Justispolitisk spalte: Arbeiderpartiet og abort

Injuria.no • 3. mars 2019

Skrevet av Matias Alexander Baltazar Birkeland og Fredrik Vingsnes,
jusstudenter og medlemmer av Arbeiderpartiet i Bergen. Foto: Privat

 

Vi jusstudenter vel kjent med at lovverket blir brukt aktivt for å fremme politiske avveininger og kompromiss. Sluttproduktet av dette er gjerne det metodelæren kategoriserer som lovgiverviljen. I praksis kan det innebærer å vedta, fjerne eller endre en lov. Norge er den anerkjente rettsstaten vi er i dag fordi vi har hatt en aktiv og fremtidsrettet demokratisk lovgiver opp gjennom historien.

Arbeiderpartiet har stått fremst i kampen for rettigheter vi idag tar som en selvfølge. Det var ikke gitt at kvinner skulle få stemmerett i 1913 - det var ikke før Høyre gjorde helomvending og ville stemme for, at forslaget fikk flertall.

Det var heller ikke gitt at ekteskapsloven skulle være kjønnsnøytral, slik at alle par, homofile, heterofile, eller alt imellom, juridisk sett er fullstendig likestilte. Selv om mange i dag tar for gitt at ekteskapsloven er kjønnsnøytral, var det ikke uten motstand at Stoltenberg-regjeringen vedtok lovendringen.

Reservasjonsretten for leger

Våren 2014 raste saken om reservasjonsretten for leger. Høyre- og FrP regjeringen ville legge til rette for at leger skulle få slippe å henvise til abort. Dette ville ført til at kvinner som ønsket å ta abort, men møtte en “vanskelig” fastlege, risikerte å bli kastet rundt i helsevesenet på jakt etter “rett” fastlege for å få oppfylt sine rettigheter etter loven.

Arbeiderpartiet har hele tiden vært krystallklare på at alle som jobber i helsevesenet har plikt til å gi pasientene det de har krav på etter loven. Ingen skal påføre kvinner ekstra belastninger på grunn av egne samvittighetskvaler. De som tror at abort er et enkelt valg, bør revurdere egen bakkekontakt.

Heldigvis tok ti-tusenvis av kvinner og menn til motmæle, blant annet på 8. mars, kvinnedagen. Rekordstore demonstrasjoner mot lovendringen ga resultater. Regjeringen ga opp forslaget.

Abort

Loven om selvbestemt abort ble innført av Odvar Nordlis Arbeiderparti-regjering til store protester fra høyresiden. Loven var et radikalt likestillingsprosjekt i favør kvinners rettigheter, på bekostning av tidligere kristenkonservativ tenking om fosterets stilling.

I dag har Norge selvbestemt abort frem til uke 12 i svangerskapet. Hvis abort ønskes etter uke 12 må kvinnen møte i en nemnd å forklare hvorfor en ikke har mulighet til å bære frem barnet.

For Arbeiderpartiet er kvinners selvbestemmelsesrett ufravikelig - åpenbart i motsetning til dagens regjering. Arbeiderpartiet i Bergen ønsker å utvide adgangen for fri abort fra 12 uker til 18 uker og dermed fjerne abortnemndenes betydning. Det er ingen medisinske årsaker til at vi ikke kan ha selvbestemt abort frem til uke 18. Derfor bør det være helt og holdent opp til kvinnen selv å bestemme.

Det hører ikke hjemme i 2019 å ha en ordning der kvinner må møte en nemnd for å utbrodere egen livssituasjon for å kunne ta abort. Det er, og skal være, den enkeltes valg - uansett. Dette forstod svenskene allerede på 70 tallet, som har hatt samme liberale praksis - som Arbeiderpartiet med flere tar til ordet for - i nærmere 50 år.

Fosterreduksjon - klarer du en, klarer du to?

Barne- og familieminister Kjell Ingolf Ropstad famøse uttalelse om fosterreduksjon har spredt seg som ild i tørt gress på sosiale medier. Regjeringspartiene Høyre, FrP, Venstre og KrF sitt nye forslag innebærer at kvinner som er gravid med to tvillinger, ikke har anledning til å abortere bort ett av fostrene uten å stille i abortnemnd og få nemndas velsignelse. Regjeringens “nye” system er det samme som for selvbestemt abort etter uke 12. Den samme praksis som svenskene ble kvitt for nærmere 50 år siden.

Til tross for at kvinnen allerede har gjort seg opp en mening om familiens situasjon, kapasitet, økonomi, og andre personlige forhold, og tatt en avgjørelse, anser regjeringen seg mer kompetent til å vite og bestemme hva som er best for kvinnen og den enkelte familie.

Resultatet blir fort at man aborterer bort begge fostrene. Dette vil være en stor påkjenning for den enkelte, og kan umulig harmonere med KrF og Høyre sitt overordnede mål om reduserte aborttall.

Helseminister Bent Høie sier det selv: “Det betyr at fosterreduksjon ikke lenger skal være selvbestemt.” Han presiserer samtidig at “Kvinnens vurdering av egen situasjon skal tillegges vekt”. Hva nå enn det skulle bety.

For hvis kvinnen ønsker abort, kan virkelig Høie og Ropstad mene at andre momenter enn akkurat kvinnens eget ønske skal tillegges større vekt?

Som kommende jurister er vi godt drillet i skjønnsmessige helhetsvurderinger. For oss i Arbeiderpartiet er det åpenbart at den helhetsvurderingen skal tas av kvinnen selv, ikke av Høie og Ropstad sin abortnemnd.

 

< Eldre innlegg

Nyere innlegg >

Lex Promille

Av Siggen og Begeret • 1. mai 2026
Akkurat som med Snusboks-leken skal du sende en gjenstand (helst Norges Lover) til den påstanden resonerer best med. Drikk hver gang du får den, eller når rimet slapper for hardt. Splash er selvfølgelig oblig!

Why is it important to strengthen local aid organisations?

Av By Sabrina Eriksen-Zapata, Josefine Gløersen and Hilda Sønderland Lundanes - ELSA Bergen, Academic Activities Research Group (2025-2026) • 23. april 2026
Last year’s Rafto Prize was awarded to Emergency Response Rooms of Sudan (ERRs) for their humanitarian work in the Sudanese civil war. As conflict continues to devastate the country and displace millions, ERR has played a vital role as a local humanitarian organisation. The organisation is community-driven and focuses on empowering the local community, which was one of the reasons why they were awarded the Rafto Prize1. The recognition of ERR raises questions on how local humanitarian organisations compare to international organisations in terms of efficiency, capacity and long-term sustainability. Efficiency and Structure International organisations will, to a larger degree, use international staff. However, in some cases they will employ and use staff from the country in crisis, in which they will be able to deploy their local understanding in the situation2. In the cases where international organisations do not use local staff to a great extent, there are undoubtedly several benefits of using local aid organisations instead. When comparing the efficiency and structure of humanitarian organisations, clear differences appear between local and international actors. Local actors have more cultural and contextual knowledge which allows them to use other approaches than international organisations. The Building Resilient Communities in Somalia (BRCiS) consortium included Somali local expertise, and thus was able to tailor the aid based on what the affected people actually needed.3 While the methods of the local actors are tailored to the specific context, international organisations often use standardised operating procedures. These procedures often prove efficient at the time of crises but can also provide a risk for unintended harm arising from the lack of understanding of local customs. International and local humanitarian aid organisations are also different in the way they are structured. The local organisations often have a vertical structure which might make it easier for them to adapt to sudden changes compared to organisations with hierarchical structures which are less flexible. Since local actors are already present in the affected area, they are able to respond quickly to sudden escalations in a current crisis. For example, ERR was based on community-led activities existing prior to the Sudanese war, which allowed them to establish immediately after the outbreak of the war.4 Because they were not dependent on foreign staff, they were able to mobilize quickly by using resources from local networks. By contrast, international organisations will to a large degree depend on international staff who have to be transported to the conflict-affected area. During the typhoon in the Philippines in 2013, the local NGOs had a more efficient first response because they were already present in the area.5 For international organisations, decisions have to pass through more levels of approval before international staff can be deployed, making it harder to be present when the crisis first emerges. International organisations may also struggle to enter the conflict-affected area because of restrictions and safety concerns while local actors have a more immediate access. Funding and legitimacy The local and international aid organizations also differ when it comes to accessing donors and funding, and areas where help is needed. The local organizations may not be well known outside of their area. This could impact their funding, as those who are willing to donate may not know of their work, or know who to trust. From the donors' point of view, it is difficult to trust that their money is going to the right causes when they have limited knowledge of the area and the different local organizations. This makes it more likely that they will choose to donate to the international organizations they know and trust. The access to donors is a great advantage for the international organizations. On the other hand, some studies suggest that local organizations might use their funding more efficiently. In 2024, The Share Trust and Refugees International in cooperation with Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) published a study which showed that the local intermediaries were 15.5% more cost-efficient than the international ones in Ukraine. The study found that the UNOCHA Country Based Pooled Fund saved about $ 5.5 million in just one year.6 While the funding showed to be more efficient when going to the local actors in Ukraine this may not necessarily be the case elsewhere. In other areas the local actors will have widely different degrees of organization, and it will be difficult to predict how effective the funding will be. The funding of the organizations also shape the access they have to areas where aid is needed. This is clear when you look at the difference between MSF Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. MSF is based on private donations as a way to protect their independence. 7 This funding strategy also allows them to not be associated with a country’s policy, which ensures their access to multiple areas other organizations do not have access to. While they gain access by staying independent with their funding, MSF is vocal about their experiences in the areas they work. This can both be a hindrance and a benefit, depending on whether the people in power wish to be in the spotlight or not. The Red Cross on the other hand relies heavily on financial contributions from states. However, their long-term humanitarian commitment to the principle of neutrality has provided the Red Cross access to conflict areas where other international humanitarian organisations were denied access due to them publicly reporting war crimes and violations they witnessed. For instance, MSF were denied access to Darfur for publicly reporting the rape of over 500 women by soldiers, whilst the Red Cross were able to remain due to their principle of remaining silent and not reporting violations that they witnessed.8 By funding the local actors, one can circumvent the problem altogether. The local actors will have access to the area no matter where they get their funding from or what they publish about the crisis since they are already there. All in all, the funding of local actors is shown to be positive. However, at the same time they lack the legitimacy and the resources that the international aid organizations have. Empowering the affected people Scholars have also pointed out how local organisations can create a sense of ownership and empowerment in a time of crisis and war. Including the local population in humanitarian aid can help the affected people of the crisis feel a sense of control in a time of despair and hopelessness. Using local staff and collecting them together to work on infrastructural projects, or on the distribution of water, food and medicine can also create a sense of solidarity and cohesion which is incredibly important in times of war. Scholars have even suggested that creating such a space where the affected population collaborate together on their common humanity can even facilitate the discussion of peace and negotiation further down the road.9 Strengthening local organisations will also provide a more sustainable dynamic in later crises as the people can transfer knowledge, dynamics and infrastructure they have built. For instance, the BRIGHTLY consortium, combined the strengths of international aid organisations with national Yemeni organisations to empower and strengthen the local community. It put the decision-making processes in the hands of the local community which paved the way for mentoring and training.10 Not only is this empowering on a psychological level, but it is also extremely sustainable in the long-term. Therefore, this article does not intend to diminish the importance of international aid organisations. On the contrary, international aid organisations have been vital in securing life for centuries. However, as this article mentions, and seen through ERR’s hard work in Sudan, strengthening local organisations can provide aid relief in a sustainable and efficient manner, in addition to empowering the affected population in a time of crisis.