Stuff catches NZ First abortion errors but plays down what changed in 2020

In brief

• Stuff identifies several errors in NZ First candidate Elizabeth Mundt’s claims about New Zealand’s abortion law.
  • But while Stuff picks apart Mundt’s arguments, the 2020 law did substantially liberalise abortion access.
    • It removed the previous statutory grounds and two-consultant approval requirement for abortions up to 20 weeks, and replaced the stricter later-term test with a broader “clinically appropriate” standard.
      • New Zealand has no fixed upper gestational limit and, ironically, Penfold’s correction shows the law is less restrictive than Mundt claimed because the second practitioner need only be consulted, not agree.Stuff’s Paula Penfold’s fact-check of claims by NZ First candidate Elizabeth Mundt about New Zealand’s abortion law makes several legitimate corrections. But she glosses over Mundt’s underlying point. Namely, that New Zealand significantly liberalised its abortion law in 2020. Where Mundt got it wrong Penfold’s article framing appeared to be aimed at making Mundt,  who is a critic of the current law, appear reactionary. Yet there were genuine inaccuracies in Mundt’s statements such as an alarming claim about babies being left in hospital sluice rooms. According to Penfold, Mundt made the statements without producing evidence that this is happening in New Zealand today.Penfold also said school staff have no special legal power to take students for abortions without parental knowledge.Penfold clarified Mundt’s claim about NZ First’s voting record. Mundt claimed all nine of the party’s MPs opposed the 2020 legislation, when only seven voted against it. However, all nine did vote against an amendment concerning fetal pain relief.What actually changed in 2020Before the 2020 overhaul, an abortion generally required approval from two certifying consultants and had to meet statutory grounds. Those requirements were removed for pregnancies of no more than 20 weeks. The reforms also introduced self-referral and widened the range of health practitioners who could provide abortion services.The test after 20 weeks was also changed. Under the previous law, an abortion at that stage generally had to be considered necessary to save the woman’s life or prevent serious and permanent harm to her physical or mental health. The present law instead requires a qualified practitioner to reasonably believe the abortion is “clinically appropriate in the circumstances”.The practitioner must consult another practitioner but does not need that person’s agreement. Mundt therefore described the process inaccurately, but in a way that made the law appear more restrictive than it actually is.Ironically, Penfold’s correction on this point actually strengthens Mundt’s underlying criticism. Mundt argued that the post-20-week threshold was too low, but overstated the safeguard by claiming two practitioners had to agree. In reality, the second practitioner has no veto over the procedure.No fixed upper gestational limitMundt was also right that New Zealand law contains no fixed upper gestational limit. It’s too much to say that abortion is available “on demand” until birth, because the post-20-week clinical test still applies. But an abortion at a very advanced stage is not automatically prohibited by a specific statutory time limit.Mundt claimed that “a baby can be killed right up to the day of birth”. Penfold is right that there is no evidence healthy, full-term pregnancies are routinely being terminated. But Mundt’s claim was about what the law permits, not how routinely it occurs. The available annual figures combine all abortions after 20 weeks and do not show how many occurred at each later stage of pregnancy.Where Stuff’s fact-check falls shortPenfold also spends time pointing out that there was no legislation formally called the “full-term abortion bill”. That is technically correct, but Mundt was plainly using a political description rather than attempting to give the bill’s official title.Likewise, the legislation had been under development well before COVID reached New Zealand. Mundt therefore cannot establish that it was designed to be passed under cover of the pandemic. Nevertheless, its final parliamentary vote occurred shortly before the first national lockdown, so the timing itself is not invented.Re-published from the Centrist with permissionOriginal article at The Centrist