United Future
Gordon Copeland

Copeland speech on Third Reading of Care of Children Bill

It is difficult for me to imagine a more intimate moment in a child/parent relationship than the decision to terminate a pregnancy when a girl is less than 16 years of age.

It is tragic, of course, for the life of the unborn child, which is brought to an end. It is traumatic for the girl having to make such a serious decision at such a young age, as she is physically a woman but psychologically and mentally still a child. It is emotional for the parents who, as adults, are so aware of all the ramifications that will flow from that critical situation.

It is very wrong for the State to intrude into the affairs of a family at such a time. But that is exactly what we do if we do not change the law tonight to permit parental notification in those circumstances. A family needs to draw together in love at such a time, and the parents do not need to be kept in the dark.

I want to share with members a story from my own experience, and I mention it for the benefit of those who claim there is no problem with the present law.

I am very good friends with a solo mother, a wonderful woman, who discovered, some time after the event, that her daughter of 14 had had an abortion. When she came to talk to her daughter about that, her daughter said: "Mum, when I found myself pregnant I felt very guilty. When I had the abortion I felt very guilty. But the greatest burden of guilt I have been carrying with me, mum, is that fact that you didnít know."

The framers of the existing law, which has been here since 1977, did not envisage State sanction, and in fact State-created deception and secrecy at such a time.

Yes, the law does uphold the right of the girl herself to make the final choice and should not be forced into an abortion against her will or forced to give birth against her will. But the presumption was always that, either way, the parents would be involved.

Never in those lawmakersí wildest dreams-and I have spoken to people who were here at the time-did they envisage that a veil of secrecy would descend in such situations as the one I have described tonight.

It never crossed their minds. From that point of view, those who claim that this law is settled law, that it should not be changed, and that it has had no problems are either completely out of touch or, having made up their minds, do not want to be confused with the facts.

Judicial bypass, which is part of the bill, would solve any problems alluded to tonight. I believe judicial bypass (to a Judge where there is good reason why the girlís parents should not be notified) is vitally important, especially in the case of violence or incest.

Such heinous crimes against young girls must not be left in the dark or swept under the rug, as they used to be in the Pitcairn Islands. The culprits must be brought to justice and made to face the full force of the law in such circumstances, and I tell members tonight in this Parliament that that is not happening.

We have a problem in this country with incest, and it is swept under the carpet, and this existing law is being used as a means of keeping that information from the police and from the authorities involved.

Finally, let us not forget tonight those brave young women who chose to give birth against the wishes of their parents. They deserve our full support, our love, our compassion.