It's about the right of health practitioners to refuse to provide legal, proper healthcare because they object to it on moral grounds.

This is so-called "conscientious objection".

But really, this case is about abortion care and people's right to receive that care without unnecessary delays.

It's also a good case to know more about, because it could affect you or someone you love. Allow me to explain.

First of all, what is ‘conscientious objection'?

In the context of this case, conscientious objection is obstructing a patient's access to medical treatment that the health practitioner disapproves of by refusing to provide treatment, and sometimes by refusing to provide further information.

Objectors usually refuse to provide abortion care, and sometimes contraception or emergency contraception.

Those who obstruct other people's access to abortion care like to call themselves "conscientious objectors", allowing them to borrow the mantle of those courageous conscripted soldiers who refused to fight in the world wars.

There is very little resemblance, however.

Those soldiers suffered at the hands of military authorities who punished them harshly for their refusal to fight.

The health practitioners do not suffer at the hands of authority figures.

In fact, in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, they are the authority figures.

It is patients who suffer delay in receiving safe, legal, time-sensitive care, and sometimes get an offensive lecture on their morals to boot.

What was this case about, specifically?

The New Zealand Health Professionals' Alliance (NZHPA), a society that, in its own words, "advocates for freedom of conscience in healthcare" challenged new sections of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, later amended by the Abortion Legislation Act 2020.

The newly added section 14 says that when health practitioners object to informing patients about abortion care, they must tell the patient of their objection and how to access the contact details of the nearest provider who can help them.

Section 15 says employers of objecting health practitioners must accommodate their objection, unless doing so would cause unreasonable disruption.

As plaintiffs, the NZHPA claimed that sections 14 and 15 limit their rights under the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

They asked the court for a declaration that those sections are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The court considered whether the law limited their freedom of conscience, freedom to manifest religion, and freedom of expression. Continue reading

• In case it is necessary to state it, this is not the view of CathNews. It is a statement on how far 'we have come'.

The doctor who said he performed an abortion in violation of the new state law was sued Monday by two non-Texas residents.

This is thought to be the first legal action taken since the State's law took effect this month.

A Texas pro-life group has criticized the lawsuits calling them "imprudent" and "self-serving."

The doctor at the centre of the lawsuit is Alan Braid. He announced on The Washington Post opinion page that he had violated the new Texas heartbeat abortion law by performing an abortion on a woman whose unborn baby had a heartbeat.

He said he did so because of "a duty of care to this patient...and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care."

The Center for Reproductive Rights is reportedly representing Braid.

Texas' law, which is designed to be enforced through private lawsuits, prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, except in medical emergencies.

The law took effect on 1 September. It allows for at least $10,000 in damages in successful lawsuits.

These can be filed against anyone who "aids and abets" an illegal abortion; women seeking abortions cannot be sued under the law.

Despite the law's intentions, neither of the two men filing lawsuits against Braid appear to have done so because of anti-abortion convictions.

One was brought by an Arkansas man and self-described "disbarred and disgraced" lawyer currently serving a 15-year house arrest sentence for tax evasion. He says he filed the lawsuit in an attempt both to "vindicate" the Texas law and to collect up to $10,000 if he wins the suit.

The second lawsuit was filed by a complainant describing himself as "pro-choice" who thinks the Texas law is "illegal." He said if he is awarded money, he would likely donate it to an "abortion rights group" or to the patients of the doctor he sued.

Texas Right to Life criticized the two lawsuits as "self-serving legal stunts" that don't make "valid attempts to save innocent human lives".

Braid claimed the law had "shut down about 80 percent of the abortion services we provide."

"I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," he wrote.

Catholic bishops around the country reacted with praise to the law, and noted that women experiencing a crisis pregnancy have resources available, instead of abortion.

Texas bishops say opponents of the law, who have described a fetal heartbeat as "electrically induced flickering of embryonic tissue" or "embryonic cardiac activity," are making a "disturbing" effort to "dehumanize the unborn."

"Abortion is a human rights issue; the most fundamental human right is the right to life," the bishops say.

"Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is not freedom. Abortion does not help women. Abortion is never the answer. It is always the violent taking of innocent human life."

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• Image:Texas Values

They have written Jacinda Ardern an open letter, published on Sunday as a full-page advertisement in the Sunday Star-Times, the Herald on Sunday and in the Dominion Post on Monday.

Spokesperson Barbara Hill said that it was time for an honest conversation about the impact abortions have.

"We began to feel that the law was changing too fast without any investigation of the fallout and consequences of abortion."

The open letter includes the names of the eight women and the number of children they have, including those they have aborted.

"We did what we thought was best at the time, encouraged - or in some cases pressured, by those around us. But we have suffered," they say in the letter.

"It was expedient at the time - it solved the initial problem I had, but I didn't realise until years later that I'd actually been grieving," Hill said.

Motivated by her own experience, she's calling for greater support and information to be given to women who are considering abortion.

"Once I stepped on the medical conveyor belt, there was no counselling or any information around potential fallout," Hill said.

"All the other women I've spoken to, not one of them has had really in-depth counselling about the possible outcome of this."

Hill said the advertisements were funded by the eight women and a number of organisations including Family First.

The prime minister hadn't yet read the letter when Newshub spoke to her but said all views would be considered.

She agrees with the letter writers that support for women who are considering abortion should be paramount.

Source

• newshub.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• Image msn.com

Bishop Patrick Dunn, President of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, noted "the paper is substantial and so we need time to read it and give it careful consideration."

The briefing paper outlines three alternative options that could be taken if Parliament were of a mind to propose a policy shift to treat abortion as a health issue.

• Model A leaves the decision entirely up to the woman and her doctor
• Model B includes an eligibility test
• Model C combines the two depending on how far along the pregnancy is

In an initial response, Dunn reiterated that we must not lose sight of two key facts in this discussion.

"As we argued in our recent submission to the Law Commission, abortion is both a health and justice issue and our laws should continue to treat abortion as such.

"There are always at least two human lives involved - the unborn human person and the mother. The current abortion regime recognises this," he said.

"When you look closely at the current law, we do not believe that it criminalises women as some say - indeed in the section describing unlawful abortions, the law explicitly states that "a woman shall not be charged as a party to an offence against this section.

"Taking abortion out of the crimes act will, however, effectively remove all legal protections for the unborn child.

"In taking the stance we do, we also acknowledge that the law must adequately protect the well-being of women and their families."

Dunn said the experience of Catholic agencies with a long history of working with women who have had abortions is that many women experience negative consequences following the event, often because they made the decision under duress.

He also welcomed the discussion in the document about the need for better-informed consent by way of the provision of effective and independent counselling for all those contemplating an abortion.

"The changes in legislation we would advocate for are those which would further recognise and protect the rights of the unborn child while promoting the well-being of women."

The Law Commission received just under 3,500 submissions from the public, 18% of which supported removing abortion from the Crimes Act.

Little says it's too soon to say whether MPs will vote to change abortion laws.

He will now consult with his government partners and take a paper to Cabinet.

Any changes to abortion laws would be a conscience matter for MPs.

Little told Newshub Nation he could not yet say whether there would be enough support to change the law.

Source

• Supplied: Ko te Huinga Pihopa o te Hahi Katorika o Aotearoa/The New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: newsie.co.nz

On Monday, Jack Tame on TVNZ and Susie Ferguson on Morning report challenged his position.

Bridges said his position on abortions was that they should be "rare, safe, legal" - with an emphasis on rare.

He said he believes the present system is working well.

Bridges said the issue would be a conscious vote for National MPs.

On its website, TVNZ notes that Bridges is "religious."

Bridges' father was a Baptist minister and he is a practising Christian.

In a 2013 interview, Bridges said religion played a minor part in his adult life.

"I would still consider myself a believer. I do believe in God."

He and his wife Natalie are reported to have attended an Anglican church in Tauranga.

They met at Oxford while she was doing a Masters in English Literature and he was doing a Bachelor in Civil Law.

Both Ferguson and Tame's questions were motivated by the Irish voting in a referendum to remove the prohibition on abortion from their constitution.

"If you look at Ireland, they had a situation where it was probably the most restrictive regime in the western world - that's not where we're at" Bridges said.

Irish Minister for Health, Simon Harris, will seek the cabinet's backing on Tuesday to draft the new legislation.

The proposed legislation will allow abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

It will allow them up to the 24th week in exceptional circumstances.

New Zealand Catholic bishops' position is the law should protect the rights of both the mother and the unborn child.

They say it is both a justice and a health issue.

Source

• bbc.com
• radionz.co.nz
• thecivilian.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• www.noted.co.nz
• Image: nzherald.co.nz

The motto of the rally was "Protect them both," meaning the mother and the unborn child.

Catholics - as well as Evangelicals, atheists and others marched together to make their views known.

Most of the speakers against the bill have been laity from various religious backgrounds.

If passed into law, the bill will allow women to have an abortion during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Currently, abortion is illegal unless the mother has been raped or her health is at risk.

This was the second pro-life rally in Argentina.

Although President Mauricio Macri says he is pro-life, he has allowed the ongoing debate to take place.

He says he will not veto the law if it were to pass through Congress.

In Buenos Aires, organisers read a statement asking legislators of both the government and the opposition to categorically reject the proposed bill.

"We rally because we want to protect both lives since, whether it's done at the mother's request or not, abortion causes the woman and those around her irreparable damage, becoming an attack against society's common good," the statement said.

Organisers said that behind the problem of abortion there are "difficult and painful situations, of violence, marginalisation, poverty, lack of formation, loneliness and abandonment; but our most intimate conviction is that abortion is never the solution."

Catholic Bishop Pedro Laxague of Zarate-Campana said: "As representatives of different faiths in favour of both lives, we recognise human life as a gift from God, as a miracle that begins at conception," he said.

Source

• Crux Now
• The Tablet
• Image: The Tablet
  

The comment was made in response to possible abortion law reform by Right To Life Spokesperson, Ken Orr.

"Never before in the history of New Zealand has there been an attempt to withdraw from the Crimes Act, protection for the lives of a category of vulnerable New Zealanders", he told CathNews.

Orr labels the proposal "sinister".

He says the proposed law change sets a precedent for the state to withdraw the protection of the Crimes Act from all people.

Family Life International has joined in opposition to the government's intention to remove abortion laws from the Crimes Act.

Abortion is a health issue: Jacinda Adern

During the election campaign Labour leader Jacinda Ardern said she wanted to make abortion a health issue. In addition she wants to remove abortion from the Crimes Act.

The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, is therefore consulting NZ First and the Greens on abortion law changes.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) says it has pleaded for abortion law changes for a long time.

But Family Life International says health care is about providing for patients.

Spokesperson Michelle Kaufman says, "Health care does not end the life of one for the convenience of the other."

Abortion Supervisory Committee

The Abortion Supervisory Committee says no Justice Minister, including the current one, has consulted it for years.

Little says he won't consult them on the "political decision to take action".

He says that's a question for politicians "not those charged with monitoring the law".

Little expects to be able to report to Parliament by the end of the year.

Any new abortion legislation would be voted on after that and, furthermore, would be a conscience vote.

Source:

• Stuff
• Right To Life
• Family Life International

Image Credit:

Stuff

The Labour Party and Family Planning say they will fight the proposed amendment.

The petition was prompted by the experience of the Kieft family in Stratford in 2009.

Hillary Kieft and her husband Peter found out that their daughter, then 15, had had an abortion organised by her school, when she attempted suicide a year later in 2010.

Last Monday Kieft presented a petition calling for an amendment to the law to Whanganui MP Chester Borrows.

Her petition was aiming at helping both girls and their families facing an unplanned teenage pregnancy.

"Whether or not a girl goes on and has an abortion or not, give us the right as parents to support her through the ordeal," said Kieft.

The school and Family Planning involvement ended with the procedure, and no follow-up counselling was given.

Six years after the procedure, their daughter still suffered from depression, and was infertile, so would never be able to have children, Keift said.

At 15, their daughter was not mature enough to have made a genuinely informed decision on her own, she said.

The reason she hadn't wanted to tell them about her pregnancy was because she was ashamed and scared, they found out later.

"She thought that we would be disappointed in her, just the normal family stuff."

So instead, the girls' boarding school she attended arranged for her to have a termination through Family Planning in Hawera.

"One day she didn't come home and I rang the school and was told she had gone to a counselling appointment, and she was dropped home later that day."

That was the day she had had the abortion.

The two proposed changes sought for legislation to ensure parents were notified before daughters are referred for an abortion, and to ensure there is "a fully informed consent" from those undergoing the procedure.

At present, those aged under 16 are able to have information restricted from anyone if it's deemed "the disclosure of that information would be contrary to that individual's interests", according to Section 29 (1)(d) of the Privacy Act 1993.

In order for the changes to be made Borrows would have to get enough support from his caucus and the Minister responsible, Justice Minister Amy Adams, for an amendment to be made.

Ms Adams is making little comment at this stage, except to say the petition has gone to select committee.

Labour's spokesperson for Justice Jacinda Ardern said the law should remain the way it was.

"There is a minority of young people for whom there may be instances of sexual abuse or even incest or it may just be a dangerous thing to disclose to their family, and that's who the law is there to protect." she said.

Family Planning chief executive Jackie Edmond said any changes would be a sad day and a "very backwards step" for New Zealand.

"We've already got a very restrictive abortion law that's outdated and not fit for modern day," said Edmond.

Source

• Stuff.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: stuff.co.nz

He is is not anti-abortion; he says that the law should be liberalised and a set of guidelines should be established to determine what were acceptable or valid reasons.

About 90 per cent of abortions are justified on mental health grounds but research by Fergusson and others showed having an abortion did not help mental health and in fact it was associated with small to moderate increases in anxiety, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use and suicidal behaviour.

Fergusson said clinicians were making decisions to allow abortions "on the basis of diagnostic criteria for which they have no evidence".

"This is not a trivial thing given abortion is one of the most common medical surgical procedures that women of child bearing age face." Continue reading

Father Kevin Doran told the Irish Catholic that he left the governing board because "I can't reconcile my own conscience with the statement, largely because I feel a Catholic hospital has to bear witness."

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has asked the hospital for clarification, but a hospital spokesman told the Irish Catholic that there would be "no elaboration on the statement".

Continue reading

Higgins said the passage of the law is a move toward "basic human rights."

Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore said it was "a historic moment" for the women of Ireland.

"The core purpose of this legislation is about saving women's lives. It is about providing for a very basic human right," he said in a statement.

Catholic Church leaders, steadfast in their biblical interpretation of abortion, believe otherwise and continue to oppose any form of abortion.

The church sees the topic as a matter of sin and directly deems all abortions an outrage, reports said.

Irish bishops deemed the bill "a tragic moment for Irish society when we regard the deliberate destruction of a completely innocent person."

The Pro Life Campaign said on Tuesday that the passing of the bill into law was "a very sad day for our country".

The introduction of the legislation follows the case of an Indian woman who died in an Irish hospital after she was refused an abortion.

Among the "life-threatening conditions" under which an abortion would be permitted would be a threat by a woman to commit suicide if doctors refused a request to terminate her pregnancy.

Because the new law amends the Irish Constitution's ban on abortion, critics of the measure are expected to pursue a challenge before the Supreme Court. The Constitution's prohibition traces back to a British law from 1867.

Sources

PolicyMic

New York Times

Fox News

BBC

Image: AFP/Fox News

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill — the first legislation allowing abortion in the Republic of Ireland — passed its second stage by 138 votes to 24.

Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland but the bill would allow abortions to take place where there is deemed to be a risk to the life of the mother, including if there is a threat of suicide.

Four politicians who defied their leader, Prime Minister Enda Kenny, by voting against the bill have been expelled from the governing Fine Gael Party and told to vacate their offices.

A Sinn Fein politician also defied his party, and a Sinn Fein spokesman said this was regarded as a serious breach of party rules and he would face unspecified disciplinary action.

The Sinn Fein politician, Peadaar Toibin said: "It is with great sadness that I have had to separate from my party on this, but I cannot vote for a medical evidence-free bill that will result in the death and disablement of children."

Just hours before the vote, Cardinal Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, appealed to Fine Gael politicians to rebel against Mr Kenny.

"In practice, the right to life of the unborn child will no longer be treated as equal. The wording of this bill is so vague that ever wider access to abortion can be easily facilitated," said Cardinal Brady.

In an earlier statement, the cardinal said: "This bill will provide the widest possible legal justification for deliberately and intentionally destroying the life of the unborn child, with no time limits and no mechanism for ensuring that the right to life of the unborn is adequately vindicated as required by Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. In practice, the right to life of the unborn child will no longer be treated as equal."

Sources:

BBC

Catholic Herald

Zenit

Image: BBC

"There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins," Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview with the Irish newspaper Catholic Voice.

On the question of Communion for pro-abortion politicians, he said any politician who favours legal abortion should be admonished by his pastors, and "as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion".

Cardinal Burke, an American, heads the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial tribunal in the Catholic Church.

The Fine Gael-controlled Irish parliament has said it will introduce legislation to legalise abortion where the mother's life is deemed to be at risk, to conform Irish law to a December 2010 ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.

The cardinal said Catholic politicians have the duty to support all legislation that will "most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage".

They cannot vote for any legislation which would confirm or advance "evil", but they may support legislation to reduce such evils if they acknowledges those evils and the need to work to eliminate them.

Cardinal Burke stressed that the Catholic Church's rules on the need to receive Communion worthily are based on Christians' relationship with Jesus Christ.

Someone who persists in "manifest grave sin" should not receive Communion "because of his love of our Lord and his sorrow for the grave sin which he is committing against our Lord and His Holy Church".

"In my own experience," he said, "when I have informed Catholic politicians who were supporting anti-life or anti-family legislation not to approach to receive Holy Communion, they have understood and have followed the discipline of the Church as it is set forth in Canon 915."

Sources:

Catholic Voice

EWTN News

Image: Maranatha

The protests follow the mid-pregnancy death of 31-year-old Savita Halappanavar of blood poisoning in Galway University Hospital after she had repeatedly asked for an abortion.

The bishops said they shared the "anguish and sorrow" of so many following the death of Mrs Halappanavar and her baby.

Repeating a statement they made last October, they said:

• Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

• Whereas abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances, this is different from medical treatments which do not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby.

• Current law and medical guidelines in Ireland allow nurses and doctors in Irish hospitals to apply this vital distinction in practice while upholding the equal right to life of both a mother and her unborn baby.

Meanwhile, a London-based specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology has been named to head a health service inquiry into Mrs Halappanavar's death and make recommendations to try to prevent a similar incident occurring again.

He is Sri Lankan-born Professor Sir Sabarantnam Arulkumaran, who is on record as advocating liberal abortion laws.

As president of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in 2009, he co-authored an article in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics which said: "We would like to challenge and encourage societies and countries with restrictive abortion laws to look at the evidence available in favour of liberal abortion laws and debate the possibility of making the choice of termination of pregnancy a legal right for women."

Sources:

Irish Catholic Bishops Conference

The Guardian

The Irish Catholic

Image: Breaking News.ie

The court, which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, said Poland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights because the girl — who was allegedly raped as a 14-year-old — was denied an abortion at hospitals in her home town and in Warsaw.

The teenager, identified only as P, eventually had an abortion in Gdansk, some 500 kilometres from her home, after the Ministry of Health intervened.

The Strasbourg-based court declared the abortion refusal was "inhumane and degrading", and said the girl did not receive objective medical counseling.

The court ordered Poland to pay compensation of 30,000 euros to the girl and 15,000 to her mother, who favoured an abortion.

Polish attorney Karina Walinowicz called the European court's verdict "completely out of order and conflicting with Polish law".

"I'm really worried this could dangerously impact future cases," she told the Catholic News Agency. 
Poland's current law allows for abortion in three cases: rape or incest, if the mother's health is at grave risk, or if the fetus suffers from a disease or malformation.

Poland and Ireland are the only two countries in the European Union which have not implemented the EU's abortion laws.

Anette Ignatowicz, a former policy advisor for European Dignity Watch, an organisation that investigates EU institutions, called the court's decision "yet another attempt to push legalising abortion in Poland".

Opinion polls show that Poles are becoming increasing pro-life, with 76 per cent of those aged 15 to 24 favouring a total ban on abortion.

According to one of Poland's biggest opinion poll agency, CBOS, those who viewed abortion as acceptable went down dramatically from 65 per cent in 1993 to 9 per cent in 2011. Another Polish market research agency, Grupa IQS, found that 65 per cent of Poles viewed abortion as unacceptable in 2011.

Sources:

Catholic News Agency

Reuters

Image: Asbarez.com

Right to Life had argued many abortions were wrongly approved on mental health grounds and called for the Abortion Supervisory Committee to investigate.

The group had sought a judicial review of the committee's assertion that it has no oversight of the individual decisions made by certifying consultants who approve abortions.

High Court judge Justice Forrest Miller ruled in the group's favour in 2008, noting there was "reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions".

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision last year , and Right to Life appealed.

In a split decision yesterday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of three to two.

The article entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva was electronically pre-published by the Journal of Medical Ethics

Catholic bioethicist John Kleinsman who is Director of The Nathaniel Centre, the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre, says the prospect of deliberately killing children after birth is appalling but he agrees that if society allows abortion, there is no rational basis for forbidding the killing fo the new born.

"While I'm appalled about infanticide, I think it actually highlights, really, the problems with abortion."

"If society allows abortions then there is no logical reason to say 'no' to infanticide," he says. "This way of thinking turns children into commodities to be disposed of at will."

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics has defended his actions. He said that the arguments presented were are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.

"The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide - the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer - but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands," he said

Read After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Source:

• New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference
• Journal of Medical Ethics Blogs
• NZ City.com
• Image: The Blaze

• One in five were performed on teenagers
• 44% were performed after the first nine weeks of pregnancy.
• For 39% it was not their first abortion
• The overall rate dropped from 19.2 per thousand women in 2009 to 18.1 in 2010
• The highest age-group rate (33 per thousand women) was for women aged between 20 and 24

Family First welcomed drop in the number of abortions, but expressed concern about a number of issues revealed in the statistics.

Family First spokesperson Bob McCoskrie also drew attention to a University of Otago study in 2008 which found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.

Right to Life sued the Abortion Supervisory Committee for allegedly failing to review whether certifying consultants were lawfully granting women abortions. Right to Life said many abortions were wrongfully allowed on the grounds that keeping the baby would be a "threat to the women's mental health".

In a High Court decision in 2008, Justice Forrest Miller said: "There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants." He was presiding over a case in which Right to Life New Zealand (RTL) sued the committee for alleged failure to perform its functions under the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act. Justice Miller rejected Right to Life's arguments that an unborn child had any legal right to life under abortion law, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, common law or international law.

Source

• www.stuff.co.nz
• www.NZherald
• Image: National Catholic Register