Archives

BRANCH REPORT

 

POLITICAL LOBBYING

Our Society is committed to the defeat of the euthanasia bill “Death with Dignity” waiting to be debated in Parliament.

A member of our executive, on behalf of Christians For Life, with our support,  recently spent a week in Wellington for meetings with 10 MPS at Parliament to seek support for opposing this dangerous bill. Among those met was Mr Peter Brown MP, sponsor of the bill. There are in the current Parliament 30 MPs who voted against the Death with Dignity bill in 1995. There are 17 MPs who voted for it.

At this time priority is being given to meeting with MPs whose views are unknown or who previously supported this bill. MPs are appreciative of the opportunity to discuss this bill and be given information and documentation on this vital issue. It is noted that MPs generally are unaware of the Dutch experience with euthanasia and that thousands of patients are being deprived of their lives without their knowledge. This lobbying will continue. To date there have been 50 meetings with MPs this year.

 

ACTION:

Members are urged to write to Mr Peter Brown MP respectfully requesting that for the common good he withdraw his bill “Death With Dignity”. Address: Parliament Building, Wellington (no stamp required).

MEDIA RELEASES

A media release was made on our opposition to the introduction of Ru486, the French abortion pill and consideration for its approval currently being considered by the Minister of Health.

Sunday Star Times: A letter on the number of deaths of women using the third generation contraceptive pill. Not published.

Christchurch Star: A letter as above on pill scare. Published. Two letters on abortion statistics. Published.

Press: On parental consent. Not published. Interviews were given to the Press on parental consent. A further interview was given on the status of this local Society following receipt by the editor of the Press of a letter from the national secretary of The Society For The Protection of The Unborn Child stating that this Society was not permitted to make any statements on life issues using our Society’s name.

LETTERS WERE SENT TO:

Prime Minister:  Expressing our concern that Dr Christine Forster, chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, should be honoured by the government with the high honour of the Order of New Zealand in the Queen’s birthday honours.

The award was for services to the community. During Dr Forster’s chairmanship she has presided over the deaths of 87,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children.

We asked the Prime Minister what services had Dr Forster provided to the community to warrant the government awarding this high honour. There has been no reply.

Newspapers: The article on “Voter Attitudes -- Unborn Child” featured in this newsletter was submitted for publication to the Humanity and the NZ Catholic it was declined. It was also sent to the NZ Baptist and the Presbyterian newspaper Crosslink. To date there has been no reply.

Catholic Justice Peace and Development Commission: A letter was sent to the Commission expressing concern that the 1999 election guide produced by the Commission as a guide to voters on justice issues omitted any reference to the need to vote for candidates who supported increased legal protection for the unborn child. We were unhappy with the Commission’s reply and have taken further action.

Canterbury Health: A letter was sent to Canterbury Health submitting that members of our Society provided sidewalk counselling at Lyndhurst. Recently a Counsellor was issued with a trespass notice for taking one step into the Lyndhurst car park. We contend that providing pamphlets and information on help available in the community to bring the baby to birth is a lawful activity. Women considering an abortion have a right to choose to receive this information. We know it is not offered by abortion counsellors. Sidewalk counsellors approach women in a non-judgmental and compassionate manner. They should not face the threat of being arrested for trespass and being charged before the District Court. Mr Michael Hundleby, the Company Solicitor for Canterbury Health, includes sidewalk counselling with protesting. He stated “The policy on preventing protest activity within the carpark and grounds of Lyndhurst Hospital is required by the right to provide services in a manner that respects the dignity of the patients and the right to provide services in a manner consistent with patients’ needs ¼” It is clear that at Lyndhurst women have a right to choose an abortion but have no right to choose to be given important information by sidewalk counsellors in the carpark.

The Hon. Wyatt Creech & Ru486: A letter was sent to Mr Creech who is the Parliamentary National caucus spokesperson on health. We asked if National had a policy on the use of the French abortion pill in New Zealand. We also asked if, in the event of the Minister of Health Ms Annette King approving Ru486, would National, on becoming government, withdraw authority for its use. Mr Creech replied that abortion was a conscience issue and that National had no policy on Ru486.

Minister of Health: Three letters have been sent to the Minister conveying our apposition to Ru486 and requesting that she decline the application of Dr Sparrow. We have also sought and obtained under the Official Information Act information on the application. We have been in contact through e-mail with the American Right to Life Association on this subject.

We wrote to the Minister to ask when the abortion information booklet “Considering an Abortion? What Are Your Options?” was going to be reprinted. Ms King replied:

“The booklet was originally printed and released in September 1998. A further release was reprinted later that year due to high demand. That supply has since been exhausted and there are no current plans to reprint the booklet. The booklet has now been placed on the Ministry’s website http://www.moh.govt.nz to allow greater access. “Primary care providers and referral services ¼ can download and distribute the booklet ¼” (minus the photographs).

The booklet was popular and helpful in providing women with important information on the development of their child -- why then cease publication? There is no way that busy doctors who just might have internet access in their surgery will have the time to download. We believe that this is a deliberate decision to keep this booklet out of the hands of women who need it.

Attorney General: A copy of the public discussion document on the Guardianship Act was requested from the Attorney General. This Society is preparing a submission that section 25A be amended to restore parental rights to ensure that an abortion is not performed on a girl under the age of 16 years of age without the consent of parents.

Palliative Care Bill:

At the time of the introduction of Michael Law’s euthanasia Death with Dignity Bill in 1995 Graham Lee MP lodged this private member’s bill with the Speaker of Parliament.

At the departure of Graham Lee from Parliament at the 1996 general election this bill lapsed. It was subsequently reintroduced in 1999 by Frank Grover MP of the Christian Heritage Party. Following the election of 1999 with the departure of Frank Grover from Parliament the bill again lapsed.

Earlier this year representatives of this executive met with Jim Anderton to seek his assistance to have it reintroduced. He was fully supportive of this proposal. Recently this bill, renamed the Hospice and Palliative Care Support bill, was re-lodged with the Speaker by Alliance MP Grant Gillon.

The bill sought 100% funding of essential core palliative care services.

We fully support this proposal and commend the Alliance party for this important pro-life initiative.

This important event again highlights the importance on an ongoing political lobbying campaign to have pro-life legislation presented to Parliament.

Same Sex Couples and the Law:

The executive sent a substantial submission to the Minister of Justice on this discussion paper.

Death with Dignity     Ken Orr

 

A private Member’s Bill to provide for the circumstances in which a medical practitioner may assist in the suicide of a patient or kill a patient has been presented to the Speaker of Parliament. The Bill is sponsored by Peter Brown MP, deputy leader of the New Zealand First party, it is exactly the same bill as presented by Michael Laws in 1995.

The explanatory note to the Bill which has the title Death with Dignity Bill states:

“The purpose of this bill is to allow persons who are terminally and incurably ill the opportunity of requesting assistance from a medically qualified person to end their lives in a humane and dignified way and to provide for that to occur after medical confirmation, a psychiatric assessment, counselling, and personal reflection.”

There are approximately 35 private Members’ bills with the Speaker of the House awaiting drawing by ballot. On each alternate Wednesday when the House is in session, up to four bills are drawn for presentation to Parliament. There is, thus, every prospect that this bill could be debated this year.

In 1995 Michael Laws presented a euthanasia bill “Death with Dignity” which was defeated at its first reading 62 to 29.

Some of the significant features of the new bill are:

1. The bill, if passed, does not become law unless a national referendum, to be held at the nearest general election, has majority support for the referendum question “Should the Death with Dignity Bill become law?”

2. The bill gives legal recognition to an “Advance Directive (AD) signed by a patient. The person named in the AD as the patient’s duly appointed representative may, in the event of a patient being rendered incapable of requesting “death with dignity” act for the patient.

3. The minimum age for “death with dignity” is 18 years of age.

4. The medical grounds required for “death with dignity” are:

(a) Terminal illness which is defined as an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgement result in the death of a patient.

(b) Incurably ill means a medical condition which is generally accepted by the medical profession as seriously impairing the person’s quality of life and unlikely to be capable of cure, either at the present time or in the reasonable future.

The Bill sets out the procedure for a patient seeking the assistance of a medical practitioner in the suicide of the patient or to “end their life in a humane and dignified way.”

Clause 5 provides for a person who is terminally and incurably ill to request the assistance of a medical practitioner to end the person’s life.

Clause 6 allows a medical practitioner to consent or refuse to assist the person making the request.

Clause 7 provides for it to be an offence to influence unduly a person seeking assistance to end his or her life or a medical practitioner who has been requested to assist that person.

Clause 8 requires a medical practitioner, or any other person assisting a patient, to disclose any moral, ethical, religious or ideological objection to providing assistance.

Clause 9 sets out the responsibilities of a medical practitioner who has received a request for assistance to end the life of a terminally or incurably ill person, including:

· Confirming the diagnosis

· informing the person of the risks of any medication

· informing the person of alternative treatments

· ensuring that the person’s request has been made voluntarily and that the person is aware that he or she may rescind the request at any time.

· referring the person to a consulting medical practitioner for confirmation of the person’s condition and treatment.

Clause 10 sets out the responsibilities of the consulting medical practitioner to whom a person is referred under clause 9, including:

· confirming or disagreeing with the diagnosis of the medical practitioner who referred the person

· informing the person of alternative care or treatment

· verifying that the person’s request is voluntary

Clause 11 requires a medical practitioner to refer a person requesting to end his or her life to a psychiatrist for examination and a determination of whether the person is suffering from a mental disorder or depression. The clause also provides for a request to be void if the psychiatrist determines that the person is suffering from a mental disorder or depression.

Clause 12 requires a medical practitioner to refer a person requesting to end his or her life to a counsellor for counselling on the implications of the request.

Clause 13 requires the medical practitioner to request the patient to advise their next of kin of the patient’s request for death with dignity. The refusal or inability of a patient to notify his or her next of kin does not render the patient’s request as void. The doctor and other professionals have no obligation to inform next of kin.

Clause 14 provides for a time to be set for a request to end a person’s life to be carried out, but not less than 48 hours after the requirements of the Act have been fulfilled and the medical practitioner has informed the person of that fact. The person may rescind the request at any time before “death with dignity”.

Clause 15. As soon as is practicable after the death of a patient assisted by this Act, the attending medical practitioner who gave the assistance must report the death to the Coroner in the district in which the death occurred and provide a certificate of death and the patient’s medical records, as they relate to the patient.

At the conclusion of each financial year, the Coroner must advise the Attorney-General of the number of patients who have been assisted to die under this Act. The Attorney General must report these facts to the House of Representatives.

Dr Lyndell Gibson, a general practitioner and a member of this Society, critiqued this bill for this Society. She questioned the term “quality of life”, its impairment being the criteria for granting “death with dignity” for a patient deemed to be incurably ill. This term is open to wide interpretation.

A patient may be terminally ill with statistical evidence that there is reduced life expectancy. To terminate the life of such a patient ignores the fact that there are frequently spiritual or medical cures.

Dr Gibson noted that section 7 made it an offence to place undue pressure on a patient regarding “death with dignity”. This means that it would be an offence for friends or family to endeavour to discourage a patient from committing suicide. Under this bill every person who commits this offence is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding $250,000.

Depression is a common condition with those incurably or terminally ill. Treatment for this condition is “impressively effective” according to Dr Alistair MacLeod of the Psyciatric Consultation Services at the Christchurch Hospital.

Dr Gibson concludes that it is “utterly incredible” that we have this bill promoting suicide when, at this time, Coronors are deeply concerned at the alarmingly high youth suicide rates and are endeavouring to seek assistance to stop youth killing themselves.

Mr Philip Shamy, a Crown prosecutor, a partner in the Crown Solicitors Office and a member of this Society, critiqued this bill. Some of his observations are:

1.         “We do not have capital punishment on our statutes with one of the major arguments against it being that it could lead to the death of innocent persons. This bill, if passed, could lead to the death of innocent patients.”

2.         “In terms generally of diagnosis, there may be a variety of opinions between various specialists as to when someone is either incurably ill or terminally ill. This lack of certainty would lead to abuse. It may also lead to the death of people who are not in a position to determine sensibly whether they wish their life to be ended.”

3.         “There is an inherent danger in the provision of advance requests as indicated in the draft legislation. These documents, although they are effectively a death wish, they have no requirement to be executed in front of a solicitor or some other suitably qualified independent person. This seems bizarre.”

4.         “Certain witnesses are excluded, however there does not seem to be any mechanism in place to check whether or not that section has been breached. There is no formal insistence on any inquiry being made as to the validity of the document.”

5.         “There is no requirement that family must be advised of a patient’s request for “Death with Dignity”. Without reference to family it may not be known if pressure has been placed on the patient.

6.         “The bill prohibits undue pressure being applied to a patient to seek “death with dignity”. How do you define undue pressure? Implicitly it accepts pressure that is not undue. “This may allow the situation of death for the reason of inconvenience to develop.”

7.         “The penalty for undue pressure or influence is relatively minor when placed against the end result, namely death. Murder is punished by life imprisonment, a fine of $25,000 and a potential maximum of five years imprisonment is relatively insignificant.”

8.         “Counselling is to be provided. What sort of counselling? Is it to support the patient’s decision to have “death with dignity”? What is an informed decision? What happens if the counsellor concludes that the patient has not, or is incompetent, to make an informed decision?”

9.         “There is also no definition as to what counselling should be given, is the counselling to be directed at changing the person’s mind, or supporting the patient’s decision? What is the position if the psychiatrist and counsellor disagree as to the person’s state of mind and ability to make an informed decision? On the point of informed decision, what is an informed decision? As referred to above, there may be a variety of opinions in terms of different illnesses and the stages at which certain illnesses have developed to.”

In Conclusion he stated that the bill was very poorly drafted and would be open to significant abuse. A decision to end human life should be reviewed by an independent third party and that an ability to apply to the High Court with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal should exist.

Editor’s Note: Our Society is indebted to Dr Gibson and Mr Shamy for their critiques of this bill. 

This is a very dangerous bill, it must not be passed into law.

It is part of a culture of death and represents a threat to the lives of every person in this community, especially the sick and the aged.

It is the duty of Parliament to provide legal protection for the lives of all its citizens, especially the weak and the defenceless.

If we allow the State to withdraw legal protection by allowing the lives of those incurably or terminally ill to be taken at their “request”, it is only a matter of time before the lives of these persons will be taken without their knowledge or consent.

Our right to life in inalienable, it may not be taken from us, nor may we give it away. Life is a precious gift from God, we are but stewards of that gift. There is no dignity in being killed by your doctor.

This Christchurch Society is totally opposed to this bill and, should it be presented and debated in Parliament, will be committed to working for its defeat at its first reading. This bill is intrinsically wrong and does not deserve the privilege of being dealt with by a select committee.

 

PRO LIFE NEWS

1. Baby Kept Mother’s Kidneys In Order:

London (CWN)

A pregnant woman with kidney failure was kept alive by her unborn baby whose kidneys worked for both of them, a London newspaper reports.

Carol Davies, 42 who has suffered kidney failure since 1978, became pregnant last year. Twelve weeks into the pregnancy, her baby’s kidneys began cleaning both his blood and his mother’s, suspending her need for dialysis.

Mrs Davies said she was terrified that her toxins would harm her baby. “But the doctors monitored my dialysis and despite being premature, Owen is perfect. We are so lucky.”

 

2. Sex Education Fails to Stop Abortions

London (CWN)

Half of the teenage girls who become pregnant in Britain are being prescribed the contraceptive pill, according to a new study published in the British Medical Journal.

Of the 240 pregnant teenagers in the study, 71 per cent discussed contraception with a doctor or health expert in the year before. Half had received prescriptions for oral contraceptives -- which, if used properly, are said to be 99 per cent effective.

The findings contradict the widely held belief that Britain’s high teen pregnancy rate is due to lack of sex education. Proponents of sex education have argued that wider access to contraceptives, and to advice about their use, would cut the pregnancy rate.

Dr Richard Churchill, the lead researcher, told the Daily Telegraph that most teenagers who became pregnant had access to contraceptives, and were counselled about birth control by medical professionals.

He observed: “This suggests that for most teenagers, fears about confidentiality and embarrassment are less of a barrier than previously supposed.”

 

3. IVF Profits Disincentive To Finding Cure

Rome (Zenit)

Professor Robert Winston, a British pioneer of in vitro fertilisation, has admitted that the technique is now big business and is often carried out on women who, with the right treatment, would be able to conceive naturally.

Avvenire, an Italian newspaper, reported Professor Winston’s belief that doctors no longer look at ways of curing infertility because of what they can earn from IVF treatment.

Professor Salvatore Mancuso, director of the Catholic University of Rome’s Gynaecology Institute, said: “Professor Winston’s own research has proved that microsurgery to reconstruct the fallopian tubes sometimes leads to far better results than would be possible with artificial insemination, where the embryo is literally thrown into the uterus and the probability of its being properly implanted is 15 per cent or less.”

Another expert, Dr E. L. Billings, has suggested that only 1.7 per cent of conceptions generated by IVF treatment resulted in a live birth. A British newspaper columnist recently revealed that 763.509 embryos were generated by IVF treatment between 1991 and 1998. Of these, 184,000 were stored, 48,000 used in research and 238,000 simply destroyed.

 

4. Dutch Consider New Euthanasia Law

Utrecht

The Dutch Government is considering extending the law on euthanasia with a new legal package presented to Parliament by Health Minister Els Borst-Ellers.

The Netherlands was the first State to give euthanasia a legal framework by allowing doctors to help patients with incurable illnesses and with unbearable pain to fulfil their wish to die.

Now The Hague wants to extend the law to include people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, which caused senility, and to others with incurable illnesses.

Bas van der Vlies, parliamentary party leader of the hard-line Calvinist SGP, called the controversial bill “a declaration of war on the Christian Netherlands. The Cabinet appears to want to sweep away the last remains of the Christian basis of our legislation,” he said.

He is angry that in the middle of the parliamentary summer recess the Left-wing liberal Minister Ms Borst-Ellers presented the bill aiming to further liberalise the already-liberal abortion and euthanasia regulations.

The plans would make euthanasia no longer an offence under certain conditions. It would also allow the use of foetuses for scientific research and allow abortion at up to 24 weeks if an unborn child is seriously handicapped.

Press, 4 August, 2000

SUPREME Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion

US Catholic Bishops attack decision

 

Several US Bishops expressed their disappointment and rejection of the Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down the State of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for barbarism. It pits the Court and the Constitution itself against the legal protection of children who are not wanted,” said Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, in a public statement on 28 June.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said:

“This is not a moment for sanitised or ‘diplomatic’ language. What the Court has done is open the gates to a uniquely savage and repugnant form of violence against the young. This is a disastrous ruling. It will have far-reaching and unintended consequences – consequences we will look back on and bitterly regret.” He called on “believers ¼ to use every moral and legal means at our disposal to bring our country back to its senses and restore the sanctity of human life.”

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia, commented that the Supreme Court had

“taken the outrage of abortion itself one step further by opening the door to an even graver crime, the destruction of children literally inches and seconds from birth.”

He added that the decision would affect similar pro-life laws in nearly 30 States.

Cardinal Bevilacqua added that the Catholic Church would:

“Continue its relentless opposition to all forms of abortion, especially this heinous crime against those who cannot protect themselves. We will be their voice and work with all people of good will to affirm life for all our citizens. We will oppose this and all other efforts that would destroy life, from the moment of conception to natural death, or that would attack the dignity of the human person.”

PARLIAMENTARY PETITION – UNBORN CHILD

 

Parliament has left the door open for the unborn child in response to the petition to Parliament for legal recognition of the status of the unborn child as a human being with an inalienable right to life. This is a victory for the pro-life movement.

The Parliamentary Justice and Electoral Select Committee has now dealt with this petitioin signed by 30,084 citizens and believed to be the largest petition on behalf of the unborn child organised in New Zealand. The petition had been organised by the Christchurch pro-life organisation, Christians for Life, with the full support of our local Society.

The Select Committee, in its report to Parliament concluded:

“We noted in our report on the 1996 petition of Martin Muir and 832 others that the Minister of Justice has announced his intention to propose a review of abortion law. We trust that the issues raised by these petitioners and outlined in this report would be dealt with in the course of such a review, and therefore we have no recommendations to make in respect of this petition.”

The response of the Committee is positive. The Committee could have chosen to make no recommendation or to have rejected it. Their recommendation recognises that the petition has merit and deserves the serious consideration of the Minister of Justice.

We were, however, disappointed that a request to make an oral submission, or at least a written submission to the Committee was declined.

The plea of the petitioners for Parliament to recognise the legal status of the unborn child as a human being now rests on the desk of the Minister of Justice.

It is our fervent wish and prayer that the Minister will act decisively by having this important justice and human rights issue at the top of his agenda for his proposed review of the abortion laws in New Zealand.

Please continue to pray for the ultimate success of this petition and secondly by writing to the Minister of Justice, Parliament Buildings, Wellington (no stamp required) supporting the implementation of this petition.

The standing orders of Parliament preclude their acceptance of any other similar petitions during the term of this Parliament.

In the event that this Parliament fails to recognise the status of the unborn child a further national petition will be organised and presented to the next Parliament in possibly 2004.

The Prayer of Prolifers

 

O God, The Father and Creator of human life, help us never to become discouraged in defending the full breadth of that most precious gift, from the miracle of fertilization to the spiritual serenity of a natural death.

Inspire us to remember that without you we are powerless, and that what we do for the least, especially the helpless unborn dearest to you, we are actually doing for your Son, who lives and works in and through us.

Protect us against the whiles and wickedness of the devil, “a murderer and a liar from the beginning.” May the Holy Spirit enlighten us along our daily way! Amen.

Rev. Paul B. Marx. OSB

QUOTES

“There are virtues and values that are fundamental to any human community and it is these that are needed to be taught in any education system worthy of the name:

Sir Machael Hardie-Boys

       Governor-General

“I know how these mums feel, but their children have rights in this regard” Christchurch Press 3 August.

Speaking in support of girls under the age of 16 years having an abortion without the knowledge and consent of their parents.

Dr Philipa Mackay

   Chairperson, New Zealand Medical Association

and abortionist at Lyndhurst

Remember Us

Some take great umbrage at the analogy of the Nazi Holocaust to the Silent Holocaust – the continued killing of millions of unborn babies. For me, the correlation is crystal clear. Many years ago, I watched a two-hour documentary entitled Remember Us, two hours of the bestiality of Nazi death camps and gas ovens, two horrendous hours that challenged my faith and sent me into a spiritual tailspin. It took years to recover. Yet, when I regained spiritual balance, I was left with a tremendous compassion – solidarity with Jews everywhere. The thought of a pair of empty Jewish shoes from that era would set me to weeping. What did God want me to do with this compassion? It was so strong, surely it had a purpose. Was I to visit rabbis and try to convert them and their communities? Was I to go and live in a kibbutz? This puzzle plagued me for years. Then, in 1983, I witnessed the film The Silent Scream. The moment that unborn child opened his little mouth to title the film, the correlation between the holocausts was manifestly incontestable. I had found my moriah!

There are many workers tending God’s earthly gardens and I understand that my moriah may not be your mission. Many labourers plow in varied fields; the bishops, the priests, the social workers, advocates for the poor and the homeless. God’s workers toil in women’s abuse centres and crisis pregnancy organisations. The list is endless, the goals meritorious. While we all go about performing good works there is an unpopular area that many pro-lifers have abandoned – the sidewalks of American’s abortion mills.

Sometime ago, there was a small consistent presence outside the killing places. Clergy of every denomination put in an appearance, a few came regularly. Even pro-life atheists came, thanks be to God. In some areas, pro-lifers came out in such numbers – to pray, to be silent witnesses – that the clinics couldn’t stand the prayer pressure. They shut down or moved their nefarious enterprises, leaving behind cities where the love of God had supremacy.

Since Clinton’s first term and the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), the number of witnesses has steadily declined. Perhaps we lost heart. Perhaps new regulations frightened us away. Did we begin to believe the rhetoric that sidewalk-counsellors and picketers were harsh, judgmental and angry, angry to the point of violence?

In years past, outside the abortion mill in my town, twenty to twenty-five people came regularly. Sometimes the number was higher. On special days – Mother’s Day, Good Friday, or the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe – the crowds would increase to one hundred, even two hundred. Not all Catholic, each little group would pray in its own way, yet all were united to one purpose. Many unborn babies were saved on those wondrous occasions. Various evenings of the week, rain or shine, one would see small groups praying the Rosary outside the mill. Others would be anointing the area and praying in tongues. I treasure a very poignant memory of that time. One afternoon, after the killing was done and all victims and workers were gone for the day, I noticed a solitary figure walking back and forth on the sidewalk, softly praying aloud, head bent over his prayer book – a local pediatrician mourning the little ones. “Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted” (Matt. 5:4).

Nowadays, we consider ourselves lucky if we have five people outside during the killing. We rarely see a clergyman of any strip. Sheep without shepherds. We ask our priests about their absence. They reply, “Ah, but I speak on abortion twice a year.” Two homilies a year! Often these sermons obfuscate the horror even more. Have our poor priests bowed to the pressure of those who have the audacity to chastise them for speaking truth?

Let’s examine some reasons why folks are staying away:

Point: I get too angry.

Counterpoint:   This is a wonderful arena in which to learn the importance of conquering anger. God will bless you with special grace to overcome anger more effectively than you ever dreamed possible. You’ll find yourself praying for your enemies, even to love them, as Jesus loves – and weeps for us all. When you can conquer here, you can conquer anywhere.

Point: I may get arrested.

Counterpoint: Simply praying, carrying signs, and offering help to the mothers is all perfectly legal. In the unlikely event of arrest, God will bless your commitment; friends will rally to your side. All will be well. Trust Him. Judges have become tired; they no longer allow frivolous charges to come to fruition. God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power (2 Tim. 1:7).

Point: I may cry.

Counterpoint: Don’t these children deserve someone to cry for them? Henry Hyde once said, “When the time comes ¼ there will be a chorus of tiny voices, never heard in this world, that will plead, ‘Spare them for they have loved us.’”

Many, many babies have been saved as a result of sidewalk counsellors. We asked mothers what changed their minds. They told us the number of people impressed them, particularly those on their knees, praying. Their hearts felt such guilt, yet the pro-life people weren’t judgmental at all. There was so much love and help offered to them, they were brought to a sense of repentance. Some women told us the signs were the determining factor. I recall a sixteen-year-old girl who said our cartoon sign of a sad clown captioned, “Every Child Deserves a Birthday” compelled her to choose life. Others said the ghastly photos of dismembered babies made them realise what abortion truly is. There are many other factors, but the one that impresses me most is God. He often opens our mouths and out come the precise words for a particular mother – or father. Once, I called out to a thirty-something woman, “Choose life for your child, you’ll never be lonely again.” She came back out and left. Her nephew told me her boyfriend had abandoned her and she was very lonely. I had never said those words before, and I’ve not said them since. God said them!

These women need us; they want us. The unborn child and the soul of the mother are at risk.

The personal rewards are endless and bountiful. A heart of deep compassion is developed; the value and reason for life are better understood. There is an immense expansion of faith. This work is truly an ecumenical communion; one body confronting the Deceiver, sharing love, and witnessing to the community that abortion will never be acceptable. What a privilege it is to hold a little child, born because you answered the call to rescue those taken away to death (Prov. 24:11). Who can ever convince me that this is wrong?

Whatever field you are working in, whatever good works you are accomplishing, remember the words of Pope John Paul II as he bad farewell to America in 1979: “If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting peace, then, America, defend life! Feeding the poor ¼ reinforcing the social fabric ¼ promoting true advancement of women ¼ securing the rights of minorities ¼ pursuing disarmament while guaranteeing legitimate defence: all this will succeed only if respect for life is granted for every human being from conception to natural death.” Life is fundamental to all social justice issues. Throw down your rakes and hoes just for a little while each week. Step away from your desks and committees and come to the killing places. Come – loosen the bands of wickedness (Is. 58:6). Join the brethren at the front lines to pray, witness, and grow with us. God will bless you with mercy, honour and grace.

Each week, in your hometown, the little ones are calling out, “Remember us ¼ remember us.”

First published in “Celebrate Life a publication of American Life League”.

RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC.

Same Direction - New Image

Upholding and defending the inalienable right to life of all New Zealanders from conception to natural death.

Our local Society now has a new name. Members of our Society, at a special general meeting on 25 September, approved with overwhelming support a change of name to Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

A change of name also had the support of the National Society of SPUC. There were five other amendments to the constitution on the meetings agenda that were passed.

The change of name fully reflects our local Society’s commitment to meet the challenges of this new millenium, promoting a culture of life and opposing a culture of death.

As a human rights organisation it is imperative that we promote a consistent ethic of life, opposing all attacks on life such as abortion, infanticide and new birth technologies.

Today our nation is faced with new attacks on life, particularly the increasing threat of legalised euthanasia.

The National Executive of SPUC states that euthanasia is not their issue and should be left to other organisations. They also believe that promoting legislation to protect the unborn child should wait until the climate is right and we have a strong pro-life Parliament.

Our Christchurch Society is committed to continue to defend the unborn child as its primary focus. It will continue to promote the legal status of the unborn child with an inalienable right to life, and amendment to the Guardianship Act to restore parental rights and will oppose euthanasia legislation.

We have a commitment to vigorously promote, at all times, regardless of the climate, or the pro-life support in Parliament, legislation to protect life. Justice should be pursued at all times regardless of its popularity.

For the more than 15,000 babies on death row scheduled to be killed this year, their cry is for justice now, not when the climate is right or when we have a pro-life Parliament.

We believe that Right to Life New Zealand, with your support, can make an important contribution to the pro-life movement in New Zealand.

It is the wish of your executive that this Society, as a member of the pro-life family, co-operate whenever possible with organisations within the pro-life movement. There was unanimous support for a resolution that we continue to seek mediation with the objective of reaffiliation with the National Society.

Please pray that God, the author of life will bless this new initiative in the defence of a culture of life.

STOP PRESS - URGENT

STOP the French abortion pill Ru486 from being used to kill our unborn children.

The Facts: Ru486 kills unborn children by starvation.

It is a treat to women’s health and future children.

The Minister of Health has statutory authority to refuse permission for Ru486 to be distributed in New Zealand.

Please support our national campaign to stop Ru486 by completing and positing the enclosed cards.

THE NEW HOLOCAUST           Ken Orr

Ru486 Chemical Warfare Against Unborn Child

Future generations of New Zealand’s unborn children face a mortal threat of chemical warfare.

The Minister of Health, the Honourable Annette King, is currently considering an application to use the French abortion pill Mifeprestone Ru486 in New Zealand. In the event that the Minister approves the use of Ru486, it will be the first time in the history of New Zealand that the government has approved the use of a drug to kill another human.

The application has been made by Dr Margaret Sparrow, retired abortionist at Parkview and an executive member of the Family Planning Association, on behalf of Istar Ltd.

This company was registered on the 22^nd February 1999 and its registered office is at 8 Braithwaite Street, Karori, Wellington. This is the residence of Dr Carol Shand, abortionist, Manager of the Parkview abortion facility, a director of Istar and the widow of the late Dr Eric Geiringer, prominent abortion advocate of the seventies. Other directors are Dr Diana Edwards, abortionist and manager of the Lyndhurst abortion facility, and previously an executive member of Family Planning.

There is a further link between Ru486 and Family Planning. In 1990 Family Planning brought to New Zealand Professor Emile Baulieu, who had developed Ru486, for the purpose of promoting its use here. At that time the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a report to the Minister of Health, fully supported the use of Ru486 in New Zealand.

The other directors and shareholders of Istar Ltd are Dr Peter Stone of Auckland and Dr John Tait of Wellington. Both of these doctors have been abortionists at Parkview. Dr Tait is currently working at Dr Fisher’s “Fertility Associates” in Wellington, which specialises in IVF.

The Health Ministry’s Medsafe agency will report to the Minister on the pills “safety”. On the basis of it being a sound and safe medication I would approve it” Annette King said.

The drug is not safe as its sole purpose is to destroy unborn children up to seven weeks gestation. It is also a threat to women’s health and to future progeny.

Ru486 How does it Work? Abortion: Some Medical Facts

While many people focus solely on Ru486, the so-called “French abortion pill”, the Ru486 technique actually uses two powerful synthetic hormones with the generic names of mifeprestone and misoprostol to chemically induce abortions in women five-to-nine weeks pregnant.

The Ru486 procedure requires at least three trips to the abortion facility. In the first visit, the woman is given a physical exam, and if she has no obvious contra-indications (“red flags” such as smoking, asthma, high blood pressure, obesity, etc., that could make the drug deadly to her), she swallows the Ru486 pills. Ru486 blocks the action of progesterone, the natural hormone vital to maintaining the rich nutrient lining of the uterus. The developing baby starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates.

At a second visit 36 to 48 hours later, the woman is given a dose of artificial prostaglandins, usually misoprostol, which initiates uterine contractions and usually causes the embryonic baby to be expelled from the uterus. Most women abort during the 4-hour waiting period at the clinic, but about 30% abort later at home, work, etc, as many as 5 days later. A third visit about 2 weeks later determines whether the abortion has occurred or a surgical abortion is necessary to complete the procedure (5 to 10% of all cases).

There are several serious well documented side effects associated with Ru486/prostaglandin abortions, including prolonged (up to 44 days) and severe bleeding, nausea, vomiting, pain, and even death. At least one woman in France died while others there suffered life-threatening heart attacks from the technique. In U.S. trials conducted in 1995, one woman is known to have nearly died after losing half her blood and requiring emergency surgery.

Long term effects of the drug have not yet been sufficiently studied, but there are reasons to believe that Ru486 could affect not only a women’s current pregnancy, but her future pregnancies as well, potentially including miscarriages or causing severe malformations in later children. It is known that Ru486 can readily cross the blood-follicle barrier of human pre-ovulatory follicles, damaging future children.

What is the baby like at this time?

During the time frame that Ru486 is operative, the baby is undergoing a rapid period of development.

It is at about the fifth week of pregnancy (measured from a woman’s last menstrual period) that a mother first begins to suspect she is pregnant, so this is likely to be about the earliest that the chemical abortifacient is used. At this point, the child is about three weeks old and approximately 2mm long (about 1/10th of an inch). Even by this time, however, the baby’s nervous system has begun to form and his or her heart is likely to have already begun its first beats. The child’s heart will be beating strongly and steadily by the time he or she is just three and a half weeks old.

The effectiveness of the Ru486, or mifeprestone, method begins to decline after 49 days, or 7 weeks of pregnancy. By that time, the baby will be five weeks old and will have increased in size to 8mm, and his or her face, arms, and legs will be distinguishable.

Before the end of the 9^th week of pregnancy (7 weeks for the baby), the outer extreme of mifeprestone’s effectiveness, the child’s ears, fingers and toes will have formed and he or she will be 18mm, or nearly an inch tall, from crown to rump.

Opposition to Ru486

Bishop Lehmann, chairman of the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference which staunchly, but unsuccessfully, opposed the use of Ru486 in Germany, called it “a murder pill”.The Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Joachim Meissmner, has made a comparison between Ru486 and the use of gas to kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps during the Holocaust.

It was the German pharmaceutical company I G Farben, user of Nazi slave labour during the war, that manufactured the gas Zyklon B to kill Jews during the Holocaust.

At the end of the war this company was divided up into several companies, one of them was Hoechst, the parent company of Roussel-Uclaf, that first produced Ru486.

In 1995 Hoechst instructed Roussel-Uclaf to give the patent rights to manufacture Ru486 to Exelgyn Laboratories. This action was taken to avoid a threatened boycott of all products of Hoechist and its subsidiaries that was threatened by the international pro-life movement. Exelgyn has the world patent rights, excluding the United States, for the manufacture of Ru486.

It is interesting to note that Edouard Sakiz, formerly head of Roussel-Uclaf, became the head of Exelgyn.

Who Has Moral Responsibility For Ru486?

Hoechist Marion Roussel, as the parent company of Roussel-Uclaf, has had total control of Ru486 from the very beginning. Thus, it had the right to suppress it and remove it from the market. However, it has chosen not to do so and, consequently, must accept responsibility for every baby killed by this human pesticide. Hoechst Marion Roussel recently merged with another multi-national drug company, Rhone Poulenc , to form a new company called Aventis Palma. Regardless of mergers and name changes the moral responsibility now rests with Aventis Palma.

Why an Abortion Pill?

Why does the pro-abortion movement want the abortion pill?

Abortion has become increasingly unpopular with doctors, women, and the American public.

Ostracized by the medical community and worn out by thousands of abortions, many doctors are dropping abortion from their practice and fewer doctors are taking their places. Women use words like “intimidating”, “invasive”, “mechanical”, “impersonal”, “abrupt”, and “traumatic”, to describe their abortion experiences. Increasing majorities, while perhaps not yet ready to proscribe all abortions, nevertheless see abortion as murder, or at least the taking of human life, and something that should be limited.

Chemical abortions, life Ru486/PG, give supporters of abortion a chance to change the image of abortion, making it seem as simple as taking a pill and concentrating on smaller, less developed babies whose destruction seems an easier political sell. That the reality is far different – that these abortions offer a whole new set of significant risks, that the objective is still the destruction of a unique human life – is of little consequence to abortion’s promoters as long as their false perception holds.

We have a duty to oppose the introduction of Ru486 into New Zealand.

We have a duty to protect our children, grandchildren and future generations yet to be conceived from this lethal drug.

This pill is being promoted as giving women a choice between surgical abortion and a chemical abortion.

The women of New Zealand are not asking for another choice on how they may kill their unborn children.

Remember that for the triumph of evil all that is necessary is that the good do nothing.

What can you do?

1. Pray that God will protect New Zealand from this culture of death.

2. Write a brief letter to the Minister of Health expressing your concern and asking her to refuse authority for the use of Ru486.

3. Encourage your church vestry, parish council to write to the Minister of Health, Parliament Building, Wellington (no stamp required).

THE UNBORN CHILD AND VOTER ATTITUDES

A national survey of the attitude of electors on the issue of greater protection for the unborn child was conducted by telephone in September 1999 in the lead-up to the general election.

The survey was conducted by the survey firm, A C Nielsen and was commissioned by the Christchurch Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child.

There were a thousand respondents who were asked if a Parliamentary candidate”s stand on giving greater legal protection to the unborn child would make them more or less likely to vote for that candidate. This question was asked of respondents aged 18 years and over (those eligible to vote).

The election of a strong pro-life Parliament is a prime objective of the pro-life movement. It is, therefore, of great importance to have an accurate analysis of voter attitudes only provided by a scientific national survey. It is understood that this is the first time that this question has been the subject of a national survey.

As shown in the table below, the majority of people, 60%, say a candidate’s stand would make no difference to whether or not they voted for that candidate. Those who would be influenced, were equally divided between being more and less likely to vote for that candidate.

More likely to vote for a candidate who supported

greater legal protection for the unborn child.                                                                              19%

Make no difference                                                                                                                  60%

Less likely to vote for a candidate who supported greater

legal protection for the unborn child                                                                                         17%.

Demographic