Funding measures implemented during Republican administrations, such as the Hyde Amendment barring federal funds for abortion procedures, and the Mexico City Policy banning government funding of international abortions, would also be nullified. The Senate companion bill, S. The measure has no Republican supporters in either chamber—indicative of the sharp ideological divide over abortion in the two parties.
He also edits and writes articles for the IronSet blog where he shares his experiences. Andrey knows everything from warm-up to hard workout. Skip to content Users questions. Plan 1 How many countries in the world is abortion legal? Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. Government U. Foreign Policy U. Liberal Politics U. Linda Napikoski. Linda Napikoski, J.
Updated September 18, Cite this Article Format. Napikoski, Linda. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision. Wade Case. This includes issuing licenses to institutions and appointment of certifying consultants. The process itself is relatively simple.
Wherever a women seeks to have an abortion from a medical practitioner, that individual will refer her to a certified consultant, if they are not one themselves. The law requires that two certified consultants authorize the abortion. In determining the case the consultants must consider the case to one that is consistent with the terms set out in the Crimes Act CA , which will be discussed noel 3.
Abortion is prima facie illegal in New Zealand. The Crimes Act sass sets out that very person who with the intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman by way of the unlawful administration of any poison or drug, any instrument, or any other means, is liable for imprisonment. Section AAA sets out that any such act will be unlawful, unless it satisfies any of the set out exceptions.
Those exceptions are: a that the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl; or AAA that there is a absentia risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped; or b that the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse between?
I a parent and child; or ii a brother and sister, whether of the whole blood or of the half blood; or iii a grandparent and grandchild; or c that the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse that constitutes an offence against section 1 ; or d that the woman or girl is severely subnormal within the meaning of section 2. It also should be noted that these exceptions apply only to pregnancies of no more Han 20 weeks.
After 20 weeks abortion is only available where it would be necessary to save the life of the mother, or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health.
So abortion is available in New Zealand where the continuance of the pregnancy would cause serious mental or physical danger to the mother. The basis of this test is certifying consultants, based on their medical expertise. Obviously this is necessary, as the criteria are inherently medically subjective.
The problem is that Act provides no guidance for the interpretation of these principles. As such Consultants are applying the section liberally, with little consideration.
How then does New Zealand compare to other jurisdictions? The decision is particularly relevant because it addresses the current isolation, and many of the issues raised in this text. Namely that the current framework is being applied superficially, and without real consideration. The action was brought by the Right To Life, pro life advocacy group. It alleged that the ABS had misinterpreted its statutory duties, in that it had not been reviewing or calling for review of particular abortion cases.
Which they alleged meant the law was being misapplied. In the High Court the Judge made note of the fact that the Committee had mentioned hat it seemed as though the law was being applied more liberally than intended. The court considered that there had to be some concern over these figures and found the Committee had misinterpreted it function, and had the power to call for individual reports. At this stage the importance of the decision was immense.
The repercussions of such a decision would mean that the ABS had a duty to regulate the granting of abortions, and could call for individual reports from consultants where appropriate. The result would be that consultants would be unable to pass every, or most abortions along under the mental health category, without due course.
Obviously this would stricken abortion, as consultants would have to Justify their decisions. However the ABS appealed to the Court of Appeal, who overruled the High Courts decision, and considered that the Judge should not have made the comments he had.
Right To Life appealed to the Supreme Court. The majority held that the committee could not review individual cases, whether before or after the event, and so dismissed the appeal.
The court considered that any misgivings with the current law should be addressed by parliament, and it was not for the Supreme Court to weigh in on such sensitive matters. To maintain consistency and in accordance with the policy. Abortion in the I-J requires that two registered medical practitioners certify that the required medical grounds set out in the Abortion Act have been satisfied. The grounds for abortion are where continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical, or mental health of the woman.
Also there are grounds for abortion where there is a risk of severe mental or physical abnormalities. So in considering an application a Doctor must weigh up the mental danger to the woman in continuing the pregnancy, against the mental health of the women in terminating. However in practice, this seems to have little effect, as the abortion rate in the I-J is similar to our own.
Indeed many non-residents travel to the I-J for abortions. Many residents of Ireland travel to the I-J every year to circumvent their own stricter laws. The laws of the UK have shaped our own enormously, and so it is not surprising that e still take our cue from them. Decisions such as Bourne have led to a very liberal application of abortion in the I-J. Ireland Ireland has one of the most restrictive views towards abortion. Abortion has been illegal since the founding of the republic.
The original source of law stems from the Offences Against the Person Act , the same legislation New Zealand adopted. In Ireland this act remains the governing legislation on abortion. Procuring an abortion is still illegal if procured unlawfully, however the act does not specify any circumstances that will not be unlawful. Even while the I-J were beginning to take a such more liberal stance to abortion via decisions such as Bourne Ireland was consolidating its strict stance.
Where as before one could not obtain an abortion in Ireland, it was relatively easy to obtain in the I-J.
0コメント