ALRANZ calls upon the New Zealand government to reject dangerous, unproven medical procedures purporting to reverse abortions.
In light of the new government’s uncertain approach to abortion care, ALRANZ seeks confirmation that calls from anti-abortion radicals in New Zealand for the health service to approve (and legitimise) so-called ‘abortion reversal’ will fall upon deaf ears.
ALRANZ executive committee member and board-certified Obstetrician Gynaecologist, Dr Dionne Mills-Sillik says, “There is no such thing as abortion reversal. If someone is pregnant and takes abortion inducing pills, we cannot stop the effects once it has already been ingested. Large doses of progesterone have not been proven to negate the effects of the mifepristone-misoprostol combination with enough consistency and safety to permit anyone to make such claims, and it is irresponsible, insensitive, and malicious to claim otherwise.”
Dr Helen Paterson, Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago, and Gynaecologist states, “It is dangerous and there is no evidence that it works. The data show that taking mifepristone followed by progesterone is associated with a significant increase in major bleeding requiring hospitalisation. There have been no high-quality studies showing this therapy is effective. Thus, as far as we know to date, this is high risk for no benefit. If someone does not want an abortion, they should not start an abortion process.”
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and DECIDE.org provide clear information that abortions cannot be reversed and that this practice is not supported in New Zealand Aotearoa. There are also clear guidelines that are available to any member of the public through the Ministry of Health’s website if anyone chooses to look for them: New Zealand Aotearoa Abortion Clinical Guideline
ALRANZ trusts medical professionals and researchers, not ideologically motivated anti-choice, anti-abortion groups who have not provided any evidence to support the ‘abortion reversal’ protocol.
ALRANZ calls on the government to follow its own rhetoric and reject policies based on ideology in favour of policies supported by evidence-based, peer-reviewed science.
On 14 October 2023, Aotearoa New Zealand will go to the polls to vote on who they want to represent them in Parliament. ALRANZ has been consistent that reproductive rights are on the ballot this election. From implementing safe areas, to funding contraception, to the general global rollback of women’s rights, voters should be confident they are voting for a party that can be trusted with these important issues. ALRANZ has gathered data on five different metrics for these scorecards from publicly available sources in order to make an assessment on which parties will be good for reproductive rights, and which parties will stagnate (or even reverse) progress.
First, Act (well, David Seymour) voted in favour of abortion law reform in 2020 and has been a long-standing proponent of the idea the state should not interfere in private medical decisions. While ultimately voting yes to safe areas in 2022, David Seymour was the reason the provision was removed from law reform in 2020. Furthermore, both David Seymour and Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden have made public comments expressing concerns about safe areas and freedom of speech. (You can read ALRANZ’s position on those concerns here.) ALRANZ is therefore unconvinced ACT would actually implement safe areas if they got into power. There is no mention of anything related to women’s health, rights, or reproductive justice in the rest of ACT’s material for this election.
The Green Party have been consistent and dedicated allies to the reproductive justice movement. The entire caucus voted in favour of both law reform and safe areas. The caucus has also been outspoken on issues of reproductive justice globally, issuing statements on things like the overturn of Roe v Wade in the United States. While not specifically mentioning future issues to do with reproductive rights, the Green Party manifesto mentions involvement in 0800 DECIDE, and notes the Green Party wants to finalise and resource the women’s health strategy. The women’s health strategy includes issues of access to contraception. ALRANZ is confident on the Green Party’s commitment to reproductive justice.
80 per cent of the Labour Party caucus voted in favour of abortion law reform in 2020. The top 5 on Labour’s current list (Chris Hipkins, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Grant Roberston and Megan Woods) all voted in favour. 95 per cent of the Labour caucus voted in favour of safe areas, all MPs in the top 20 on Labour’s current list. This commitment on paper has become a reality: 11 providers have had safe areas implemented under a Labour-led government and Labour introduced the 0800 DECIDE helpline. The information about Labour’s position on issues of reproductive justice are easy to find in their “women’s health manifesto”, which shows these issues are a priority for them. Labour have comprehensive policies on maternal health, birth injuries, cervical cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis treatment, funding period products in school, removing prescription fees for access to contraception and increasing Pharmac funding to explore birth control options.
The National Party have a chequered history with reproductive rights. Just 35 per cent of caucus voted in favour of law reform in 2020. In the National Party’s current list, number 4 and 5 (Shane Reti and Paul Goldsmith) both voted no. While all of the top 5 (along with 73 per cent of the caucus) voted yes to safe areas in 2022, ALRANZ is sceptical of National’s willingness to preserve or implement safe areas given Reti and Goldsmith would be the Ministers of Health and Justice (respectively) under a National-led government. National do not have a general women’s health policy, but have committed to expanding free breast cancer screenings. National wish to re-introduce prescription fees for contraceptive drugs, although Deputy Leader Nicola Willis did hint National were “looking into” long acting reversal contraceptives (LARCs). ALRANZ is concerned about a National led government in large part due to the anti-choice beliefs of leader Christopher Luxon. This is reflected in his caucus: 50 per cent of National’s top 20 got a downwards vote from ALRANZ in our previous scorecard.
New Zealand First were the only party to get a score in the negative numbers, in large part due to their complete silence on all issues of women’s rights and reproductive justice. Publicly, what we know is that just 22 per cent of the New Zealand First caucus (two MPs) voted for law reform in 2020. Winston Peters, Shane Jones and Mark Patterson all voted no (numbers 1, 2 and 5 on the New Zealand First list). Both Te Pāti Māori MPs voted yes on safe areas in 2022, but otherwise have shown little public engagement with issues of reproductive rights. Some of this may be due to the health policy on their website being a dead link. Finally, TOP’s website contained easy-to-find policies, including one on fully funding contraception (including LARCs), fully funding antenatal ultrasounds and prioritising women’s health. Despite not being in Parliament during law reform or safe areas, TOP have been dedicated and consistent advocates of reproductive justice (and great friends to ALRANZ).
While who to vote for is a choice for each individual voter, ALRANZ implores everyone to decide what level of risk you comfortable with this election. Because we only need to look overseas to see the devastating effects electing people who are not pro-choice can have.
If you believe any information on this scorecard is not an accurate reflection of a party’s policy or position, please contact ALRANZ here. Please include in your message a reference to publicly available information that contradicts what ALRANZ has said.
The National Party released its list for the 2023 election this weekend. ALRANZ has looked at how these candidates voted on law reform in 2020, safe areas in 2021, and their public comments on abortion to determine whether they support abortion rights or not. Does this look like a party you would trust to advance reproductive rights in Aotearoa New Zealand?
ALRANZ Abortion Rights Aotearoa stands in unwavering solidarity with Queer Endurance/Defiance, who are organizing the Rally for Trans Acceptance and Reproductive Rights in Wellington on Sunday 26th March at 1.30pm.
The rally responds to the speaking tour of anti-trans, anti-abortion and anti-contraception UK extremist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, known as Posie Parker. Immigration New Zealand is allowing Keen-Minshull to travel to New Zealand despite her links with white supremacists. ALRANZ strongly condemns Keen-Minshull’s hateful and divisive views. Her extremist rhetoric aims to harm and marginalize individuals, particularly women and gender minorities, and restrict their access to vital reproductive healthcare.
After a strong neo-nazi presence at Keen-Minshulls’ Hobart rally and her anti-trans hate speech, prime minister Chris Hipkins has condemned the use of free speech to incite hatred and violence. ALRANZ spokesperson Fleur Kelsey states “her anti-trans extremist hate speech is not welcome here and does not reflect the views of the majority of New Zealanders” and urges Immigration New Zealand to reconsider and deny Keen-Minshulls’ entry to Aotearoa immediately.
ALRANZ is committed to upholding the rights of queer and trans people to gender affirming and reproductive healthcare which meets their needs. We urge supporters and allies to join in solidarity at this rally if you are able to. Together, we can drown out the voices of hate and bigotry and show support for the marginalized in our communities.
One in three women in the UK will have an abortion in her lifetime. But despite being a common medical procedure, abortion – which was partially legalised 50 years ago this month – continues to be stigmatised in the media and elsewhere in many different ways, meaning it is rarely talked about.
One abortion may be viewed as a reasonable “get out of jail free” card; having more than one abortion is often presented as beyond the pale. A woman might be able to decide she cannot continue with a pregnancy once, but to do so more than once speaks of her irresponsibility, fecklessness and failure to use contraception.
We recently carried out research on women in Scotland who’d had more than one abortion. Our findings highlighted some key barriers faced by women seeking abortions, which fail to be recognised because of commonly-held assumptions. These relate to problems with contraception, intimate partner violence, life aspirations and social or economic disadvantage. And what do these problems have in common? They are all factors over which a woman may have little or no control, and which are compounded by feelings of shame and stigma.
Problems with contraception
Finding the right contraceptive can be difficult for some women; options remain relatively limited, and side effects can be disruptive and offputtingly grim. Plus, contraception does not always work, and the burden of trying to ensure that it does continues to fall disproportionately to women.
What some may find most surprising is that most women in our study were using contraception when they became pregnant – particularly those who had undergone a previous abortion. For most interviewees it was the failure of condoms or the pill that resulted in their most recent pregnancy. Many had tried other “long acting” methods, such as contraceptive implants or intrauterine devices in the past, but had experienced problems. What this suggests is that women are not treating abortion “like contraception”, but are having problems finding a method that suits and works for them and their partner.
Domestic violence
The link between intimate partner violence and abortion has long been acknowledged, and abortion clinic staff are trained to look out for signs of an abusive relationship. We found that for many women seeking more than one abortion, experiences of violent or controlling relationships were common and contributed to their decision to end a pregnancy on at least one occasion.
For some, this included partners refusing to use condoms or let the woman use the pill. For others, escalating physical violence led to the termination of a planned pregnancy, or meant that abortion was the only way to break ties with an aggressive or violent man.
Aspirations and disadvantage
Reproductive rights advocates often point out that the power to decide if and when to have a pregnancy is fundamental to gender equality. Women need to be able to decide if and when they want to be pregnant in order to have the kinds of lives that they want.
Issues relating to life aspirations and social or economic disadvantage loomed large in women’s decisions to seek abortion more than once, with many citing not having their own home, still being in full-time education and career or other life ambitions as reasons they did not want to be pregnant. Their experiences suggested that caring commitments, concerns about existing children, and financial instability were also significant factors.
‘Here I am again’
The fact that women may increasingly be trying to obtain abortion medications via the internet has recently received attention. For some women we spoke to, this was the case primarily because they felt so uncomfortable about having to return to their local abortion service, admit that it had happened again and face what they believed would be negative judgement from health professionals. For some who did return to services, this attitude was all too real.
Beyond those who sought options online, many women we spoke to had also experienced significant health problems prior to their pregnancies, including severe anxiety and depression. Their need to prioritise their own health had contributed to their decisions to seek abortion. Unfortunately, feelings of shame arising from the stigma around abortion had in turn had a negative impact on their mental well-being in the short term. For some, this meant they felt unable to talk to friends or family, even when they had been previously supportive, for fear of being judged for making the same “mistake” again.
What this all points to is that there needs to be less focus on how many abortions women have and less judgement of those seeking more than one. Instead we need greater focus on the gender inequalities which result in women bearing the brunt of pregnancy prevention and experiencing violence in intimate relationships.
No woman should be deemed irresponsible, feckless, or a failure for needing more than one abortion. And no woman should see her life aspirations, physical or mental health stymied by pregnancies she does not want or feel able to continue.
