Justice Gendall has advised our society that the proceedings previously scheduled to be heard in the High Court in Wellington on 17 and 18 September have now been rescheduled for a hearing on 3 and 4 December. The proceedings will be to seek a declaratory judgement on the meaning of the word "performed" in Section 18 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (CS&A) Act, which states: Restrictions on where abortions may be performed:

The declaratory judgement is being sought by the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) on behalf of Istar Ltd of Wellington who were authorised by the Minister of Health on 30 August 2001 to import and distribute RU486 in New Zealand. It is understood that the ASC believes that the expulsion of the unborn child or foetus is not necessary to constitute a legal abortion as defined by the CS&A Act. The objective of the ASC in bringing this action is to have the court rule that women will be able to undergo a chemical abortion with the French abortion pill RU486 and the prostaglandin (Cytotec) without being required to stay in the hospital or clinic until the unborn child is expelled.

Right to Life opposes this proposed new interpretation of the law in the interest of the unborn child and the health of women. Judge Gendall on 30 May granted the application of Mr Peter McKenzie QC representing Right to Life to be given the status of an intervener with equal status to Istar Ltd and the Ministry of Health.

It is also understood:

that Istar Ltd believe that women’s health should not be an issue in these proceedings as this is in their view not an objective of the legislation.

that there is no clinical reason why it should be necessary to have a sophisticated medical service in which to provide RU486 to women.

that the prostaglandin may be taken by the woman in her own home provided she has a telephone and knows what to do in an emergency.

Right to Life is opposed to these propositions. This is contrary to good medical practice. Right to Life has been advised that in New Zealand hospitals women being administered prostaglandins are required to stay in hospital until the procedure is completed. Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist of New York has stated that 20% of women will abort some hours or even days after taking the prostaglandin.

In response to the contention that RU486 may safely be administered to a woman without the support of a sophisticated medical service we should note that in April 1990 the French Ministry of Health directed that there had been reports of "serious undesirable side-effects of the cardio-vascular type noted." The Ministry directed that when the drugs mifegyn, RU486 and the prostaglandin Cytotec were used to procure an abortion that the following procedures must be followed:

That the woman must be in a prone position during and several hours after administration of the drug.

The doctor must ensure that diagnostic instruments and machines are close by such as electrocardiogram equipment (including nitrous oxide, injectable calcium autagonists, and a fibrillator).

Since it is not always possible to detect which patients are at risk, it seems pointless to administer tests in advance on a routine basis. But clinical observations and blood pressure readings every half hour are indispensable for several hours following the administration of these drugs.

Whenever there is chest pain, suspicion of rhythm troubles, or a significant lowering of blood pressure, an electrocardiogram should be taken.

The Ministry reminded doctors of their duty to inform women of all the inherent risks associated with this abortion procedure.

Right to Life believes that if the Court upholds the long established interpretation of Section 18 requiring that women stay in a clinic or hospital provided with equipment and staff to deal with complications until the abortion is complete it will effectively provide a halt to chemical abortions with RU486 in New Zealand. We must never forget that the sole purpose of this murder pill is to kill a helpless and innocent unborn child. It is also a further terrible threat to a woman’s physical and mental health. About 20% of abortions in France are induced with RU486. The numbers in Sweden are 17%, and 6% in England. Should the High Court allow abortions to be completed outside the hospital our society anticipates that RU486 abortions would become available nationally with possibly 20% or approximately 3200 per year. More than 650 of these women will abort at home or elsewhere.

(The following guidelines have been collated from advice previously published by experienced letter writers and authors both in New Zealand and overseas.)

Writing letters to newspapers and magazines, or to politicians, CAN make a difference. The following guidelines can make your letters more effective.

Many of the points above about writing to newspapers or magazines also apply with politicians. The following are more specific:

BE INFORMED. Show that you know the pros and cons of the issue you are writing about.

BE POSITIVIE. Avoid personal criticism. If possible, offer a compliment for some recent action, vote or speech. Politicians receive a lot of criticism but not much appreciation.

BE PERSONAL. Use your own words. A carefully thought-out, individual letter is most effective. Duplicated form letters never have the same impact.

BE PERSISTENT. Don’t be put off by a negative reply. Write again and get others to write. Politician’s minds can be changed by voter’s opinions.

 

(The following is from a leaflet prepared by the US National Committee for Human Life Amendment.)

A state legislator’s secretary who had worked in her position for more than 10 years once noted, "If the average Representative received as many as a dozen letters handwritten on wrapping paper, it might be enough to change his vote on many issues." This may sound like an exaggeration, but it does point out that elected representatives are influenced by YOU, as their constituent, when you take the time to write a sincere letter expressing your opinion on legislation. Your voice does count. While one letter may not accomplish your goal, your opinion added to those of many others in your community and around the nation who are working for a common goal can, and will, make a difference. We live in a dynamic society (which has at times been referred to as a "pressure democracy") where decisions are constantly being made at the legislative level - whether we attempt to influence them or not. It is important to realise that most MPs give consideration to two factors that determine their decisions on legislation and policy:

They act on behalf of what they think is right.

They are very sensitive to public opinion within their own constituencies.

I attended this conference held on 26 to 29 September, as a representative of Right to Life.

The conference was held at the Bruce Mason centre, a theatre, on the North Shore of Auckland, in the central business area of Takapuna.

There were over 100 delegates attending this conference, some from as far away as Australia, Fiji, and the United States.

The opening mass was held at the local Catholic church in Takapuna, from there we walked in procession to the Bruce Mason centre, in a prayer vigil for the unborn child. We carried candles, but these were apt to go out in the light rain which was falling heavier by the time we arrived at the centre.

The opening talk was on Friday morning, and was a dramatic presentation of the miracle of life, by Warwick Pascoe. He enthralled the audience for an hour, by showing still and moving colour pictures of the unborn baby in its mother’s womb. He also described the way in which the infant child develops from the first cell divisions until 9 months later.

The next speaker was Gail Instance, a prolife leader from Australia. Her talk on euthanasia in Australia was revealing and disturbing, and she described how the Northern Territory assembly legalised euthanasia for several months, and how the news media in Australia are using cases of voluntary euthanasia, which are fabricated, to promote the dangerous idea that euthanasia is a right. Also she talked about the assisted suicide of patients by Dr Philip Nitzschke, and how he gains publicity.

Other speakers were Inge Forster, who gave a personal testimony on how she became a prolifer, and how prayer worked in her life, Rev Dr. Michael McCabe, the director of the Nathaniel centre, talked about palliative care, and other speakers talked about home schooling, the contraceptive mentality, and the false sex education programmes in schools today.

The two keynote speakers, and the highlights of the conference, were Steven Mosher from the USA talking on China’s population problems due to the one child policy, and the United Nations plans to coerce poorer countries into population control programmes.

Also Dr Bernard Nathanson, the former abortion clinic director, abortionist, and president of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, spoke about his personal journey from being a pro-choice abortion doctor, to becoming prolife, and then becoming a baptised Catholic. He received a standing ovation after his speech after dinner.

On the final day, Dr Nathanson spoke about the human genome project, and the current state of development of genetic engineering, and the possibilities of failure, and what this could lead to.

A very worthwhile conference to attend, from which I drew much inspiration. All sessions were taped, and may be ordered through Myriam tape ministries (Peter Cornwell) in Auckland.

I am writing this letter especially for people who are praying for the unborn, and others who actively are standing up against abortion. I’m praying that they would never give up fighting for this cause. Doesn’t matter if they stop only one mother from aborting her baby. I would be happy if I could save one life as I’m happy that two people were outside Lyndhurst Abortion Clinic the day I needed someone to protect me and my baby. You never know when you can be the key person for somebody.

Deep inside my soul I didn’t want an abortion. I was far away from home and I had a 12 year old son with me. For five years I’d been following one Chinese Master. Two and a half years in Croatia and the same time in New Zealand. We lived in Te Anau in a community of around 60 people. I didn’t have any money. My life was devoted completely to this community. The common opinion there was that I’m not ready yet for this baby and that I have no ability to have this baby at the community.

All the way from Te Anau to Christchurch I was praying that something would stop me. And something did stop me. The miracle happened. Two people were there offering me help in my time of agony.

A lot of women as myself, in the key moment need somebody to support their inner voice, to wake up their inner voice, which is never to kill. I don’t know a mother who would regret the birth of a baby but a lot of mothers regret an abortion. I don’t know a mother who would after giving birth become bitter but a lot of mothers after abortion start to lose themselves. It’s not true that you are not ready. I thought that I’m not ready but when the moment came I was ready to change completely my way of life in a minute.

At the end I have to say that God blessed me and gifted me with many gifts after this experience. I now have a healthy baby daughter and that day I walked away from Lyndhurst Abortion Clinic I left behind fear, panic, confusion, hate, bitterness and weakness. My life isn’t easy now at all but I’ll never forget that Easter when God was specially generous to me, when I trusted him.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have been advised by our society members who pray and counsel women entering Lyndhurst that in the last three months there have been a good number of women who have been counselled out of having an abortion.

The Minister of Health on 15 October made a commendable "moral judgement" in banning the planned filming in a public hospital of a woman giving birth for a pornographic movie.

The Minister’s decision raises many important issues. Her decision to protect the right to privacy of the unborn child is implicit recognition of the humanity of the child and its endowment by God with human rights. If the child has a right to privacy it also has an inalienable right to life, the foundation stone of all our human rights.

Abortions generally performed in public hospitals represent the ultimate violation of the rights to privacy and of life of unborn children. Right to Life has written to the Minister commending her for her decision and hoping that she will continue and extend her desire to protect the rights of unborn children.

The Ombudsman has advised Right to Life that our complaint against the Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) has been rejected. Right to Life had laid a complaint on 23 August that the ADHB had failed to ensure that the abortion laws had been upheld at their facilities, specifically Epsom Day Clinic and the National Women’s Hospital at Greenlane.

This was in fact a class action as our complaint was against all twenty-one District Health Boards operating in New Zealand. We chose to make our complaint in this instance as the Auckland DHB was the biggest DHB and had performed 86,114 abortions at the Epsom Day Clinic and 3,736 abortions at National Women’s Hospital for a total of 89,850 abortions since the CS&A Act was passed in 1977.

Our complaint was that the DHB had failed to comply with the CS&A Act by ensuring that all abortions performed in their facilities were lawful. Our second complaint was that the ADHB had failed to hold doctors employed by the Board who were certifying consultants and abortionists responsible for their medical diagnosis and treatment of women presenting themselves for an abortion.

We contended that the medical profession recognises that the unborn child is a patient and that when a woman carrying a child seeks help from a public hospital her child in utero becomes a patient of the Board and that the Board has a duty of care for two very vulnerable patients, the mother and her child.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) reports that 98% of abortions are authorised on mental health grounds. We are advised by the Committee that the certificates for these abortions indicate that the diagnosis is acute reactive depression or predicted reactive depression. Since 1980 the clinical term is now adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

In the Christchurch District Court on 15 March 1993 before Judge Holderness the late Dr. Robin Marchant gave sworn evidence in a pro-life rescue operation at Lyndhurst where a group of pro-life members were charged with trespass after passively blocking the entrances. Dr. Marchant was a general practitioner at the Halswell Medical Centre and employed to perform abortions at Lyndhurst. He had previously been employed by the Board as a registrar in Psychiatry.

The transcript of the proceedings record that Dr. Marchant was asked what was the correct treatment for reactive depression. His response was "a severe depressive illness requires counselling as well as perhaps some medication if that is indicated and sometimes hospitalisation." He was then asked to point to any source or authority where abortion is used as a treatment for depression. His answer, "Not that I am aware of."

Doctor Julia Faed, a specialist psychiatrist and lecturer at the Otago Medical School, gave evidence that the international literature on the practice of psychiatry indicates that mild and acute reactive depression is a contra-indication for abortion. If this is correct then thousands of women are having their unborn children destroyed allegedly on the grounds of mental health and being denied the correct medical treatment of counselling and where necessary, medication.

In 1996 the Government, responding to the report of the Justice and Law Reform Parliamentary 1995 investigation into the performance of the ASC, stated in the written response tabled in Parliament that

On 3 December 2001 this society wrote to the ADHB seeking information on the performance of abortions in their facilities. The Board replied on 22 April 2002 stating that "It has no control or authority over good faith medical decisions of certifying consultants under the Act."

Similar responses were received from other DHBs. It is the opinion of Right to Life that the Boards’ response is inappropriate and a dereliction of their legal responsibilities and their duty of care due to women considering an abortion and their unborn children.

The Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood in refusing jurisdiction stated that he has no authority to review the performance of the ASC and that any complaints concerning the clinical judgements of doctors should be addressed to the Health and Disability’s Mr Ron Patterson. Our society on 30 September formally laid our original complaint with the Health Commissioner. We await his reply.

The city manager of the Christchurch City Council Mike Richardson wrote to our society on 29 July, responding to our submission of 8 May requesting that the Council make representations to Central Government concerning the lack of legal protection for unborn children in Christchurch.

Mr Richardson replied "that given the wide range of views held by citizens of Christchurch on this matter it is highly likely that the Council would consider it inappropriate to make representations to local MPs or the Minister of Justice." Right to Life is very disappointed at the Council’s response.

In our submission we stated that the unborn child is a citizen and a member of the human family and the weakest and most defenceless member. The child is a citizen of this city and has a right to expect protection from this community. We provided information on the failure of the law to protect the human rights of the unborn child and the failure of Government and Parliament to address the plight of unborn children.

We are all called to defend life. Under the Council’s Strategic Statement 2002 edition it states under Democratic Governance that protecting the rights of all citizens is a strategic objective.

We informed the Council that since the passing of the CS&A Act in 1977 a total of 34 098 abortions had been reported at the Lyndhurst abortion facility and Christchurch Women’s Hospital. Currently the figure is about 45 children per week. This is a massive violation of human rights. We acknowledged that it was the responsibility of Government to ensure that unborn children receive the full protection of the law. We advised that our society has been engaged in a campaign of intense lobbying of both Government and Parliament to seek the protection of the law for the human rights of unborn children. This campaign has had limited success.

We submitted that the killing of unborn children has a serious effect on the development of this city and the health of women. The future of this city depends on a birth rate that is above replacement level. Our present birth rate is below replacement level, a major cause being the killing of more that 2000 children before birth each year in Christchurch.

We provided information about the link between abortion and breast cancer and the serious risk of psychological disorders for women following an abortion.

We stated that when Central Government fails to provide legal protection for the human rights of our local community’s unborn children there is a duty for the City Council to act and to formulate an urgent plan of action.

We suggested the following course of action:

For Council to lobby local members of Parliament to express Council’s concerns and to request action.

To write to the Minister of Justice requesting that in his review of the abortion laws in New Zealand he ensures:

that the regime of unlawful abortions currently prevailing is halted.

that legislation be introduced to Parliament that recognises the status of the unborn child as a human being with an inalienable right to life.

 

Our society is determined to raise awareness of the plight of the unborn child and to have the human rights of the unborn child placed on the agenda of the City Council.

Republicans have regained control of the United States Senate and have increased their majority in the House of Representatives at the recent mid-term elections. The prolife Republicans now have 51 seats in the Senate with the generally pro-abortion Democrats holding 46. In Congress there are 226 Republicans and 204 Democrats.

This important electoral result has important implications for the prolife movement. President Bush has the responsibility of making several nominations for appointment to the United States Supreme Court in the near future. He has publicly stated that he would appoint members that would review the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973 that allowed abortion on demand. The Republican electoral successes will ensure that his prolife nominations will have the support of both the Senate and Congress.

The reversal of Roe vs. Wade will have important implications for the international prolife movement in turning back a culture of death and halting the abortion holocaust.

Postinor is the trade name for the ECP that is available on prescription only. The instruction pamphlet that is included with Postinor has no mention that the ECP includes an abortifacent action that will destroy a human embryo before implantation. Levonelle is the product that is available for pharmacists for over the counter sales. This product does include an information pamphlet that informs the consumer that it may act by preventing the implantation of a human embryo.

The Canterbury branch president of the Pharmacy Guild Alan Bastin said that some pharmacists were morally or ethically opposed to dispensing the ECP previously available only by prescription. "Some perceive the ECP to be an abortion pill - this may be for religious or ethical reasons," said Mr Bastin. Other pharmacists spoken to by the Star said professional pharmacists like doctors, should "put their religious beliefs aside and respect a patient’s choice."

This is not just a religious issue, it is a human rights issue entailing the violation of the right to life of an innocent and defenceless human being, a human embryo.

It is not widely known that Section 46 of the Contraceptive, Sterilisation and Abortion Act provides legal protection for conscientious objection. No registered medical practitioner, registered nurse, pharmacist or any other person is under an obligation to perform or assist in any abortion, to assist in rendering a patient sterile or to assist in providing a contraceptive or providing advice relating to contraception. These pharmacists who are refusing to provide ECPs over the counter on the grounds of conscience are to be applauded and supported; they are helping to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death. Right to Life hope that this exercise of conscience would ultimately include contraceptives that are also abortifacent in their action.

The commendable stance of these pharmacists raises the question, is the filling of a prescription for the ECP by a doctor not also against their conscience?

Right to Life has written to the Canterbury Pharmacists Guild commending those chemists who refuse to sell the ECP over the counter. We have drawn their attention to the legal protection of Section 46 of the CS&A Act and provided them with a copy of that section.

Pharmacists are being trained by the ubiquitous Family Planning Association in the counselling required to be given to women seeking to purchase the ECP. Pharmacists are required to provide a private interview room for counselling women seeing to purchase the ECP. Over the counter sales of the ECP cost between $25 and $35. Interviews are expected to take 15 minutes.

Pharmacists selling the ECP will display a purple sticker in the window of the pharmacy saying "emergency contraceptive pill available here without prescription." Women purchasing the ECP are required to provide their name which is recorded in a database.

The Government objective in legalising the over the counter sale of the ECP is to reduce the very high teenage pregnancy rate and abortion rate in New Zealand. It is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and will do nothing to deter sexual activity outside of marriage. It will also distort our abortion statistics by having abortions caused by the ECP not recorded. The March 2002 issue of the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, an international Pharmacy journal stated that 13% to 38% of the effectiveness of the ECP could be attributed to the abortive effect of this lethal drug.

The BSA has declined to uphold the complaint of Right to Life against the NZFPA. The complaint was that Dr. Sue Bagshaw on the 27 February in an interview on News Talk ZB stated "there are some who believe that life begins when the sperm enters the egg but at present life begins when the fertilised egg attaches itself to the lining of the uterus." She went on to say "contraception is before implantation, abortion is after it."

These statements are scientifically untrue and we believe that they are intended to mislead women as to when human life begins and that they were not responsible for destroying their own child before implantation with an abortifacent contraceptive.

The BSA stated that the complaint was assessed against Principle 6 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Principle 6 states "In the preparation and presentation of news and current affairs programmes, broadcasters are required to be truthful and accurate on points of fact." 6c states "Factual reports on the one hand, and opinion, analysis and comment on the other, shall be clearly distinguished."

The BSA’s determination of the 25 July states "Principle 6 of the Radio Code requires broadcasters to be truthful and accurate on points of fact." In the Authority’s view, the material complained about did not contain any statement of fact. Dr. Bagshaw’s comments were, the Authority considers, clearly presented as well-informed opinion. Furthermore, the Authority considers that the two positions on when human life begins, those of the FPA and the complainant, cannot be reconciled. This is a situation in which the Authority cannot independently determine the truth of the matter. The Authority has no basis upon which to find a breach of the standard in these circumstances, where the material under focus is neither demonstrably untrue nor incorrect.

The Authority concluded by saying that FPA was acting in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights in exercising its right to freedom of expression in a manner which is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

The decision of the Authority is manifestly wrong, a distortion of the facts, a rejection of a fundamental scientific truth and an absurd example of political correctness. Evidence had been presented to the Authority from 15 eminent scientists from all over the world, upholding the universally held truth that life begins at conception.

This is an issue of the greatest importance concerning the respect and protection we should accord to the human embryo from conception. The decision of the Authority could have been challenged in the High Court. Right to Life sought legal advice and were advised that there would be little hope of having the Court overturn a determination of a statutory body. We could if faced with an unsuccessful appeal be obliged to meet the substantial court costs incurred by the Authority in defending their decision. An appeal to the High Court was therefore not lodged. The issue of dangerous and misleading statements of Family Planning as to when human life begins has now been taken up with the Minister of Health and the Health Commissioner.

The Maxim Institute, formerly the New Zealand Education Development Foundation, reports that "this country has the developed world’s second highest percentage of single parent families. By 2010 if present trends continue half of European and nearly three quarters of Maori infants under 12 months will be in fatherless families." It goes on to say, "compared with the intact married family, serious child abuse is 33 times higher when the mother lives with her boyfriend - and the rate of child abuse is 73 times higher (UK and US)", and a Christchurch study showed 65% of youth offenders were not living with their dads

Statistics New Zealand disclose that in the year ending December 31 2001 the marriage rate fell to a new low of 14.8 per 1000 now married aged 16 years and over. The rate is less than a third of the peak level of 45.5 per 1000 in 1971.