9 August 2012
Media Release
Supreme Court Confirms Duty of Abortion Supervisory Committee to Hold Certifying Consultants Accountable for Abortions
they Authorise
Right to Life welcomes the judgment of the Supreme Court. The judgment declined the appeal of Right to Life by three to
two, it however:
• Affirms the duty of the Abortion Supervisory to enquire from certifying consultants how they were approaching their
decision making in general.
• The Court noted that the Committee had the power to revoke the appointment of certifying consultants where enquiries
the Committee makes lead it to believe that consultants are holding views incompatible with the tenor of the Act. The
Committee may refer to the Health and Disability Commissioner or the medical disciplinary authorities, the case of a
consultant authorising abortions inconsistent with the abortion law.
Right to Life, is however, disappointed that the Supreme Court dismissed the first grounds of our appeal of the
judgment of the Court of Appeal. This ground sought recognition that the Committee had the power to review or scrutinise
the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent
necessary to perform its functions.
Right to Life notes that 98 per cent of abortions are authorised on the grounds of mental health. Right to Life also
notes that a previous chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, stated in a national newspaper in 2000 that she
did not believe that all these women were suffering from mental ill health and that consultants were using mental health
grounds to provide abortion on demand.
This is an unprecedented judgment. It now places certifying consultants on notice that the Committee has power to make
generalized inquiries into the way they are carrying out their functions. The judgment also informs the Committee that
they were mistaken in believing that they had no statutory duty or power to make these enquires.
Right to Life expects that with the implementation of this judgment that:
• It should place restraints on the abortion on demand regime that prevails in New Zealand.
• It advances the human rights of unborn children in receiving the full protection of the law.
• It advances protection for the health and welfare of women from the violence of abortion.
Unborn children are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Right to Life is confident that the
government will ensure that women and their unborn will receive the full protection of the law afforded by this
judgment.
This judgment is a positive step towards Right to Life’s objective of the legal recognition, that from the moment of
conception every human being is endowed with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life. These rights
are inalienable and universal. From conception, the new human being should be accorded the respect and protection due to
the person. Abortion is violence against women and their unborn, it is an unspeakable crime and a violation of the human
rights of the mother and her unborn child. This is the justice issue of our era.
ENDS