Judge rules no rights infringed by abortion law

A group of health professionals opposed to abortion have lost a court case over whether their rights were infringed if they had to tell a woman where to find contact details of abortion providers.

The Health Professionals Alliance members are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds.

A law change in March 2020 required practitioners to give a woman seeking an abortion at least the information needed to find an abortion services.

‘‘They say to provide this information would make them complicit in the abortion process, which they say involves the taking of human life and is contrary to their most fundamental beliefs,’’ Justice Rebecca Ellis said in her decision in the High Court in Wellington.

The practitioners also objected to the law allowing employers to prefer an employee or prospective employee who was prepared to assist in the abortion process, so the employer could meet their obligation to provide abortion services.

They wanted the court to make declarations the law was inconsistent with various rights protected under the Bill of Rights Act.

The judge found none of the rights were infringed or limited in the way alleged. Even if the rights had been limited, the limits could be shown to be justified in a free and democratic society.

Under the new law a pregnant woman can seek an abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy without needing to meet any legal test.

After 20 weeks, abortion is allowed only if a health practitioner decides it is ‘‘clinically appropriate in the circumstances’’ and has consulted with at least one other health practitioner.

Delay in finding a provider of abortion services could cause health risks for the pregnant woman, as well as additional cost and stress, the judge said.

Before the law changed a health practitioner could refuse to help in the abortion process, but had to tell the woman she could obtain the service from another unspecified doctor or a family planning clinic.

Now a practitioner with a conscientious objection is obliged to tell the woman of their objection and how to find the contact details of the nearest service provider.

The judge described it as a ‘‘minimal and remote act’’ not even requiring a referral to a service provider, and did not amount to taking part in the process.

Employers have to accommodate conscientious objections of employees or job seekers, unless it would cause unreasonable disruption.

The Health Professionals Alliance said the law change infringed rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, expression, freedom to manifest their religion and beliefs, the right to be free from discrimination, and the rights of minorities.

Justice Ellis said impeding access to abortion services without delay could constitute an infringement of the rights of others.

The judge was told abortion services were not uniformly available across New Zealand, and some women faced delays and had to travel to another area to get an abortion.