Pacific delegates have been left “shocked” by the omission of sexual and reproductive health rights from the key declaration of the 69th UN Commission on the Status of Women meeting in New York.

This year CSW69 will review and assess the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Declaration, the UN’s blueprint for gender equality and rights for women and girls.

The meeting’s political declaration adopted on Tuesday reaffirmed the UN member states’ commitment to the rights, equality and empowerment of all women and girls.

• READ MORE: Other women’s rights reports

It was the product of a month of closed-door negotiations during which a small number of countries, reportedly including the U.S. and Russia, were accused of diluting the declaration’s final text.

The Beijing Declaration three decades ago mentioned reproductive rights 50 times, unlike this year’s eight-page political declaration.

“It is shocking. Thirty years after Beijing, not one mention of sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Pacific delegate and women’s advocate Noelene Nabulivou from Fiji told BenarNews.

“The core of gender justice and human rights lies in the ability to make substantive decisions over one’s body, health and sexual decision making.

“We knew that in 1995, we know it now, we will not let anyone take SRHR away, we are not going back.”

Common sentiment
It is a common sentiment among the about 100 Pacific participants at the largest annual gathering on women’s rights that attracts thousands of delegates from around the world.

“This is a major omission, especially given the current conditions in several (Pacific) states and the wider pushback and regression on women’s human rights,” Fiji-based DIVA for Equality representative Viva Tatawaqa told BenarNews from New YorK.

Tatawaqa said that SRHR was included in the second version of the political declaration but was later removed due to “lack of consensus” and “trade-offs in language.”

“We will not let everyone ignore this omission, whatever reason was given for the trade-off,” she said.

The Pacific Community’s latest survey of SRHR in the region reported progress had been made but significant challenges remain.

It highlighted an urgent need to address extreme rates of gender-based violence, low contraceptive use (below 50% in the region), lack of confidentiality in health services and hyperendemic levels of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which all fall under the SRHR banner.

Ten Pacific Island countries submitted detailed Beijing+30 National Reports to CSW69.

Anti-abortion alliance
Opposition to SRHR has come from 39 countries through their membership of the anti-abortion Geneva Consensus Declaration, an alliance founded in 2020. Their ranks include this year’s CSW69 chair Saudi Arabia, Russia, Hungary, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia and the U.S. under both Trump administrations, along with predominantly African and Middle East countries.

“During negotiations, certain states including the USA and Argentina, attempted to challenge even the most basic and accepted terms around gender and gender equality,” Amnesty said in a statement after the declaration.

“The text comes amid mounting threats to sexual and reproductive rights, including increased efforts, led by conservative groups, to roll back on access to contraception, abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and gender-affirming care across the world,” adding the termination of USAID had compounded the situation.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) confirmed in February that the US, the UN’s biggest donor, had cut US$377 million in funding for reproductive and sexual health programmes and warned of “devastating impacts.”

Since coming to office, President Donald Trump has also reinstated the Global Gag Rule, prohibiting foreign recipients of U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortions.

In his opening address to the CSW69, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a dire warning on progress on gender equality across the world.

‘Poison of patriachy’
“The poison of patriarchy is back, and it is back with a vengeance, slamming the brakes on action, tearing up progress, and mutating into new and dangerous forms,” he said, without singling out any countries or individuals.

“The masters of misogyny are gaining strength,” Guterres said, denouncing the “bile” women faced online.

He warned at the current rate it would take 137 years to lift all women out of poverty, calling on all nations to commit to the “promise of Beijing”.

The CSW was established days after the inaugural UN meetings in 1946, with a focus on prioritising women’s political, economic and social rights.

CSW was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Declaration.

One of the declaration’s stated goals is to “enhance women’s sexual and reproductive health and education”, the absence of which would have “a profound impact on women and men.”

The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action identified 12 key areas needing urgent attention — including poverty, education, health, violence — and laid out pathways to achieve change, while noting it would take substantial resources and financing.

This year’s political declaration came just days after International Women’s Day, when UN Pacific released a joint statement singled out rises in adolescent birth rates and child marriage, exacerbating challenges related to health, education, and long-term well-being of women in the region.

Gender-based violence
It also identified the region has among the highest levels of gender-based violence and lowest rates of women’s political representation in the world.

A comparison of CSW59 in 2015 and the CSW69 political declaration reveal that many of the same challenges, language, and concerns persist.

Guterres in his address offered “antidote is action” to address the immense gaps.

Pacific Women Mediators Network coordinator Sharon Bhagwan-Rolls told BenarNews much of that action in the Pacific had been led by women.

“The inclusion of climate justice and the women, peace, and security agenda in the Beijing+30 Action Plan is a reminder of the intersectional and intergenerational work that has continued,” she said.

“This work has been forged through women-led networks and coalitions like the Pacific Women Mediators Network and the Pacific Island Feminist Alliance for Climate Justice, which align with the Blue Pacific Strategy and the Revitalised Pacific Leaders Gender Equality Declaration.”

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue to look at Donald Trump’s return to the White House, we turn now to look at what it means for the world, from Israel’s war on Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During his victory speech, Trump vowed that he was going to “stop wars”.

But what will Trump’s foreign policy actually look like?

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Fatima Bhutto, award-winning author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways, New Kings of the World. She is co-editing a book along with Sonia Faleiro titled Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year. She writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Start off by just responding to Trump’s runaway victory across the United States, Fatima.

Fatima Bhutto on the Kamala Harris “support for genocide”.   Video: Democracy Now!

FATIMA BHUTTO: Well, Amy, I don’t think it’s an aberration that he won. I think it’s an aberration that he lost in 2020. And I think anyone looking at the American elections for the last year, even longer, could see very clearly that the Democrats were speaking to — I’m not sure who, to a hall of mirrors.

They ran an incredibly weak and actually macabre campaign, to see Kamala Harris describe her politics as one of joy as she promised the most lethal military in the world, talking about women’s rights in America, essentially focusing those rights on the right to termination, while the rest of the world has watched women slaughtered in Gaza for 13 months straight.

You know, it’s very curious to think that they thought a winning strategy was Beyoncé and that Taylor Swift was somehow a political winning strategy that was going to defeat — who? — Trump, who was speaking to people, who was speaking against wars. You know, whether we believe him or not, it was a marked difference from what Kamala Harris was saying and was not saying.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fatima, you wrote a piece for Zeteo earlier this year titled “Gaza Has Exposed the Shameful Hypocrisy of Western Feminism.” So, you just mentioned the irony of Kamala Harris as, you know, the second presidential candidate who is a woman, where so much of the campaign was about women, and the fact that — you know, of what’s been unfolding on women, against women and children in Gaza for the last year. If you could elaborate?

FATIMA BHUTTO: Yeah, we’ve seen, Nermeen, over the last year, you know, 70 percent of those slaughtered in Gaza by Israel and, let’s also be clear, by America, because it’s American bombs and American diplomatic cover that allows this slaughter to continue unabated — 70 percent of those victims are women and children.

We have watched children with their heads blown off. We have watched children with no surviving family members find themselves in hospital with limbs missing. Gaza has the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. And we have seen newborns left to die as Israel switches off electricity and fuel of hospitals.

So, for Kamala Harris to come out and talk repeatedly about abortion, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice, who has always been pro-choice, was not just macabre, but it’s obscene. It’s an absolute betrayal of feminism, because feminism is about liberation. It’s not about termination.

And it’s about protecting women at their most vulnerable and at their most frightened. And there was no sign of that. You know, we also saw Kamala Harris bring out celebrities. I mean, the utter vacuousness of bringing out Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé and others to talk about being a mother, while mothers are being widowed, are being orphaned in Gaza, it was not just tone deaf, it seemed to have a certain hostility, a certain contempt for the suffering that the rest of us have been watching.

I’d also like to add a point about toxic masculinity. There was so much toxicity in Kamala Harris’s campaign. You know, I watched her laugh with Oprah as she spoke about shooting someone who might enter her house with a gun, and giggling and saying her PR team may not like that, but she would kill them.

You don’t need to be a man to practice toxic masculinity, and you don’t need to be white to practice white supremacy, as we’ve seen very clearly from this election cycle.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Fatima Bhutto, if you look at what Trump represented, and certainly the Muslim American community, the Arab American community, Jewish progressives, young people, African-Americans certainly understood what Trump’s policy was when he was president.

And it’s rare, you know, a president comes back to serve again after a term away. It’s only happened once before in history.

But you have, for example, Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. You have an illegal settlement named after Trump in the West Bank. The whole question of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies in Israel pushing for annexation of the West Bank, where Trump would stand on this.

And, of course, you have the Abraham Accords, which many Palestinians felt left them out completely. If you can talk about this? These were put forward by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, when the massive Gaza destruction was at its height, talked about Gaza as waterfront real estate.

FATIMA BHUTTO: Absolutely. There’s no question that Trump has been a malign force, not just when it concerns Palestinians, but, frankly, out in the world. But I would argue there’s not very much difference between what these two administrations or parties do. The difference is that Trump doesn’t have the gloss and the charisma of an Obama or — I mean, I can’t even say that Biden has charisma, but certainly the gloss.

Trump says it. They do it. The difference — I can’t really tell the difference anymore.

We saw the Biden administration send over 500 shipments of arms to Israel, betraying America’s own laws, the fact that they are not allowed to export weapons of war to a country committing gross violations of human rights. We saw Bill Clinton trotted out in Michigan to tell Muslims that, actually, they should stop killing Israelis and that Jews were there before them.

I mean, it was an utterly contemptuous speech. So, what is the difference exactly?

We saw Bernie Sanders, who was mentioned earlier, write an op-ed in The Guardian in the days before the election, warning people that if they were not to vote for Kamala Harris, if Donald Trump was to get in, think about the climate crisis. Well, we have watched Israel’s emissions in the first five months of their deadly attack on Gaza release more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations release in a year.

So, I don’t quite see that there’s a difference between what Democrats allow and what Trump brags about. I think it’s just a question of crudeness and decorum and politeness. One has it, and one doesn’t. In a sense, Trump is much clearer for the rest of the world, because he says what he’s going to do, and, you know, you take him at his word, whereas we have been gaslit and lied to by Antony Blinken on a daily basis now since October 7th.

Every time that AOC or Kamala Harris spoke about fighting desperately for a ceasefire, we saw more carnage, more massacres and Israel committing crimes with total impunity. You know, it wasn’t under Trump that Israel has killed more journalists than have ever been killed in any recorded conflict. It’s under Biden that Israel has killed more UN workers than have ever been killed in the UN’s history. So, I’m not sure there’s a difference.

And, you know, we’ll have to wait to see in the months ahead. But I don’t think anyone is bracing for an upturn. Certainly, people didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not sure they voted for Trump. We know that she lost 14 million votes from Biden’s win in 2020. And we know that those votes just didn’t come out for the Democrats. Some may have migrated to Trump. Some may have gone to third parties. But 14 million just didn’t go anywhere.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Fatima, if you could, you know, tell us what do you think the reasons are for that? I mean, the kind of — as you said, because it is really horrifying, what has unfolded in Gaza in the last 13 months. You’ve written about this. You now have an edited anthology that you’re editing, co-editing. You know, what do you think accounts for this, the sheer disregard for the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza?

FATIMA BHUTTO: It’s a total racism on the part not just of America, but I’m speaking of the West here. This has been betrayed over the last year, the fact that Ukraine is spoken about with an admiration, you know, Zelensky is spoken about with a sort of hero worship, Ukrainian resisters to Russia’s invasion are valorised.

You know, Nancy Pelosi wore a bracelet of bullets used by the Ukrainian resistance against Trump [sic]. But Palestinians are painted as terrorists, are dehumanised to such an extent. You know, we saw that dehumanisation from the mouths of Bill Clinton no less, from the mouths of Kamala Harris, who interrupted somebody speaking out against the genocide, and saying, “I am speaking.”

What is more toxically masculine than that?

We’ve also seen a concerted crackdown in universities across the United States on college students. I’m speaking also here of my own alma mater of Columbia University, of Barnard College, that called the NYPD, who fired live ammunition at the students. You know, this didn’t happen — this extreme response didn’t happen in protests against apartheid. It didn’t happen in protests against Vietnam in quite the same way.

And all I can think is, America and the West, who have been fighting Muslim countries for the last 25, 30 years, see that as acceptable to do so. Our deaths are acceptable to them, and genocide is not a red line.

And, you know, to go back to what what was mentioned earlier about the working class, that is absolutely ignored in America — and I would make the argument across the West, too — they have watched administration after, you know, president and congressmen give billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, while they have no relief at home.

They have no relief from debt. They have no relief from student debt. They have no medical care, no coverage. They’re struggling to survive. And this is across the board. And after Ukraine, they saw billions go to Israel in the same way, while they get, frankly, nothing.

AMY GOODMAN: Fatima Bhutto, we want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning author of a number of works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways and New Kings of the World, co-editing a book called Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year, writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Coming up, we look at Trump’s vow to deport as many as 20 million immigrants and JD Vance saying, yes, US children born of immigrant parents could also be deported.

Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

Some said the US Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on abortion was none of our business, because we don’t have the same legal or political set-up, let alone its religious cleavages and cultural conflicts.

Opinion leaders in our media didn’t agree — and provoked a significant political response.

Days after his election to the National Party leadership in December last year, Christopher Luxon sat down for an interview where he outlined some hardline views on abortion.

Pressed by Newshub’s Jenna Lynch on whether he felt the practice was tantamount to murder, he said “that’s what a pro-life position is”.

Those comments have become newsworthy again this week, as the US Supreme Court handed down a decision to overturn the right to abortion enshrined in the decision Roe v Wade.

Local media, pro-choice advocates and politicians all expressed concern that the National leader would act on his beliefs, and work to ban a practice he considers all-but murderous, if he was able to form a government.

Their worry only escalated after National’s MP for Tāmaki, Simon O’Connor, posted a Facebook status following the Supreme Court’s decision saying “Today is a good day”.

Noted Luxon’s pro-life views
The New Zealand Herald ran an initial story focusing on how every party in Parliament had condemned the court’s ruling bar National. It also noted Luxon’s pro-life views.

Even after Luxon moved to clarify that there would be no changes to abortion law under any government he leads, Labour’s Grant Robertson said people have a “right to be sceptical” about his statements given the views he expressed to Lynch.

Newshub’s Amelia Wade pressed Luxon further on his stance, asking Luxon for his opinion of women who get abortions. He didn’t answer the question directly in Newshub’s report.

“As I’ve said I have a pro-life stance. I think it’s a very difficult and a very agonising decision,” he said.

These stories — and a corresponding outcry on social media — provoked right-wing figures who see it as an attempt to stir up a US-style culture war.

Political commentator Ben Thomas played down the concern over Luxon’s anti-abortion views in an interview on Newstalk ZB.

“We’ve seen pro-life prime ministers like Bill English, Jim Bolger, deputy prime ministers like Jim Anderton just not go anywhere near [abortion] when they’ve been in government,” he pointed out.

Plea to stop US culture war
On Twitter, he pleaded for people to stop trying to stir up US culture wars in New Zealand.

That was echoed by National’s Nicola Willis, who had been criticised for failing to speak up against the Roe v Wade ruling despite her socially liberal credentials.

“I actually think that these attempts by Labour to import US-style culture wars into New Zealand is irresponsible. It is creating needless anxiety,” she told the Herald.

The concern over abortion becoming a political wedge issue is understandable.

Its transformation into a fundamental political dividing line is part of the reason the US now has some of the most hardline abortion laws in the developed world.

But it’s worth noting there’s an element of political convenience in politicians’ statements as well.

National would benefit if people stopped talking about its leader’s publicly-stated position that abortion is tantamount to murder and go back to discussing the cost of living crisis.

It’s hard to get the politics out of politics.

Still deep divisions
Pro-choice advocates have also taken issue with the idea their anxiety is “needless”.

The decision to take abortion out of the Crimes Act in 2020 only passed by a comparatively narrow margin, 68-51.

Two-thirds of National’s caucus voted against it back then, with the aforementioned Simon O’Connor ending his speech with a Latin phrase which translates to “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord”.

National MPs also proposed several amendments to that bill which would have restricted abortion access considerably.

Former National MP Amy Adams recently told the media that deep divisions remain in National on the issue.

As for the US culture wars, they appear to have gained a foothold already. Some people might have noticed them camped out on Parliament’s lawns for the better part of a month.

The question for pro-choice supporters is whether to sit back and hope these movements don’t gain momentum, or to apply as much political pressure as possible to protect their own position.

In this case they prompted a strong commitment from an anti-abortion politician to not act on his views if in power. Arguably they succeeded by speaking out strongly and decisively.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling to throw out Roe v Wade is an issue of relevance to political leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tāmaki Simon O’Connor.

Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for New Zealand.

• READ MORE: The end of Roe v Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians
• Roe v Wade overturned: what abortion access and reproductive rights look like around the world
• US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade – but for abortion opponents, this is just the beginning

This has left opposition leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.

Luxon’s anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified “that’s what a pro-life position is”.

Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country’s abortion laws should it win government.

Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It’s clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.

Principle and pragmatism in leadership
It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity — in other words, consistency between one’s words and actions.

National MP Simon O’Connor has returned to Parliament with an apology to colleagues over a social media post that celebrated the US Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion law.https://t.co/dR4eBM8Z4K

— RNZ (@radionz) June 28, 2022

Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.

Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a “pragmatic idealist”. Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values.

This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of covid-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.

Luxon’s leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.

However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.

His response to this week’s controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.

This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?

Sums it up really. It is absolutely 100% a woman’s right to choose #AbortionBan #USA pic.twitter.com/JhgS4Txaqz

— Russ (@smiffy2609) June 25, 2022

The matter is not settled
New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it is possible to wind back access to abortion.

Even if Luxon’s current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.

The National Council of Women’s 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at The Disinformation Project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.

If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand’s abortion laws.

In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or “pro-life” stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.

It is clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.

A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?

Dr Suze Wilson is senior lecturer, School of Management, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Former National MP and Justice Minister Amy Adams says opposition leader Christopher Luxon is right to rule out restricting abortion laws in Aotearoa New Zealand, calling the alternative “absolutely soul-destroying”.

Speaking to RNZ, Adams also sounded a note of warning to her socially conservative former colleagues that their views are increasingly “out-of-touch” with the public.

Shortly after taking the helm of National, Luxon — who describes himself as “pro-life” — committed not to change abortion laws if elected prime minister next year.

• READ MORE:  Roe v Wade shows why abortion is at the heart of America’s divisions
• Decision on Roe v Wade will not end abortion rights in Hawai’i
• Roe reversal reignites Guam debate over ‘Heartbeat’ bill
• Other abortion rights reports

Following Friday’s Roe v Wade decision, Luxon went further, stating: “These laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government, and these health services will remain fully funded”.

Adams told RNZ anything other than an unequivocal assurance would have put Luxon in a “very bad” position.

She said the vast majority of New Zealanders regarded abortion as a health issue.

“There is no place whatsoever for politicians and lawyers and judges to start determining what health procedures women are entitled to,” Adams said.

Conservative politicians ‘in peril’
“When political parties wade into that space, they put themselves in great peril and they risk getting substantially out of touch with those people they represent.”

Adams said the US Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade was “outrageous” and “should scare women all over the world”.

“We can get quite complacent that our progressive movements… are set in stone, but actually it shows us that things can be undone and freedoms we perhaps take for granted… can be taken away from us,” Adams said.

“I felt quite sick… it made me really sad and actually very, very angry.”

Luxon: ‘I serve the common cause’
On Saturday, Luxon directed his Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor to remove a Facebook post showing support for the US Supreme Court ruling.

O’Connor posted “today is a good day” surrounded by love hearts.

Speaking to RNZ on Monday, Luxon said he felt the message was being “misrepresented as the National Party position”.

He said O’Connor was entitled to his own personal views but also believed the message was “insensitive to people on the other side of that debate”.

“It’s a sensitive and distressing issue, and I want to make sure that New Zealanders understand there will be no change under a National government.”

Luxon said all his MPs were united around the commitment not to change abortion law if elected next year.

“I serve the common cause of all New Zealanders,” Luxon said. “I’m not just here for one group or one interest or one topic.”

O’Connor did not return RNZ’s calls.

Questions also for Labour
Speaking at the regular post-Cabinet media conference, Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson questioned whether Luxon’s assurance could be trusted.

“It’s great news if that is what Christopher Luxon says he’s going to do,” Robertson said.

“But I could also understand why people could be sceptical about that given what he has said in the past [and] given that over half of his caucus actually voted against [abortion reform].”

Robertson was also questioned over Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s tweet calling the Supreme Court ruling “draconian” despite voting against removing abortion from the Crimes Act.

He said Mahuta had dealt with the issue in accordance with her conscience and deferred questions to her.

“The Labour Party continues to support women in New Zealand to be able to access abortion services and to have reproductive rights. We passed the legislation, it was a government bill, and I stand by what we’re doing here.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade “incredibly upsetting” as New Zealand politicians reacted to the controversial ruling.

Millions of American women have lost the constitutional right to abortion, after the 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision protecting the right to an abortion was overturned yesterday.

Ardern said in a statement that the decision was a loss for women everywhere.

• READ MORE: ‘My body, my choice’: Anger over US Supreme Court abortion ruling
• The US abortion ban is the ex-president’s legacy and he must face prosecution for abuse of power – The Observer editorial
• Other Roe v Wade reports

“Watching the removal of a woman’s fundamental right to make decisions over their own body is incredibly upsetting,” she said.

“Here in New Zealand we recently legislated to decriminalise abortion and treat it as a health rather than criminal issue.

“That change was grounded in the fundamental belief that it’s a woman’s right to choose. People are absolutely entitled to have deeply held convictions on this issue. But those personal beliefs should never rob another from making their own decisions.

“To see that principle now lost in the United States feels like a loss for women everywhere.

‘We need progress … not move backwards’
“When there are so many issues to tackle, so many challenges that face woman and girls, we need progress, not to fight the same fights and move backwards.”

New Zealand decriminalised abortion in 2020.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon previously has said he is against abortion personally, but is not interested in changing New Zealand law.

In a statement last night, he reaffirmed that, saying that abortion laws “laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government”.

Roe v Wade is an issue for the American people who have a different set of constitutional arrangements than us. NZ’s abortion laws were voted on and ultimately settled in the last parliament. These laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government.

— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) June 25, 2022

Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta tweeted that it was “draconian” and does not support womens’ right to choose.

The US Supreme Courts overturning of Roe v. Wade Is draconian and does not support the right of women to choice. How can this happen?

— Nanaia Mahuta (@NanaiaMahuta) June 24, 2022

Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick blasted the decision, expressing “solidarity with Americans fighting for restoration of their rights to healthcare.”

Prohibiting abortions doesn’t stop abortions. It prevents safe, regulated abortions. It prevents access for those without the resources to travel to areas where abortion is legal.

Solidarity with Americans fighting for restoration of their rights to healthcare.

— Chlöe Swarbrick (@_chloeswarbrick) June 24, 2022

ACT leader David Seymour said that “It may be that this is just returning the question to a state one, but half the states are going back a century in just a few days.”

What’s happening, Twitter? Great question. It may be that this is just returning the question to a State one, but half the States are going back a century in just a few days. pic.twitter.com/BFM0U0wFNB

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) June 24, 2022

Seymour, who supported New Zealand’s Abortion Legislation Bill to decriminalise abortion, said he was deeply concerned for the rights of American women and the future of US politics.

“I think that this will bring about a political earthquake in America. And this is a time when New Zealand really needs America to be focused on trade and security, rather than re-litigating battles of the 1950s.”

‘We cannot be complacent’
Green Party MP Jan Logie did not expect the decision would encourage people to push for changes to the abortion laws in New Zealand.

Logie said she was grateful New Zealand decriminalised abortion in 2020.

“We’ve seen a result of that an increasing number of New Zealanders who recognise the importance of reproductive justice. But this tells us also that we cannot be complacent.”

Logie said she feared the decision would increase the rate of unsafe abortions in the US.

Family Life International’s Michelle Kaufman said she wanted New Zealand’s abortion laws to change.

“I hope one day that we will see an end to abortion, that people will see that it’s the unthinkable choice, that there are better ways.”

Kaufman said abortion was violence and that it did not solve problems.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

It was sometime in the late 1990s that I first interviewed Alan Webster about New Zealand’s part in a global Values Study.

It’s a fascinating snapshot of values in countries all over the world and I still remember seeing America grouped with many developing countries on a spectrum that had most English-speaking, democratic and developed countries grouped at the other end.

It charted belief in angels and other supernatural beings.

• READ MORE: Decision on Roe v Wade will not end abortion rights in Hawai’i
• Roe reversal reignites Guam debate over ‘Heartbeat’ bill
• Other abortion rights reports

It was a lightbulb moment that has always helped me remember how deep religious beliefs run in the US and how socially different it is from most Western, Enlightenment-inspired countries.

That memory came back to me when I awoke to the news that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v Wade in a 6-3 ruling, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion — a right that has been in place since 1973.

Abortion rights will now be decided state by state, with 26 states ready to enact laws that ban abortion, often with no exceptions. That means no abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

It is undoubtedly a landmark moment in US politics and law, the latest step (not the end) in a decades-long campaign by conservative Americans to overturn America’s most controversial and divisive law.

‘Enflamed debate, deepened division’
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division”.

He’s right, but the implication that this ruling somehow calms the waters is either deeply naive or deeply cynical. It does nothing more than flip the issue, like the handover of the ball in a football game, with what has been the team on defence now going on attack and vice versa.

And because change in and of itself is fuel for any fire, this only ensures abortion remains THE divisive issue in American politics for, well, who knows how many years to come?

Abortion has divided the country for decades; more so than foreign wars, economic policy and even gun control. It is the answer to so many questions non-Americans have about US politics.

Many around the world have been perplexed by the growing divisions in US politics, the loss of civility, the rise of Trump. There are answers there about the influence of money, taxes, changing demographics and more.

But at the heart of US political polarisation, often unspoken, masked or downplayed, has always been abortion.

One of the most confounding of political mysteries in the past decade was why 84 percent of white evangelicals in 2016 voted for a thrice-married alleged sexual abuser as president and why “character” suddenly fell down their list of voting priorities.

Today’s court decision is the answer.

Evangelicals motivated by abortion
Evangelicals are motivated by abortion more than any other issue and Trump’s commitment to swaying the court against it convinced them to vote for him even when it was against their economic interests and compromised other values.

Many in conservative religious circles in the US compared Trump to King David, arguing that God has long used flawed and corrupt individuals to bring about his will.

That faith has been vindicated today and Trump’s status as a moral hero is enshrined, despite his many other sins.

Such is the strength of belief for or against abortion. Its power to divide is so strong because, seen through different lenses, it is so obviously right or wrong to those on either side of the debate.

It is, to those on either side, obvious that they are right and they are horrified — not just perplexed, but horrified — that anyone might disagree with them.

Those celebrating today’s overturn are celebrating the end of mass murder, because to them the decision to abort a foetus is the decision to take a life. (Others, to be fair, see it as a legal issue, one that is not in the Constitution and so should always have been viewed as a political debate not a constitutional right).

Those weeping over today’s ruling do not see a foetus as a human life and rather see the courts telling a woman what she can do with her body, right to the point of that woman’s life and death.

Matter of life over death
When both sides see their view as a matter of life over death, you can understand the depth of feeling and pain on both sides and that, whatever Alito may be hoping, today’s decision will do nothing to heal America.

What’s more, the impact of today’s ruling on US politics will be deep. Three things stand out:

• Reproductive rights will dominate the 2022 mid-term elections and the US presidential elections in 2024. The court has said abortion is not a constitutional right, therefore it is up for grabs politically. Debate over national bans v national rights has already begun. That will mean less political oxygen for pressing political issues such as climate change, China and the Ukraine invasion.
• This could be the start of a conservative pendulum swing in US politics, led by the US Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas in his support of the majority opinion suggests the now reliably conservative court could dive further into America’s moral dilemmas, ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception rights.
• Perhaps most troubling, it undermines citizens’ faith in their major public institutions. A majority of Americans favour at least some rights to abortion and some gun control. This week the Supreme Court has issued rulings at odds with public opinion on both. At a time when core institutions such as Congress and the media are losing the trust of citizens, adding the courts to that list is a major worry. If the foundations of liberal democracy are not serving the people, then those people start to look for alternatives, the baby can be lost with the bathwater and whole systems of law, order and government can start to look fragile.

These are perilous days for the American project and that has implications for all of us. The’s court ruling is yet another polarising decision in these most polarising times and it’s hard to see where the healing can begin.

Tim Watkin is a founder of political news website Pundit, has a long career in journalism and broadcasting, and now runs the podcast team at RNZ. This article was originally published on Pundit and is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The United States Supreme Court has handed down a ruling overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that found there was a constitutional right to abortion.

In Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, the Court ruled 6-3 that

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Abortion regulation has now been returned to the individual states. Yet rather than resolving the debate over abortion in the US, we will likely see a dramatic escalation of abortion lawsuits and legislation.

• READ MORE: Roe overturned: What you need to know about the Supreme Court abortion decision
• How the US right-to-life movement is influencing the abortion debate in Australia
• ‘A revolutionary ruling – and not just for abortion’: A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs

That is because the goal of abortion opponents has always been to stop abortion nationwide. Overturning Roe v Wade is just the beginning.

Roe v Wade has been under constant attack
For 49 years, Roe v Wade has been under constant attack from opponents of reproductive rights, surviving repeated legal challenges and reaffirmed on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court.

Despite the political controversy and polarising rhetoric from Republican politicians, 2021 polling indicated 80 percent of Americans support abortion in all or most cases, and at least 60 percent support Roe v. Wade.

However, after former President Donald Trump was able to fill three Supreme Court vacancies, conservatives had a 6-3 majority on the bench.

The end of Roe v Wade seemed inevitable and the question became whether the judgement would be gradually gutted or overturned in one fell swoop.

Factbox: Broad U.S. support for abortion rights at odds with Supreme Court’s restrictions https://t.co/BWN1lYhLK7 pic.twitter.com/vUshXq8BQ4

— Reuters (@Reuters) June 24, 2022

What can Biden and the Democrats do?
In early May, a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority decision was leaked, indicating it would be overturned.

Protests from abortion rights supporters erupted, including outside the Supreme Court and the homes of conservative justices.

President Joe Biden swiftly issued a statement insisting a “woman’s right to choose is fundamental” and his administration has spent the intervening months meeting with abortion rights advocates. However, there is little of substance the president or Congressional Democrats can do to reverse the decision.

In mid-May, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which sought to codify abortion rights, was defeated in the Senate.

And although Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, without filibuster reform they do not have the numbers to pass legislation, which has stymied much of the Democratic agenda during Biden’s presidency.

While Biden promised to issue Executive Orders on reproductive rights if Roe v Wade is overturned, these would work to offset only some of the likely consequences of the new abortion landscape.

Meanwhile, in the days after the May leak, Congressional Republicans met with prominent anti-abortion leaders to discuss a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks.

Such a move would shift the contours of the abortion fight back to the national stage and would ensure abortion is front and centre in the 2024 presidential elections.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade: “They chose to endanger the lives of all women and all birthing people in this country. But not only that, they have chosen to strip rights of men too.” https://t.co/p3tvxQxVTz pic.twitter.com/kZm8sdo3s8

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 24, 2022

State laws on abortion access and provision
With the overturning of Roe v Wade, abortion access and provision will be shaped by a patchwork of state laws.

Thirteen states already have “trigger” laws on the books that criminalise abortion if Roe is overturned. A further 10 are expected to move quickly to ban the procedure.

States hostile to abortion have also begun debating how to close legislative “loopholes”, considering laws that are more extreme than any previously proposed.

In addition to pursuing abortion bans, including from the moment of conception, many of the new laws no longer allow for abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Provisions that would allow abortion to protect maternal health are being so narrowly defined as to render them almost meaningless.

In Oklahoma, one Republican complained the proposed law did not ban abortion in instances of ectopic pregnancy, a condition fatal to the pregnant person if left untreated.

Louisiana Republicans debated language that would have charged abortion patients with homicide.

Opponents of abortion are also strategising about how to prevent patients from accessing abortion from out-of-state providers, including discussing banning interstate travel and making abortion providers and support networks subject to legal sanction.

Nineteen states already ban virtual provision of abortion care, and opponents of abortion are particularly keen to criminalise and limit patient access to medication abortion provided via telehealth.

The National Right to Life Committee has drafted model state legislation that would make it illegal to provide information on self-managed abortion via phone, internet, or website, effectively targeting the First Amendment right to free speech.

MEET THE BENCH: Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join his conservative colleagues in overturning Roe v. Wade — saying he would ‘take a more measured course.’ https://t.co/BeXTvQzwnv pic.twitter.com/cyFi21Q83A

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 24, 2022

Some states have laws enshrining the right to abortion
Supporters of reproductive rights have also been galvanised by the looming end of Roe v Wade.

Sixteen states, primarily on the east and west coasts, as well as the District of Columbia, have laws enshrining the right to abortion.

California has passed laws protecting abortion providers and patients accessing care from out-of-state civil lawsuits, while New York has passed a package of laws that would make it an abortion “safe haven”.

Advocates are pushing the White House to challenge any law criminalising out-of-state travel to receive an abortion.

A Jewish synagogue is suing the state of Florida, claiming the state’s abortion ban violates religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

Impact on abortion patients
Politically and legally, the struggle over abortion rights is primed to explode nationwide, with no foreseeable end in sight.

Yet the impact of today’s Supreme Court decision will be most acutely felt by abortion patients.

Most of the toughest abortion bans and regulations are in the South and Midwest, rendering abortion inaccessible in a vast geographic stretch of the country.

Approximately half of US women and girls of reproductive age live in states where abortion is or will become illegal.

Overturning Roe v Wade will result in the closure of more than a quarter of the nation’s abortion clinics, placing huge pressure on the remaining providers to offer time-sensitive care to patients likely travelling hundreds of kilometres from home.

Banning abortion does not stop abortion
Banning abortion does not stop abortion, nor does it reduce the number of abortions. Regardless of their home state, pregnant people will still seek abortions, although they may need significant resources to do so and could face criminal sanctions.

The majority of abortion patients in the US are already from vulnerable and marginalised populations.

The devastating consequences of this decision will fall primarily on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.

Dr Prudence Flowers is a senior lecturer in US history, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.