Waring Call For Eight Abortion Answers (Press, 23 December 1977)

On 23 December 1977, Miss Marilyn Waring, a Government backbencher, called on the Minister of Justice, Mr Thomson, for a comprehensive explanation regarding the new abortion law under the Crimes Amendment Act. She expressed concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the law, particularly amongst medical professionals. Waring noted that she had received numerous inquiries from doctors who were unclear about the implications of the legislation. The Prime Minister had also indicated an interest in seeking advice concerning specific aspects of the new law. Waring posed a series of questions to Mr Thomson, highlighting the urgency and gravity of the situation. First, she asked how women expecting to obtain abortions through certifying consultants would be able to do so before the consultants became operative in April 1978. She queried where doctors should seek clear legal interpretations of the new law without risking their professional standing. Waring sought reassurance that doctors performing abortions would not face prosecution under the new law, especially since the certifying consultants were not yet available for operational duties. Additionally, she inquired if doctors would be held responsible for decisions regarding abortion until the supervisory committee and consultants took over in April. Waring requested clarification on whether certain actions, such as the insertion of an IUD after rape to procure an abortion, would be deemed illegal under the new legal definitions of abortion and miscarriage. She also questioned the legality of using prostaglandins on pregnant women and the legal status of women seeking menstrual extraction based on their belief of potential pregnancy. Waring emphasised the necessity for counselling services for women undergoing all stages of the abortion process before the law's full implementation in April. She planned to seek opinions from legal experts and academics regarding these questions and aimed to release her queries to the press, asserting the urgent need for prompt responses. In the context of the new law, Mr R. Jones, president of the Auckland Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Society, supported Mr Thomson’s position regarding the emotional distress faced by women carrying abnormal fetuses, advocating for abortion in such circumstances. However, he noted that while the new law prohibits abortion solely due to an abnormal fetus, it still allows for procedures based on threats to the mother’s health. Contrarily, Mr R. Clough, a trustee of the Auckland Medical Aid Centre, argued against Thomson’s interpretation of the law concerning the provision stating that abortion would be illegal if the danger to the mother could be mitigated by other means. Clough claimed that such language in the law was inherently restrictive, questioning the expectation that doctors would not be unduly burdened by potential legal consequences. He underscored the need for legal assurances and highlighted the risks faced by medical practitioners under the new legal framework.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand