Pamphlet

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 12

Pamphlet

Sir,—My daughter attends an inner-city State secondary school where I know she receives a balanced education. Alan Wilkinson (June 1) seems to support T.H.A'W.’s arrogant assumption that her education is one-sided and that they should contravene city by-laws (which are supposed to protect her on my. behalf) by handing her a pamphlet on., abortion. The pamphlet stated that “if the (abortion has been competently, performed, there is no reason you cannot bear a child if and when you want to.” The known problems of spontaneous abortion and premature

delivery associated with pregnancies which follow an induced abortion are not consequent upon a lack of skill in the abortion operator. They are caused by the abortion technique itself particularly the forced dilation of the cervix. There is also an increased risk of post-abortion infertility. A misleading pamphlet? Yes — Yours, etc..

R. P. DALZIELL. June 1, 1982.

Sir. - The T.H.A.W. pamphlet K. Orr objects to gives the kind of advice women's health groups have been giving pregnant women since 1978. To believe it could encourage promiscuity is hysterical; its candid, critical assessment of the abortion options in New Zealand would not encourage anyone to risk an unwanted pregnancy. Instead, it advocates contraception, which most Catholics accept even if Catholic dogma does not. Ironically, we “pro-abortion" people continually struggle against S.P.U.C. to promote contraception and reduce the need for abortion. Officially S.P.U.C. has no policy on contraception. I invite K. Orr as recent' branch chairman, to state whether his beliefs and actions are not directed at denying contraception to those mos’t at risk from unwanted pregnancy — teenage girls. If so, the continuing high level of abortions in New Zealand is his responsibility. — Yours, etc., ALAN WILKINSON June 3, 1982.