Life Issues 

Contact Us

Viewpoint

News

Links/Resources

Need Help

Footprints

Home Page  

Footprints Magazine

Right to Life has lodged a formal complaint with the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) for breaching the Association's Code of Ethics.

Dr. Mackay is a general practitioner, an appointed certifying consultant and an abortionist employed by the Canterbury District Health Board to perform abortions at the Lyndhurst Abortion Facility. Complaints have also been made to the Abortion Supervisory Committee and to the Canterbury DHB.

The former complaint is on the grounds that the publicly expressed views of Dr. Mackay on the grounds for abortion are incompatible with Section 30 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. We have asked that her appointment as a certifying consultant be immediately revoked.

The complaint is that in statements attributed to Dr. Mackay in the Christchurch Press 15 December 2002 Dr. Mackay breached the Association’s Code of Ethics. Namely, in her responsibilities to the profession. Code 28 states: Ensure that one’s personal conduct is beyond reproach and report to the appropriate body of peers and conduct by a colleague which may be considered unethical or unbecoming to the profession. In other circumstances avoid impugning the reputations of other doctors.

In the article in question, Dr. Mackay publicly accuses other medical practitioners of “sabotage” and of being “destructive”. These statements bring the medical profession into disrepute and impugn the reputations of other doctors. We are also unaware that Dr. Mackay has reported to the NZMA any conduct by a colleague which she may consider unethical.

Our society’s second complaint concerns Dr. Mackay’s statements on abortion; she stated:

“Some GPs were failing to book their patients in for abortions, while others would not treat them or tell them where to go to get help. If GPs are uncomfortable they have an ethical obligation to tell patients where they can get the service.”

This statement in our opinion is legally and ethically incorrect. The first principle of the medical profession is to do no harm.

Dr. Mackay’s statement is also, in our view, in contravention of the NZMA’s code of ethics. The Association’s code of ethics clearly states that the Geneva Declaration (1948) has been endorsed by the NZMA. The NZMA during 1979 reaffirmed its allegiance to the Geneva Declaration, which states “A doctor will have the utmost respect for human life from conception until death.” The NZMA Handbook endorses the Oslo Declaration which states that “Abortion should be performed for therapeutic reasons only.”

It was also incorrect for Dr. Mackay to state that GPs had an obligation to book their patients in for an abortion. There is a legal process for the certification and authorising of abortions set out in the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 Section 33 (5) which states “where two certifying consultants determine that they should authorise an abortion, they shall forward the said certificate to the holder of the licence in respect of the licensed institution in which the abortion is to be performed.”

In conclusion, the public statements made by Dr. Mackay are also a source of confusion and misdirection for members of the profession and the general public. The situation is aggravated by the perception that Dr. Mackay, as a former chairperson of the NZMA, is authoritative. As a former chairperson she should be well aware of the clearly stated Code of Ethics of the NZMA and as an operating surgeon at the Lyndhurst Abortion Facility should be well aware of the legal process for the authorisation of abortions.

The chairman of the NZMA Dr. John Adams advised Right to Life on 13 February that our complaint alleging unethical behaviour by Dr. MacKay had been considered but not upheld.

Dr. Adams stated “In relation to the first complaint Dr MacKay’s reported comments were general in nature, were directed at unnamed doctors, and were in the nature of opinion. As such they cannot be considered to impugn the reputation of any doctor.

“In relation to the second complaint Dr. MacKay’s reported comments were again general in nature, and can be read as reflecting the intent of Recommendations 7 and 9 of the NZMA’s Code of Ethics which have relevance to this situation.

“On these bases, we do not consider that there are ground for further action in respect to your complaints.

“A copy of your letter of complaint and a copy of this letter will be sent to Dr. MacKay.”

Right to Life is disappointed but not surprised at the action of the NZMA. We strongly disagree with their conclusions. It should be noted that the first code of the Code of Ethics is:

1.Consider the health and wellbeing of the patient to be your first priority.

The unborn child is a patient and the first duty of a medical practitioner is to protect the life and wellbeing of the child, the most defenceless member of the human family. The Recommendations 7 and 9 referred to by Dr. Adams are only recommendations and are subservient to the Code of Ethics. Recommendations 7 and 9 relate to the duty of a doctor to ensure continuity of care for a patient. Right to Life contends that there is no legal or ethical obligation for a doctor to refer a woman with child to another doctor with the objective of having that baby killed.

This important issue is again to be taken up in writing with the NZMA.

STOP   PRESS!

Euthanasia—a Culture of Death

The private members’ Bill of Peter Brown MP New Zealand First “Death with Dignity” is now before Parliament.

Right to Life is conducting a national campaign to defeat this new threat to the right to life.

Action: Please write or phone your local electorate and list MPs asking them to vote against this Bill.

The right to die would become a duty to die.

NEWS IN BRIEF

Coroner’s Inquest

A coroner wrote to the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) recently enquiring whether a subject of an inquest had had an abortion. The ASC advised that they were unable to assist.

The Committee claims that since the passing of the CS&A Act in 1977 no woman has died in New Zealand following a legal abortion. This claim is questionable as it is considered highly unlikely that should a woman die as the result of an abortion that the death certificate would show abortion as the cause of death. Right to Life has been advised of the tragic death of a woman as the result of a late term abortion where the death certificate did not show abortion as the cause of death.

In every abortion a patient dies - an unborn child.

Pope John Paul II told the Pontifical Academy for Life in April 2002 that he “strongly warned against the notion that human rights depend on the powerful of society or on the consensus of the majority.” He said that the right to life is not debatable.

Grey Power - Euthanasia

Grey Power is to survey its 78000 members in its quarterly Lifestyle magazine on their views on the ethics of assisted suicide. The survey will be conducted in March.

Grey Power health spokesperson Dennis Paget stated that three recent high profile so-called “mercy killings” had prompted the move.

Right to Life has written to Grey Power to seek to ensure that their members are properly informed on the issue of doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide and to ensure that the questions are upholding the sanctity of life ethic.

Message from the President

Thank you to all who have renewed their membership subscriptions and given donations. We are very pleased at the numbers of you who have promptly renewed your membership for the coming year, and are glad of your continued support for the cause of saving the lives of unborn children. This year there seems even more work than usual to do, as we fight against the Prostitution Law Reform Bill, and seek to change the hearts and minds of our members of Parliament, who are undecided as to how to vote on this important law change.

While we are disappointed that our parliament voted to pass the Prostitution law reform bill through the house on its second reading, it is heartening that it was only by a small majority that it did so, and there is a good chance that it will not pass the third reading, which will have taken place by the time you read this. There are enough obvious flaws in this legislation to prevent the Bill from being passed.

One of the disturbing trends that we have discovered in recent campaigning is the number of hospitals where abortions are authorized without really going through a proper process. The existing laws are meant to allow two members of the medical profession to decide whether to proceed with an abortion, but the law is not being upheld, as the process is reduced to essentially a “rubber stamping” exercise, where the second certifying doctor is the surgeon about to perform the abortion. This is so perfunctory, and it makes a mockery of the present law, which states that two separate doctors should give consent for an abortion if a woman requests one. The current system is corrupt, and it is time that the certifying consultants fees, which they are paid by the government for authorizing an abortion, should be repealed. Doctors are currently paid money by the government to give consent to the killing of unborn babies. This is immoral, and the practice must finish. With a review of the current abortion laws coming up in Parliament, let us pray that this happens.

I wish to invite all of you to our Annual general meeting, which will be held at Age Concern, Cambridge Terrace and Cashel Street, on  Monday 28th April at 7:30 p.m. Please come along and bring your spouse, family and friends. We need your support!

     Philip Creed

Update:  Abortion Supervisory Committee

Right to Life's complaint to the ASC against the Waikato, Auckland, Hawkes Bay and Northland District Health Boards for allowing appointments for abortions to be made prior to the women seeing a second certifying consultant to have a certificate authorising an abortion has been rejected. The Committee in response to our complaint that these appointments were unlawful refused in their reply of 20 February to take a position and stated, “It is not one of the functions of the ASC to provide you with a legal interpretation. You should obtain such information from your own legal advisor.”

Right to Life will vigorously pursue this very important issue, that we have unlawful abortion on request. In no other area of medicine do we have appointments offered for surgery at a public hospital at the request of the patient before approval is given by a surgeon. Clearly we have an assembly line for the killing of unborn children.

SOCIETY’S REPORT

Political Lobbying

A meeting was held with Gordon Copeland MP, deputy leader of United Future, on 4 February at Parliament to discuss a number of important life issues that do not require legislative action. The issues were:

1.   The information booklet “Considering an Abortion? What are Your Options?” This booklet was published by the Ministry of Health in 1998. The booklet was well received by doctors and was most helpful in providing women with information on the development of the unborn child and options to abortion. The booklet was opposed by the Family Planning Association and was subsequently withdrawn. Our society has been endeavouring to have the booklet republished.

2.   Certifying consultants’ fees. Right to Life is opposed to any increase in the fees paid to certifying consultants (currently $87.50).

3.   NZ Aid - United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Our society is opposed to $2.2 million in New Zealand Government funding of this organisation that supports China’s one child family policy with forced abortions.

4.   National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction (NECAHR). Right to Life seeks to have this Government-appointed committee base its ethical decisions on the sanctity of life ethic.

5.   New Zealand Family Planning Association (NZFPA). Right to Life is opposed to Government funding of this organisation.

Gordon Copeland deputy leader of United Future has advised that these subjects are under action by the United Future caucus. Right to Life is delighted and encouraged by the support expressed by United Future in pursuing these important life issues, and will continue to monitor developments.

“One of United Future’s founding principles is respect for life.

We uphold the law on abortion but want to see it enforced as it was intended, so that the total number of abortions will be reduced.”

- Hon Peter Dunne MP, Parliamentary Leader United Future.

Abortion Law Reform

Right to Life is committed to encouraging United Future to pursue legislation that will recognise the status of the unborn child as a human being with a right to life.

Substantial information in support of our proposed Status of Unborn Children Bill and a Parental Consent Bill have been provided to Gordon Copeland for the consideration of caucus and for their action. We have also provided an analysis of the amendments we would like to see to the CS&A Act to achieve increased legal protection for the unborn child and for mothers. We await the decisions of the United Future caucus.

Media Releases

Media releases have been made to national TV, radio and newspapers on the following issues: the Prostitution Reform Bill, following the second reading, carried by radio ZB, Rhema and the Challenge Weekly.

Christchurch Press: Letters from the society have been published on abortion and conscientious objection, euthanasia, UNFPA funding, abortion and waiting lists.

NZ Catholic: Letters have been published on UNFPA funding and contraceptive failure.

Important Correspondence

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Our society had previously asked the College if they supported or opposed women having a chemical abortion with RU486 completing their abortion at home. This was the subject of High Court action. The chairman of the College Alastair Haslam replied that our letter had been discussed by their committee.

He stated that the use of such medication is up to the clinicians involved and that the College has no specific view of its own on the use of these drugs.

Canterbury District Health Board (DHB): The information pamphlet given to women seeking an abortion at Lyndhurst and Christchurch Women's states that:

“Generally having an abortion has less risk than continuing a pregnancy to term.”

This statement ignores the fact that every abortion results in the death of a patient - an unborn child.

Abortion advocates claim that a woman’s risk of dying from childbirth is many times higher than the risk of death from abortion.

An unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths conducted in Finland reveals that women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year than are women who have carried to term.

Right to Life requested that the Canterbury DHB:

1.   Remove the offending and untrue statement from the pamphlet.

2.   That the findings of the Finnish study be included in the pamphlet.

3.   That a full copy of the research findings be given to each of the social workers providing abortion counselling.

Euthanasia Bill

Right to Life has sent a letter to all MPs asking them to vote against this Bill.

Auckland District Health Board.

A letter has been sent to the Minister of Health opposing ministerial pressure on the Auckland DHB to establish a second trimester abortion “service” in Auckland to “serve” the women of the Auckland region.

A “Case of Rape” Defends

Like most people who were adopted as infants, Rebecca Kiessling often wondered as a child who her natural parents were and what they might be like. Unlike many children, Kiessling, now a Michigan attorney, was determined to find out. She began seeking that information while she was still a minor and was told that she had to be of legal age before she could petition the probate court. She entered the request as soon as she turned 18 and a year later she received some “nonidentifying information” about her birth mother and a brief description of her biological father.

In fact, the information about her father - containing only approximate height and weight and the fact that he was a male Caucasian - seemed a bit too brief. Kiessling recalls thinking, “Gee, that sounds like a police report.”

Her birth mother called her when she learned Rebecca was trying to find her. It was her first contact with her daughter since she had given her up for adoption 19 years earlier. In that long and emotionally wrenching phone call, Rebecca, then a college student, learned the whole horrifying story of how she came to be.

Her mother was a single mom at the time, having divorced a man who was abusive and alcoholic. As she was walking from her home to a nearby store one evening, she was suddenly attacked by a man with a knife.

“He jumped out of the bushes, dragged her to a nearby field, slipped open her clothes with his knife and brutally raped her in every way possible. And that’s how I was conceived,” Kiessling told an audience of about 150 at Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal in Hampton, New Hampshire, USA. “To think that I was conceived in a worst-case scenario made me feel totally worthless.”

Soon after the phone call, she met her birth mother and the two developed a warm and loving relationship. But one question troubled Rebecca. She knew her birth date was July 22, 1969, exactly three and a half years before the US Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade ruling, declared abortion a constitutional right. She had to ask the question that was now haunting her, and her mother gave her an honest, but devastating, answer.

“She told me if abortion had been legal at the time, she would have aborted me.” For Rebecca, the issue of abortion suddenly took on a whole new meaning, in her thoughts and in her life.

“Growing up, I never really thought abortion applied to my life - but then in one moment, it not only applied to my life, it had to do with my very existence,” she said. “I heard the echoes of all those people who would say, ‘Well, except in cases of rape’ or ‘especially in cases of rape.’ I realised they were talking about me.”

In fact, her mother had twice planned to have her aborted, Kiessling learned. In the first instance, she went to a practitioner who confirmed her worst fears about a “back-alley” abortion. “There was blood all over the floor, blood on the table,” Kiessling said. Those conditions, and the fact that abortion was still illegal in Michigan, caused her mother to back out at the last minute.

But she would try again. She was scheduled to meet someone at night by the Detroit Institute of Art. She was told she would be taken blindfolded to an undisclosed location, where her pregnancy would be “terminated”. Then she would be blindfolded and taken back home. But a severe snowstorm cancelled the trip and the abortion had to be rescheduled. By then, her mother had decided the pregnancy was too far along and decided to have the baby and give her up for adoption. Kiessling calls that snowstorm “God’s mandated waiting period.”

“Look at the Cross”

As a law student at Wayne State University, she recalled, she was continually amazed at the rationale of “pro-choice” advocates. She recalled asking one of them, a professor who had an adopted daughter, if he had considered that his own child might have been aborted.

“And he said, ‘Well, we would have adopted another child.’ That,” said Kiessling, “was tantamount to saying, ‘Goodbye, daughter, you’re expendable. You can be replaced.’”

In her family law practice, Kiessling has provided free legal representation to women who were being coerced into abortions. Four of her abortion-related cases made national news. But the circumstances of her birth and her narrow escape from two abortionists have had an even more profound impact on her personal life. She and her husband adopted Caleb, a baby conceived by his 16 year old mother at a “rave party.” They also adopted a baby girl, Cassie, who died of severe medical complications when she was barely a month old. Hospital officials, she said, suggested withholding treatment from the child. Even if she were to pull through, the Kiesslings were told, “we would have to think about what her quality of life would be.” The adoptive parents were determined, however, to try to save the baby’s life.

“They don’t know her value, they don’t know my value, they don’t know their own value,” Kiessling told the church audience. Pointing to the crucifix over the altar, she said: “If they want to know what their value is, they just have to look at the cross.”

She held Cassie in her arms just before she died, she recalled. Then her husband held the child as she drew her final breath. “She passed from the arms of one loving father to another,” Kiessling said.

Today her law career is on hold, as Kiessling is a “stay-at-home mom” for Caleb, now two and a half. But she still takes the time to travel to speak out against abortion. And she has a special and very personal challenge for anyone who thinks rape is a good enough reason to take the life of a preborn child.

“You should be able to look me in the eyes and say, ‘I think your mother should have aborted you.’ I would never say that to anyone - that if it were up to me, you would be dead.”

She knows she can only imagine what her mother went through. “But I also know that today, she’s okay. She has a wonderful husband and a beautiful home.”

And she is proud and happy she gave birth to the child she had wanted to abort, Kiessling said. “If you were to ask her today, she would say I’m a blessing to her.”

Kiessling doesn’t hesitate to count aloud her own blessings, starting with her conception. “The rapist is not my creator, as some people would have you believe. God is my creator. I’m not the child of a rapist, I’m a child of God!”

She quotes verses from Psalm 59 that speak to her own experience and to that of countless others who have been brought in their mother’s womb to the services of an “abortion provider”:

         “Deliver me from my enemies,

                  O my God,

         Protect me from those

who rise up against me.

         Deliver me from those who work evil

         And save me from bloodthirsty men.”

When people understand the real value of human life, Kiessling said, they will stop talking about how horrible it would be for a rape victim to carry a child to term. Instead, they will say, “You mean to tell me that God rewarded this women with the gift of this child’s life for the suffering she endured? Wow! How good is God! How faithful is God.”

Reprinted with permission from the author Rebecca Kiessling who may be reached at 

rebeccatty@aol.com

Unborn Child - Medical Waste

Right to Life wrote to the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) in May 2002 submitting that the remains of unborn children should be treated with respect and cremated. We wrote “Our society seeks to promote the sanctity of life ethic and the right to life of every human being from conception, intrinsic to this ethic is the respect that should be shown to the body of a human being after life has departed.”

The killing of unborn children is a violation of human rights; it is offensive to this society and to many in the community. The treatment of the remains of unborn children as human waste is a cause of further offence and pain.

Currently the human remains of these children destroyed at Lyndhurst are treated as medical waste. The remains are collected by Medical Waste Ltd. and incinerated with medical waste at their plant in Wairakei Rd.

It is important that we don’t lose respect for life and the child both in life and in death.

We requested that the protocol followed by Capital and Coast District Health Board by adopted. In Wellington the bodily remains are cremated and the ashes distributed at a cemetery.

Right to Life was advised in June that the Canterbury DHB was reviewing their procedures relating to disposal and would review the procedures of Capital and Coast DHB and other providers.

In December the corporate counsel of the Canterbury DHB advised that the review was completed. He advised that they would continue allowing women who had an abortion to take the “products of conception” with them or where the abortion is over 14 weeks the option of cremation was available. Both Christchurch Women’s and Lyndhurst would continue to use the services of a local medical waste company that uses an incineration process for the disposal of the foetus. Women who specifically asked for cremation would be accommodated.

Right to Life responded to the Board in December and expressed disappointment that the review did not result in the cessation of the disposal of the remains of unborn children as medical waste by incineration. We noted that cremation was an option available but not offered for babies under 14 weeks gestation. We requested that in the interest of women and out of respect for the unborn child that cremation be always offered as an option.

Children are not human waste. The smoke emanating from the tall chimney of Medical Waste Ltd. in Christchurch is a tragic reminder of the incineration of the bodies of Jews also considered to be human waste at the Nazi concentration camp Auswitz during World War II.

This is a tragic commentary on man’s disrespect for God’s precious infants created in His image and likeness.

Certifying Consultants

Right to Life sent a letter to each of the 214 certifying consultants appointed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) to authorise abortions in New Zealand.

The letter was sent on 9 December 2002 and expressed our society’s concern at the plight of our unborn children and vulnerable and distressed women faced with an unplanned pregnancy who are the second victims of abortion and who are often abandoned and exploited.

It was stated that “the medical profession is in a specially privileged position to defend life and has a long and noble history of service to the community in upholding the Hippocratic tradition now expressed in the Declaration of Geneva 1948. It reads: ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception until death.’ The New Zealand Medical Association Handbook 1977 states, ‘a doctor must observe the principles of the Declaration of Geneva.’

“Not only are abortions authorised on socio-economic grounds against the ethics of the medical profession they are also unlawful. The Crimes Act 1961 Section 187A requires that certifying consultants have honest belief in the grounds on which they authorise an abortion. An absence of honest belief renders the abortions unlawful.”

It was noted that 98% of abortions were authorised on the grounds that continuing with the pregnancy was a serious threat to the mother’s mental health.

It was noted that the previous chairperson of the ASC Dr Christine Forster had publicly stated that she did not believe that women’s mental health was in danger and that doctors were using mental health to provide abortion on demand.

It was also noted that alleged acute reactive depression was a contraindication for abortion according to the international literature on the practice of psychiatry.

It was stated that “the Royal Commission of Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion in its report to Parliament made the following important conclusion:

§       It accepted the biological evidence establishing that human life begins at conception.

§       That from implantation to birth changes in the unborn child are of a developmental nature only.

§       That the right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation.

§       That the unborn child as one of the weakest, the most defenceless forms of humanity should receive protection.”

The letter went on to state: “We know that each child is a unique and unrepeatable act of God’s loving creation. We all have a duty and the privilege of defending and protecting human life. For God, the Lord of Life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life - a ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion is an unspeakable crime.

“The first principle of medicine is to do no harm. We therefore earnestly request that in accordance with the highest traditions of your profession you use your privileged position to protect the lives of unborn children and the health of their mothers.

“In conclusion our society extends to you and your family our wishes for God’s blessings of peace and joy as we celebrate the birth of Christ.”

Copies of our society’s letter were sent to the Medical Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Medical Association and the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

There has been no reply received from any of the 214 certifying consultants.

Members are requested to pray that the certifying consultants will cease promoting a culture of death through the killing of unborn children.

Prostitution Reform Bill

Cheers erupted form Parliament’s public galleries and debating chamber after MPs voted 62 to 56 to move Labour MP Tim Barnett’s Prostitution Reform Bill through its second reading. The tense debate was on Wednesday 19 February and lasted for two and a half hours, concluding at 10pm.

Larry Baldock MP for United Future led the attack on the Bill with an excellent speech. He said “that this is not a prostitution reform Bill but a society reform Bill. It is designed to change society’s attitude to prostitution.”

New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown also spoke against the Bill. He claimed it would lead to an increase in drug abuse, child prostitution, STDs, violence, trafficking in women and criminal activity.

National MP Judith Collins member for Clevedon said that the Bill would see the streets of New Zealand town and cities resemble Sydney’s Kings Cross.

MPs Dianne Yates and Makara Okeroa spoke strongly against the Bill. Oddly the latter voted for the bill.

Georgina Beyer, Catherine Rich, Sue Bradford, Phil Goff, Lynn Pillay and Russell Fairbrother spoke in support of the Bill.

Right to Life congratulates all the MPs of United Future and NZ First who exercised their conscience vote to vote against the Bill. Right to Life has written to all 56 MPs who voted against the Bill, commending them for their action.

It is disappointing that 22 women MPs voted for the Bill, with 10 voting against the Bill.

Prior to the debate Right to Life had written to all MPs excluding those of United Future making a plea that MPs would oppose this Bill in interests of women, the family and the common good. We also sought support for the private member’s Bill of Brent Catchpole of NZ First titled Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitutes’ Care) Bill. The purpose of that Bill is to prohibit offering money for prostitution. It also provides for more social welfare services to help women escape prostitution.

A Colmar Brunton survey commissioned by the Maxim Institute asked if they would like the law changed so that the buyers of sex are prosecuted. Considering there has been little debate on the issue, there was a surprising support for such a law. A total of 940 people aged over 18 were polled. Less than half were opposed while 51% were either in favour or undecided. Nationally women at 44% were in favour while 41% were opposed. It was noticeable that the support for the Bill was lowest (32%) in the higher socio-economic group while at the lower levels only four in ten were against.

In the opinion of Right to Life the Prostitution Reform Bill is the direct consequence of the police not enforcing the Massage Parlours Act and the prostitution related laws.

In 2001, of the 8000 prostitutes in New Zealand there were only three convictions for living off the earning of prostitution, five convictions for “brothel keeping” and nineteen convictions for soliciting. The police obviously see prostitution as a victimless crime; it is not.

This socially destructive Bill is destined to be referred back to the Justice and Electoral select committee.

If this Bill is passed we can expect a 400% increase in prostitution with more unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

This Bill can be and must be defeated. We only have to convince four MPs who voted for the Bill to vote against it at its third reading. This is not an impossible task.

Action: If your MP voted for the Bill we urge you to ring the electorate office of your MP to express your concern and ask them to vote against the Bill at its next reading. This Bill comes from a culture of death. It is an attack on women, the nurturers of life, the family and the unborn child.

 How Our New Zealand MP's Voted:

How Christchurch MPs voted:

United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNFPA)

Gillian Greer of the New Zealand Family Planning Association in December criticised the United States for its opposition to abortion.

The criticism came as more than 30 countries together with non-government organisations (NGOs) met for the fifth Asian and Pacific Population conference.

The United States delegation remained firm in its opposition to reaffirming the earlier agreements including statements on “reproductive health services” and “reproductive rights.” In both cases the US has interpreted the terms as a support for abortions as part of family planning.

The United States Assistant Secretary of State Eugene Dewey stated that the Bush administration had made a clear stand on abortion. President Bush had said “we should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed and protected in law.” “For this reason the US supports the sanctity of life from conception to natural death,” stated Mr. Dewey.

The New Zealand delegation opposed the United States’ standpoint and supported the UN conference’s plan of action.

United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNFPA) supports Human Rights Violations

The New Zealand Government has given $2.2 million to the UNFPA this year. The Government gives $1.8 million a year to UNFPA and chose to make an additional $400 000 grant in July.

The money is given through NZ Aid which was set up in 2001 to eliminate poverty.

About May this year the UNFPA was found by the United States to have supported forced abortion in China. the Peruvian Government has also found that UNFPA was implicated in the forced sterilisation of nearly 200 000 Peruvian women. These are massive violations of human rights.

The UNFPA has publicly stated that “reproductive health services” includes abortion. Seventeen years ago the US Congress passed the Kemp-Krasten amendment which denies foreign aid to organisations involved in coercive abortion or compulsory sterilisation. New Zealand has no such law.

Editor: Right to Life has written to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Hon. Phil Goff in December expressing our support for foreign aid but opposition to funding of UNFPA. The Minister was asked that as the violation of human rights was a matter of public record in May why did the Government make a further grant of $400 000 in July. Right to Life will continue to seek a law change similar to the Kemp-Krasten Law.

Action: Members are encouraged to write and express their concern to the Minister at Parliament Buildings, Wellington (no stamp required).

Euthanasia Survey Shows Support

WELLINGTON - More than 70% of people polled on euthanasia in a survey by Massey University said they supported doctor-assisted suicide for someone with a painful incurable disease.

However, support dropped to just under 50% for suicide assisted by others, such as a relative.

Opposition increased from 17% for doctor-assisted suicide, to 38% for non-doctor assisted death. About 10 to 12% percent of respondents did not have an answer for either option.

Men supported doctor-assisted suicide more strongly than women - 79% versus 67%.

There was no difference between the sexes when asked about non-doctor assisted death.

Respondents under the age of 50 were more in favour of doctor-assisted suicide than those 50 and above (77% versus 67%).

Research team head Professor Philip Gendall said the results showed “strong support” for euthanasia, provided it involved a doctor.

The euthanasia questions were included in the Massey marketing department’s annual survey of 1000 people on political and social issues conducted in August and September. - NZPA

Update:  Waikato District Health Board

Right to Life’s complaint to the Health Commissioner against the Waikato District Health Board (DHB) has been rejected. Our complaint was regarding the DHB’s requirement that women seeking an abortion sign a consent form for an abortion prior to the abortion being approved by the second certifying consultant.

The Health Commissioner in his reply of 20 February stated, “I am satisfied that there is no apparent breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights in respect to informed choice and informed consent.” Right to Life is disappointed at this decision. It is normal medical practice to obtain the completion of a consent form only after a medical procedure has been proposed and authorised.

Abortion Under Siege in USA

Thirty years after Roe v Wade the Bush White House is pressing its case against abortion and is pledged to promote a culture of life.

The pro-life movement in the United States is on the threshold of making major advances in protecting unborn children and opposing a culture of death.

Between 1990 and 2000 the number of abortions in the USA dropped 18% from an estimated 1.6 million a year to 1.3 million according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Meanwhile there are fewer doctors who are prepared to perform abortions. The number of GPs providing abortion has decreased from 2400 in 1992 to 1800 in 2003.

In January the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the abortion-rights movement’s leading organisation, changed it name to Pro-Choice America, dropping the name abortion.

NARAL was founded by Dr. Bernard Matheson now a passionate defender of the unborn child. It was Dr. Matheson who made up the slogan “abortion is a woman’s right to choose.” He has since denounced this slogan saying it was always known by NARAL that it was a great lie.

In the past seven years, 335 new restrictions have been passed by State Legislatures. Most common are parental consent and notification laws, state mandated lectures and written material about the development of the unborn child and alternatives to abortion. In the State of Alabama, women have to get sonograms before they can have an abortion.

A few months ago President Bush had information removed from a Government website which stated that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. A replacement fact sheet now suggests a link between abortion and breast cancer.

The biggest opportunity for the pro-life movement is the real possibility of overturning Roe v Wade. President Bush will have the opportunity of nominating pro-life nominees to replace anti-Roe Chief Justice Rehnquist and pro-Roe Justice Sandra O’Connor. It is predicted that following the overthrow of Roe v Wade that twelve states are likely to ban abortion in all or most circumstances. The overthrow of Roe v Wade will have international repercussions.

Some of the key decisions under the Bush administration are:

Ø    Made “unborn children” eligible for coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Programme as part of an effort to establish the foetus as a person.

Ø    Nominated strongly anti-abortion advocates such as Attorney General John Ashcroft to high-level positions.

Ø    Filed lower-court brief supporting Ohio’s ban on “partial birth” abortions.

Ø    Nixed taxpayer funding for additional stem cells to be extracted from embryos and used to research cures for diseases.

Ø    Reimposed global gag rule barring international organisations receiving U.S. funds from providing abortion services.

Ø    Revised government website to include suggestion of a link between abortion and breast cancer, which is not yet proved.