Repeal of C. S. and A. Act

Press, 13 April 1978, Page 16

Repeal of C. S. and A. Act

Sir, — Diana Gregson suggests that time is precisely what no-one has to spare in considering the termination of a pregnancy. How tragically true. How little of its potential time of three score years and ten will the living foetus get under her advocacy. Perhaps the lawyers and doctors might like to consider that, too. — Yours, D. J. COONEY. Timaru. April 11, 1978. Sir, — Diana Gregson is apparently unaware that no pregnant woman requesting an abortion needs to be kept “in stasis” while doctors and lawyers argue the law out. The new law puts a limit on the time she has to wait for a decision to be made on her case. The certifying consultants are required to make their decision within 14 days of receiving her ap» plication, or the supervisory committee has to be informed in writing of the reason for the delay. —■ Yours, etc., ERICA JORDAN. April 11, 1978. Sir, — Mr Walker’s statement in “The Press” on April 10 that the “proliferation” of abortion was a threat to the basis of New Zealand society — strong family life — is typical of the emotional blackmail we women must suffer and have suffered for too long. The opposite could be as true; the availability of abortion facilities and women having the right to choose could contribute immeasurably to the happiness, security, and basic stability of the New Zealand family. That the family is the cornerstone of society is a realisation every person must reach individually and voluntarily. It is beyond Government duty to force people to this conclusion by restrictive benefits or laws. The most necessarv ingredient for the ideal of family life is a happy, willing wife and mother, and until the powers that be recognise this fact our society will continue to suffer the repercussions of forcing people to do things against their will, — Yours, etc., (Mrs) R. G. CRONIN. April 10, 1978.

Sir, — As a patron of Repeal. I respond to the letter by Jill Preston in your issue of April 11. As the tens of thousands of concerned citizens who have signed ti e Repeal petition kmw. our protest is .oncerned with a choice between legislation tested in the courts, and

subject to turther such tests, and legislation which is interpreted only 0v a structure of committees. It is also an expression of outrage that members of Parliament are so careless of the women of , this country that they removed their right and responsibility to control their own lives, and did so under conditions . wnich should have invalidated any piece of legislation. Repeal supporters do not wish to force anyone into a course of action which will affect their whole lives, both now and in the future, in contrast to the objects of Jill Preston and others. — Yours, etc., JANE M. SOONS. April 12, 1978.