Deputy Speaker, it is an absolute disgrace that we are here today debating a Bill that was debated three years ago, simply because the NCOP refused to hold public hearings. What a waste of time and money! I am sure the Minister agrees.
The Constitutional Court was right in forcing Parliament to hold public hearings on this very important piece of legislation. It is in the public interest to do so.
Deputy Speaker, these amendments intend to allow nurses to perform first trimester abortions up to twelve weeks after going on a prescribed course which is within the World Health Organisation's recommendations. Since 1994 when 425 deaths occurred due to unsafe abortions, there has been a 90% reduction in early maternal deaths. Many of the public submissions raised several concerns which relate to people's moral and religious beliefs and in fact mainly related to the principal Act. I certainly believe that there was an opportunity missed by the ANC by not addressing some of them. The right to conscientious objection is a fundamental right which the ANC, for some unknown reasons, refuses to insert in the Act.
Currently there is no provision in the Act which allows medical staff the right to refuse to perform or assist in abortion. During deliberations in the principal Act of 1996 and this week's discussions, the ANC and even pro- choice groups felt that medical staff were adequately protected under the Constitution of Chapter 2 (9)(3) of the Bill of Rights, where a person cannot be discriminated against for amongst other reasons religion, conscience or beliefs.
However, 11 years down the line, some medical staff are claiming that this provision is simply not good enough and that they are being pressurised to perform abortions. In addition, in order to enforce their rights, they have to go to the Constitutional Court which is costly and time-consuming.
Since the adoption of the Civil Union Act, where a conscience clause was inserted, giving marriage officers the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples, the government has through its actions accepted the principle of conscientious objection and that it should be spelt out in law, clearly indicating on what basis this can be done. An inclusion of such a clause would not have had any negative impact on this piece of legislation.
The fact that the department is still formulating draft regulations pertaining to when a medical staff member can refuse to conduct an abortion, 11 years after the adoption of the Act, is an absolute disgrace and shows the contempt this government holds for people wanting to express their conscience. [Applause.]
Another issue of contention was that of mandatory counselling as opposed to nonmandatory counselling. Every person going for HIV-testing has to have counselling for obvious reasons, so why should the same not apply to those wanting abortions?
Having an abortion cannot be downplayed as a simple procedure that has no or little impact on the person concerned. Counselling is essential in order to inform the women or a girl of her options so she can make an informed decision - an empowered woman will make the right decision that is appropriate for her.
Equally important is postcounselling, not only to ensure that the woman or girl is coping emotionally, but also for promotion of family planning and birth control to prevent repeat abortions.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.] [Time expired.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the termination of pregnancy issue essentially boils down to one's approach to life: when does it begin, what is a soul, how do we differentiate between the sacred and the profane?
True, life is a continuum. There is no one moment when a foetus becomes pain-sensitive or viable and science pushes back the limit daily. Some contraception causes fertilized eggs to be bled away. How is this different from termination of pregnancy in the first twelve weeks?
The procedure is simple. Misoprostil is given; it softens the cervix and begins contractions or bleeding. The practitioner dilates the cervix and inserts a sterile syringe to suck out the foetus and scrape the womb. It's so easy, we were assured time and again, and who wants a 12-year-old girl to be saddled with a baby?
In choosing between saving unborn babies from the pain of chemical or mechanical death, or women from the pain of backstreet abortions the choice between right and wrong is impossible to make. But it is the job of legislators to make difficult choices and to steer society in certain directions. So, the IFP will not sit on the fence and give our members a choice in this vote.
The IFP's core principles are to strengthen the family, recognise and promote the sacredness of life and to protect people from harm. We do not support the move in South Africa to talk about morality to let people do what they like, to protect the lives of heinous criminals or to let our children treat each other like sex toys.
This legislation entitles a girl who menstruates, from whatever age, to access abortion on demand, enacted by nurses with short training courses and facilities only with access to emergency or hospital facilities. We support termination of pregnancy under qualified circumstances; with parental input for minors; with mandatory counselling, in facilities with emergency equipment and managed responsibly in a decentralised fashion. This legislation does not cater to all of these.
Life is a wondrous gift and we are the custodians who must spread that message. Therefore, we oppose this legislation which moves to trivialise life.
But I must say that we did not come easily to this decision and we did benefit, in making it, from the hearings. Our chairperson, Mr Ngculu and the committee conducted them in a thorough, fair and respectful fashion, for which we congratulate them. No person or group can now claim that they have not been heard on this issue of termination of pregnancy. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, most presenters at the public hearings expressed grave concerns about the implications of this Bill, which aims to increase access to abortion. The negative impact of the Bill on health workers and health services was a common concern. The overriding issue was, however, the increased risk to woman's emotional and physical well-being and the blatant further violation of the unborn child's right to life. The committee yet again simply ignored the inputs and proceeded unabated on a mission to steamroll the Bill through Parliament.
The ACDP proposed various amendments aimed not only at protecting women and children considering termination, but also providing protection for health care workers and professionals who choose not to participate in termination of pregnancy due to religious, ethical or moral beliefs. Court cases, as we are aware, are ongoing where medical staff has been discriminated against for refusing to carry out termination procedures.
The ACDP's amendments also provide for mandatory counselling to ensure that mothers are well informed about the risks of abortion and the alternatives available. Many women are suffering from physical, emotional and psychological consequences of abortions as they did not have enough information to make an informed choice. We need to reach out with compassion to such women, particularly those suffering from postabortion syndrome.
The ACDP believes that by ignoring calls for explicit and mandatory counselling, government is setting itself up to be sued in the future for suppressing information and the findings of medical research. The Uniting Presbyterian Church in South Africa, for example, has cautioned that unless such amendments are adopted, women for whom we are seeking protection will soon be seeking justice and compensation just as in the case of tobacco companies and mines who have had to pay for the consequences of their neglect in failing to fully inform smokers and the users of short-fibre asbestos about the inherent risks.
This is a timely wake-up call which should be heeded - and we would as the ACDP fully support and in fact encourage women to embark upon this litigation. Women who have had abortions require every form of assistance due to physical, emotional and psychological effects.
The ACDP, in addressing these issues, does not waiver in its conviction that the value of innocent human life is priceless and is in full agreement with the views of the Uniting Presbyterian Church of South Africa that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
The great antislavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, understood that while people may ignore the truth, they still recognise it when they see it. So, he looked for ways to remind people of what they already knew in their hearts, that slavery was wrong. Similarly, we are winning the hearts and minds of our people that abortion is wrong. Independent polls showed the 1996 abortion law to be South Africa's most unpopular law. The ACDP will oppose this Bill. I thank you.
Agb Mev die Adjunkspeaker, ek is bevrees die ANC sal nie luister na wat die argumente van vandag is nie, net so min as wat hulle geluister het 11 jaar gelede toe die hoofwet deur die Huis gedebateer is.
Die argumente is reeds gestel rondom die beginsel van aborsie en hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp verander niks aan daardie beginsel nie. Inteendeel, aborsies word makliker gemaak as wat die hoofwet aanvanklik toegelaat het. Dit word tegnies afgewentel na die provinsies toe om die besluite te neem, provinsiale LURe kan die besluite neem om sulke inrigtings in te rig, maar die onstellendste daarvan is dat 'n kind - nie 'n vrou nie, 'n kind - van 12-jaar-oud, op haar eie 'n besluit kan neem om 'n aborsie te ondergaan.
Ek wil vir u s dat daar geen manier is dat 'n kind van 12 jaar die implikasies besef wat sy die res van haar lewe met haar gaan saamdra wanneer sy volwasse is, nadat sy 'n aborsie ondergaan het nie. Dit is prakties wat hierdie wet gaan moontlik maak.
Ek is bevrees, soos ek ges het, dat die ANC nie daarna sal luister nie. Miskien moet ons eendag 'n debat daaroor voer, oor wat die werklike rede is waarom die ANC, en veral die dames in die ANC, so sterk voel oor aborsie. Ek is van mening dis om 'n verkeerde, misplaaste rede, maar miskien moet ons daardie gesprek eendag voer. Die VF Plus sal teen hierdie wetgewing stem. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that the ANC will not listen to today's arguments, just as they did not listen when the Principal Act was debated in this House 11 years ago.
We have argued on the principle of abortion, and this amending Bill doesn't change anything regarding that principle. As a matter of fact, to have an abortion becomes easier than the Principal Act initially allowed. Technically, the power to make decisions on allowing abortion clinics is being devolved down to the provinces and provincial MECs can make these decisions.
What is even more upsetting is the fact that a child - not a woman, but a 12-year-old child - can make an independent decision to undergo an abortion. I want to emphasise that a 12-year-old child cannot grasp the implications that she will have to carry throughout her adult life after undergoing an abortion. This is what this Bill will make possible in practice.
I am afraid, as I have said, that the ANC will not listen to this. Maybe we should, one day, debate the actual reason why the ANC, and especially the ladies of the ANC, feel so strongly about abortion. I believe that it is for a wrong, misplaced reason, but maybe we should have that discussion someday. The FF Plus will vote against this piece of legislation. Thank you.]
Deputy Speaker, the sad part in what we are dealing with here today is that the parties that have contributed to the debate thus far have not addressed its substance.
This piece of legislation was brought to the House because there was not sufficient public participation. That is the crux of the matter. As a result, we, as the portfolio committee, entertained over 60 submissions which, collectively, cost us 1 265 minutes.
What was most gratifying about the entire process of participation was, of course, the conduct of members of the different political parties, in particular that of Mike Waters from the DA and Ruth Rabinowitz ...
They are both hon members!
I want to congratulate them very much on their conduct and for the manner in which they participated in this process.
The sad part was the spoonfeeding by hon Cheryl Dudley. Every time she asked a question, she actually told the participants what to say, which is quite sad. I'm sure that, as a leader of a party, she should, at some point, do some introspection with regard to her conduct around these particular issues.
Therefore, the substance here is about the amendments that were there. One of the things that must be commended about this Bill is the fact that it has opened access for women. It has dramatically reduced maternal deaths since its introduction.
Equally, it has allowed women their right to reproductive health, and that is the crux of the issue. All your philosophical, ideological and religious beliefs should be subservient to the rights of women in terms of their access to reproductive health. As I have indicated earlier, that is the crux of the matter. Let's not introduce things that are actually ancillary to specific interests of this particular piece of legislation.
In particular, we would like to thank the people who took the time to make their submissions. There are a lot of people who we, as the ANC, would like to congratulate on the manner in which they made their submissions. We are satisfied that the process was thorough, efficient, and, from our side, I think the diligence and patience on the part of the Members of Parliament was something salutary.
Any other issue outside of this piece of legislation should remain there, because the question of conscientious objection, counselling and all those things are covered by a number of pieces of legislation. If you look at your National Health Act, it covers them.
If you look into the question of counselling, you'll see that it is covered in the Principal Act: "There shall be nonmandatory, nondirective counselling." It's there. Why do people want to include things that are actually their own philosophical, subjective interests in the piece of legislation in order to drive the point home that there must be counselling?
At some point some of us here who hold some of these quasi-religious beliefs must begin to look at ourselves and ask the question: What is the interest of women in all of this? Thank you. [Time expired.]
He is out of order, Madam Chair!
Order! You should have raised a point of order whilst he was at the podium, instead of screaming at me after he has completed his speech. I want to go on with my work. Will you please allow me to do so? Thank you. Are there any objections to the Bill being read for the second time? Since there are objections, I now put the question. Those in favour will say "Aye" and those against, "No". The "ayes" have it. There was no debate.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time. Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 148: Asiya, S E; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bloem, D V; Bogopane- Zulu, H I; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chohan, F I; Cronin, J P; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Doidge, G Q M; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Kohler-Barnard, D; Kondlo, N C; Kotwal, Z; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Ludwabe, C I; Madella, A F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Martins, B A D; Masango, S J; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Matsemela, M L; Matsomela, M J J; Mbili, M E; Mbombo, N D; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morgan, G R; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Mpahlwa, M B ; Mthembu, B; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nogumla, R Z; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Padayachie, R L; Pandor, G N M; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Rabie, P J; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Selau, J G; Semple, J A; September, C C; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sikakane, M R; Skhosana, W M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Steyn, A C; Surty, M E; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala- Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Twala, N M; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Yengeni, L E; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 41: Blanch, J P I; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Camerer, S M; Chang, E S; Cupido, H B; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; Green, L M; Jenner, I E; King, R J; Labuschagne, L B; Likotsi, M T; Marais, S J F; Meshoe, K R J; Minnie, K J; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Opperman, S E; Pule, B E; Rabinowitz, R; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Seremane, W J; Sibuyana, M W; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, S N; Swathe, M M; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Van Niekerk, A I; Waters, M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z.
ABSTAIN - 4: Bici, J; De Lille, P; Mdlalose, M M; Sigcau, S N.
As the result of the division showed that there was not a majority of the members of the Assembly present for a vote to be taken on the Bill as required by Rule 25(2)(a), decision of question postponed.