Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. As I rise in this House it's been quite amazing really the number of statements that have been made by people on both sides of this argument that I clearly agree with. And when Jan Logie talked about the times in 1977 when the initial Act was written clearly we've significantly moved on from there. And when Minister Little talked about the fact that this legislation absolutely needs updating I totally agree. I agree with the fact that abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act. And I agree that actually earlier abortions will be better for all involved. And I agree with the fact that better access to counselling must be available for any woman who has an abortion. But what I don't agree with is that it should be on demand with no consideration. And the comment and the key element in this debate has been that abortion is a medical procedure. And I've been thinking long and hard about what is a similar medical procedure. So absolutely—it should be dealt with from a health perspective rather than the Crimes Act but to have absolutely no requirements no tests nothing up to the age of 20 weeks I think is problematic. And part of that is because the Ministry of Health themselves say that a fully formed baby is at 12 weeks of pregnancy—so at the end of a first trimester is what the Ministry of Health says. And I want to use an example to explain why I've wrestled with why this is just being considered a medical procedure. I was told in my 20s that I'd probably never have children. I had some fairly major health issues so I was on fairly heavy-duty drugs that required me to take contraceptives at the same time. I then found at 11 weeks that I was pregnant and told that I absolutely must terminate because of the drugs I'd been taking. And I wasn't sure. So I was then told by the specialists if I was carrying a boy then absolutely I must terminate—the risk of serious abnormalities and disabilities was so great. So I carried on with chorionic villus sampling was told I was carrying a boy and in addition they had identified genetic abnormalities. So now it seemed to me in terms of what the medical profession was telling me I had no choice. But actually—and with a genetic abnormality; it's similar to Down's syndrome—they told me that they would perform the abortion up to 24 weeks. So I thought I'll go through the process. I'll go through exactly the same process that any other woman in that situation who's deciding whether or not to end a pregnancy would go through." and at the end of the day I made my decision and decided not to terminate. I have a 21-year-old son who is a gorgeous strapping healthy boy who is 6 foot 5. So yes when we talk about it being a medical procedure it's actually a bit more than that and if I had trusted and fully put my faith in the medical professionals I wouldn't have had 21 years with the most adorable boy that ever has been. So I agree that absolutely it's a traumatic decision when someone is weighing up those options and so many in the House have agreed with that. My next pregnancy was planned and it was so exciting going through all those phases studying in detail—particularly up to the 12 weeks because I had missed that in the first pregnancy—only to have a miscarriage at 17 weeks. Anyone in this House who's listening to this debate who has had a miscarriage will understand how devastating that is to lose a baby and it was under 20 weeks—17 weeks. No that baby in medical science today can't survive and wouldn't be considered viable but for those that lose babies through miscarriage that's exactly what you're losing. So I struggle with the medical procedure and I struggle with 20 weeks and that's why I won't be supporting this bill."