IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i2p216-242..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Criminalisation: Abortion Law Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Jeanne M Snelling

Abstract

With the enactment of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, New Zealand radically transformed its approach to abortion. Abortion is no longer a crime, and is instead regulated under general health law, adopting a gestational model. Whilst some claim that reform was overdue, critics have described the new legislation as the ‘world’s most extreme abortion law’. This article investigates these claims through the lens of reproductive justice, a movement that emerged alongside the global campaign for recognition of reproductive rights. First, it outlines the tenets of reproductive justice, before critiquing New Zealand’s previous law, and considering arguments for its modernisation. It then describes how a growing number of jurisdictions have decriminalised abortion, with increasing pressure on other countries, including England and Wales, to similarly undertake law reform. Finally, it examines the main provisions of New Zealand’s law. It concludes that, to the extent that the new law enables access to timely, equitable, and publicly funded abortion services, it is consistent with the tenets of reproductive justice. By placing women at the centre of the law, it improves the welfare of women, but particularly marginalised women. However, it suggests that the current 20-week gestational test is arbitrary, with the originally proposed 22-week threshold preferable.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeanne M Snelling, 2022. "Beyond Criminalisation: Abortion Law Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 216-242.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:2:p:216-242.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab051
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:2:p:216-242.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.