So The Abortion Legislation Bill passed its final reading last Wednesday.
Both prior to, and since that happened I have read a lot of misinformation about this.
Things like:
1) That the majority of the public don't agree with abortion.
2) That an extreme law was passed allowing women to terminate up until birth
3) That those who supported the abortion act don't believe people with Down Syndrome have lives that are of value.
4) That the MP's who supported this bill are murderers that voted to kill babies.
5) That the final reading was rushed through parliament and that the Covid-19 Lockdown was timed to push it through.
Good ol' anti abortion sign near Thames
Here I attempt to address these issues. I don't expect to change minds, but I do want people to understand what the bill actually means.
1) The majority of New Zealanders do not want abortion legalised
So I've read on someone's Facebook page that just 2% of Kiwi's agreed with being able to terminate up to 40 weeks. It was also said that the majority of the public do not agree with abortion. So I decided to investigate where those facts came from. I went directly to the poll. This poll was commissioned by Family First, a conservative Christian lobby group, and Curia, the company they hired to carry it out is owned and run by someone who is very active politically (David Farrar). The issue with this is that both of these parties have very set ideas on abortion. Consequently, neither are likely to be interested in presenting balanced data. Neither can be considered independent.
Even without taking this into account, this poll was conducted via landline to eligible New Zealand voters. The problem with this is that since 2016 more folk use mobile than landline and that number is steadily dropping. This in itself skews the kinds of people surveyed. Those in poverty and younger people are less likely to have landlines. Those with perceived language barriers are unlikely to complete the survey. Conversely, older people, and rural folk are more likely to. These two groups are also more likely to have more conservative views. Very few people I know my age still have a landline. Using this methodology also strongly biases the results.
What was interesting about reading this poll in its entirety was that the majority polled still said they 'supported abortion'. Of those that 'supported abortion', 58% were women. So even in a poll naturally biased toward conservative viewpoints, the majority surveyed 'supported abortion'. It is interesting to note that these are not the statistics presented when Family First refer to this poll.
In contrast with this I also have the results from the 2018 Newshub/Reid Research poll:
This poll clearly shows that almost 70% of New Zealanders were in favour of abortion being removed from the crimes act. And as a poll carried out by the same company used for multiple political polls, it is a far more credible source. So even if we had a referendum on abortion reform, it is likely that as a whole, the people of the nation would have voted for it.
So where did that 2% stat come from?
It comes from asking the following question:
'The
law currently makes it a crime for abortions to be performed by a
doctor on a woman after a certain number of weeks in pregnancy, except
in exceptional circumstances. What do you think the time limit should
be for legally performing an abortion, in terms of weeks?
The issue I have with the phrasing of the question is that it implies that termination is to be carried out on request. This is not the intention of the new law. As before, the only terminations performed after 20 weeks (considered late term) will be in circumstances where they are deemed necessary for the woman's health.
The answers respondents could select were tiered by weeks of preferred legal limit. Framed this way, most people would not choose 40 weeks. I would not choose that. My daughters were born at 37 and 38 weeks. It is purposefully emotive. Few people would select the 40 week option as most folk know that is a full term pregnancy. Selecting this implies you approve of terminating birthed babies without rationale. Why would anyone choose this?
And just to put that 2% in perspective is another poll from Newshub from 2018. This shows that, in fact 36.7% if folk thought no test was needed for any termination regardless of how many weeks it was. And 12% of folk thought there should be a test after 22 weeks. Both of these categories outweigh the preference to test for abortion generally, and 36.7% is certainly much greater than 2%.
2) That an 'extreme law' was passed allowing women to terminate up until birth
In New Zealand in 2003* 97.35% of terminations were performed before 16 weeks. 2.03% were done between 16 - 19 weeks. Only 0.56% of terminations were performed over 20 weeks. I expect this to change very little. Most people who want a termination want it done as soon as possible. Since mifepristone** is now in common usage, I expect that if we had current stats the majority of that 97.35% would have been carried out before 7 weeks. Regular surgical abortions are not fun things to have. Late term abortions are even less fun. You literally still have to birth a baby (albeit a small one), and then have a D&C***
This law is not designed so women can 'change their minds'. We have not legalised termination on request after 20 weeks. There will not be large numbers of women rushing to terminate their 35 week pregnancies. All that has changed is that seeking a termination after 20 weeks is no longer considered a criminal act. That it may be legally granted if deemed necessary for a womans health inclusive of mental health. There are many medical reasons why a women may not be able to terminate before 20 weeks. There may also be medical reasons that may not present themselves until after 20 weeks. All this law change does is put women at the forefront of abortion law as opposed to the unborn. So that they have a say in things that massively impact their lives.
While I don't approve of terminating full term babies at will, I do approve of women having the right of termination on medical grounds. Who am I to force another women to carry life when it's at detriment to her own? I know that like me, most people will struggle to choose termination beyond 20 weeks, beyond feeling your baby kick. So I know those that do have not made their choice lightly. Their doctors will not have made their decision lightly. Neither should be judged for being put in the position where they must make such an awful decision.
Jacob Dombroski - first Kiwi with
Down syndrome on Shortland Street.
Articulate, smart and pretty damn fly
3) They don't believe people with Down Syndrome have lives that are of value
These MP's are not sitting around a boardroom table patting each other on the back for wiping out trisomy 21. Because they haven't. Antenatal screening for Down syndrome has been happening here since 1968. It is optional. If you opt for screening, markers can be checked in the first trimester, and again in the second if there were indicators in the first. Other potential health issues are also optionally screened for.
The reason for this screening is not just to give families options, but to ensure that pregnant folk have the appropriate care. 54% of pregnancies of Down syndrome babies result in miscarriage. Half of all babies born with Down syndrome have heart defects. Many folk with Down syndrome have compromised immunity. If this is known in utero it means there can be more support on hand to aid women with a high risk pregnancy carrying a child that may need extra support.
And while I absolutely respect peoples rights to believe they can handle anything, I also respect peoples right not to. I respect that people might be afraid of higher miscarriage rates and managing complex health issues. I have had more than one friend have irregularities come back on those tests. And they struggled with that information. And even though I didn't always agree with them I had to put my personal feelings aside, shut my mouth and just respect their feelings. I can never know how being in this situation might feel. There are many, many things in life that make it hard for someone to be a parent to someone with different needs - poverty, health issues, lack of support. I hate to think what happens to any child born into any situation where their parents aren't capable of giving them all they deserve in life. I know how much abuse occurs in our state care system. And that as a whole, disabled children are 3.7 times more likely to experience violence than their more abled counterparts. I cannot judge those who are honest about just how much they can handle. I cannot say their hearts are not in the right place.
The only two changes that have occurred with the Abortion Legalisation Act regarding Down syndrome is that:
1) Abortion has been removed from the crimes act
2) A women may seek a termination after 20 weeks if deemed medically appropriate by a doctor****.
None
of this is specific to Down syndrome, nor any other syndrome. And
fetal abnormality is still not a grounds for abortion in itself. This
means that if a pregnancy is over 20 weeks and a fetal abnormality is
discovered, there is still only grounds to terminate if it is deemed
medically appropriate.
Many women will not choose to test for Down syndrome or other syndromes. Many women on discovering their unborn child has trisomy-21 will not choose to terminate their pregnancy. Many people in favour of this bill, myself included, do not think Down syndrome folk have no value. What we recognise is that not everyone has the same capacity. That while some families will cope, others will not. That we do not share the same privilege. The changes to our abortion law simply free women from legal persecution for making a choice that we've been able to make in some form for more than 50 years. Down syndrome folk under 50 still exist. They take up space and regularly show us just how capable they are. This law change is unlikely to impact that.
4) The MP's who supported the bill are 'murderers' and voted to 'kill babies'.
In fact, by medical accounts a fertilised egg is first considered a zygote and then an embryo until 11 weeks into a pregnancy. After that, it is a fetus from 12 weeks until it is born. At no point in utero is a fetus considered a baby from a medical standpoint. Consequently, killing a baby via abortion is not possible.
Now I know that many churches deem life to start at different points. Medieval Christians also believed that life began once an infant took its first breath of air. For some other Christians, and in Vedic literature, the soul enters the body at conception. In science, many points in time have been argued to be the start of life - from implantation to segmentation to brain function and fetal viability.
Regardless of when life begins, church and state are separate. This means state law is not guided by religion. I think this is a good thing because otherwise the beliefs of the most populous church will always be prevalent in society. Not only would this be unfair on everyone with other beliefs, but it discourages diversity of thought. Innovation is the key to success in business, the key to success in farming, science, art - everything. And the more diverse a group is, the more innovative it is. I am glad that we don't all think the same way. I am glad to live somewhere where there is religious freedom.
Voting to remove abortions from the crimes act does not in any form make these MP's murderers. All this means is that women are perceived differently from a legal standpoint. They are now supported by law to make decisions for themselves. Many female MPs supported this bill, a number of whom come from a political party I have never supported. I applaud them all, especially those who voted against the majority of their party. That was not an easy thing to do. Amy Adams said: 'I have an absolute belief that women have an inalienable right to control their own reproductive systems and to control whether they will have a child.' These choices were not made by MP's sitting around rubbing their hands together and practicing their evil laughs. The MP's that supported this bill did so because they support women's basic human rights - their rights beyond that as a vessel for life.
5) That the final reading was rushed through parliament and that the Covid-19 Lockdown was timed to push it through.
I can see why people believe this was rushed. It was. But not as a cover up to avoid referendum. This was taken off the table on the 18th of March after it was voted down by MP's. Only 19 people voted for public referendum - 100 voted against. This shows that many that voted against abortion law reform also voted against public referendum. So it seems unlikely that they believed the outcome would have been any different.
On the 23rd of March, the same day that this was ratified, two other bills were processed further and another bill was ratified. And since then, four more bills have been processed to the next stage and three more ratified. That is in the space of just three days. The reason for this is that parliament is unable to sit during lockdown for the same reasons that I can't go to work. And while yes, there was a shorter time between the second and third reading than between the first and second there is a valid reason for that. It is not that they were trying to avoid a referendum. It was that this had to be processed before lockdown. I understand how passionate everyone feels about this bill. But everyone must understand that our government will have bigger fish to fry after lockdown. And if want our world to return to how we remember it, we need to let them prioritise our needs regarding this pandemic and its effect.
* * * * * * * * *
Regardless of what I've written here I know that people will believe what they choose to. And that's fine. At the end of the day our opinions on this don't really matter. Abortion is a very personal issue. This is why it should be up to each individual to have the right to decide what is best for themselves and their families. I am glad the right to do that has finally been granted. It is a massive step forward for women in Aotearoa.
* I couldn't find more recent stats for late term abortions in New Zealand. The overseas rates are similar to this - some slightly higher (around 1%) for termination post 20 weeks.
** This is the pill you can take to bring on miscarriage in early pregnancy.
*** I've had a D&C for other medical reasons and can tell you right now, they hurt. They are not fun. A whopping great tube is pulled from your insides while you are conscious and can see and feel it. It's one of the grossest medical things that's ever happened to me. This is not a choice someone will just make without having thought about long and hard.
**** These were also performed before the passing of this bill, but only if deemed 'necessary to save the woman's life or prevent injury'.
Both prior to, and since that happened I have read a lot of misinformation about this.
Things like:
1) That the majority of the public don't agree with abortion.2) That an extreme law was passed allowing women to terminate up until birth
3) That those who supported the abortion act don't believe people with Down Syndrome have lives that are of value.
4) That the MP's who supported this bill are murderers that voted to kill babies.
5) That the final reading was rushed through parliament and that the Covid-19 Lockdown was timed to push it through.
Good ol' anti abortion sign near Thames
Here I attempt to address these issues. I don't expect to change minds, but I do want people to understand what the bill actually means.
1) The majority of New Zealanders do not want abortion legalised
This image is taken directly from the Family First website.
Why would anyone trust them to present balanced poll results?
Even without taking this into account, this poll was conducted via landline to eligible New Zealand voters. The problem with this is that since 2016 more folk use mobile than landline and that number is steadily dropping. This in itself skews the kinds of people surveyed. Those in poverty and younger people are less likely to have landlines. Those with perceived language barriers are unlikely to complete the survey. Conversely, older people, and rural folk are more likely to. These two groups are also more likely to have more conservative views. Very few people I know my age still have a landline. Using this methodology also strongly biases the results.
What was interesting about reading this poll in its entirety was that the majority polled still said they 'supported abortion'. Of those that 'supported abortion', 58% were women. So even in a poll naturally biased toward conservative viewpoints, the majority surveyed 'supported abortion'. It is interesting to note that these are not the statistics presented when Family First refer to this poll.
In contrast with this I also have the results from the 2018 Newshub/Reid Research poll:
This poll clearly shows that almost 70% of New Zealanders were in favour of abortion being removed from the crimes act. And as a poll carried out by the same company used for multiple political polls, it is a far more credible source. So even if we had a referendum on abortion reform, it is likely that as a whole, the people of the nation would have voted for it.
So where did that 2% stat come from?
It comes from asking the following question:
The issue I have with the phrasing of the question is that it implies that termination is to be carried out on request. This is not the intention of the new law. As before, the only terminations performed after 20 weeks (considered late term) will be in circumstances where they are deemed necessary for the woman's health.
The answers respondents could select were tiered by weeks of preferred legal limit. Framed this way, most people would not choose 40 weeks. I would not choose that. My daughters were born at 37 and 38 weeks. It is purposefully emotive. Few people would select the 40 week option as most folk know that is a full term pregnancy. Selecting this implies you approve of terminating birthed babies without rationale. Why would anyone choose this?
And just to put that 2% in perspective is another poll from Newshub from 2018. This shows that, in fact 36.7% if folk thought no test was needed for any termination regardless of how many weeks it was. And 12% of folk thought there should be a test after 22 weeks. Both of these categories outweigh the preference to test for abortion generally, and 36.7% is certainly much greater than 2%.
2) That an 'extreme law' was passed allowing women to terminate up until birth
In New Zealand in 2003* 97.35% of terminations were performed before 16 weeks. 2.03% were done between 16 - 19 weeks. Only 0.56% of terminations were performed over 20 weeks. I expect this to change very little. Most people who want a termination want it done as soon as possible. Since mifepristone** is now in common usage, I expect that if we had current stats the majority of that 97.35% would have been carried out before 7 weeks. Regular surgical abortions are not fun things to have. Late term abortions are even less fun. You literally still have to birth a baby (albeit a small one), and then have a D&C***
This law is not designed so women can 'change their minds'. We have not legalised termination on request after 20 weeks. There will not be large numbers of women rushing to terminate their 35 week pregnancies. All that has changed is that seeking a termination after 20 weeks is no longer considered a criminal act. That it may be legally granted if deemed necessary for a womans health inclusive of mental health. There are many medical reasons why a women may not be able to terminate before 20 weeks. There may also be medical reasons that may not present themselves until after 20 weeks. All this law change does is put women at the forefront of abortion law as opposed to the unborn. So that they have a say in things that massively impact their lives.
While I don't approve of terminating full term babies at will, I do approve of women having the right of termination on medical grounds. Who am I to force another women to carry life when it's at detriment to her own? I know that like me, most people will struggle to choose termination beyond 20 weeks, beyond feeling your baby kick. So I know those that do have not made their choice lightly. Their doctors will not have made their decision lightly. Neither should be judged for being put in the position where they must make such an awful decision.
Jacob Dombroski - first Kiwi with
Down syndrome on Shortland Street.
Articulate, smart and pretty damn fly
3) They don't believe people with Down Syndrome have lives that are of valueThese MP's are not sitting around a boardroom table patting each other on the back for wiping out trisomy 21. Because they haven't. Antenatal screening for Down syndrome has been happening here since 1968. It is optional. If you opt for screening, markers can be checked in the first trimester, and again in the second if there were indicators in the first. Other potential health issues are also optionally screened for.
The reason for this screening is not just to give families options, but to ensure that pregnant folk have the appropriate care. 54% of pregnancies of Down syndrome babies result in miscarriage. Half of all babies born with Down syndrome have heart defects. Many folk with Down syndrome have compromised immunity. If this is known in utero it means there can be more support on hand to aid women with a high risk pregnancy carrying a child that may need extra support.
And while I absolutely respect peoples rights to believe they can handle anything, I also respect peoples right not to. I respect that people might be afraid of higher miscarriage rates and managing complex health issues. I have had more than one friend have irregularities come back on those tests. And they struggled with that information. And even though I didn't always agree with them I had to put my personal feelings aside, shut my mouth and just respect their feelings. I can never know how being in this situation might feel. There are many, many things in life that make it hard for someone to be a parent to someone with different needs - poverty, health issues, lack of support. I hate to think what happens to any child born into any situation where their parents aren't capable of giving them all they deserve in life. I know how much abuse occurs in our state care system. And that as a whole, disabled children are 3.7 times more likely to experience violence than their more abled counterparts. I cannot judge those who are honest about just how much they can handle. I cannot say their hearts are not in the right place.
The only two changes that have occurred with the Abortion Legalisation Act regarding Down syndrome is that:
1) Abortion has been removed from the crimes act
2) A women may seek a termination after 20 weeks if deemed medically appropriate by a doctor****.
Kate Grant strutting her stuff
Many women will not choose to test for Down syndrome or other syndromes. Many women on discovering their unborn child has trisomy-21 will not choose to terminate their pregnancy. Many people in favour of this bill, myself included, do not think Down syndrome folk have no value. What we recognise is that not everyone has the same capacity. That while some families will cope, others will not. That we do not share the same privilege. The changes to our abortion law simply free women from legal persecution for making a choice that we've been able to make in some form for more than 50 years. Down syndrome folk under 50 still exist. They take up space and regularly show us just how capable they are. This law change is unlikely to impact that.
4) The MP's who supported the bill are 'murderers' and voted to 'kill babies'.
Now I know that many churches deem life to start at different points. Medieval Christians also believed that life began once an infant took its first breath of air. For some other Christians, and in Vedic literature, the soul enters the body at conception. In science, many points in time have been argued to be the start of life - from implantation to segmentation to brain function and fetal viability.
Regardless of when life begins, church and state are separate. This means state law is not guided by religion. I think this is a good thing because otherwise the beliefs of the most populous church will always be prevalent in society. Not only would this be unfair on everyone with other beliefs, but it discourages diversity of thought. Innovation is the key to success in business, the key to success in farming, science, art - everything. And the more diverse a group is, the more innovative it is. I am glad that we don't all think the same way. I am glad to live somewhere where there is religious freedom.
Whilst I don't agree with Amy Adams on much, I do on this
Voting to remove abortions from the crimes act does not in any form make these MP's murderers. All this means is that women are perceived differently from a legal standpoint. They are now supported by law to make decisions for themselves. Many female MPs supported this bill, a number of whom come from a political party I have never supported. I applaud them all, especially those who voted against the majority of their party. That was not an easy thing to do. Amy Adams said: 'I have an absolute belief that women have an inalienable right to control their own reproductive systems and to control whether they will have a child.' These choices were not made by MP's sitting around rubbing their hands together and practicing their evil laughs. The MP's that supported this bill did so because they support women's basic human rights - their rights beyond that as a vessel for life.
5) That the final reading was rushed through parliament and that the Covid-19 Lockdown was timed to push it through.
I can see why people believe this was rushed. It was. But not as a cover up to avoid referendum. This was taken off the table on the 18th of March after it was voted down by MP's. Only 19 people voted for public referendum - 100 voted against. This shows that many that voted against abortion law reform also voted against public referendum. So it seems unlikely that they believed the outcome would have been any different.
On the 23rd of March, the same day that this was ratified, two other bills were processed further and another bill was ratified. And since then, four more bills have been processed to the next stage and three more ratified. That is in the space of just three days. The reason for this is that parliament is unable to sit during lockdown for the same reasons that I can't go to work. And while yes, there was a shorter time between the second and third reading than between the first and second there is a valid reason for that. It is not that they were trying to avoid a referendum. It was that this had to be processed before lockdown. I understand how passionate everyone feels about this bill. But everyone must understand that our government will have bigger fish to fry after lockdown. And if want our world to return to how we remember it, we need to let them prioritise our needs regarding this pandemic and its effect.
* * * * * * * * *
Regardless of what I've written here I know that people will believe what they choose to. And that's fine. At the end of the day our opinions on this don't really matter. Abortion is a very personal issue. This is why it should be up to each individual to have the right to decide what is best for themselves and their families. I am glad the right to do that has finally been granted. It is a massive step forward for women in Aotearoa.
* I couldn't find more recent stats for late term abortions in New Zealand. The overseas rates are similar to this - some slightly higher (around 1%) for termination post 20 weeks.
** This is the pill you can take to bring on miscarriage in early pregnancy.
*** I've had a D&C for other medical reasons and can tell you right now, they hurt. They are not fun. A whopping great tube is pulled from your insides while you are conscious and can see and feel it. It's one of the grossest medical things that's ever happened to me. This is not a choice someone will just make without having thought about long and hard.
**** These were also performed before the passing of this bill, but only if deemed 'necessary to save the woman's life or prevent injury'.
No comments:
Post a Comment