by A health professionals group has gone to court over the right to having a conscientious objection to providing abortion services, without adversely affecting employment.
At the High Court in Wellington on Monday the New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance asked Justice Rebecca Ellis to make a declaration that the abortion law was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.
Lawyer Ian Bassett said a change to the law on March 24, 2020, raised the concern that the new law contained a coercive element.
For 43 years under the previous law abortion services were provided without coercion to health professionals, Bassett said.
READ MORE:* Select committee recommends allowing medical practitioners to refuse contraception* Abortion legalisation bill made more restrictive but is largely unchanged after select committee* Who, what, when and where: Abortion law reform explained* Abortion case taken to Human Rights Commission
Before the law change a professional with a conscientious objection to abortion could refer a person on to another practitioner to see if they qualified to have an abortion without becoming part of the chain leading to the taking of a human life, Bassett said.
The judge asked several questions about the difference between referring on a patient then, and now.
Bassett said a practitioner with an objection could now remain out of the chain by referring a patient to a website or phone service for information.
I understand your argument, but its nuanced, its pretty tricky to draw the line about when participation begins, the judge said.
Now abortion services are available to women up to 20 weeks pregnant, and after 20 weeks a health practitioner has to reasonably believe an abortion is clinically appropriate.
An employer providing abortion services, or referring for abortion services, must accommodate conscientious objection unless it would cause unreasonable disruption.
A health practitioners livelihood and career could be in jeopardy if an employer thought the employees beliefs caused an unreasonable disruption, Bassett said.
However, under the Bill of Rights practitioners had a right to freedom of conscience without interference, he said.
Bill of Rights Freedoms at issue included freedom of expression, freedom to manifest belief, rights of minorities and freedom of association, he said.
Three health professionals have given statements for the court. The judge asked if any of them had given evidence of their conscience being interfered with.
Bassett said there was no evidence of that before the court. The three a nurse and two doctors did not want to be named.
The judge said it might be impossible to make a declaration of inconsistency if there wasnt a factual basis for it.
The case is expected to take about three days.
