Right to Life are continuing their bid in the high court to have embryos granted full human rights. Should they succeed, that will render most forms of abortion and some forms of contraception illegal overnight. The motion is therefore being vigorously defended by the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I found the article quote to be curiously slanted as it seems far more interested in the cost of this legal action to the taxpayer than in the implications of the legal battle.
“Since the start of court proceedings, the total cost to public funds was $279,850.55, ASC told pro-choice group Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand (ALRANZ) after an official information act request.
“ALRANZ president Dr Margaret Sparrow said Parliament could put a stop to the expensive legal battle by following the Australian state of Victoria and decriminalising abortion.
““Abortion is not a crime and should be treated like any other private medical matter.””
Firstly, the legal proceeding is to determine whether abortion actually is a crime or not. Yet Dr Sparrow seems perfectly happy to attempt to circumvent the outcome of law by legislation. I’m sure Right to Life could argue that the government could just as easily ban abortion outright. At any rate, arguing that abortion is a simply a “private medical matter” is purely voicing an opinion rather than providing a reasoned philosophical argument.
Secondly, it is obvious that parliament could stop this expensive legal battle by instructing the ASC to stop defending the action. It could be argued that using taxpayers money in this regard is not necessarily in the majority public interest – that such legal action is, in fact being pushed by a minority in much the same way as Right to Life is a minority action. The difference being that Right to Life is not publicly funded.
Personally, I am not in favour of this type of legal action. It seems to me that this is an issue too big to be left in the hands of a judge and a couple of lawyers. It is also too big to be legislated away in some government fiat. Abortion is an issue that needs to be properly debated in the open and in public, preferably in a controlled forum where fringe elements on both sides of the argument cannot usurp the debate. I think a full royal commission could be useful in this regard.
It could hardly be more expensive.
Related posts:
- Abortion: A personal look. The sudden interest on abortion in New Zealand on the...
- Abortion Appeal The appeal on the high court judgement that the legality...
- Abortion and Child Abuse My favorite curmudgeon, Garth George, writes today on how he...
- Abortion is Maddening This Month’s British Journal of Psychiatry carries a research paper...
- Stem Cells Get Ethical A new process has made it possible to turn skin...
Jul 20 09 6:52 pm
Abortion has become a far too easy solution for failure to prevent insemination and has become the method of choice of ‘contraception’ for a large number of New Zealand women. It is the sheer number of terminations being carried out that is making most people uncomfortable.
There is a simple solution – the Minstry of Justice must stop paying the doctors who do them so much money! This will allow them to reflect on their commitment to provide what is essentially an ‘abortion on demand’ service.
Jul 21 09 2:56 pm
Excellent and balanced article, MacDoctor. The law is far from perfect but I hate to think what would happen if most forms of abortion and some forms of contraception were made illegal overnight.
It would not last for long and could end up with abortion on demand. Although it may be argued that we have that at the moment abortion on demand would mean if a wife spilt with her husband she could get an abortion at eight months – hardly just another private medical matter.
If the law is to be changed this is not a good way to do it. We do not need another law like the anti-smacking law forced on the majority by a small minority. A full royal commission sounds like a much better way.
Jul 21 09 7:36 pm
Note to “bob” (whose comment I have just deleted)
Please see my policy on Trolls. I encourage you to try again with a reasoned comment, instead of a diatribe. I am quite lenient in my moderation demands as you can see from some comments on other posts. However, cutting and pasting from hate sites masquerading as Christian will get you deleted 100% of the time.
Jul 21 09 9:11 pm
I also can’t imagine there ever being enough political support for a commission of inquiry. The govt would probably like to pass a bill under urgency in order to fix faulty law (in their opinion, not mine) & to get this issue swept back under the carpet as quickly as possible.
Another reason I think that a commission won’t be held would be that any judge would say that a re-examination of the law isn’t necessary as it is well conceived law that clearly balances the need to limit abortion on demand, as well as acknowledging that abortion is legal under certain limited circumstances- maybe the commission would support this law & impose further restrictions in order to make sure the law was properly carried out! Commissions have nearly unrestricted power (apparently) to change laws as they see fit.
The current situation is that the government already have a system in place that lets the ASC and medical professionals (who interpret ‘abortion on the grounds of psychological harm’ as being any vague excuse at all) to exercise their own legal interpretation of the law without court interference. The government will work to preserve the status quo with as little publicity as possible.