Maxim Institute - real issues - No 248
12 April 2007
www.maxim.org.nz

THE COSTS OF ABORTION

New research published by the Christchurch Health and Development Study identifies that girls who have an abortion go on to achieve higher subsequent education than girls who keep their baby. While some have hailed this as a reason to support abortion, the study actually found that after controlling for factors such as family and social characteristics, having an abortion did not improve girls' outcomes in the areas of income, avoiding welfare dependency or partnership relationships.

The research, published in March 2007, examined data from 492 women taken over a 25 year period. Girls who became pregnant under the age of 21 and did not abort were compared with those who became pregnant but had an abortion. When external factors such as differing social and economic backgrounds were accounted for, one difference that became clear was in the subsequent levels of educational achievement of the girls. Girls who had an abortion achieved greater levels of education than those who did not.

The report concludes 'For the women in our sample, perhaps the choice to have an abortion allowed greater freedom to pursue educational goals. At the same time, similar advantages did not extend to the areas of income, welfare dependency and partnership outcomes.'

Indeed previous research, also by the Christchurch Health and Development Study, using data from the same 25 year study, identifies links between young women having an abortion, and subsequent mental health problems, at least up until the age of 25, when the last follow up was done. These problems include depression, suicidal ideation and illicit drug dependence. This current research needs to be read in the context of the previous study: abortion might be good for educational outcomes, but it has other mental, social and emotional costs. Further, while both of these studies consider outcomes for pregnant girls, neither considers the harm caused to the unborn child. Abortion may set some women free, at a cost, but for thousands of other human beings it is terminal.

Read the study Abortion Among Young Women and Subsequent Life Outcomes http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3900607.pdf

Read the study Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/view1.pdf

Write to the editor http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor

REVOLT, INSURRECTION AND PUBLIC RIOT

At the heart of the law against sedition is the prevention of 'revolutionary statements encouraging revolt, insurrection and public riot against lawful authority.' Laws against sedition have been a feature of the legal landscape for centuries. However, a new report from the Law Commission has concluded that the current offences of sedition in the Crimes Act prohibit far more than is necessary and unacceptably limit the right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression, particularly in political matters, is fairly described in the report as part of the 'lifeblood of a democracy.' The Law Commission considers that freedom of expression 'should be regarded as a preferred right.' Certainly, without freedom to discuss and debate, and to express unpopular, unpalatable and even unreasonable opinions, there is little chance of the free, fair and participative democracy we all want. However, rights must be subject to justifiable limitations, and the Commission recognises that, in certain circumstances, incitement to the actual use of violence against lawful authority should be an offence. Nevertheless, it considers that restraining this behaviour can be achieved through other existing offences such as incitement to treason, anti-terrorism measures or offences such as riot.

But sedition is not just a species of a general crime like riot, in the same way that murder is not just a species of assault. There is something qualitatively different about advocating violence against lawful authority, which deserves to be marked out as criminal. A shared legal commitment to our institutions of government, at least to the extent of not seeking to undermine them by violence, is an important part of our democracy. Indeed, without such an enforceable commitment, there is a risk that some will eschew the usual modes of democratic participation in favour of more direct action.

The current law is broader than it should be. As the Law Commission demonstrates, it has been used in the past to suppress legitimate political dissent. Clearly this is an unjustifiable limitation on freedom of expression, and contrary to all our interests. The law should be improved, but primarily by an amendment that ensures that only statements that urge violence against lawful authority are captured by the offence of sedition. Hopefully the Government will reach this conclusion when it responds to the report in October.

Read the Law Commission's report Reforming the Law of Sedition http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_128_352_R96.pdf

Write to the editor http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor

THE 'WAR' BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE FAMILY

A new book by Patricia Morgan has sparked debate in Britain about the correct balance of responsibility between the state and the family.

Published by British think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, The War between the State and the Family: How the Government Divides and Impoverishes examines family policy in the UK, and argues strongly that governments of all stripes have done more harm than good by intervening in family life.

Morgan argues that policies, from all political parties, which attack 'collaboration,' commitment and relational connectedness are counterproductive and damaging. She cites policies including the ideological attack on marriage; the rise of cohabitation as a legal equivalent to it; the failure to pursue child support from absent fathers; government incentives which promote idleness; and dependency and no-fault divorce laws, as factors which attack human connectedness—atomising and disconnecting people.

As a result, she argues, the support, care, welfare and connection nurtured by stable family life is absent. The state has to step in and pick up the mess, and the tab. She argues that the state's increasing role as provider, breadwinner and child-carer deprives people of responsibility and care while not in fact delivering better outcomes.

The debate raging in Britain over family breakdown and the role of the state is mirrored in this country too. Addressing issues of family and social disconnection is vital for building a decent and cohesive society. Controversial and challenging though it may be, we cannot afford to ignore voices like Patricia Morgan's, and a greater depth of debate on the social policies of the last decades is something to be welcomed.

Read the book The War between the State and the Family: How the Government Divides and Impoverishes http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-release121pdf?.pdf

Read Maxim Institute's book review of The War between the State and the Family: How the Government Divides and Impoverishes http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=966

Write to the editor http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor

IN THE NEWS

PAY DIFFERENCES ACROSS THE GENDER DIVIDE

New research from Statistics New Zealand shows that there is still a substantial pay gap between male and female workers, with men earning 20 percent more than women, five years after graduating from study. The research however does not make direct comparisons between men and women doing the same jobs, but rather makes comparisons across the whole spectrum of employment. There is no evidence this pay gap is based on discrimination, but instead is reflective of the different employment choices that are made by men and women.

Read Student Loans and Allowances 2005 http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/10BAEE9E-D13E-4711-9A3A-4B9ECDA9E5CF/0/studentloansandallowances2005hotp.pdf

NEW ZEALAND TO PROTECT CULTURAL PROPERTY

The Government has released a discussion paper considering ratifying the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols. The Convention was signed by New Zealand in 1954, but has not yet been ratified. Ratification would provide protection of cultural property during armed conflict, and so a list is currently being compiled of what is considered cultural property of 'great importance' to New Zealand.

If you would like to make a submission on the ratification of the Convention, consultation is open until 15 June 2007.

Read The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954: Consultation Paper http://www.mch.govt.nz/publications/hague/index.html

TALKING POINT

'As individuals are disconnected from family, friends, neighbours, churches, clubs, associations and community networks, social capital is destroyed, trust evaporates, despoliation and predation spread.'

Patricia Morgan, The War Between the State and the Family: How the Government Divides and Impoverishes

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

Click here to find out how you can support Maxim Institute http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/About_us/Support_Us

Maxim Institute's regular email publication, Real Issues, provides thought-provoking analysis of developments in policy and culture in New Zealand and around the world. You can express you views on any of the articles featured in Real Issues by writing a letter to the editor. A selection of the best letters will be posted each week on Maxim Institute's website http://www.maxim.org.nz/.

ENDS

© Scoop Media