The Women's National Abortion Action Campaign was initiated to campaign for the removal of all restrictions on women's right to control their own reproductive lives. We believe that one of the most outstanding injustices to women in New Zealand is the fact that restrictions on this right still exist, a right which we feel is basic and essential for the achievement of real emancipation and human dignity for the female sex.

To quote from a leaflet we distribute:—"It is a woman's fundamental right to decide for herself when and if she will bear children, to have control over her own body. This right is presently denied by the laws prohibiting abortion, by the laws prohibiting those under 16 from obtaining contraceptives, by the lack of free, easily available contraception and sterilisation, and by the backward altitude of our educational institutions towards realistic sex education. All women suffer to some extent in this situation, but those with means suffer less than poorer women. The right to be free from the fear of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth must become a reality for all women."

A Novel Idea?

Our point of view on abortion and birth control in general is far from new; it has been put forward for decades by women all over the world. From the beginning of the twentieth century, women in many countries have demanded and fought for the legalisation of abortion, on basically the same grounds that we do: that women have a right to freedom of choice in a matter concerning them so closely.

Our own New Zealand experience is worth noting here. In 1936, the major women's organisations in this country were among those who made submissions to a Committee of Inquiry into the incidence of septic abortion. Widespread concern had been expressed at the rise in the number of women dying as a result of illegal abortion over the preceding years. The case for legal abortion was put forward, and, according to the Committee's report (NZ Parliament. Appendix to the Journals. 1937-38, v3, H-31A.) the sentiment behind it was substantially backed by public opinion.

On page 11 the report states: "It is clear that, whether the motives be worthy or selfish, women of all classes are demanding the right to decide how many children they will have."

And on page 18: "Evidence was given by responsible and representative women in support of a mother's right to say when she will bear her children..."

However, the Committee chose to ignore these opinions, to characterise this right of women as a "privilege", and to recommend as a "solution" to the problem of illegal abortion a strong appeal to the womanhood of New Zealand to overcome their "selfishness' and respect the "priveleges of motherhood"!

We sincerely hope the women of New Zealand will not be offered the same "solution" in 1974.

Science and Social Policy

Women have always wanted control over their reproductive lives. What is new is the possibility today for meeting that desire easily and safely. Medical science can now provide women with complete security against unplanned childbirth.

The great advances in contraception made in the past few decades have raised women's expectations. Sexual relationships need no longer be fraught with anxiety about unwanted pregnancy, anxiety which has been a blight on the lives of virtually all women and which no man ever has to experience.

The new methods of early abortion which have been developed can further dispel that anxiety by providing a simple, non-traumatic solution to contraceptive failure.

Undoubtedly, if we had a positive social policy, both pre-and post-conception birth control methods could be even further improved.

Such advances can be of real benefit to women and can greatly enhance their feelings of security and dignity, by giving them control over an important area of their lives.

Yet we are faced with the absurd contradiction that these advances are being denied to women.

Contraceptives are not legally available to all. They are costly, they are not readily accessible, and, they are simply denied to some by doctors who refuse in prescribe them for their own personal reasons. Women cannot effectively choose to prevent pregnancy unless they have all the means of prevention available to them.

We have laws prohibiting abortion, the origin of which dates back to last century. For most women who conceive accidentally, the only alternative offered by this society is compulsory continuation of pregnancy. The fight to choose, which was never guaranteed before conception, is definitely unavailable after it, except to the few who have the cash and the connections And their "choice", involving as it does clandestine activity and possible risk to health, is just as degrading alternative. Equally degrading is the manner in which the law allows abortion only to those whose health is seriously endangered or those who are prepared to have themselves certified to be on the verge of mental collapse.

Sterilisation operations are refused to women on the grounds that they have not produced sufficient children. Many gynacecologists do not consider women fit to make such a decision for themselves, and they arrogantly make it for them. Applicants for sterilisation operations are also required to obtain the consent of their spouse, even if they are separated from them.

Sex education in our high schools is a farce. By the time they receive it, young people today are already aware of how to produce a pregnancy; what they want to know is how to prevent it.

Effects of Restrictions on the right to choose

Since abortion has been labelled a crime, it is extremely difficult to get an accurate picture of how many women suffer through lack of access to safe, legal abortion. The facts are buried under a heap of secrecy and hypocrisy, The-only serious study we know of is the National Research Bureau Survey made in early 1972, which was commissioned by the Abortion Law Reform Association. That survey estimated that about 6,500 illegal abortions were taking place annually. It also estimated that attempts at abortion totalled about 11,000 a year.

There are other figures which have bearing on this question, such as the continuing high rate of births outside marriage, the numbers of women under 16 who give birth, and the proportion of brides who are pregnant, which is widely claimed to be one in three. It would be ridiculous to pretend that all the births involved in these cases were voluntary. The area in which it is most difficult to see the effects of abortion laws is that of married women, having no recourse to adoption, these women must resign themselves to additions to their family if they have an unwanted pregnancy. According to the above-men-Honed survey, married women constitute well over half of those seeking abortion.

Our case does not stand on numbers alone. If an injustice is being done, it matters little whether it is to one person or one million, it is still an injustice. But it is clear to us that the abortion laws and other restrictions on birth control have been responsible for bringing a great deal of strain and misery into the lives of many thousands of women over the years.

The Wider Implications

Women's susceptibility to the unplanned birth of a child is used to discriminate against them in employment and throughout public life. Employers refuse to promote women or accept them for positions of responsibility on the grounds that they might get pregnant and have to leave. Only a few years ago, a large national bank had a policy of sacking women upon marriage, in anticipation of their becoming pregnant! Mortgage finance is refused to women on these grounds also. In fact, when women try to make any kind of long-term commitment, they come up against this barrier of being considered a "poor risk".

We wish to state here that we firmly believe there should be no handicaps placed on women simply because they have children, and we would draw the committee's attention to other submissions which deal with the need for maternity leave, childcare and so on. But we insist that if women are to be able to enjoy equal opportunity with men, they must be given the means to plan their lives, and this includes the means to exercise freedom page break of choice over when and if to have children.

This woman was the victim of a criminal abortion. Her body was photographed exactly as it was found by police in a bloody and barren motel room; exactly as it had been abandoned there by an unskilled, profiteering abortionist. Becoming frightened when "something went wrong" he left her to die alone.

The Current Controversy

Since this submission is presented during a period of significant public interest in the issues of abortion, we wish to deal with the main arguments raised against our case for women's right to choose abortion.

1) "Abortion is murder"

This argument is raised on the claim that a foetus is a "human being" The point at which it is said to become a human being is the "moment of conception"

We consider this argument to be based purely on faith, not scientific knowledge. Science explains human life as a continuum, with the process of conception merely a stage along the way. If opponents of abortion wish to be consistent they should all oppose contraception as well, but only some of them do. The state has not upheld the view of this last group by banning non-medical use of contraceptives.

"Human life" is different from "human being", the fatter being the status accorded to all members of society. Embryonic human life has only the potential to become a human being. It is at birth that we begin life as social entities and it is at birth that society regards us as human beings, counting our age from that point. This is the prevailing attitude and it is a perfectly rational one.

One of the greatest inconsistencies of our opponents lies in the fact that they want the present abortion laws to remain, they do not propose a total ban on abortion. Yet the law allows abortion on wider grounds than for the preservation of the physiological life of the pregnant woman, which is presumably the only allowable ground for those to whom abortion is "murder". Anti-abortionists are therefore prepared to make exceptions to their own "rules" as they themselves see fit. Their slated concern for the "sanctity of human life" is merely a cover for their real intentions. Their main concern is to keep the decision out of women's reach, to contain abortion within limits acceptable to themselves.

2) "Abortion is dangerous"

Claims and counterclaims abound on this question. We believe, however, that there is no question that early abortions, performed on healthy women under proper medical conditions are even safer than childbirth. And the only way to ensure that most abortions can be carried out early, when they are safest, is to make sure that when women want them they get them, and are not kept waiting while someone else decides their late.

We concede that there are dangers inherent in the abortion procedure, just as there are in any operation. But how can they be compared to the dangers of illegal abortions performed by unqualified people?

It will be time to discuss the essential dangers involved in abortion when the practice is given the same priority and is researched equally as fully as are the methods of improving [unclear: lerthty] and maintaining pregnancy. If New Zealand can produce experts in these fields, surely it can do likewise for the cause of preventing unwanted births.

3) "Legalised abortion will mean overcrowded hospitals"

The end result of uninterrupted pregnancy is birth. Confinements take a lot more hospital time and space than straightforward abortion (which, incidentally, leave only one person to care for instead of two). Early abortions have been carried out successfully and safely overseas in clinics staffed by paramedical personnel; there is no need to increase the burdens on general practitioners.

Women should not be penalised for the failure of successive governments to provide an adequate medical service. Whether they want their pregnancies ended or carried to term, they should have access to proper medical care.

4) "Legal abortions will lead to permissiveness"

Here we get a little closer to the real motivation behind the anti-abortionists' campaign; the desire to enforce one morality (their own) for all.

Moral persuasion against extramarital sex being something of a lost cause, the self-appointed guardians of public morals try to discourage it with punishment. "Women must pay for their sins", it is said, on the assumption that all unwanted pregnancies occur outside marriage. But even married women are not to be spared: "Women must pay for their irresponsibility".

There are many reasons why women become pregnant unintentionally, not the least of them being ignorance of, or lack of access to effective contraception, for which we have these very moralists to blame.

It is barbaric to punish these women by insisting on unwanted births. And what effect does this have on the children who are born as a punishment?

We find such punitive attitudes abhorrent.

5) "Legal abortion will lead to euthanasia"

What we are seeking is women's right to control their own bodies. We find it hard to see how people can associate this with the killing of the aged or infirm. It seems to us that a society which accorded women this fundamental right fully (and nowhere in the world has this yet been done) would be a humane and just society.

Reference is frequently made to Nazi Germany in support of the above antiabortion argument as an example of what can happen when the "sanctity of human life" is violated. But the fact is that Hitler was a staunch guardian of prenatal (german) life and he ruthlessly suppressed abortion, invoking the death penalty for women charged with this "offence".

The Nazi example adds weight to our cause, not to that of opponents of abortion.

6) "The population will decline—the labour force will be depleted"

The comparison with Nazi Germany is more apt here. Women's rights are to be subordinated to what is claimed to be "the interests of the nation"! With precisely such philosophy did Hitler found his repressive regime.

There are more rational and humane ways to ensure a productive society than arbitrarily raising or lowering the population level. The idea of claiming population considerations to refuse a women the right not to have a child is as obnoxious as the idea of using that excuse to refuse her right to have a child. We would protest just as strongly if the tables were turned and women were being forced to have abortions. Freedom of choice is our major concern, not which of these choices is made.

7) "Abortion on request will deny men's rights"

A man should not be able to have children to order by forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. A right to decide for a father-to-be cannot be legislated for without condemning some women to compulsory motherhood. In any healthy relationship, mutual agreement would easily be arrived at without resort to the law. We are opposed to any measures which bolster the tradition of regarding women as breeding machines, and their children as property.

8) "Women will abuse the freedom to have abortions at will"

This is like saying that people will get sick on purpose to take advantage of free medical care.

The first line of defence against unwanted pregnancy is knowledge of and access to effective, safe contraception. If that defence fails, for whatever reason, the only one left is abortion. Since we do not believe abortion itself to be wrong, we have no moral objection to the number of times women resort to it. But if women did have really adequate protection against conception, it seems highly unlikely that they would deliberately choose abortion instead.

The right to act according to one's own conscience

We recognise that some people sincerely believe abortion to be morally wrong. We are aware that there are Catholic and other women whose beliefs would never allow them to consider abortion for themselves. We respect their point of view and do not ask for a moment that they act any differently from the way their consciences guide them.

We would appreciate a similarly generous outlook towards those who want legal abortion available. No-one should have the right to coerce another into acting against their will, especially when it is a matter concerning their own body. Anti-abortionists have no right to force their particular brand of page break morality onto the rest of the population through the laws of the land or through any other official channels.

Successive governments have been guilty of perpetrating the coercion of women by refusing to remove the restrictions on abortion. Recently, we have seen both sides of the Mouse assuring Members that should the abortion issue arise in Parliament they will have a "conscience" vote. It is the height of injustice and hypocrisy to propose to exercise this right to Parliament while continuing to deny it to the public. If it is a "conscience" issue, why docs the law have to come into it?

No concessions

We are opposed to the idea that restrictive abortion laws need only to be slightly reformed. We think that the right to control one's own body is absolute, and those woman who seek abortions for reasons of physical or mental health, rape, economic and family difficulties, or risk of foetal deformity have a double claim to this relief.

Being a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is sufficient qualification by itself.

In fact this is the only qualification that that the vast majority of women seeking abortion have. If it is not legally recognised, these women will continue to seek relief in self-abortion or back street abortion and the problems will continue as before. They want a solution to their problem, which is an unwanted pregnancy. There is no other solution but abortion.

"Better contraception" is no solution to a pregnant woman. She cannot turn back the clock.

Adoption is no solution either. It is inhuman to force a woman to bear a child she does not want. Childless couples must be helped by other means which do not depend on the sacrifice of a woman's dignity.

It is lack of respect for this dignity which leads to the inclusion of some restrictions in "liberalised" abortion laws overseas. Many people are fooled into thinking that partial reform, while it may not be all that is needed, will at least be "a step in the right direction".

We wish to point out why it will not, and why it will instead be a setback. We will go over the-four restrictions which are most commonly made:

1) "Abortions may be performed only in licensed hospitals"

The simple procedure required for most abortions can adequately be carried out in a clinic or doctor's office. Hospital boards are notoriously conservative. Already, fewer abortions and sterilisation operations are allowed in public hospitals compared to the number estimated to be done in private hospitals, where fees play a persuasive role. Restricting abortions to hospitals would help those who could pay large sums of money at the expense of those who could not.

There is no reason why women should be forced to leave their-fate in the hands of those who have proven themselves unsympathetic. This restriction has been put forward overseas by opponents of abortion who know full well what the results will be.

2) "Abortions may only be performed by licensed physicians"

This sounds reasonable enough at first, but a closer examination shows the following disadvantages:

Most doctors have neither the time nor the inclination to do abortions. Many have probably never had any more experience of abortion than a cursory study of it at medical school. If we train people in the special field of midwifery, why not train special auxiliary staff to do abortions?

In spite of claims to the contrary, this restriction will do little to prevent the operations of butchers and quacks, because it narrows the field too much. Women who could not get an appointment with a willing doctor in time would turn to the illegal racket for relief. The law provides for the punishment of those who practice medicine of any kind unlawfully. Illegal abortions will only be put out of business when doctors have the right to train the people they need to help them cope, and when women have the right to abortion at no more expense than other public medical care.

Looking ahead a little, this restriction would also deny women the right to use self-abortion techniques when they are perfected, which may be in the very near future.

3) "Abortions may not be performed beyond a certain point in pregnancy, unless the woman's life is at stake"

This kind of restriction essentially says this to a woman: (i) at a certain stage, your body suddenly belongs to the state and it can force you to have a child, whatever your own reasons for having an abortion late in pregnancy. (ii) because late abortion entails more risk to you than early abortion, the state must "protect" you even it your considered decision is that you want to run that risk and your doctor is willing to help you.

This [unclear: restrtion] insults women in the some way that our current abortion laws do: it assumes that we are lacking in the ability to judge a situation for ourselves and assume responsibility for our own decisions. This is the paternalistic assertion on which the abortion laws were originally founded.

We already allow abortion for medical reasons regardless of the possibility of foetal viability. And who can say with any certainty exactly the moment of viability is reached, of that it will not change from today's estimate with ever-increasing advances in technology? It one day it becomes possible to support a three-day-old fertilised egg outside the uterus, should that then become a reason to ban abortion altogether?

There are many reasons why a woman might seek a late abortion, and she should be able to obtain one legally it she wants it. She may suddenly discovery that she had German measles in early pregnancy and the foetus is deformed; she may have had a sudden mental breakdown, or some calamity may have changed the circumstances of her life. Whatever her reasons, she belongs to herself and not to the state.

4) "Abortions may he performed only when the married woman's husband or the young single woman's parents give their consent"

We have already indicated our point of view, on the "rights" of the lather-to-be Investing veto power in anyone but the pregnant woman herself violates even thing that the right to abortion should give her the freedom to decide for herself what happens to her own body.

Restrictions like these will bring about an equally unjust situation to that which we have now. They will satisfy to some extent those women who can buy their right to choose: they will make poorer women suffer.

A partially reformed law will give people the illusion that things have really changed, while in reality the female population has been saddled with the same basic denial of dignity and freedom.

We reject these methods of buying Women off. We want no concessions; we want women's rights.

What must be done in New Zealand?

We have in this country a history of innovation in social legislation. New Zealand women won the right to vote 27 years before their counterparts in the United States and 35 years before the women in Britain. We have since lost ground steadily in the field of women's rights, and this is particularly true of our record on the right of women to control their reproductive lives.

To correct the injustice of restrictions on this right, the government must implement the following programme as an urgent priority.

1) All laws restricting women's right to abortion must be repealed. No woman wanting an abortion should be refused. This may require the selling up of special clinics and hauling programmes for providing the qualified stall for them. Such clinics should be part of the free medical service.

2) All laws restricting access to contraceptives and advice on contraception must be repeated, Contraception must he readily obtainable and free on social security. Public educational campaigns to combat ignorance of effective contraceptive techniques should be launched by the government. These should be of an informational nature only and must not be directed against any particular social group because of its economic status of racial origin. Special efforts must be made to improve birth control methods, [unclear: mcluding aportion] and temporary sterilisation, so that there are entirely satisfactory methods for all women at all times.

3) All legal or other impediments on the right of a person, married of single, to voluntary sterilisation at their own request must be removed. Forced sterilisation, or attempt to impose sterilisation as pre-condition for abortion must be outlawed.

4) Sex education must be widely extended throughout the state education system and must include education on the means of preventing conception. Sex education must be on a factual basis and attempts to impose a particular moral view must not be allowed.

The curtain of hypocritical secrecy which has smothered the whole subject of birth control, particularly in regard to abortion, is beginning to bit. The second wave of feminism is encouraging women to speak out against the intrusion of the state into their own personal affairs, and against the paternalistic manipulation of their lives.

Women all over the world are demanding the right to control then own bodies, and here in New Zealand there is a growing number of women who are prepared to take a public stand for this right. It is our intention to coutinue to encourage this trend, to mobilise women into a vigorous campaign aimed at impressing upon the government the extent of concern over this issue and the urgent need for positive action.

We will not be bought off. We will not be satisfied until the right to choose has been won for every woman.