Right to Life v Women of New Zealand

RIGHT TO LIFE V. WOMEN OF NEW ZEALAND

Last month, on 5-6 October, the latest round in the long-running Right to Life v Abortion Supervisory Committee (i.e. women of New Zealand) case took place at the Appeal Court in Wellington. You can read an update here.

This most recent hearing was notable for the fabulous protest action that took place on the first day. At least 150 took part according to ALRANZ’s estimates (though The DomPost lowered it to 50!) Check out these pictures on ALRANZ’s FB page and count for yourself) Thanks to the great work of the Victoria University group Action for Abortion Rights.

Alranz issued a media release about the case as did AAR, and The Hand Mirror did a roundup.

Inside the Appeal Court, pro-choice supporters we were outnumbered by the anti-abortion advocates, including the man behind the case, Right to Life’s Ken Orr. The news media were represented by The DomPost, Radio New Zealand NZPA, TV3 and RadioLive. Only The DomPost and NZPA were there for the two days.

ALRANZ has put together a summary of this latest round, which you can read by clicking here. What follows are a few low-lights. (For background and a timeline of the case so far, click here.)

This round of the case had two main parts to it.

(1) The Abortion Supervisory Committee was appealing a 2008 ruling by Justice Miller in which he, among other things, questioned the legality of the 98 percent of abortions performed on mental health grounds.

(2). Right to Life was cross-appealing (with the ASC responding) the court’s refusal to make any declarations (essentially, to order anything be done) and re-stating its original claims, including that the fetus has a right to life that outweighs the rights of the mother and that counselling services should be independent of abortion providers.

RTL’s arguments about the right to life of the fetus were notable for the almost complete absence of the woman, other than as having rights that must always be secondary to those of the fetus.

The absence of the woman is striking throughout, including in passages like this: “The child immediately after birth is qualitatively the same as he or she was immediately prior to birth- he or she has just changed location.”

How does it feel, all you women out there, to be a “location”? The Crown/ASC responded to this in that understated legal kind of way by pointing out that RTL’s assertion “ignores the fact that prior to birth, the fetus is inside of its mother, and thus another set of interests is profoundly affected.”

It was also interesting to note that even though in 2008 Justice Miller reached no formal conclusion on whether or not certifying consultants were complying with the law, the Crown/ASC argued that his statement questioning the “lawfulness” of abortions, if left to stand, could have serious repercussions for certifying consultants and the administration of the abortion law.

Among other things, the Crown/ASC warned that it could harm reputations and have possible legal consequences for certifying consultants; it could disrupt the provision of abortion services and the willingness of doctors to become certifying consultants; and it raises the possibility of “defensive practice” by certifying consultants.

This is an aspect of the Miller ruling that had concerned, and continues to concern pro-choice advocates, too – essentially, the “chilling effect” of the Miller conclusion. Again, for a much fuller account of the latest round, click here.

A ruling from the Appeal Court is expected either before Christmas or early next year.

We wait with bated breath.

END