14% say should be legal

I’d be interested in seeing a similar question in NZ. The results might not be vastly different. I can’t imagine a huge number of people would say they support third trimester abortions. I note the official NZ stats indicate only 5% occur after the first trimester and that after 20 weeks, they will only occur if necessary to save life or stop serious permanent injury.

The point I’m trying to make is that while the issue is very political and volatile in the US, I’m not sure the overall opinion on legality is vastly different from NZ.

Finally they ask US respondents if they would call themselves pro-choice or pro-life and it is 48% pro-choice and 44% pro-life. What is interesting is the demographic differences of those who say they are pro-choice. They are:

• No religion – 80% pro-choice
• Democrat – 63%
• Income > $75k – 58%
• Under 30 – 54%
• Women 50%
• Men 47%
• Catholics 48%
• Republicans 28%

The small difference between men and women is unexpected (for me).

Stuff reports:

Ireland has opened a new investigation into the death of a woman denied an abortion of her dying foetus, as the government scrambled to stem criticism of its handling of an incident that polarised the overwhelmingly Catholic country.

Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year old dentist, was admitted to hospital in severe pain on October 21 and asked for a termination after doctors said her baby would not survive, according to husband Praveen. 

But in a country with some of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws, surgeons would not remove the foetus until its heartbeat stopped days later.

Husband Praveen Halappanavar, who believes the delay contributed to the blood poisoning that killed his wife on October 28, has said he would not cooperate with an investigation already launched by the country’s health service because he did not believe it would be neutral.

Barbaric. They knew the baby could not survive, but they still did nothing, with the mother then dying.

Ireland’s abortion stance is enshrined in a 1983 constitutional amendment that intended to ban abortion in all circumstances. In 1992, when challenged in the “X-case” involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted when the woman’s life was at risk, including from suicide.

I understand that many Irish women just travel to Northern Ireland to get abortions.

Opposition party Sinn Fein introduced a motion to parliament on Wednesday calling for parliament to legislate on abortion, but it was rejected.

“Successive governments over the past 20 years have failed in respect of legislation. That failure is in large measure due to fear or cowardice,” said Mary Lou McDonald, vice president of Sinn Fein.

Not often I agree with Sinn Fein.

Olivia Wannan at Stuff reports:

Once blamed for glamorising children having babies, teen pregnancy reality shows are now credited with a drop in New Zealand’s teenage pregnancy rates.

A new report from the Abortion Supervisory Committee suggested shows like 16 and Pregnant might deter unwanted pregnancies by depicting the struggle young people faced when raising children.

The show, and other spin-offs, chronicle the struggles girls face when they become pregnant while still in high school.

Never seen it, but yeah I imagine being confronted with the reality would be offputting.

Last year 4247 teenagers gave birth – down 387 from 2010, Statistics New Zealand figures show.

Teenage abortion rates fell as well, down 17 per cent from 2010.

That’s excellent to have both rates falling.

The Republicans are doing their best to allow the Democrats to hold onto the Senate. To follow up Todd Akin, we have:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape “that’s something God intended.”

Mourdock, who has been locked in one of the country’s most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate Tuesday night whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” Mourdock said.

Mourdock maintained at the news conference that he was misunderstood.

“I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.”

How do such idiots become candidates for high office. Even if you agree with their viewpoint on not allowing abortion for rape victims, there are non-moronic ways to express that view. Here’s how they should answer the question:

1. Don’t mention God at all. You’re standing for the Senate, not for Iman or Cardinal.
2. Empathise with all women who have been raped and say it is a terrible crime, and some never recover from being violated. Get in a quick plug about how you support longer sentences for rapists.
3. Say it is a terrible dilemma about what to do in such a situation, and how you don’t want rape victims re-victimised
4. However say that two wrongs don’t make a right, and as much as your heart goes out to victims of rape, you don’t think killing an unborn child is ever justified, and you hope victims of rape will show the love and tolerance they did not receive, and allow the child to be born

Now I don’t agree with the above. I think it is appalling to not support exemptions for rape victims, and in fact I support abortion being a decision in all cases for the pregnant woman, not the state, so long as the fetus is not viable. However if a candidate said something along the lines of the above to justify their view, they at least wouldn’t come across as a lunatic who implies God condones rape. I know that isn’t what he meant, but his choice of words was so appalling, it was open to that interpretation.

A candidate for even a junior office, should have a prepared response on major issues memorised off by heart. To have Senate candidates shoot themselves in the foot so badly, is woeful amateur hour.

There are times when I wonder that if I lived in the US, would I be able to be in the Republican Party, when they have candidates such as Todd Akin standing for the Senate.

I could never be a Democrat. The only left-wing party I think I could ever join would be the right faction of the NSW Labor Party

I guess I could be a US Libertarian Party member, but I actually believe in achieving things. Anyway it is all academic, as I am happy here in NZ.

Fox News reports:Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin resisted calls to withdraw from the race Monday over his controversial comments on rape, despite mounting pressure from GOP leaders who roundly condemned his remarks and threatened to cut off funding. 

Up until this he was 9% ahead of the incumbent Democrat.

Akin, a six-term GOP congressman, is challenging Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill for her seat. His chances looked fairly sunny — up until he told an interviewer that a woman’s body can typically prevent pregnancy during a “legitimate rape,” as he argued against allowing abortions in cases of rape, claiming such pregnancies are uncommon in the first place. 

“It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Akin said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” 

How can an experienced politician, let alone a half decent human being, say something like that?

He basically just told every rape victim who got pregnant that their rape wasn’t real rape. Jesus Christ.

Sadly a fair proportion of rape victims do get pregnant to their rapist, and have the anguishing decision about what to then do.

One can have a legitimate debate on the legality of abortion, but you have to be a particular type of insensitive moron to make comments like Akin did.

Good to see the GOP dumping on him from a huge height. However the damage is done.

Stuff reports:

Anti-abortion group ProLife has been allowed to stay as a club within the Auckland University Students’ Association despite complaints the group was harassing vulnerable students on campus.

The association had received two complaints about pamphlets containing “misinformed” health information on abortions being distributed by the group, and of students feeling harassed.

The association held a meeting yesterday to decide whether the group should be disaffiliated.

There was heated debate during the meeting, which attracted about 300 people, and students eventually voted 225 to 117 to allow the club to stay within the association.

ProLife New Zealand spokeswoman Rachel Wong disputed the club had done anything wrong in the first place.

She said the association failed to communicate with the club after receiving an “anonymous” and “unsubstantiated” email complaint.

The Right to Know pamphlet carries the slogan: “Hands up if you’ve heard this before: Abortion is a safe, simple medical procedure.”

Wong said the pamphlets, distributed for two weeks in May, were not confrontational.

“For us, the main issue is freedom of speech. Clubs should be able to voice their opinions at uni and express their ideas.”

I’m very glad AUSA members voted against disaffiliating Prolife. A university campus especially should be tolerant of unpopular speech.

Some advice for Prolife though – having the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is a good idea to do it. Personally I think handing out pamphlets on the health risks of abortions to random female students is not a great idea. You have the right to do so, but I doubt that tactic helps your cause much.

Prolife NZ has said:

Prolife New Zealand (PLNZ) is alarmed at the fact that Auckland student club, Prolife Auckland, is this week facing the possibility of disaffiliation simply for engaging in an act of freedom of expression at the Auckland University campus. …

In May this year Auckland University student club ProLife Auckland, in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner, distributed a one-page leaflet titled ‘Right to Know’.

The pamphlet advocated for the right of women to know the common health risks associated with abortion and the alternatives available to them, so that they can make truly informed decisions when faced with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. The campaign pamphlet was distributed by PLNZ clubs at universities across New Zealand and contained a link to a webpage with further information and resources.

On the basis of one single anonymous, unsubstantiated email allegation, claiming that the pamphlets contained ‘misleading health information’ and ‘lies about health procedures’, the AUSA called a Special General Meeting (SGM) to disaffiliate student club Prolife Auckland.

Not only was this allegation never properly investigated by the AUSA, and the AUSA deliberations regarding this matter conducted in secrecy, but Prolife Auckland were never even informed that an SGM had been called to disaffiliate them – they found this out by sheer chance a week after the decision had been made by the AUSA.

More importantly, the claims of ‘misleading health information’ still remain completely unproven, in fact the medical statements in the pamphlet are supported by reference footnotes to a number of reputable medical journals.

Since Prolife Auckland’s inception it has come up against unwarranted resistance and intimidation at the University of Auckland. This is in contrast to PLNZ’s other branches at Victoria, Canterbury and Massey University in Palmerston North, which have been permitted to peaceably contribute to the free exchange of ideas on campus without fear of reprisal – the cornerstone of academic freedom.

This attempt to ban ProLife Auckland and the complete disregard for natural justice in this case, only serves to further highlight the prejudice of an intolerant minority against the affiliation of pro-life clubs at the University of Auckland. Most alarmingly, it shows that certain members of the AUSA Executive are willing to deny students their human right to freedom of expression simply for peacefully expressing themselves on campus.

I am pro-choice, not pro-life (to use their term). If I was on campus and someone handed me a flyer informing me of the health risks of abortion, I would probably politely suggest they should procreate with themselves.

However I absolutely defend their right to not just hold their views, but to promote them. On a university campus especially, freedom of speech should be the paramount value.

AUSA should not be deciding if the pamphlets have “misleading health information” any more than they should decide if political party pamphlets are misleading. Would they disaffiliate (for example) Princes Street Labour if someone complained about one of their pamphlets. If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to. It is not a decision for a small group of student politicians.

I would comment to all AUSA members the words of Noam Chomsky:

“with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards”

I hope that all those who disagree with the views of ProlifeNZ still defend their right to express their views and be able to operate on campus as an affiliated club.

Stats NZ has published the annual abortion stats. Looking at the graph the abortion rate seems to have been dropping since 2007 and is now a 12 year low.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 has dropped to 3.6 – it was last this low in 1994.

In terms of pregnancies, 1.7% of pregnancies end in a termination. That is a pretty low rate.

62% of women who had an abortion, had never had one previously. 13% had two or more previously. This rate is growing – it was 10% a decade ago.

18.2% of abortions are on teenagers. 28.1% are to those aged over 30.

The age range with the highest abortion rate is 20 to 24 year olds and then 25 to 29 year olds.

45% of women having an abortion have no chidren. 55% have at least one child and 34% have at least two.

94.3% of pregnancies occur within 13 weeks.  55% are within 9 weeks.

They supply crude numbers of abortions by ethnicity, not not the rate by ethnicity. A quick contrast to the population states finds that Maori, Pacific and Asian ethnicities both have around double the abortion rate of Europeans. The Middle East, Latin American and African rate is around 1.5 times the European one only.

Finally we have the abortion rate (per 1,000 women 15 – 44) by country:

1. Germany 7.3
2. Netherland 8.7
3. Finland 10.2
4. Scotland 12.3
5. Denmark 15.5
6. Norway 16.2
7. England 17.1
8. France 17.2
9. NZ 18.1
10. US 19.6
11. Sweden 20.9

It would be interesting to see a fuller set of international data.

Andrea Vance in a lengthy article looks at three controversial conscience issues which are unlikely to be debated by Parliament unless a member’s bill on them is drawn. They are euthanasia, gay adoption and abortion.

My positions on the three issues are:

• Euthanasia should be legal under strictly defined circumstances
• Abortion should be legally available on demand (which is the practice but not the law) up until the point where the foetus or unborn child could live unassisted
• Same sex couples should be able to adopt

Karl du Fresne writes in the Dom Post:

When I read recently that two medical ethicists had suggested it should be legal to kill newborn babies, my first thought was that they must be anti-abortion campaigners choosing an unusually dramatic way to make their point.

After all, what’s the difference, ethically speaking, between aborting a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation or waiting until it’s born, then quietly suffocating it or administering a lethal injection? None that I can see.

Ethically speaking, the difference is that at 20 weeks, it can not survive outside the mother’s womb, and the mother has rights over her womb. This is the flaw in Karl’s entire column, and the research he refers to. Both totally skip over any discussion of the rights of a woman over her womb. One can only presume they think women have no rights over their wombs once they are pregnant. Now that is a legitimate view to have, but not one many share.

I believe that a foetus or unborn child does have some rights. And a mother also has some rights. The challenge is balancing those rights out. I have little time for those who say a mother has no rights at all, and likewise for those who say a foetus has no rights at all, and it is okay to abort at say eight and a half months.

Newborns aren’t actual persons, they suggest, merely potential persons. Neither the foetus nor the newborn baby is a person with a moral right to life. Only actual persons can be harmed by being killed.

It’s a proposition that would shock decent people. Yet it exposes the fundamental flaw, both logical and moral, behind liberal abortion laws such as those that apply in New Zealand.

Most people who think it’s OK to abort babies in the womb would recoil in horror at the thought of snuffing their lives out once they’ve been born.

And that is because they are now capable of independent life. I do not accept that an egg one second after fertilisation has the same rights as a baby.

But I ask again, what’s the difference? Some babies that are legally aborted under present law (there were 16,630 in 2010) have reached a stage in their development when they are capable, with intensive medical care, of surviving outside the womb.

Newborn babies also need intervention to survive. So at what point do we decide a baby has a right to life  at six months old, one year, only when it’s capable of feeding itself and walking?

There are a fer borderline cases, but generally abortions take place (as they should) before they can survive outside the womb.

Yet the Australian state of Victoria already allows babies to be aborted right up to the time of birth and pro-abortion lobbyists would like the same law adopted here. It’s only a short step from there to infanticide.

Which pro-abortion lobbyists are these? Can Karl name an organisation lobbying for this? He may be right, but I am unsure whom he is referring to.

He is right that Victoria’s laws are very permissive, with abortion on demand up until 24 weeks and needing two doctors to consent after considering a woman’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. I think only serious physical danger to the mother should be a reasons for what is commonly called a late term abortion.

Stuff reports:

Killing newborns is morally the same as abortion and should be permissible if the mother wishes it, Australian philosophers have argued in an article that has unleashed a firestorm of criticism and forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication.

Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, say a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack of a sense of their own life and aspiration. They contend this justifies what they call “after-birth abortion” as long as it is painless, because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.

The first flaw in their arguments is that it is not legal to abort a foetus, once it is capable of surviving outside the womb. Abortion is legal because a mother has rights over her womb which trump that of the foetus. Those rights disappear once  the foetus can survive outside the womb, and most definitely after they have left the womb.

About a third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed prenatally, Drs Giubilini and Minerva say, and mothers of children with serious abnormalities should have the chance to end the child’s life after, as well as before, birth.

But this should also extend to healthy infants, the pair argue in the BMJ group’s Journal of Medical Ethics, because the interests of a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweigh a baby’s claims.

Putting aside for one moment the main issue, why on earth would the mother have the right to decide, and not both parents? Again once the baby has been born, the parents have equal rights.

On the main issue, I think the proposal is horrific. The precedent it creates is monstrous.

It is worth noting the authors seem to be from the School of Philosophy, not medical doctors.

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.