|
Recent Right to Life New Zealand Correspondence
The following are copies of recent outwards correspondence from RTLNZ. They are indicative of some of the work we are currently doing to effect change within our society, including attempts to regain that which was lost following the passing of that death knell for the unborn Child, the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. These letters represent a tiny fraction of the thousands of our outward lettters. The volume of correspondence we have sent to government and governmental bodies and the lack of any will to change the law, shows us how entrenched in this country, is the view that it is all right to take the life of an unborn child. In 98% of cases the taking of life is authorised on what are essentially 'cosmetic' grounds.Until we stop treating our unborn children like bobby calves at the farmer's gate, our country will continue to deteriorate economically, socially and spiritually. If you are concerned about our unborn, elderly unwell, embryonic stem cell research or any other issue relating to right to life issues within New Zealand, please do something about it. Click here 2 October 2007
Hon Lianne Dalziel, Minister of Women’s Affairs, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.
Dear Ms Dalziel
Thank you for your letter of 3 September 2007. regarding the thirty ninth session on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. You advise that the New Zealand government is very supportive of the role that the Committee plays in scrutinising State partie’s progress in implementing the United Nations Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women [CEDAW] and improving the situation of women.
Article 21 of CEDAW empowers the Committee to make suggestions and general recommendations. You state that the Committee has made the following two general recommendations.
“States parties should ensure that measures are taken to prevent coercion in regard to fertility and reproduction, and to ensure that women are not forced to seek unsafe medical procedures such as illegal abortion because of lack of appropriate services in regard to fertility control;”
“States parties in their reports should state the extent of these problems and should indicate the measures that have been taken and their effect.”
It is noted that these statements are made by an unelected group of “experts” and their interpretation was not agreed to by States parties at the general assembly of the United Nations when adopting the Convention. Governments are therefore under no obligation to implement their recommendations when they are in conflict with the Convention. It is the opinion of this Society that this Committee is deliberately misinterpreting the Convention in order to pursue its own agenda.Your statement raises several important questions;
1. Does the government accept that the Convention makes no reference to abortion and that States parties in passing the Convention agreed that the term “reproductive health” in the Convention agreed that this term did not include abortion?
2. Why is the government now promoting the Committee’s above statements that are unauthorised and in conflict with the Convention?
Yours sincerely Ken Orr secretary
6 July 2007 Hon Mark Burton, Minister of Justice, Parliament Building, Wellington.
Dear Mr Burton
Abortion Supervisory Committee – Conflict of Interest On the 14 June, in moving that the House adopt motion No 1 you stated; I can confirm that appropriate enquiries concerning conflicts of interest have been carried out in accordance with SSC appointment guidelines, and that any conflict of interest that could reasonably be identified, would be identified. No conflicts of interest have been identified. Right to Life New Zealand is concerned at what we believe is a considerable conflict of interest that has arisen with the recommendation of Parliament that Dr Rosemary Fenwicke be appointed by the Governor General to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC]. Dr Fenwicke is a certifying consultant appointed by the ASC, how can she be a member of the Committee that appoints and supervises her? Dr Fenwicke is also an operating surgeon employed at the Level J abortion facility at the Wellington Public Hospital to perform abortions. The lives of 2882 unborn children were terminated at that facility in 2005.We have abortion on demand, with 98 per cent of abortions being authorised on mental health grounds. It is believed that these abortions are for socio- economic reasons masquerading as psychiatric. Abortion on demand and for socio-economic reasons is unlawful. The ASC is a supervisory committee that is required to supervise the abortion industry, to uphold the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act [CS&A Act], and section 187A of the Crimes Act. The purpose of the CS&A Act is found in the long title of that Act. It states...to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of unborn children. Dr Fenwicke is part of the abortion industry that that we believe has little regard for the rights of unborn children. Therefore how can she now uphold the rights of unborn children and require fellow consultants to be accountable for the lawfulness of the pattern of abortions that they authorise? Our Society would be grateful if you would advise; why you believe that there is no conflict of interest in the appointment of Dr Fenwicke to the ASC? Yours sincerely
Ken Orr For executive
RTLNZ Concerned that Abortion Clinics are Operating Illegally 31 May 2007
Mr Wayne Newall, National Manager, Tribunals Division, Ministry of Justice.
Dear Mr Newall,
Official Information Act – Urgent Request
In accordance with section 12 [3] of the Official information Act 1982, I wish to request that my enquiry under this Act dated 28 May be treated with urgency.
My reasons for this request for urgency are as follows;
The objective of the Contraception Sterilisation and Sterilisation and Abortion Act is spelt out in the long title of the Act. It states “.....to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child.” The licensing of abortion facilities is intended to protect the human rights of unborn children. Abortions performed in facilities that do not have a current license issued by the Abortion Supervisory Committee are unlawful.
Section 37 of the Act states that every person who [a] Performs an abortion elsewhere than in a licensed institution; or [b] Performs an abortion otherwise than in pursuance of a certificate issued by 2 certifying consultants under section 33 of this Act,- Commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $1000.
Our Society wishes to uphold the rule of law. We believe that no women should be subject to an illegal abortion. We also believe that health professionals employed in public hospitals that hold an expired license issued by the Committee should not be required to participate in unlawful abortions. It would be appreciated if the names of abortion facilities that do not have a current abortion license could be released to this Society within 24 hours. Yours sincerely
Ken Orr For executive
NZ Labour Government's statement that it comes from a tradition of Christian Socialism challenged by RTLNZ
The Editor, NZ Catholic 12 November 2006 Dear Gavin The Prime Minister Helen Clark stated at the recent Labour Party conference in Rotorua that “The Labour Party comes out of a tradition of Methodism; Christian socialism….the issue for a party like ours is to be tapping into social justice Christianity, which has principles identical to our own.” This statement is challenged, Christian social justice recognises God as the author of life and that every human being is created in his image and endowed at conception with human rights, the principle right being an inalienable right to life. The question then is, are these principles enshrined in the policies of the Labour government, what is their record? The Labour government has been in power since 1999. In that time more than 90,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children have been killed before birth in a system authorised and funded by this government. The government sought and vigorously promoted the passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill which decriminalised soliciting. It was hailed as a conscience vote, however many government members were forced to vote contrary to their conscience and support this legislation. This is the government that passed the Care of Children Bill denying parents the right to be informed or to withhold consent to a school counsellor or Family Planning nurse taking their daughter under the age of 16 to have an abortion. This is the government that passed the Civil Union Bill which undermines the status of marriage in our society. The government provides funding to support the Family Planning Association, the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand. The government provides millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money to support the immoral population control programmes of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population. Both agencies aggressively promote abortion and contraception. The government funds and promotes the immoral, false and dangerous “safe sex” message with condoms. The government also indoctrinates and seduces our children with comprehensive school sex education that includes the use of condoms. All of these actions by the government are contrary to the common good and violate Catholic social teaching. It is acknowledged that the government has introduced other legislation that has promoted the common good. Sadly the above record indicates that the Labour Party, founded on the ideals of Christian social justice has been captured by secular humanists. There is an urgent need for Catholics to become actively involved in the Labour Party and other parties to inshore that they have policies based on Catholic social teaching that recognises the God given dignity of man Yours faithfully Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Minister of Justice and Exit International Kanack Speech
18 September 2006 Hon Mark Burton, Minister of Justice, Parliament Building, Wellington.
Dear Mr Burton
Our Society is disappointed that an address made by Sandra Kanck MLC on 30 August 2006 to the South Australian Parliament detailing methods of suicide is permitted to be shown on the New Zealand web site of Exit International.
This speech was considered by the State government to be a threat to the vulnerable in society and an enticement to suicide. In an unprecedented move it was expunged from Hansard. The speech was considered to be in violation to the Suicide Material Offences Act that was passed by the Federal Parliament to prevent the use of the internet to encourage suicide. Convictions under this Act can bring a fine up to $90,000 for an individual, and up to $370,000 for an organization.
In justifying this legislation the Australian government cited two expert studies into the role of the internet in promoting suicidal behavior. The first, a 1997 study published in the International Association for Suicide Prevention’s journal, Crisis, looked at interactive suicide notes involving people who later committed suicide, and demonstrated the influence of the Internet on those who wanted to share their ideas and thoughts about suicide. The second, a 1999 study on suicide attempts, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed the risk of having access to online suicide methods.
The Australian Federal Minister of Justice, Chris Ellison recently stated that the governments intention was to prevent the use of the internet to provide information “that encourages vulnerable individuals to take their own lives.”
In some countries including Britain, United States of America, Japan and South Korea investigators have linked suicides to specific web sites. We understand that the German government is currently considering introducing legislation in this area similar to that in Australia.
We are aware from previous correspondence with you that the government is committed to upholding the right to freedom of expression – subject to “reasonable limitations” Freedom of speech is a cherished right in a free society, this right must in our view be in harmony with the common good. All rights have corresponding duties.
We would be grateful if you would advise if you are aware of the above expert studies. In view of the increased threat to the vulnerable in our community would you give consideration to introducing amending legislation similar to that introduced in Australia to prohibit use of the internet to promote suicide?
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr For executive
21 August 2006 Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Health, Parliament Building, Wellington.
Dear Mr Hodgson The Abortion Supervisory Committee recently released statistical information on abortions performed in New Zealand in 2004 beyond 20 weeks gestation. The statistics are as follows: 34 at 21 weeks gestation 14 at 22 weeks gestation 9 at 23 weeks gestation 3 at 24 weeks gestation 4 at over 25 weeks gestation The statistics are of concern; they reveal that 30 of the unborn children were of a gestational age of 22 or more weeks. Some of these children may have been delivered alive following a chemical abortion. Assurances have been made by a previous Minister of Health that in the event of a child being delivered alive at 22 or more weeks gestation following an abortion, the child would be given full neo–natal care. It is understood that with proper neo-natal care that some of these babies would survive. Our Society would be grateful if you would confirm that the provision of this care is the policy of your government. Would you please also advise if your Ministry has statistics on the number of these babies that are delivered alive and receive neo-natal care? Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
21 August 2006 The Secretary, Abortion Supervisory Committee, PO Box 5027, Wellington.
Dear Sir
Our Society was recently advised by Mr Gordon Copeland MP of statistical information on abortions performed in New Zealand in 2004 beyond 20 weeks gestation. The statistics are of concern; they reveal that 30 of the unborn children aborted were of a gestational age of 22 weeks or more. We are aware from overseas experience that following a chemical abortion some of these children may have been delivered alive. Assurances have been given to this Society by a previous Minister of Health that in the event of a child being delivered alive at 22 or more weeks gestation, following an abortion, the child was entitled to receive full neo-natal care. It is understood that with proper neo-natal care some of these babies could survive. These statistics raise several important questions:
Thank you for your assistance with this enquiry.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr For executive
21 August 2006 Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Health, Parliament Building, Wellington.
Dear Mr Hodgson Antenatal Screening for Down syndrome On the 9 June the Ministry of Health announced that it was urgently reviewing the use of amniocentesis testing of unborn babies. Amniocentesis is dangerous for the unborn child it may be the cause of a miscarriage and the death of the child. It is the view of this Society that this procedure is only ethically and morally justified when it is used for the purpose of benefiting the child. When it is used with the expressed purpose of detecting downs syndrome or some other disorder in order to give mothers the opportunity of having their child killed before it is born, it is immoral and a serious violation of the human rights of the child. Amniocentesis is currently used on a search and destroy mission, it is eugenic in nature and deems that only the perfect have a right to life. We endorse the statement made by the NZ Disabled Persons assembly; “While DPA agrees that current screening processes need to be reviewed, we are alarmed that this may be happening with a view to eliminating a group of disabled people. Currently, the report and surrounding discussions are focused solely on the number of “healthy fetuses that may result through current screening practices. The rights of people with Down syndrome are ignored which is of great concern.” In an inclusive and caring community those with a Down syndrome or other disability should be welcome. Those people born with Down syndrome are not a burden or a cost on society, their skills and talents should be respected. We have substantial anecdotal evidence that pressure is placed on mothers considered to be at risk of carrying a child in utero that may have Down syndrome to undergo amniocentesis. We are told that in many cases the mother is required to make a commitment to have an abortion should the syndrome become apparent. This process raises important questions concerning government policy. 1. Does the government accept that a child conceived with Down syndrome has been endowed with an inalienable right to life? 2. Why does the government permit the use of amniocentesis for the purpose of eliminating unborn children with Down syndrome? 3. What action is the government taking to eliminate pressure on mothers to abort their unborn child who is believed to have Down syndrome? 4. What action is the government taking to protect the human rights of unborn children conceived with a disability?
Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
Tuesday, 8 November 2005 Investigate Magazine. 6 11 05 Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, Dear Mr Goff Right to Life respectfully
requests that you give consideration to introducing legislation to prevent
the use of the internet in It was announced on the 1st
November that Dr Nitschke intended to move Exit Internationals counseling
service and website from Euthanasia is part of a culture of death, it is a threat to the weak the handicapped and the aged. The government has a duty to promote a culture of life and to uphold the common good, Right to Life would urge the government to act with urgency. We believe that the proposed
legislation would be welcomed by the government and citizens of Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
6 11 05 Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Justice, Dear Mr Hodgson Our society wishes to bring to
your attention the results of important studies conducted in An alarming new study finds that
half the women who had abortions were victims of sexual or domestic abuse.
The study covered women who had abortions in The study had been conducted by Dr
Anna Whitehead of the Waikato District Health Board and Dr Janet Fanslow
of the The study was published in an
article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology. The authors of the study stated that women seeking abortions
in A pregnant teenager recently told the Christchurch District Court that she had her stomach stomped on more than a dozen times by the father of the child because she had refused to have an abortion. It raises an important question, how many women are pressured into an abortion by the violence or the threat of violence of the father of the child? The anecdotal evidence that our society has received is that many women have an abortion to save their relationship and to avoid violence. All the evidence is that most relationships between unmarried couples break down shortly after an abortion .In conclusion Right to Life Fully supports the proposals of the authors of the study and requests that action be taken to ensure that in the interest of women’s health and welfare, abortion counselors employed by District Health Boards implement the recommendations. We would be grateful if you would advise of any action taken to implement these important proposals. Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
6 11 05 The Chancellor, Private Bag 4800, Dear Sir Our society wishes to express its
concern at articles written by Simon Clarke, a lecturer in moral and
political philosophy at the Our society applauds that worthy objective. We also fully support the right to free speech and the right of Mr Clarke to promote his philosophy, however faulty in the public arena. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and wisdom. We believe that students who attend University are entitled to be taught the truth and wisdom. We do our students and society a grave disservice if we teach them a false and dangerous philosophy. On October 7th Mr Clarke wrote an article titled “Arguments on a downhill slide” In this article Mr Clarke a proponent of euthanasia states that “Slippery – slope arguments ought to be avoided.” This is contrary to the substantial documented arguments that prove the opposite. He goes on to state, “It is absurd to allow unfounded speculative harms to outweigh the real benefits that would be done by, say, allowing the terminally ill to end their own lives,” The writer is promoting an immoral philosophy which rejects the sanctity of life ethic which recognizes that every human being is endowed by its creator with an inalienable right to life. He is proposing a false quality of life ethic which is a threat to the lives of the weak, the elderly, the ill and the handicapped. In the second article titled
“Religion a barrier to clear thinking” Mr Clarke states that “what
religion says is irrelevant to deciding what to do” and goes on to
state, “reason rather than religion should be our guide.” Mr Clarke is
clearly a rationalist and is opposed to religion; his thinking is not
clear but muddled. The Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
24 10 05 The Secretary, Abortion Supervisory Committee, Dear Sir Our society wishes to draw your
Committees attention to a recent study conducted at the The study was of women who had an
abortion in 2001 at the The study was published in the
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. It was
the recommendation of the authors of the study that women seeking an
abortion in Right to Life recognizes that for many women talking about abuse that they may have suffered would be a sensitive and painful subject. Sexual and physical abuse is often the cause of low self esteem. It could also be the reason or the underlying cause for the abused women seeking an abortion. In the interest of promoting the health and welfare of women our society believes that it would be desirable to have national statistics on this important issue in order that the issue of the abuse of women may be addressed It is our opinion that this subject could be addressed by abortion counsellors who would then be able where necessary to refer them to an appropriate counselling agency. Our society requests that your Committee includes two new questions on ASC form 4. The first question relating to sexual abuse, the second to physical abuse. Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
24 10 05 Most Reverend Owen Dolan DD, Coadjutor Bishop of Palmerston North, Private Bag 11012, Palmerston North 5330. Dear Bishop Dolan Our society wishes to commend Caritas for producing an election guide for the 2005 general election. The guide encouraged Catholics to vote to uphold the common good. The guide encouraged Catholics to consider issues that were a threat to human life among a number of justice issues. We note that the American Catholic Bishops Conference has issued guidelines to assist American Catholics to cast their vote for candidates standing for public office in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. The Bishops stated that there are a number of non negotiable principles that do not admit of exception or compromise that should guide voters in exercising their vote. The Bishops stated that the first principle is that we have a serious moral obligation to defend life; we therefore should vote only for those candidates who are committed to promoting legislation that protects the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death and are opposed to abortion and euthanasia. The second non negotiable principle is that we should vote only for those candidates who are committed to upholding the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Cardinal Javier Barragan, the
President of the Pontifical Council for Health Care on the 6th
October in Our society supports these authoritive statements and believes that threats to life such as abortion, euthanasia and threats to the sanctity of marriage are non negotiable issues. We are therefore disappointed that the otherwise excellent Caritas election guide did not state that these issues were non negotiable issues for Catholic voters at the general election. Our society would be most grateful if you would advise why Caritas did not state that these important issues were non negotiable? We commend you for all that you are doing to promote a culture of life. Yours sincerely Chris O Brien President
17 10 05 The Secretary, Amnesty International, Dear Sir At the recent International
Council meeting in Right to Life applauds and supports AI for its courageous defence of human rights. We are totally opposed to a change of policy that would recognize the killing of unborn children by abortion as a human right. There is no human right to abortion which is a violation of our right to life, the foundation stone for all our human rights. There is no human right that allows a human being to take the life of another human being. This society commends and supports AI for its concern about violence against women. This concern can not be expressed by supporting abortion. Abortion should be seen as violence against a vulnerable woman and the child she bears. Women are in fact the second victims of abortion. Acceptance of abortion is often the oppression of women by men. Abortion is promoted as a women’s right to choose but in reality it is the choice of men who wish to escape their responsibility to love and care for the child they have fathered and the mother of the child. It would be a great tragedy if AI in their desire to prevent violence against women adopted a policy to recognise the killing of unborn children as a human right. It would be a strange inconsistency for AI to campaign against a death sentence for an imprisoned prisoner of conscience and yet accept that the killing of that person by abortion before birth was a human right. We believe that a decision to
accept abortion as a human right result in the withdrawal of substantial
active and financial support. Would you kindly advise us of the results of
your consultation in Yours sincerely Ken Orr
17 10 05 Dr Joseph Hassan, Motueka. Dear Dr Hassan Our society wishes to commend you for your principled stand in refusing to subscribe contraceptives to your patients or to refer patients for sterilization procedures. Catholics and others of good will have a duty to oppose a culture of death and promote a culture of life. We totally agree with your stand to uphold the natural law for the protection of our God given fertility. You would also be aware that the current generation of the contraceptive pill not only prevents fertilization but also has the tertiary action of preventing the implantation of a human embryo. It is our hope that many more Catholic and Christian physicians will follow your stand for life. May God bless your efforts to promote a culture of life. Yours sincerely Ken Orr 7 10 05 The Deputy Registrar, Nursing Council of Dear Ms Lee It is understood that the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal recently gave consideration to what recommendation the Tribunal would make to your Council in respect to the registration of Ms Lesley Martin. In the interest of protecting the noble ethics of the nursing profession and the wefare of the lcommunity our society welcomed that enquiry. It is the opinion of this society that there is no place in the nursing profession for a nurse convicted in the High Court of attempting to murder her mother who was her patient. We respectfully suggest that as this enquiry is a matter of public interest your Councils decision in this matter should be made public. We would be grateful if you would kindly advise in due course the decision of your Council concerning the registration of Lesley Martin. Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
19 9 05 Rt Hon Winston Peters MP, Dear Mr Peters Congratulations on your re election to Parliament. As you prepare for talks with the interim Government on a possible agreement for confidence and supply our society wishes to take this opportunity of requesting that you give consideration to including the following issues that relate to the defence of the right to life from conception to natural death of all New Zealanders. The issues are:
We are reminded that the first duty of the state is to provide legal protection for the right to life from conception to natural death of all New Zealanders. Right to Life believes that these proposals would have wide support in the community. We would be grateful if you would support these important proposals at your forthcoming negations with Government. Thank you for all you are doing to promote the common good. Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
3 6 05
3 6 05
25 5 05
3 5 05 Hon P Goff Minister of Justice, Parliament, Wellington. Dear Mr Goff It is understood that Dr Philip Nitschke the Australian euthanasia advocate is considering moving to New Zealand. His reason being that the Australian Federal government is expected to amend that country’s Crimes Act to make it illegal to use phone, fax or email to disseminate information that could be used to assist a suicide. Right to Life welcomes the proposed legislation. Our society believes that there is a need for similar legislation in New Zealand to protect the vulnerable in our community from the activities of Dr Nitschke and his supporters. The Crimes Act currently makes it unlawful to entice or encourage any person to commit suicide or to facilitate a suicide. We would be grateful if you would advise our society if your government were intending to amend the Crimes Act in a similar manner as proposed by the Australian government?
Yours sincerely Ken Orr For executive
Mr Larry Baldock MP, Dear Larry It
is understood that Dr Philip Nitschke the Australian euthanasia advocate
is considering moving to Our
society believes that there is a need for similar legislation in Yours sincerely, Ken Orr For executive
23 3 05 General Manager, Women’s Health Division, Canterbury District Health Board, Private Bag 4711, Dear Mrs Burt
Official Information Act
Request Our society wishes to request under the Official Information Act the following information. 1.
The number of complications resulting
immediately from abortion at the 2 The type and number of each complication for each facility. Our society is aware that immediate complications from abortion are reported by operating surgeons to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] on form ASC 4. A study conducted by our society in 2004 of complications recorded by eight major District Health Boards revealed in some instances considerable under reporting of complications by operating surgeons to the ASC.The ASC for many years has claimed that abortion is safe for women as it has a complication rate of approximately only 1%. It is our objective to endeavor to establish the true rate of complications.
|