An egregious attack on peaceful freedom of speech, peaceful freedom of assembly, peaceful freedom of religion
The National Executive Committee of Voice for Life New Zealand respectfully makes the following submission to the Health Select Committee regarding the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill.
We express complete opposition to this amendment as it is an egregious attack on peaceful freedom of speech, peaceful freedom of assembly, peaceful freedom of religion, and perhaps most poignantly, the freedom to peacefully reach out in humanity and care for abortion minded pregnant people.
The proposed amendment attacks our right to peaceful free speech and assembly.
The purpose of the government isn’t to give us rights, for rights are inherent in our very human nature. It is, however, the duty of the government to protect our rights. In New Zealand the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act of 1993 cement this point.
Concurrently, there is no natural right to an elective termination of pregnancy, regardless of whether the government views otherwise. As such the Abortion Act of 2020 is legal fiction. Therefore, subjectively opinionated rights, however frequently practiced in reality, do not supersede inherent human rights that are required to further a functional and free democratic society, such as peaceful freedom of speech and assembly. While the right to bodily sovereignty is important, there are numerous laws that express a vested interest by the government in the usages of our bodies, for example, laws regarding smoking, drinking, illicit drug use, and even taxation.
It is already expressed within both these aforementioned Acts, as well as criminal law, that disorderly conduct or incitement of violence are not protected speech and can be effectively dealt with by the authorities. It is worrying that this government appears to hold a fetishized view of elective termination of pregnancy [abortion], with the intention to protect it at all costs, including silencing any who speak or act peacefully in opposition.
Likewise, it is extremely offensive and an egregious assault on the right to freedom of religion to seek to legally recognise peaceful public prayer and outreach as somehow abusive, torturous and therefore criminal.
Right now, in various countries there are individuals being tortured, held without the guarantee of a free and fair trial, people who will be executed on trumped up charges, or no charges at all. To claim, as some politicians have, that peaceful prayer, hymn singing, or pro-life protest is tantamount to torture demeans these genuine victims of such abhorrent human rights abuses.
Furthermore, it lessens the credibility of those who make these hyperbolic statements. It shows us that some of our politicians lack basic knowledge about both the geopolitical climate and the experiences some people have under violent regimes; thus, to compare it with peaceful pro-life protest and outreach is morally repugnant, legally questionable and shows a shocking lack of a basic understanding of many people’s suffering under tyrannical rule.
It is unnecessary and has been rejected by independent legal experts.
Voice for Life would ask of those claiming that this amendment is needed, to provide actual verifiable evidence that violence and harassment against abortion staff and abortion minded pregnant people is taking place on such a frequent basis that current laws are incapable of addressing these incidents, and therefore new legislation that significantly hinders the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and religion is required.
The experts from the New Zealand Law Commission already addressed this question in their 2018 Alternative approaches to abortion law Ministerial briefing paper that was commissioned by the Government.
As part of that 237-page special report they investigated and reported back to the Government about the issue of so-called ‘safe zones’ legislation.
Their rejection of this proposal could not have been any clearer or more resounding, by the NZ Law Commission, and NZ abortion providers, when they state on page 178 of their report (emphasis added):
12.12 The Commission sought input from health professional bodies, abortion service providers and health practitioners about safe access zones. The majority felt that safe access zones were not needed. The Abortion Providers Group Aotearoa New Zealand (APGANZ) explained that only a minority of clinics had been targeted by distressing behaviour around their premises. Some abortion service providers reported that where women had been harassed or distressed by demonstrators in the past, Police responded effectively by moving the protestors on. Family Planning New Zealand noted that in its experience Police only intervened if demonstrators attempted to verbally engage with patients or staff at the clinic.
12.13 Some health professional bodies and practitioners thought that, if more abortions were performed through a greater range of community health care providers, it would become more difficult for demonstrators to target premises where abortions are performed. Some were concerned that safe access zones could serve to emphasise demarcation around abortion clinics and encourage demonstrations at the zone boundaries.
12.14 The Commission has not seen any clear evidence that the existing laws around intimidating and anti-social behaviour are inadequate, as would be required to justify the introduction of safe access zones. The Commission is also mindful that safe access zones would have to be considered for consistency with rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, such as the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Any limits on those rights through the imposition of safe access zones would need to be carefully considered to ensure they are reasonable and justified.
12.15 For these reasons, the Commission does not suggest the introduction of safe access zones. However, if demonstration activity were to intensify in the future, the Government could consider such a reform.
The Law Commission and the abortion practitioners and health authorities they interviewed could not have been clearer - there is absolutely no sound justification for the prolapsed legislative change in New Zealand.
It is an attack on truly free choice.
Under the previous abortion law there was a basic requirement by abortion providers to inform pregnant people of their options. However, under the new system there is not that obligation.
Over the decades numerous people have reported to us and our contacts in pregnancy and post abortion counselling services, that many pregnant people were not truly given a full explanation of their options when they met with abortion providers. Many individuals have reported to us that they felt abortion was pushed on them as the best option and all other alternatives were seen as burdensome or impossible in their particular situation.
Upon further counselling after their abortion from individuals and services not related to the initial abortion provider, these people found that they could have indeed been supported through their pregnancy journey and into parenting or adoption/Whangai. This realisation has caused these individuals great emotional distress, for many, they are still finding a way to recover.
We’re also aware that many pregnant people have approached pro-lifers outside of abortion facilities, and through open communication and assistance, were able to continue their pregnancies, well supported and with needs met.
It is often argued by abortion proponents that when accessing abortion services, the pregnant person has already made up their mind. This is insulting to pregnant people, and to individuals as a whole. It shows a lack of understanding of the human decision-making process, and that yes, some people can change their minds, especially when presented with further information.
The pregnant person is no exception. They have the choice to approach the pro-lifers on the sidewalk and to engage in discussion with them. They have the choice to contact pro-life pregnancy centres. They have the choice to hear the pro-life advocate’s arguments and the choice to accept or refuse their offers of assistance.
In many cases we have heard from pregnant people that the pro-lifers outside of these facilities were the only individuals that gave them an alternative view to abortion. That their partners, father of their unborn child, their parents, their family, their Whānau, their friends, and obviously the medical system, all pushed them towards abortion. How is that pro-choice?
It is not for the abortion industry or politicians to determine that abortion is the best option to present first and most strongly, while other options are referenced in a more cursory and less informative manner.
If the abortion industry in this country was truly pro-choice and provided fair and equal representation and education as to all alternatives to a pregnancy journey, then pregnant people wouldn’t be approaching pro-lifers for assistance. Those who hold peaceful vigil outside abortion facilities are responding to a need that the abortion industry is refusing to meet or even acknowledge.
To ban the pro-lifer from public witness not only attacks important human rights, but it also harms the right of the pregnant people to engage with whomever they please, and be fully informed of all options that exist for them.
Furthermore, due to the nature of abortion service provision in New Zealand, most of our abortion clinics are located within hospitals or buildings that house other services and businesses. It is next to impossible for pro-lifers standing outside these facilities to truly know who is entering the premises with the expressed purpose of obtaining an abortion. Therefore, pro-lifers are unable to target pregnant people directly, and to make claims that their very existence on a sidewalk is somehow “triggering” is offensive to the pregnant person’s ability to self-regulate their feelings and responses. No matter how traumatic their pregnancy journey and abortion decisions have been thus far, if the abortion industry truly cared about pregnant people, then the emotional support, they offer during the abortion process would be sufficient to offset any hurt feelings by someone with a sign offering help.
In conclusion,
This proposed legislation has been soundly rejected by the New Zealand Law Commission and the abortion practitioners and healthcare experts they interviewed about this proposal.
This proposed legislation is illegal in light of The Bill of Rights Act 1990 and The Human Rights Act 1993.
This proposed legislation is an attack on our inherent human right to stand in peaceful presence, and to offer humane assistance to abortion minded pregnant people.
This proposed legislation is an attack on our inherent right to peaceful freedom of religious belief and expression.
This proposed legislation is an attack on our inherent human right to peaceful free speech.
This proposed legislation is an attack on our inherent human right to peaceful free assembly.
This proposed legislation is an attack on the pregnant person’s ability to engage with individuals at their own choosing.
This proposed legislation is completely unnecessary, and no substantive evidence has been provided for its requirement.
This proposed legislation is superfluous as there are already means within established laws to protect the public and pregnant people in the tiny minority of cases where genuine threats of violence, intimidation or other criminal acts occur.
To reiterate once again, the National Executive Committee representing Voice for Life New Zealand stands in firm opposition to this proposed legislation and the egregious abuse of human rights that it represents.
