Under the present law concerning abortion in New Zealand, no woman can have her pregnancy terminated unless her life is in danger. The law does not allow abortion for victims of rape or incest, for probable foetal deformity (e.g. after German measles), for the inability of a woman to cope as a mother, for a woman of unsound mind or for under-sixteen-year-olds. Though the law considers danger to a woman's life the only ground for abortion, doctors sometimes interpret this as including her mental and physical health. In effect then, if a woman can present a clear case (to the right doctor) that she is likely to go insane if forced to give birth to an unwanted child, she might succeed in getting an abortion at a cost of $200-400. The cost is made up to gain approval for the abortion, and the fees of private hospitals, where fewer questions are asked.

Only a tiny proportion of the abortions carried out in this country are legal. The rest, estimated at between 6,000 and 12,000 per year, are obtained illegally, at great risk to women's health. They are often performed in appalling and degrading situations, in spite of harsh penalties provided for under the law (i.e. up to 14 years imprisonment for the abortionist — the same maximum penalty as for rape, and up to 7 years for a woman who attempts to abort herself).

Reform doesn't solve anything

If women did not genuinely want abortions, they would not risk their lives and liberty to such an extent. Of all the reasons for abortion, the desire of women to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is the most common, and the least recognised in the laws of most countries throughout the world. In Britain, where the law was reformed in 1968 to include broader grounds for abortion, illegal abortions continue at a higher rate. The reformed law has not recognised the overwhelming wish of women to decide for themselves whether or not they want a pregnancy continued, and thus it drives them back to the illegal racket. In fact, reform of the British law has shown that there is a real need, not for minor changes, but for total repeal of abortion laws.

Despite what some opponents say, abortion is a simple procedure which does not require hospitalisation, provided it is done early. The earlier an abortion can be obtained, the more easily it is done — and with much greater safety. Death rates from abortion are considerably higher in countries with cumbersome regulations than in those countries where abortion is readily available. In Czechoslovakia, 140,000 abortions were performed between 1962 and 1964 without a single death. In Sweden, where regulations waste much precious time, there were more than 30 deaths per 100,000 abortions in the same period.

Women denied Contraceptives

Abortion is not the only means of birth control women have difficulty in obtaining. The safest contraceptives are too costly for many, and moralistic doctors and chemists often refuse young or unmarried women who need contraceptives. All contraceptives must be made easily available and free to anyone wanting to use them. Since many unwanted pregnancies occur through sheer ignorance of the way our bodies work and of how to prevent conception, sex education should begin at a very early age, as an integral part of the education system.

If women choose to be sterilised, doctors should not have the right to refuse them the operation for other than strictly medical reasons, if indeed there are any. On the other hand, no doctor should be permitted to sterilise women against their will (for instance, as a condition for agreeing to perform an abortion).

People sometimes say that contraception, sterilisation, or even abstinence are better than abortion and offer them as alternatives. None of these are of any use at all to the woman who is already pregnant. In fact, to such women, the only alternative to abortion is compulsory pregnancy and childbirth. Enforced labour — used as a punishment for accidental conception.

Those who find natural human sexuality distasteful, and who call for abstinence, are quite unrealistic. Besides, even if women try to abstain from sex, our system of "justice" gives men the power to take legal action against their wives to obtain resumption of conjugal rights! Victorian morality does not recognise the rights of women to unhindered and satisfying sexual relationships.

Anti-abortionists claim to have children's interests at heart, but it is far more responsible and human to prevent the birth of an unwanted child than it is to bring it into the world regardless of its future and the feelings of its mother. Every possible measure should be taken to ensure that women who want children are not faced with economic or social deprivation. Yet even with such conditions available there will still be women who want to end a pregnancy they did not intend.

Who Decides?

Opponents of abortion, though they claim it is murder, seldom go as far as to say that no abortions should be allowed. They usually consider that in some cases the woman's interests come first. Pushed to the extreme, they will concede the right to decide about abortion to doctors, psychiatrists, husbands, parents, but never to women themselves. To them, women are incapable of making their own moral decisions.

It is control of our bodies, control of our lives, that we want. The abortion laws are the most blatant denial of that control. These laws should be repealed, abolished so that women can make a free choice. No doctor, no priest, no government, no man, no-one at all should be able to over-ride a woman's decision to end her pregnancy. It is her body and her right to decide. Any law which prevents that decision from being carried out safely, and in the best conditions, is totally unjust.