UNITING
SUBMISSION ON THE CHOICE OF TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL
(B72-2003)
The Uniting Presbyterian Church in
1.
Introduction
The question
of abortion is both a highly emotive and intricate one, involving the interests
of the mother, the child, the father, the family and the community. We, as a
church, have wrestled with this issue for a number of years but realize that
our stance has to be informed by both thorough research and the grace to apply
the truth.
At the 2006
General Assembly held at
“Human life must be respected and
protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of
his/her existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a
person-among which are the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
It is
therefore our duty and joy to communicate the value of all human life and to
defend mothers, children and fathers and even the health workers from all forms
of abuse or injury.
This submission should not in any way be interpreted as our acceptance of the
present terms of the Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1996, but as a
sincere attempt to inform the Provincial Health Committee hearing and limit
further injury and abuse.
We therefore
take this opportunity to encourage the government of
2.
Concerns regarding the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill, 2003
Just legislation must be unambiguous, clearly interpreted and enforceable and
the Amendment Bill raises several concerns;
2.1. Counselling and Informed consent
Adequate counselling as to the significant health risks and complications
associated with undergoing an abortion is not taking place presently.
A number of women are now suffering the consequences of abortions and were not
given enough information with which to make an informed choice. Some women have
died whilst undergoing legal abortions.
It has been pointed out that immuno-compromised women are more susceptible to
infections and complications arising from the surgical intrusion of an abortion
and would generally be healthier and less vulnerable to infection if they had
been allowed to give birth to the child naturally at full term.
We are dealing pastorally with a number of women suffering from a psychological
condition widely known as Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS), the women involved were
not informed of the possibility of psychological suffering after an abortion.
In recent research, a pro-choice Professor David M. Ferguson described abortion
as a “traumatic life event; that is, it involves loss, it involves grief, it
involves difficulties. And the trauma may, in fact, predispose people to having
mental illness.”
Abortion has
conclusively been linked with several diseases yet the Amendment Bill makes no
mention of the moral responsibility and legal accountability of abortion
practitioners to fully inform their patients. E.g. the rupture of the uterus is
listed as one of the more common and potentially life threatening injuries
experienced in a legal abortion.
The post-abortion women (and fathers) will soon be asking for justice (and
compensation), just as tobacco companies and mines have had to pay for the
consequences of their neglect. There is evidence that tobacco companies
deliberately suppressed information and medical research that demonstrated the
link between smoking and several diseases.
In future
court cases, this very document could be cited as an example to demonstrate
that the government was sufficiently informed of the risks and dangers of its
abortion legislation and practices.
Is the government making provision for the financial and legal implications of
its deliberate actions?
The
Amendment Bill offers us an opportunity to fix accountability to the specific
practitioners; we believe this oversight needs attention.
2.2 The designation of facilities
It is noted that the Amendment Bill proposes a further relaxation of criteria
and increases the expectation of the public that all institutions should
provide abortion facilities, even if it is contrary to the institution’s ethos.
Abortions
require specialized equipment and need the services of specialists, please do
not relax the original legislation.
2.3
Relaxing of the qualifications required for persons practicing abortions
Firstly;
there is the widening of the scope of practice for registered nurses to be
initiating the abortions.
It is noted that the Amendment Bill would permit a medical practitioner in
consultation with a registered nurse to terminate a pregnancy after the 20th
week (2.c. of TOP 1996).
The
implications of this have not been discussed within the nursing profession
itself.
We would submit that registered nurses are not adequately trained or
sufficiently informed to be able to give a reasonable and accurate diagnosis
and prognosis as suggested in the original act.
Such a diagnosis requires the observation of signs and symptoms and the
interpretation of results from sophisticated diagnostic equipment and ultra
sound. These results are not always conclusive.
Given that both registered nurses and midwives are usually either in the employ
of or under the direction and discipline of the medical practitioner making the
initial judgment, they cannot easily give a truly unbiased and independent
opinion; this is a very serious loophole and could lead to much abuse.
Secondly;
the term “prescribed training course” is too vague as the “prescribed training
course” is vulnerable to further adjustment and the erosion of curriculum
standards. If the standards of this “prescribed training course” were lowered,
they would further increase the exposure and risk to the health and safety of
the mother and the abortion practitioner.
What assurances does the Amendment Bill give the people of
A high
degree of training is required for surgical interventions, yet it is suggested
that registered nurses are able to perform such practices. We are deeply
concerned about this and advocate that you remove this clause from the
Amendment Bill.
2.4
Freedom of Conscience Clause
In every democracy, the rights of the people to make informed choices are
protected.
Private and state medical institutions are applying more pressure on nurses and
doctors to coerce them to perform abortions against their religious and ethical
beliefs. These health care professionals are sometimes being discriminated
against solely on the grounds of their refusal to perform abortions. The
discrimination ranges from suggested disloyalty (to the share holders/profit
motives of private health care institutions) to the suggestion of the
contravention/denial of the rights of a woman to have an abortion in a state
institution (in the misuse of paragraph 10.c. of TOP 1996). Sometimes these
people have been denied promotion or transferred to other wards against their
wishes. This is a form of persecution.
It has been argued that the rights of such people are enshrined in the
Constitution but in practice, applications to the
It is interesting to read in the Holy Bible in Exodus 1:15-22 that the
midwives, Shiphrah and Puah who resisted the attempts of pharaoh to limit the
“strength” of the nation of Israel are mentioned by name, such is the regard
that God has for people who do what is right, whereas the pharaoh’s name is not
known, it has been suggested that he is perhaps not worth mentioning.
The proposed
Amendment Bill does not offer any protection for health professionals to
observe their convictions. This protection should be stipulated in the
Amendment Bill.
2.5
Gestational Age Parameters
In the justification of an abortion in the second and third trimester of
pregnancy based on the grounds of “severe physical or mental
abnormality”/”severe malformation of the foetus” (paragraph 2. b. ii. and 2. c.
ii. of TOP 1996 respectively):
The terms “severe physical or mental abnormality” and “severe malformation” are
too vague.
When a term is not clear it is exposed to a wide interpretation.
It is noted that in certain countries, the relatively minor cosmetic
abnormality of a hare lip has been cited as an abnormality sufficiently serious
to justify a legal abortion in the second and third term. The terms “serious
abnormality” and “severe malformation” must therefore be defined in the
Amendment Bill.
2.6
Reporting
The legislated reporting of statistics is presently not being followed
(paragraph 7:3 of the TOP 1996). Indeed, as you are aware, the government
abortion statistics for 2006 are still not complete.
No record is kept of abortion related injuries and deaths (sustained by mothers
and health workers).
The Amendment Bill should tighten up the responsibility and accountability for
accurate record keeping.
2.7
Penalties and Offences
We believe the stipulated penalties for the non-compliance in such important
legislation are too light. Private institutions perform abortions for financial
gain; we believe the financial attraction must be balanced by strict
accountability and severe financial consequences in the case of non-compliance.
The Amendment Bill offers an opportunity to address this.
3.
Conclusion
The UPCSA is applying its efforts to translate its commitment to the sanctity
of human life in providing viable alternatives to abortion.
We are committed to dialogue and participation and hereby request an
opportunity to present our views on the proposed Amendment Bill to parliament.
With this,
albeit brief, exposure of the Amendment Bill to public comment the government
of
You have the opportunity to be remembered for bringing justice to our land.
We would encourage you to seize this opportunity.
References can be provided for any of the above statements and suggestions for
additional reading are available for each of the above mentioned points.
REV. J. SMITH: CONVENOR, LIFE CONCERNS COMMITTEE On behalf of THE
MODERATOR OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITING PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN
SOUTHERN AFRICA
10 August 2007