President: Alicia Murray | Vice-President: Kellie Arthur
The theme of 2019 was Me too: Where to? This aimed to build awareness and make sure momentum is used to advance the position of women in the profession and generally
Hon. Dame Helen Winkelmann GNZM presented at the annual Dame Silvia Cartwright lecture.
AWLA submitted on the Abortion Legislation Bill and presented oral submissions to the Select Committee.
On 24 March 2020, changes were made to the law to decriminalise abortion, better align the regulation of abortion services with other health services and modernise the legal framework for abortion services in Aotearoa New Zealand. Prior to this, abortion care was regulated under the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act) and the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 (CSA Act). Under the Crimes Act and the CSA Act, abortion was only legal in Aotearoa New Zealand on certain grounds, such as to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person, incest, or foetal impairment. However, in practice, elective abortion care had been effectively available for several decades, but pregnant people had to maintain a fiction that they were suffering from mental illness in order to access that care.
The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 (Act) now allows for unrestricted access to abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, and repealing sections of the Crimes Act related to unlawful abortion. After the 20-week period, pregnant people seeking an abortion must consult a qualified health practitioner who will assess their physical health, mental health, and well-being. The Act also provides provisions for conscientious objection rights for medical practitioners and exempts abortion services from certain Crimes Act provisions, while extending the definition of health services to include abortion services under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
Karlene O’Halloran and Erica Burke drafted submissions on behalf of AWLA on the Abortion Legislation Bill and delivered oral submissions, along with then President of AWLA, Alicia Murray, to the Select Committee on 8 October 2019. AWLA submitted broadly in favour of the bill, but argued for the following changes:
- The need for the bill to replace the term “woman” with “pregnant person” so as to adopt language inclusive to trans, intersex and gender fluid people who wish to access abortion care;
- The removal of a legal test to be determined from a gestational limit on abortion care;
- The need for the automatic establishment of safe areas around abortion facilities to ensure the safety and privacy of pregnant people seeking abortion care; and
- The removal for the ability of a health practitioner to object to providing abortion services and information due to their personal moral beliefs.
AWLA did not support the imposition of a gestational limit on a pregnant person’s ability to access healthcare. Its view was that the right to reproductive decision-making should lie solely with pregnant people, unencumbered by arbitrary statutory limitations nor be subject to others’ personal beliefs. Restricting a pregnant person’s ability to independently decide whether and when to have children undermines the overall capability of that person to determine their own futures. AWLA submitted that a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions is synonymous with gender equality and that abortion access should be treated within the legal system as a healthcare issue and any statutory tests determining such access should be removed.
In relation to the 20 week gestational limit proposed by the Abortion Legislation Bill, AWLA pointed to statistics showing that less than 1% of abortions in 2018 occurred after 20 weeks gestation. A foetal anatomy scan is usually performed at 18-20 weeks gestational age, and is seen as a watershed moment in any pregnancy. The 20 week limit does not factor time for foetal testing results to be received, understood and considered by pregnant people. In reality, pregnancies that continue into the late second and early third trimesters are typically wanted pregnancies. Those who must access abortion care at that stage are frequently in crisis and those who do are typically doing so with informed consent based on the advice they have been presented by their health practitioner. AWLA submitted that the 20 week threshold was unnecessary, did not align with current medical testing practice and should be removed.
In relation to safe areas, AWLA submitted that there was enough evidence of intimidation and harassment of pregnant people seeking abortion in Aotearoa New Zealand to justify the automatic imposition of safe areas. It is unjust for pregnant people to have to first suffer harassment and threats to their personal security in order for abortion care providers to apply to have a safe area established around their facility. Automatic safe areas, AWLA submitted, were not a limitation on freedom of speech or expression and that any perceived limitation was outweighed by the pregnant person’s right to safety while accessing health care.
AWLA submitted that conscientious objection to providing patients with abortion services and information was not acceptable, and that a healthcare professional should at least be required to provide a pregnant person with a referral to a practitioner who will perform an abortion. This was submitted to be the absolute minimum standard of care that health practitioners are duty bound to afford to their patients.
AWLA’s oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee were well received and praised for their thoroughness and usefulness to the Select Committee.
AWLA wrote to the NZLS raising concerns with the application process to practise on one’s own account regarding hours requirements and questions asked in interviews.
AWLA provided a list of candidates for nomination to the High Court bench.
The AWLA constitution was amended to modernise it.