It is predictable that the anti-abortion movement has sought to distort the current government's initiatives for constructive change to our abortion laws.

Christchurch SPUC argues that the current mental health grounds for abortion access are illegitimate. Given that third parties have been forbidden access to women's confidential medical records related to abortion since 1982, how does Christchurch SPUC verify what seems to be mere innuendo? Some psychologists argue that reactive depression is a possible response to an unwanted pregnancy, and it is cited in medical textbooks as such. It is not difficult to suggest that economic hardship may worsen women's mental health in the context of unwanted pregnancy.

Christchurch SPUC also seems to be unaware that the Code of Health and Disability Consumers Rights would protect anti-abortion women from harassment and coercion, and also requires medical practitioners to state their identity and affiliations, and refer them on to an amenable colleague.

Finally, Christchurch SPUC advocates the Status of the Unborn Child Bill, a draconian anti-abortion legislative proposal that would ban abortion except in the case of physical risks to a woman's life, which could be subject to judicial review. Given the current shortfall in social services, poor women would die from backstreet abortions under such circumstances. Moreover, Christchurch SPUC also has connections to the Christian Heritage Party, which favours tightened criteria for social security benefit access.

Pro-life or pro-lie?

ends

© Scoop Media