Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

2 Comments

  1. Seriously good stuff, Martyn and as a long-time pro-choice campaigner myself, thanks for the support. However, there may be a supplementary order paper devised to insure women who have been sexually assaulted do have the right to access EMC. Will we see you on one of the Marches for Reproductive Rights tomorrow? There are three of ’em occurring in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

  2. https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2020/02/17/if-medical-practitioners-can-refuse-emergency-contraception-for-sexual-violence-we-should-be-able-to-identify-those-moral-bigots-on-an-online-register/

    I agree. Also, at the very least these ‘at least DO harm’, practitioners must provide another nearby support to get the contraception.
    American hospitals have been steadily privatised by Catholic interests over decades, and rape survivors and others have been turned away. Is that to be expected here?

    Women won’t be ‘saved’ by this immoral behaviour from doctors meant to at least do NO harm. They’ll just achieve their end result by more damaging actions. Girls and women won’t suddenly not have sex. Men and boys aren’t going to just stop pressuring these women and girls to have abortions, if its made more difficult. Those males without thought for those females won’t care how the abortion is procured. This is historic fact. This abortion law reform is supposed to ensure women and girls can make their decision without pressure on either side, supposedly with the help of a knowledgable, caring GP.
    This current mealymouthed nonsense over a piece of flesh is just so sexist.

Comments are closed.