Swimwatch has followed Eyad’s progress through the Mare Nostrum tour and the FINA World Championships. Eyad arrived back in New Zealand on Thursday night. It seems appropriate to conclude with a blog that reviews his performance and suggests lessons for the future.

Foreign travel quickly reveals true character. The response of athletes to overseas tours fall into one of three categories.

Some see the opportunity as an excuse to party, party, party. I remember talking to a well-known New Zealand runner about an American athlete we knew. I commented how sad it was that the American was running so badly. My New Zealand friend snorted and replied, “Perhaps if he spent a night sleeping in his own bed, he would run better.” Temptations to eat, drink and misbehave are huge on big sporting trips.

I have also seen athletes overcome by the experience. A few years ago, I took a team to the New South Wales Championships. A promising swimmer walked into the Homebush Olympic Pool and burst into tears. “I can’t swim here,” she said. The size of the pool, the flags, the lights, the spectator seating and the live music were all too much. No amount of explaining that the pool was the same size as the one she swam in every day in New Zealand would calm her fears. She swam terribly and couldn’t wait to get home. Another swimmer I took to Mare Nostrum had the same problem. She left the team after the first event in Barcelona to fly home to the United States.

And the third category respond positively to the whole experience. This is the life of a professional athlete. What a great opportunity. And they get on with their job in a professional, low key and balanced manner. I’ve watched a number of fine athletes on tour. Walker, Quax, Dixon, Loader, my wife Alison, my daughter Jane and Olympic gold medalist Rhi. All of them followed the rules of this third category. This was their job. This is what they were on tour to do. At a meet in West Berlin, I remember Alison telling me how much better it was running with 40,000 people watching. That is the sign of a professional.

This trip has confirmed Eyad as a category three member. I have been delighted with his calm professionalism. He may not be the fastest swimmer yet, but he has certainly demonstrated the personal qualities that could take him there.

The table below sets out the result of Eyad’s races.

EVENT	PB	TIME	PB
Monaco 50 free	23.85	24.38	No
Monaco 50 fly	25.89	26.27	No
Monaco 100 fly	1.00.48	59.79	Yes
Barcelona 50 free	23.85	24.01	No
Barcelona 50 fly	25.89	25.95	No
Canet 50 free	23.85	24.31	No
Canet 50 fly	25.89	25.84	Yes
Budapest 50 fly	25.84	25.27	Yes
Budapest 100 fly	59.79	59.78	Yes
Budapest 50 Fr TT	23.85	23.77	Yes

Ten races in six weeks. Five PBs for a 50% ratio. By any standards that is a successful outcome. In the best tradition of athletes who have left New Zealand to take on the world, Eyad is tough, he is professional and he will deliver his very best.

And so, what have we learned? Has the trip taught us anything that can progress Eyad’s swimming to world class?

With thanks to three sources, we have been provided with information that shines a light into Eyad’s swimming future.

First there is the knowledge Eyad has gained through contact with swimming legends such as Ranomi Kromowidjojo and Anthony Ervin. Even sitting in the wait room with swimmers like Caleb Dressel is a maturing experience. But I must thank coaches like Andy McMillan, Graham Smith, Michelle Gillies and Gary Francis for their knowledge and assistance in getting Eyad through this six weeks. Swimming in New Zealand is in good hands with people like these in control.  

Second, the knowledge we gained through watching Eyad compete at this level is invaluable. Where is he competitive? Where is there ground to make up? It was all there on full display.

And third, the analysis of each race provided by High Performance Sport New Zealand’s Elliot Snedden. The statistical confirmation that what we were seeing in Eyad’s races was confirmed is worth its weight in gold.

So, what is there to work on? Here is how I described it to Eyad in a recent newsletter.

“TECHNIQUE – better underwater at the start, improved and longer kick, less swimming.

POWER – more power in the middle section to hold 8% more of your dive speed. Lift heavier weights in the gym.

AEROBIC FITNESS – hold your 35m speed through to the finish. More swims around the swimming Waitakeres. Ah, the joys of those 10k sessions.”

No report on Eyad’s trip would be complete without mentioning that the day Eyad arrived back in New Zealand he tested positive for Covid. How’s that for good timing. And so, our start to the new program is going to have to wait a couple of weeks while Eyad gets through and over all that.

Thank you again to all those who have helped Eyad through his first international swimming trip. Swimming New Zealand, FINA, the IOC and the NZOC have all played a part in making this journey possible. Thank you. It has been invaluable.   

In about twelve months New Zealanders are going to have to decide who to vote for in the General Election. I’ve decided to go with Jacinda. Let me explain why.

The Negative

Beware of the right. I know many will say what happens in the United States has no bearing on how the right wing of New Zealand politics will behave. Don’t believe that for a minute. Remember this.

• Previous leader of the National Party, Todd Muller, was determined to display a Donald Trump hat in pride of place in his Beehive office. The National Party wanted a Trump clone to be their leader.
• The current leader of the National Party, Chris Luxon, has joined the mob waving supporter’s flags and cheering on ultra-right American politician, Ted Cruz. Luxon learned his political views at a Ted Cruz rally. The National Party has chosen an admitted American right-wing sycophant as its leader.  
• There are 33 National Party MPs in parliament. 17 (52%) of those are bigots who voted against New Zealand’s liberal abortion laws. They called the legislation worse than the Holocaust and tantamount to murder. They welcomed the American Supreme Court decision to ban abortions. They called it “a great day”.
•  Listen to National Party supporters, Mike Hosking and Heather du Plessis-Allan. Their views are hand in glove with their vile American twins, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Every day they tear at the fabric of civil New Zealand society. The National Party love them for it. The rest of us tremble at our fate.

The Positive and Negative

• The National Party refers to the Labour Party’s vision for New Zealand as the “Nanny State” – a country where the government provide services from “the cradle to the grave”.
• The National Party prefers a more capitalist vision where each person is expected to provide for themselves. They say the incentive of money makes us all more efficient. It provides a cutting competitive edge.  
• And that vision is why, in the United States, the Supreme Court can strip central government of the right to protect abortion rights, can do away with central government’s power to control green-house gasses and can make national health care illegal. For the National Party these decisions are for individuals to decide – nothing to do with governments.
• If you like that choice the National Party is for you.
• However, if you prefer a more caring society, where the ringing of cash machines does not dominate every hospital visit. Where the average cost paid by a mother to her hospital for having a baby is $10,808. If you like a transport network that does not charge a toll every 20 kilometers. If you enjoy free tuition in the first year at university. If you appreciate help towards paying for winter electricity. If you benefit from Universal Superannuation, or ACC, or a dozen other social benefits. Then the Nanny State should get your vote.
• The National Party can scream, “Nanny State” as long as it likes. But as for me, I call it caring for those who live here. And there is nothing wrong with that.     

The Positive

• The leader of the Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern, is positive, progressive and non-judgmental Prime Minister.
• The Deputy Leader, Grant Robertson, is equally positive, progressive and non-judgmental. Together they form a team trying to build the socialist, egalitarian society we like to call home. Sure, our wages might be a little lower than in Australia. Our house prices might be higher. Some items in Countdown may even cost a bit more. But with Jacinda and Grant we are in this boat together, working to improve.
• In their current five years in power, the Labour Party has dramatically reformed health, foreign trade with free trade deals signed with Australia, the UK and the EU, foreign speculation in the housing market, a comprehensive Families Package, first year fees-free education, and ended new offshore oil and gas exploration. Legislation on education, unemployment, social insurance and tenant protection has also been passed.
• New Zealand may not have the wealth of central New York or Monte Carlo, but we are in the process of becoming more of a socialist, egalitarian and comfortable society.

For those like Hosking and du Plessis-Allan and members of the National Party who want a different, divided, them and us racist New Zealand – go to the US, go to Australia. Find what you are looking for there. In the meantime, do not tear apart our social experiment. We do not want the black hole chaos of disappearing women’s rights, racial intolerance, electoral dishonesty and capitalist health that are the inevitable products of your Party’s vision.

There is no place for you here. Do not destroy what we are about. New Zealand has many imperfections. But it is our home, just the way we want it. If you don’t like it here, go find the evil you want somewhere else.

I have just read this:.

“Eventually Swimming NZ staffers will wake up and ask why Wellingtonians, who have a decent long course pool in the region, have no decent long course times and why so many qualifying times for new NAGs swimmers in the region are short course conversions.”

I have no idea of the author’s name, occupation, or location. Possibly, it’s a lady called Mildred from Hokitika on the West Coast of the South Island. I’m told she may swim a 1000m double lap of the Hokitika River every day.

The author goes on to blame declining numbers of young swimmers in Wellington on not enough racing, not enough long course records, not enough competition. Now normally I would not comment on opinions like that. However, Mildred’s call is so dangerous, something just has to be said.

If Swimming New Zealand paid any attention to Mildred’s advice this is what would happen. It is a long and heavily edited quote from my most recent book on swimming, “Shaping Successful Junior Swimmers”.

Most of us would accept that the leading example of a swimmer capable of swimming multiple events is Michael Phelps. In the Beijing Olympic Games, he entered and won eight events.

Eight events in a week is an incredible feat of application, training and commitment. By the time he swam in Beijing Phelps had been swimming at an Olympic level for eight years. He was an internationally hardened competitor. He was also a grown man, aged 23.

But, as it turns out, the Phelps’ Beijing schedule was an easy week compared to the race programme followed by many junior swimmers. For example, in two recent meets, Susan, the swimmer mentioned earlier in this book swam in ten races in two days and six races in one day. Her schedule makes Phelps look positively lazy.   

But in case you are thinking Susan might be an unrepresentative anomaly I looked at the 2017 New Zealand Age Group Championships and the 2017 New Zealand Junior Championships. I noted the number of races entered by every swimmer and made a record of the number of swimmers who entered and swam eight or more events. In other words, swimmers who matched or exceeded Michael Phelps Beijing schedule. The results were stunning and are recorded in the table below.

Each column shows the number of swimmers entered in between eight and sixteen events. 

8 Events Enter	9 Events Enter	10 Events Enter	11 Events Enter	12 Events Enter	13 Events Enter	14 Events Enter	15 Events Enter	16 Events Enter	Total Events Enter
New Zealand 2017 Age Group Championships
55	29	17	2	2	1	0	0	0	106
New Zealand 2017 Age Group and Junior Championships Combined Total
226	154	111	54	24	4	1	1	0	575

So, what does this table say?

It tells us that at the combined Age Group Championships and the Junior Championships a total of 575 swimmers swam in programmes the same as or harder than Phelps’ Beijing programme. Two swimmers came within one event of doubling Phelp’s Beijing total.

This is a stunning number of young people flogged through an impossible number of events and facing an early exit from the sport. Phelps was a hardened international competitor. The 575 swimmers in this group are all at school: many of them at primary school.

It is ironic that at the same time as Mildred is acclaiming the deeds of swimmers competing in multiple events world tennis authorities have imposed a limit on the number of tournaments players under eighteen years of age can play in a year. Limiting the number of tournaments young tennis players can enter is credited with an 85% drop in premature retirements prior to age 22 and careers lasting 24% longer. Tennis players are 73% more likely to enjoy a 15 year career today compared to 1994.

Mildred actually sees merit in the news that a teenager has been flogged through a dozen races in two days. And as for the clubs that participate; that too is a scandal.

Scientists at the American Aquatic Research Centre agree. In one study they scanned the hand joints of every member of the American Olympic swimming team. Their purpose was to determine what portion of the swimmers had been early developers, on time and late developers. Of the forty athletes tested only two had matured early, five had matured on time and the majority were late developers.

The American scientists concluded that the probable explanation for the stunning failure of swimmers who develop early is the almost impossible burden of handling their early success, followed by the struggle to stay ahead of late developers who were such easy beats a few years earlier. Interpreting it all as a failure on their part the early superstars go off to the local surf patrol or to a water polo team.

Take Ashley Rupapera for example. In 2006/07 she was amazing; at 14 years old she claimed her second New Zealand national age group record with a 100IM time of 1:05.30. In the Junior Championships she entered 13 individual events, swam in 22 races and won four gold medals and two silver medals. That’s ten more races than Phelps in six fewer days. I don’t know what Ashley is doing today. However, sadly, it does not include elite New Zealand swimming.  

Age group championship meets are the scene of too much hurt. At the beginning of the week keen, enthusiastic, happy young people arrive full of anticipation, coached and honed to a competitive edge. Parents dash around the pool checking that their charge’s start list seed times have been properly entered and locating the town’s best source of pasta. Coaches patrol the pre-meet practice with all the intensity of an Olympic warm up.

By the end of the first morning’s heats, you can detect the mood beginning to change. The problem is thirty swimmers enter an event, eight make a final, three get medals and one wins. Potentially there are twenty-nine disappointed swimmers and fifty-eight disappointed parents who can’t wait to get back to the motel for their treble gin and tonic to ease the pain. It is disappointment born out of expectations set far too high.

As each day goes by the mood darkens and deepens. An adult’s most valuable skill is providing comfort to another sobbing teenager. The transformation is stunning. The tremendous high of the first morning slumps during the day; is momentarily revived at the beginning of day two, only to slump even further. By day four all I want to do is get out of the place and make sure no swimmer of mine ever goes back.

Several years ago there was a good article on the USA Junior Nationals in the magazine “Splash”. In it USA Swimming seems to be aware that their event needed to avoid the problems promoted by Mildred. This is what they said:

“Along the way, however, many coaches and others within USA Swimming saw a disturbing trend. Instead of a whistle stop on the way to senior national and international competition the Junior nationals were embedding themselves as a destination.”

 The Americans have done some good things to avoid damaging the nation’s youth. First, their junior event is not a normal age group meet. There are no separate annual age groups. Everyone up to a relatively old 18 years of age can swim in the event. This avoids youngsters being over exposed at too young an age. Second, the qualifying standards are really tough. They reflect the “older” cut off age. An athlete has to be pretty quick just to make the cut. Third, names included on the meet’s list of alumni suggest their “Juniors” are working as a transition between Sectional and International swimming. “Splash” tells me that Gary Hall, Aaron Peirsol, Ian Crocker and Michael Phelps all swam here. That’s a pretty impressive list. It appears that winning is not essential either. For example, Phelps never won the event, but he seems to have come through unscathed.

In an earlier chapter we discussed the distances swum by Jane Copland Pavlovich through her career from junior to international competitor. In this chapter we have cautioned against entering swimmers in too many races and have recommended a limit, for senior swimmers, of 50 races in a season, 100 races a year. Junior swimmers should swim fewer races than these senior maximum numbers. The table below shows how many races Jane swam before she left New Zealand to attend Washington State University.

Season	Age	No. Races	Races Per Annum
1	12	16
2	12	16	32
3	13	26
4	13	19	45
5	14	19
6	14	68	87
7	15	55
8	15	42	97
9	16	46
10	16	36	82
11	17	45
12	17	37	82
13	18	36
14	18	32	68

You can see how we kept the racing load quite light when Jane was young; only 32 races in her first year. Great self-control is needed to keep the number down and avoid early career drop-out. Over seven years Jane averaged 70 races each year. As a comparison I entered Olympic Gold Medalist, Rhi Jeffrey, in an average of 58 races each year. Fifty second 100 meter swimmer, Joe Scuba swam an average of 40 races a year. Remember these three swimmers were world class, adult athletes. Now let’s compare their annual number of races with the race numbers swum by some junior swimmers. 

Emma is an example of a swimmer whose racing program illustrates the point. In her early career I entered Emma in about 30 races a year. She then left to swim in a Mildred program. The number of races immediately more than doubled to 70 and then doubled again to 137. For Emma’s swimming career it was to prove lethal. I imagine her parents could not understand why Emma’s career began to struggle. Three years later she gave the whole thing away.

Phase	Year	Age	Time	Time	Discussion	No. Races
Balanced Aerobic	2006	10	1:33	–	A period of aerobic training and steady but not spectacular improvement. Emma improved by an average of 7% per annum in the 100 and 4% in the 200.	10
2007	11	1:16	2.45	25
2008	12	1:11	2.35	27
2009	13	1:06	2.23	25
Exploitation	2010	14	1:03	2.14	Emma changed clubs and quickly dropped by about 5% per annum.	70
2011	15	1.01	2.10	137
Struggle and Drop-out	2012	16	1:02	2.12	For three years Emma struggled to improve. At the end of 2014 she dropped out	87
2013	17	1:00	2.10	70
2014	18	1:00	2.09	67

In the case of Emma, her training was reflected in her competition program. Competition hurts. When a person gets hurt often enough, they eventually go off to do something else. The rule of thumb for a senior swimmer is a maximum of 100 races a year and for junior swimmers a lot less. Stick to that rule. Your swimmer’s future probably depends on it.

The name anti-abortion supporters give themselves – pro-life – is a ridiculous absurdity. In New Zealand and the United States, they are no more pro-life than a hungry hyena. The same pro-life people support the US Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” That right killed 45,222 Americans in 2022.

The same pro-life people support executions. That policy has killed 1547 men and women in the United States since 1970.

The same pro-life people support their country spending $801 billion on the national killing machine. That policy killed 176,000 in Afghanistan, 268,000 in Iraq and more than 3 million in Vietnam.

But it is not only the United States that has a gang of pro-life nutters. New Zealand has its fair share. In opinion polls on the subject 70% of New Zealand adults support abortion being legal and treated as a health issue. That is 2,616.384 of the 3,737,691 people over age 18. It still leaves New Zealand with 1,121,307 abortion reactionaries. And that is a terrifying thought.

But it is not the general population that is a concern. The people that matter are those who can affect change. In the USA it only took 5 people to destroy the country’s abortion law.

In New Zealand we get some idea of the opinions of those in power by how they voted when abortion liberal reform was being passed. In particular we can analyse the 51 MPs who voted against the reform and find out the size of the enemy and where they live. The table below shows the numbers.

Category	Number	% of Current Caucus
Current National Party MPs	17	52%
Current Labour Party MPs	9	14%
Retired National Party MPs	17	Not Applicable
Retired Labour Party MPs	0	Not Applicable
Retired NZ First Party MPs	8	Not Applicable
All Total	51	–

So, what do those numbers mean? And where does the danger lie? Let’s look at the National Party first.

17 of 33 members of the current National Party in parliament voted against abortion reform in New Zealand. That’s 52%. But add their leader, Luxon, to that list. He wasn’t around to vote, and the parliamentary National Party has 18 reactionary bigots out of 33 MPs or 55%. In other words, a majority of the current Parliamentary National Party MPs would vote with the American Supreme Court. They agree a woman does NOT have the right to choose. 

And make no mistake some of those guys are real mad buggers. Guys who have posted Tweets comparing abortion to the WW2 holocaust. Guys who post messages praising the USA Supreme Court. Women who click like on that message. And a leader who said the Lord will bring vengeance on anyone who voted for New Zealand’s abortion reform.

So Luxon can stand up and swear blind that the National Party will never change New Zealand’s position on abortion, but when a majority of his Party are full on mad fruit loops on the subject, can we believe him?

Here are the names of the 17 National Party creeps who enthusiastically voted to destroy women’s rights. Beware of this lot. If you are female, they have power and they have you in their sights – Bayly, Brown, Brownlee, Dean, Goldsmith, Hipango, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Muller, O’Connor, Penk, Pugh, Reti, Upston, Molen, Woodhouse.

Then there is Labour. 9 current Labour MPs voted against the New Zealand abortion reform. 9 from a Labour caucus of 65 or 14%. No question, Jacinda can keep that percentage under control. At 14% there is no danger there.

And so women’s freedom to choose in New Zealand is most at risk by the National Party, who want to take New Zealand back to dark alley abortions and blood poisoning deaths. The National Party who want us to follow their USA Supreme Court heroes. The National Party member who insisted on flying a Donald Trump hat in his parliamentary office. And the National Party leader who became part of the adoring mob at Ted Cruz rallies. That is where the danger is. For 500 years women have fought, often to the death for their rights. Next New Zealand election don’t scorn their work. Do not vote for a right-wing reactionary bigot leading a majority of right-wing reactionary bigots.   

I seldom disagree with Shakespeare. But the quote that is the title of this post concludes with “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. In the United States this week we have certainly witnessed a “tale told by an idiot”. Sadly, though this tale was not, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. No indeed the United State’s Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe V Wade signifies a huge amount.

I do not see much merit in discussing why the Court’s attack on women’s rights is such an abomination. We all know the distress, deaths and suffering about to result from the decision. Five pagan, religious zealots attacked every shred of decency in a woman’s life. For 500 years women have struggled to gain rights and respect. They have come far. And then five American friars from Washington DC rip it down with the ruthlessness of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition – the Spanish Inquisition. The fact a woman, Amy Coney Barrett, took part in the decision is appalling. What a traitor. Mind you, since she was in high school, she has been a fruit loop – trolling in and out of religious communities. She would love Gloriavale.

All five inquisitors are blatant liars. All five told Congress, at their appointment hearings, that they supported the importance of establish law – a concept called stare decisis. And all five have voted to overturn Rowe V Wade, a law that has been settled law for 50 years. When your Supreme Court has a majority that lie, without shame, you are in deep trouble.

Never again use the word Justice before the names of Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In the course of their justice, none of us should see salvation. I have no difficulty imagining this lot would revel in implementing the Salem Witch Cake Test in which a witch was ordered to make a cake with her urine and fed it to a dog. If, the dog had an adverse reaction – behold a witch. In Salem two dogs were also executed for their contribution to witchcraft rituals. Yes, this lot would do that too. Metaphorically, they just have.

However, while ranting about their moronic behaviour may make me feel better, it does not achieve much. So, what can be done. Well, it seems to me there are three ways to handle a situation as serious as this.

Protest, protest, protest  

Don’t let up, not for a minute. The Supreme Court wanted to tear women’s rights apart. Then show them what tearing things apart really looks like. On Facebook and Twitter, on the streets, in malls, with graffiti on walls and on the steps of the Court, show them what they have done. Make them face their shame. Make them realise there is meaning to the quote, “The devil whispered in my ear, “You won’t make it through this storm”. I whispered in the devil’s ear, “I AM the storm.”

The Democratic Way

 I hate this option. But it is probably the only one we’ve got. Two years ago, America assembled 38 million citizens and got rid of Trump. In five months can America assemble that army and more to get rid of his legacy? Can 40 million Americans stack the House and the Senate with overwhelming Democrat majorities? Can 40 million Americans provide the House and the Senate with sufficient power to sweep away the rotting corpse of the Supreme Court decision? American has salvation in its own hands. It will take 40 million votes. Can the country raise that army again? The world with all its fears, lies breathless at thy fate.

Revolution

This is where my heart lies. I have a dream. In my dream Biden acts. Stuff the law. Stuff democracy. Stuff the rules. This is so bad Biden sends the army in to arrest the five inquisitors and drag them to Alcatraz Island never to be seen again. And if he needs a reason – all six lied to Congress. They said Roe V Wade was settled law and they would never change settled law. That lie to Congress is a crime. No trial, no justice just lock them away on Alcatraz Island. Give them the justice they happily dished out to the world. Start the Supreme Court over with nine liberals. That’s how bad this is. Oh, that I could stay asleep with this as my reality.

But perhaps there is hope. In their dissenting opinion three judges said this.    

“Withdrawing a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy does not mean that no choice is being made. It means that a majority of today’s Court has wrenched this choice from women and given it to the States,”

Amen to that.

PS – I see New Zealand too has its inquisitors.  In a Facebook post Simon O’Connor, National Party member and the MP for Tāmaki, said: “Today is a good day.” Party leader Luxon has denied that a National Government would reverse the New Zealand abortion freedoms. But remember well, five American Supreme Court Justices, just as upright, just as pompous, and under oath, said the same thing. They lied. Is Luxon in the same camp – lying to get the power he craves to change our abortion law?

That might sound farfetched. But remember these four facts.

• Luxon says his private anti-abortion views do not affect his public policy decisions. I doubt the truth of that. However, his private view that women should not have the freedom to decide, tells us all we need to know about his attitude to women. Whether his views are public or private Luxon is a revolting creep. Never forget when he ended his parliamentary speech on the subject with the quote “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord”. Won’t affect public policy? “Yea right” saith the Lord.
• Luxon’s role models are highly suspect. For example, Luxon has attended rallies in the United States supporting Republican Ted Cruz. Cruz is the guy who has called the Court’s decision, “momentous, absolutely correct and Row V Wade was egregiously wrong”.
• Luxon’s National Party has MPs such as trained Catholic priest and MP for Tamaki pushing for National to follow America’s inhuman abortion lead. His voting record includes opposition to same sex marriage, opposition to prostitution law reform, opposition to end-of-life reform and opposition to banning conversion therapy. Can he be trusted to protect abortions? I don’t think so.  
• We know that the decimation of the National Party at the last election, concentrated power in the hands of male Christian evangelical conservative MPs, – for example Luxon and O’Connor. That power block has succeeded in making the National Party the sole main New Zealand political party not to publicly denounce the US Supreme Court’s decision.  

Seems best to avoid the problem by keeping Jacinda exactly where she is.