(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Fucking what now? The review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (conducted under pressure from Right to Life NZ) has led Justice Forrest Miller to say that the legality of many abortions in NZ is questionable.

Fucking christ. I'm giving money to Women's National Abortion Campaign right now. This is such a big deal, people. D: D: D:

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of torn. In a sense it would be nice to have the legislation tidied up, to prevent this sort of ambush-challenge. On the other hand, legislation is only valuable in what it achieves, and the current legislation was working well, albeit with a lot of fudge in practice.

The current legislation is definitely an artifact of an extremely fearsome debate and was probably a good compromise at the time. But attitudes to abortion have moved on massively in the last thirty years - there were only a handful of women in Parliament at the time, quite apart from anything else.

It's kind of a messy issue. I don't think there's a single party in Parliament, not even United Future, that has an issue with the idea of free access to abortion. On the other hand, plenty of them would be willing to pick up the votes of people angry at Labour's stance on abortion, even if such people are likely to be a minority. I suppose it's possible Labour or even National might move, but both groups are likely to depict it as legislative tinkering - a technical issue rather than a policy issue. That means they will basically step back from any ideological debate.

What I guess I don't understand is why this is happened now. The current consensus has always been opposed by groups like Family First. It's endured through thirty years of extremely tense political competition. Why is it only now that a Judge has made this finding? What has changed in the last thirty years - or even in the last five?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

In 2004, 23/27 National MPs - including John Key - voted (unsuccessfully) for teenage girls being legally forced to inform their parents if they had an abortion. And Bill English's wife is part of a anti-abortion group. While that doesn't _automatically_ make him anti-abortion, it's worth noting. I think that there are more conservatives in Parliament on this issue than are willing to let on about it. Of course, the fact that they're unwilling to talk about it means they feel that the public attitude is against them, but....

I think the issue's come up now because the court case has finally gone through, basically. Maybe combined with growing anti-reporductive-rights views overseas.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I have a suspicion one could find some anti-abortion sentiment lurking around the fringes of the Labour Party too (although one less now that Phillip Taito Field has left the Party), to say nothing of Jim Anderton, but your point is well taken. I always viewed that teenage girls thing as a trojan horse for being anti-abortion - it would be very hard to argue that one of its main effects would have been less abortions occurring, so the Nat's stance is revealing (Shamefully, I was actually unaware it ever came to a formal vote).

But at least in the current Parliament I don't think there is actually a majority for the law as it formally stands. That might not be the case after November, particularly if National gets a significant new intake that reflects its' members views.

What I'd like to know is why these sorts of things always get shilled off as a conscience vote. I've never been happy with it. It must be very hard for a voter who feels strongly about reproductive rights (or for that matter prostitution law reform or civil unions) to decide which party to vote for on that basis, because the parties don't publish manifestos saying how each of their individual MPs will vote in these circumstances.

I think the issue's come up now because the court case has finally gone through, basically. Maybe combined with growing anti-reporductive-rights views overseas.

Technically, I think it's a Judicial Review of administrative decisions, rather than a Court Case. But given that Family First and their ideological predecessors have been banging on about this for donkey's years, why has it taken so long? Or did it just take them this long to decide (or get themselves sufficiently together) to mount a formal judicial challenge?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Or did it just take them this long to decide (or get themselves sufficiently together) to mount a formal judicial challenge?

That'd be my guess. In some ways I'm surprised it's taken this long.


What I'd like to know is why these sorts of things always get shilled off as a conscience vote. I've never been happy with it. It must be very hard for a voter who feels strongly about reproductive rights (or for that matter prostitution law reform or civil unions) to decide which party to vote for on that basis, because the parties don't publish manifestos saying how each of their individual MPs will vote in these circumstances.

I think it was the pro-choice lady on the radio this morning who said that conscience votes are dumb because they're just an excuse for MPs to break party lines and get away with it. I kind of agree. If your party can have a solid opinion on every other policy (and mostly people _don't_ break party lines for conscience votes) they can have one for things like abortion. The "will of the people" thing is bullshit; unless you're gonna go to your electorate and have a referendum on the issue, you're voting either a) what you feel like or b) what people lobbying you have made you think your electorate feels like, neither of which is actually reflecting your electorate's opinion. If you have one. If you don't....you were voted in as part of your party; have a party line and follow it.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right re: MPs, but it's even more of a blinder with List MPs in the mix.

Unfortunately there's no way to make parties enforce party discipline, and ultimately MPs who feel strongly may evade it anyway. But I do wish the public would be a lot more sceptical about conscience votes. Sadly the media likes them, possibly because they allow a lot of frenetic speculation, and many lobby groups do as well, presumably because it basically sanctions their attempts to get to MPs directly rather than to go through the public. I always feel rather cold when I hear a lobby group calling for an issue to be made a conscience vote.

IMO the only situation in which a conscience vote could be justified is one in which some genuinely new, unique, unprecedented situation came up which party manifestos hadn't even peripherally addressed. Short of alien invasion, I can't think of one.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

IMO the only situation in which a conscience vote could be justified is one in which some genuinely new, unique, unprecedented situation came up which party manifestos hadn't even peripherally addressed. Short of alien invasion, I can't think of one.

And you can bet if there _was_ an alien invasion it would be party lines all the way on the grounds that it came under foreign policy. Or something.

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

We did have a change in the structure of our courts such that you no longer have massive legal fees to appear in England as our highest court level. This could be some form of ancillary effect of the (presumably) increased availability of judicial review of legislation.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Possibly, but my intuition is that a group like Family First, no strangers to large stacks of cash, would not find the need to travel to the UK to press their case a major obstacle.

Kind of funny if it was the case, since Family First are generally aligned with the political parties that opposed the setup of the Supreme Court.