KEY POINTS:
Abortion practitioners will wait for a final judgment before changing the way they do business.
High Court Justice Forrest Miller said in a judicial review of the workings of the Abortion Supervisory Committee issued this week that New Zealand's abortion statistics gave rise to "powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions".
Later, both major political parties sidestepped giving their views on the abortion law, saying they would wait until the litigation process was complete.
Appeals can still be lodged, and a reserved judgement will be delivered.
Christchurch GP and former Medical Association chairwoman Dr Pippa MacKay, who performs abortions, said the judge's decision would not change the way practitioners operated.
"It's business as usual. Those of us that are working under the law believe that we are applying it.
"There's no feeling in my mind that I have to do anything any differently from what I've already been doing."
Family Planning chief executive Jackie Edmond said there was no suggestion doctors who had been practising abortions had been intentionally breaking the law.
"No one has been doing this without believing they're within the law," she said.
Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said: "We're just seeking to have the current legislation upheld. The law's good if it's being strictly upheld."
LETTER OF THE LAW
How does our abortion law compare?
New Zealand: Legal if the mother faces a danger to her life, physical or mental health, or if there is a risk to the fetus.
United States: No restrictions.
Canada: No restrictions.
Sweden: No restrictions.
Britain: Similar to New Zealand's law.
Australia: Law set by each state or territory - the ACT has no restrictions; New South Wales and Western Australia are more liberal than NZ; Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania law similar to ours.
