Abortion - here to stay
Anso Thom - Health-e
2006-08-28
Womens rights to access abortion services are under no threat following a recent Constitutional Court ruling that an amendment to the 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Act would be nullified unless Parliament consulted the public in the next 18 months.
There has been some confusion following the courts ruling with concern that it could be misinterpreted as a challenge on abortion services. This is incorrect.
The
Amendment Act sought to expand definitions of who could perform pregnancy
terminations and which facilities could do them.
The
Amendment Act allows for registered nurses to perform TOPs (midwives are
currently performing this service) and for functions performed by the national
minister to be decentralized to the MECs, such as the designation of TOP sites.
The
substantive provisions of both the Act and the Amendment Act were not challenged
by the ruling and were not even before the court.
The
challenge by Doctors for Life (DFL), an anti-abortion pressure group, related to
Parliamentary procedure and the need for consultation only, explained
Sibongile Ndashe, an attorney with the Womens Legal Centre in
Cape Town
.
Ndashe
said that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) was supposed to have held
public hearings around the amendment, but had failed to do so, citing time
constraints. The court found that this was unreasonable and has given the
Parliament 18 months to consult with members of the public.
Should
the NCOP still fail to meet the deadline, the 1996 Act will stand as it was
passed, the amendment will fall away, but termination services as defined under
the 1996 Act will continue to be available.
Those will be only changes, said Ndashe.
She
said it was important to note that pro-lifers would want to re-open the
whole abortion debate and would want to restrict access to abortions.
But
it is important to note that the (Constitutional) Court is talking about
consultation not a referendum (on whether abortions should be allowed), added
Ndashe.
She
said DFL was attempting to question the counseling currently offered at TOP
clinics. One of the problems about the counseling that they are insisting on
is that they do not only want counseling that is consistent with informed
consent they want to see counseling that borders on scaring tactics at clinics.
They want to see a situation where l women are scared to the extent that the
only decision that they make is going back home and consideration of adoption.
One must keep in mind that they dont really care about counseling, they are
fundamentally anti-abortion more than anything else, Ndashe said.
A
group of health experts released a statement this week expressing concern that
there was confusion amongst health service providers and the general public
about the legal standing of abortion services in
South Africa
.
We
are concerned about impressions that the judgment was related to the Choice on
Termination of Pregnancy Act No. 92 of 1996. The 1996 law still remains
intact and is not contested - women's right to terminate pregnancy stands.
The
health service has the responsibility to ensure access for such women, the
group said.
Experts
agree that the 1996 Choice in Termination of Pregnancy Act has made a huge
contribution to improving women's health and access to their human rights.
Medical Research Council research has shown that abortion related mortality has
fallen by 90% since services have become available.
Related articles:
The Right to Abortion has not been implicated - http://www.hst.org.za/news/20041410
The Constitutional Court's Ruling - Media
Statement - http://www.hst.org.za/news/20041418
|
News
