12 June 2009
Media Release

Abortion Supervisory Committee Rejects High Court Judgment

The Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] in a letter to all certifying consultants' rejects major conclusions of the judgment of Justice Miller made in the High Court in Wellington in June 2008. The letter dated 21 May stated: You may be aware that statements have been made that abortions are available "on demand" or that "if a woman wishes to have an abortion she will be able to get one."

"The Committee believes those comments to be incorrect and unfounded. It is confident that certifying consultants have been and are continuing to act in good faith and to apply the law as it is contained in the Crimes Act and the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act."

This is an astounding statement that defies the judgment of Justice Miller. Why is the ASC in denial? By what authority does the ASC, a statutory body appointed and accountable to Parliament ignore a High Court judgment?

Justice Miller stated in his judgment that "there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended."

"In my opinion, the statistics and the committee's comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster's view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request" Dr Christine Forster was chairperson of the ASC from June 1993 - August 2001, a period of eight years.

This is a very serious issue concerning the life and death of unborn children, since 1977 more that 350,000 unborn New Zealanders have had their lives violently terminated in the womb. The judgment of Justice Miller expresses doubt about the lawfulness of many of these abortions. That means that many children have had their lives terminated unlawfully, their human rights cruelly violated.

In the light of Justice Miller's judgment it is inappropriate that the ASC should write to all consultants advising them to ignore the conclusions of the judgment, to express confidence in the lawfulness of their authorisations of abortions and to advise them to continue to apply the law as they have done previously. Prolife New Zealand calls upon the ASC to write to consultants, withdrawing their previous letter and alerting them to the findings of the judgment.

ENDS

© Scoop Media