Jackie Edmond: Wiser words needed in abortion debate

COMMENT:

Abortion is one of those subjects on which a wise man speaks out about the right of a woman to make the choice that is best for her. Abortion is one of those subjects where a wise man recognises that the specialist knowledge of health providers should inform the framework through which abortion services are provided. Abortion is one of those subjects on which a wise man thinks that a modern legal framework will deliver a better and more women-focused service.

Sadly, John Roughan has taken the power of his platform and used it to present an ill-informed personal opinion rather than the real-life experiences of people faced with an unintended pregnancy (NZ Herald, July 15).

So much is wrong in so few words, but we would like the opportunity to respond directly to some of the more egregious comments he made.

"New Zealand had its abortion debate in the 1970s." Does Mr Roughan think that a debate 40 years ago is sufficient? Are debates of the 60s and 70s considered to be the final word on their issues? Does he recall that at the time the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act was passed, Parliament had four women MPs – all of whom voted against the legislation. What is he suggesting – that we should tell women that they had their chance for change in the 1970s – sorry about that? We've advanced the cause of gay marriage and implemented homosexual law reform, yet the issue of abortion, it seems, is one Mr Roughan would have us discuss only in delicate language and only to the extent necessary. This seems, in his world view, not to require any change.

The Law Commission review of abortion law was a meticulous exercise. Opportunity was given for feedback on ways to treat abortion as a health issue – and this is the precise reason that it should come out of the Crimes Act. Criminal code does not make good health law.

Criminal code makes women jump through hoops, attend medically unnecessary appointments and repeat their story to multiple strangers. Good evidenced-based health care and information would instead surround these women with people who can support their decision. His assertion that "I believe removing abortion from the Crimes Act now would change little" shows he hasn't actually done his research into the issue.

Providing abortion as health care is critical – including those terminations that happen later in a pregnancy, noting that these are less than one per cent of all abortions. Expert submitters to the Law Commission review said that the situation for a woman and her pregnancy can deteriorate quickly. Law is a crude tool to proscribe how services will be provided in these circumstances – what is needed is clinical expertise to provide compassionate and quality care for the woman – and for her baby where possible.

Finally, Mr Roughan is wrong to think this issue is causing Jacinda Adern nightmares.

Most recently the New Zealand Medical Journal published data taken from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Survey which found that 67.5 per cent of New Zealanders support legal abortion regardless of the reason. Jacinda Adern is likely keenly aware this is not the 1970s, and the world and New Zealand now understand access to abortion to be an essential part of sexual and reproductive health care and should be treated as such.

We need to trust women to make the decision about if and when to have a child, based on their own beliefs, values and circumstances, talking with their partners, their families and other people they trust: right now two doctors decide for them.

Our current laws are broken, resulting in delays in accessing services, inefficient provision, variation in what services are available across the country and inequitable access, particularly for Māori, Pasifika people, rural women and women on a low income.

We need a law that puts women's health needs at the centre – we're confident all wise men would agree with that.

• Jackie Edmond is chief executive of Family Planning New Zealand