Basically it says you can have an abortion if the risk of having an abortion is less than the risk of giving birth. Which is, of course, most of the time.

I can’t think of any situation in which legal, aseptic abortion would be more dangerous than giving birth (except if the abortion were forced, in which case it would clearly be more psychologically risky than giving birth). So I agree with you that, as long as the people interpreting the law act reasonably, the law says that abortion is available on demand. The problem is if you get someone who doesn’t understand biology or statistics making the decisions. Then they might, untruthfully but with legal force, claim that abortion was riskier. So I’m not sure I like the law so much: it places too much power in the hands of the state still.

Sounds like a very pleasing state of affairs in New Zealand. Denmark as well.

That was kind of my point (that Polymath picked up on) - we’ve got a pleasing state of affairs with a law that is only slightly less restrictive than in South Dakota. The law is only one stage in the battle, it’s not the war.

Denmark also sounds like a lovely place and I don’t see a problem with making sure that the woman seeking an abortion has overtly been told that she will get economic help raising her child if she choses to have one”“if it’s true. In the US, “pregnancy crisis centers” sometimes falsely claim that they will provide material support to a woman and her child if she will have it rather than having an abortion, but they almost never come through with more than perhaps a box of diapers and a little formula.

It’s true, since it is part of the whole welfare system. This means that the help will only come into place, if the family (whatever it consists off) doesn’t earn enough to support itself. Also, the mother get a paid maternial (sp?) leave, even if she is unemployed, and the father can apply for it.

It’s also important to remember that two visits in Denmark is much less of a barrier than two visits in many parts of the US: Denmark is much smaller so the time and inconvenience of making two visits is much less (consider the distance traveled to get to a clinic by someone in rural Denmark versus, say, South Dakota or rural Montana.)

It’s even less of a barrier than you might think. Every person in Denmark is assigned a ‘family doctor’, that takes care of general medical checkups, including the first ‘visit’ in regards to the abortion. Except for people living on the countryside, all doctors have to live within 5 kilometers (approx 3 miles) of the person.
The actual abortion takes place at a hospital, which is father away, but the state will pay for the transportation if necessary.

Also, I should perhaps mention that an anti-abortion stance is regarded as political death in Denmark. There is one party (Kristlig Folkeparti - Christian Peoples’ Party) that is against abortion, but they are not in parliament, and don’t mention that particular stance much.
A since Denmark has a state church, priests are not debating abortion in general. One priest was fired a few yyears ago for participating in an anit-abortion rally in his priestly robes. This was regarded as inappropriate use of his work uniform, and an attempt to make it seem that the state church held an official view on the subject (which it very much doesn’t, other than acknowledging that it is a legal matter).

access and law don’t have as straight up relationship as you’d think

that’s actually quite well understood by the right wing in the U.S. they realize that they’re often in a political minority, so instead of restricting abortions by law, they restrict it by access: few hospitals/clinics/doctors that will perform them, economic barriers, and often even outright hostile intimidation. (which i’ve really never understood…what, they’re going to beat up a pregnant woman whose “baby” they want to save and risk harming it in the process?)

but my point is that it’s interesting how it works in the opposite way in N.Z., where creative interpretation has made access be no problem even if the law technically is.

I don’t know how Canada’s abortion laws vary. I suppose I ought to find out about British Columbia, as I’m thinking of trying to go to grad school there.

Sarah the UK is actually my favourite abortion law (I suspect the fact that I have a favourite abortion law condemns me to an unprecedented level of geekdom) - because it is such an elegant fudge. Basically it says you can have an abortion if the risk of having an abortion is less than the risk of giving birth. Which is, of course, most of the time. So it seems like a compromise, but it is actually abortion on demand.

Am I right in thinking Canada still has widely different access depending on the province?

I have no problem with women being told that the state will support them to raise the child before they have an abortion, as long as it’s true (and I’m all for it being true).

Sebastian while it’s true the intention of the law is being ignored, the letter of the law is being followed. If anyone is flouting the law it’s not the women getting the abortions, but the certifying consultants, and the abortion supervisory committee who appoint them

what typoe …you want).

I don’t usually tease people about their typos, especially given the number I make myself, but this one was too beautiful to ignore. I love the idea of being able to chose the typo you want. Actually, this one is nearly perfect: it doesn’t impede understanding what you meant yet adds an extra layer of meaning to the sentence.

Denmark also sounds like a lovely place and I don’t see a problem with making sure that the woman seeking an abortion has overtly been told that she will get economic help raising her child if she choses to have one–if it’s true. In the US, “pregnancy crisis centers” sometimes falsely claim that they will provide material support to a woman and her child if she will have it rather than having an abortion, but they almost never come through with more than perhaps a box of diapers and a little formula. It’s also important to remember that two visits in Denmark is much less of a barrier than two visits in many parts of the US: Denmark is much smaller so the time and inconvenience of making two visits is much less (consider the distance traveled to get to a clinic by someone in rural Denmark versus, say, South Dakota or rural Montana.)

The only thing that is even remotely like the US system, is the fact that the doctor that makes the appointment for the actual abortion, has to mention to the woman that the state of Denmark is willing to help support the child, if she chooses to give birth to it (this goes for all children, or rather their legal guardians - all children receive a certain amount of money from the state per year, on top of all other welfare benifits).

I am not quite sure why this rule is in place, but I guess it’s there to make sure that women don’t feel forced to abortion for economical reasons.

Do you think is an example of flouting the law?

I was actually born in Wellington Hospital and even worked there as a cleaner/tea maker etc during school holidays many moons ago….

When I became pregnant for the first time in 1981, the law in Canada was very similar. Patients were referred to a surgeon who was associated with a hospital that did the procedure for an interview, and then a subsequent interview was done with a panel made up of members of the hospital board. Reasons for allowing the procedure were very similar to the ones you list, and by that time, “mental health” was usually interpreted to include emotional distress due to an unwanted pregnancy. In a sympathetic province abortion could be obtained pretty much on demand. If the woman’s own doctor felt it was appropriate, the woman could make her case on audio tape rather than have to appear before the board in person.

In the best-case scenario, the biggest problem with the system was the amount of time it took. Appointments had to be made for the consultation, the hearing and the procedure itself, and that took three to six weeks. In my case the waiting time put me beyond the legal limit for abortions in Canada. Worst-case of course, was that one lived in an unsympathetic province and had to travel to obtain an abortion, often at great expense.

When Dr Henry Henry Morgentaler started his independant clinics in various cities across Canada, he was charged with violating the abortion laws. The jury refused to convict him, and the fight went all the way to the Supreme Court. The law was struck down as unconstitutional in the late 80’s.

We have not had an abortion law since.

I have heard of cases where anti-abortion doctors used delaying tactics to prevent a woman getting an abortion, until she was past the legal time limit, without of course telling her about their anti-abortion stance. That’s a disturbing thing, but fortunately it’s very rare as far as I know.

the reason that the U.S. anti-abortion laws are getting more restrictive is that there really is a significantly large group of anti-feminist, right-wing crusaders who are powerful enough to get elections to go their way. they are true anti-abortion believers…in other words the law reflects their beliefs.

it sounds from your description that despite the law on the NZ books, the NZ’ers just don’t have the political will to prohibit abortion in any practical way (yet another way in which i think i’d like NZ….). in other words, your law doesn’t really reflect the beliefs of the politically powerful. so why is the law still on the books? or did i get the situation all wrong?