On Friday I was at the pharmacy, picking up some outrageously expensive antibiotics. I had just been on the dentist’s chair and was standing at the counter waiting for the girl in the white lab-coat to turn around and notice me. The right side of my face was pretty numb, and it was almost closing time. The phone rang and the girl in the white lab-coat went to answer it. I stood resting on one leg, leaning on the counter, flicking my credit-card with thumb and forefinger.
I glanced around the room; a fairly typical chemist’s. It was with disbelief that my eyes lighted on a big brown poster hung in a prominent position behind the counter. It read “Emergency contraception available here without prescription”. I had heard that this was the case; that contraception could be had without first getting approval from one’s doctor, however it was a shock to see it promoted like this. I am not opposed to contraception – unless that contraception is abortifacient (pronounce: abort-if-a-shent). Abortifacient contraceptives are ones that do not merely prevent conception, they in fact destroy a young life.
Emergency contraception differs from other forms of contraception in that it is taken “the morning after”, and is intended to prevent the implantation of the embryo in the womb. However in many cases the sperm and the egg have already fused, creating a new embryo: biologically speaking, a new life has begun – a child with separate DNA from its mother. Therefore in many cases, emergency contraception is simply a polite if deceptive way of saying “early abortion”.
Incredible to think that a little girl who needs a panadol at school must have her parent’s permission, is allowed to be handed an emergency contraceptive pill over the counter without her parent’s or her doctor’s permission or notice. Maxim Institute summarises the hypocrisy:
In New Zealand, parents must be consulted and their permission sought before their child can be given a Panadol at school. However, a young girl can have an abortion without her parents ever knowing, let alone giving their permission.
Section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004 says that a girl of any age can give consent to an abortion and that consent operates as if it were given by her parents. Therefore, her parents need never know that their daughter is having such a procedure.”
– Maxim Institute
Believe it or not, New Zealand’s abortion law does not specify the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion – or the minimum age at which a girl can have an abortion without her parent’s permission or notification. New Zealand’s government wants abortions to take place. Why else would they take such extreme measures to enable them to go ahead?
Unsurprisingly then, the fully-government-subsidised and often abortifacient pills are promoted to women of all ages, and every attempt is made to ensure that the pills make it into the hands of those who want them.
What other medication can you get for free – and with no prescription?
11 thoughts on “NZ: Emergency Contraceptives Free + No Prescription Required”
People are amazed sometimes at the depth of sin in the hearts of humans. How can some people go around killing other people brutally for the sake of it and performing all sorts of autrocities, but they forget that God tells us that the heart is decitful above all things.
So in essence: without God you are someone capable of a lot more sin than you thought possible.
And still people think they don’t need God…
It’s hard to believe.
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure there’s as much hypocrisy here as you assert, Andy.
Instead, it sounds to me as though the question is one of what issues parents can be trusted with. (For example, it would be interesting to see the response of the health authorities to a parent who refused a medically necessary blood transfusion on his or her child. I imagine there are provisions in law for dealing with such eventualities.)
I can’t remember where, but I saw (probably on a blog or comments) that the reason why the authorities don’t require parental consent – or notification – for abortions is because they don’t trust the parents to “respond in a constructive manner”. Meaning, as far as I can tell, that they don’t trust parents to act as rubber stamps. But they probably do trust parents to be OK with standard medical interventions – hence no need for special rules.
Having said that, I confess that if in some distant day I have a pregnant teenage daughter who wishes to abort – I’m not sure how I would respond…I think that situation would call for more wisdom than I possess right now. But I admit that I would almost certainly prefer to at least know about it beforehand, so I could have some chance of persuading her to reconsider.
Hah…life would be easier if the ability to have sex weren’t gained until the legal age of majority.
they don’t trust the parents to “respond in a constructive manner”.I see what you’re saying gronk, but the issue is that “they” do not have the jurisdiction to remove this right from parents – as you alluded to yourself, further down.
Hah. My first blog post, and it seems I’ve already managed to cause a misunderstanding. For the record, I am opposed to abortion (except possibly in very rare cases, e.g. life of the mother), and I also see the stupidity of the law that gives it a privileged status.
…the issue is that “they” do not have the jurisdiction to remove this right from parents…As a practical matter, they do, and they have done.
But to put it as an issue of parents’ rights is to set up a tug-of-war between the “rights” of a young woman and those of her parents. There may be more helpful ways to argue for beefed-up parental-notification laws.
But I think the part of the law that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the attitude that “some parents disagree with the State about what is in a girl’s best interest (i.e., unfettered access to abortion). Therefore we shall ignore them.”
I hope that clears up the misunderstanding. You’ll see me quoting from the other side and playing devil’s advocate occasionally. I don’t mean to cause confusion.
I see what you’re saying and I agree with you. I was trying to get at the irony that parents must be notified in some cases, but in others, this principle is ignored.
The wonderful fact of the matter is that no matter how many you pro-lifers rant and rave, force your opinions on people and whinge about it, the government will never take away a womans rights to do with her own body as she likes. It angers me so much when men think they can have a go about abortions and contraception, when in reality they really shouldn't even have the nerve to speak about things they will never experience. you will never have a child borne out of rape, you will never go through the agonising decisions leading to an abortion or keeping the child, you will never fully grasp and understand the choice of a woman in that situation, because you aren't one. I thank your god that people like you aren't in any positions of power. Bias and bigots who would love to return to the medieval days where a woman was a mans puppet, to manipulate and control her how he wished. KEEP DREAMING.YOU WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AWAY!!
Sorry, but claiming that someone cannot have a valid opinion on abortion because they will not even experience one is a logical fallacy. That's like saying decent people cannot have valid opinions about mass murder because they will never have to decide to commit such a crime or have never experienced making such a decision. That is just an ad hominem argument.
Abortion is not a right. It is not only about a woman's body. It involves the destruction of ANOTHER PERSON's body.
There's no worse bigotry than denying the rights of the unborn simply because they cannot defend themselves.
spot on Manny
Very nice and informative post, I am also in favor of this, there should no be a requirement for prescription for getting an emergency pill, I would also say about tubal reversal which is a surgery by which a woman has a chance to pregnant again.
i m not agree with woman who aboard a life.i think this is a murder.they should care of it.