Freedom to choose

Mana (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 6, 15 September 1977, Page 8

Freedom to choose

The view of Mrs T. W. M. Tirikatene-Sullivan (Southern Maori, MP)

Under Clause 3 of the Bill the law relating to the availability of contraception to people under the age of 16 is not appreciably changed. In this, 1 believe there is scant recognition of the fact that New Zealand has the third highest teenage pregnancy rate in the industrialised world and that adolescent mothers face a 60% higher maternal death risk as well as a higher rate of toxaemia and anaemia. It should also be realised that little is done about the needs of the rejected child, although much is said about the rights of the unborn chilcT. Society has not yet provided acceptable alternatives to the compulsory carriage to full term of an unwanted pregnancy. Following a mother’s decision that she cannot care for the expected child, society must step in and provide acceptable, totally adequate alternative care, if it compels her to bear that child. Aotea Clinic The Bill would stop the work being done by the Aotea Clinic, which performs 4,000 legal abortions a year. Under the new section in the Crimes Act these abortions would still be legal, and the House, therefore, should not proceed with this measure until an assurance is given by the Health Department that facilities to perform a similar number of abortions with the same speed and safety can be guaranteed in the public sector. It would be irresponsible to do anything to impede the work of the Auckland clinic until such an assurance is given, assuming that abortions will still be needed and sought by women. 1 believe that the Bill we are discussing violates the human right of those women who believe they cannot cope with carrying a pregnancy through to full term. Must we, as women, be compelled to accept that we are carriers of life, despite our private will and all our intellectual comprehension that we do not wish, at a given time of our lives, to accept this role? The Bill has clauses that contravene a woman’s personal liberty because freedom from unwanted reproduction is the very essence of woman’s equality. It does not acknowledge a woman’s right to determine her own maternity; that is, to control her reproduction potential. The oppression of woman is derived from her womaness. Her biological difference has been used to build social structures and a supportive ideology of female submission an ideology so entrenched that woman herself has come to believe it. This is a pity, for women are themselves divided on this issue because of this. This issue alone has, unfortunately, created and sustained division among women at a time when

they are, through the thrust of the feminist movement, striving for complete emancipation of themselves as individuals. Abortion is a woman’s issue, and it is fundamental to a woman’s ability to participate equally in society. Fact of Life. The Bill ignores the reality that abortion is a fact of life practised in all cultures and civilisations from time immemorial; and Maori culture is no exception. The need for abortion has long been demonstrated, and women will continue to seek if outside the provisions of this Bill if necessary. It will revive the traffic in back-street abortions. It is a law that the rich can very skilfully get round because they are more wealthy than others. New Zealand women who cannot afford a trip across the Tasman will find themselves in a new discriminated group. For the rich, the whole system can be sidestepped by a trip to Australia, as everyone knows. Conclusion. My final observation is that if every child were a wanted child — and the Bill does not provide for that — society would be transcribed. We would see the positive effect in our criminal statistics and in statistics relating to many other phenomena arising in our social scene — the unemployable, unemployed youth, those who contravene our laws. 1 suspect that many of those younger psople were unwanted children. 1 look forward to participating again in the debate on this Bill and to introducing some amendments along the lines of my criticism.