It is predictable that the anti-abortion movement has sought to distort the current government's initiatives for
constructive change to our abortion laws.
Christchurch SPUC argues that the current mental health grounds for abortion access are illegitimate. Given that third
parties have been forbidden access to women's confidential medical records related to abortion since 1982, how does
Christchurch SPUC verify what seems to be mere innuendo? Some psychologists argue that reactive depression is a possible
response to an unwanted pregnancy, and it is cited in medical textbooks as such. It is not difficult to suggest that
economic hardship may worsen women's mental health in the context of unwanted pregnancy.
Christchurch SPUC also seems to be unaware that the Code of Health and Disability Consumers Rights would protect
anti-abortion women from harassment and coercion, and also requires medical practitioners to state their identity and
affiliations, and refer them on to an amenable colleague.
Finally, Christchurch SPUC advocates the Status of the Unborn Child Bill, a draconian anti-abortion legislative proposal
that would ban abortion except in the case of physical risks to a woman's life, which could be subject to judicial
review. Given the current shortfall in social services, poor women would die from backstreet abortions under such
circumstances. Moreover, Christchurch SPUC also has connections to the Christian Heritage Party, which favours tightened
criteria for social security benefit access.
Pro-life or pro-lie?