FOOTPRINTS

DR JOEL BRIND PHD.

Dr Joel Brind, international renowned researcher into the link between abortion and breast cancer, gave an enthralling address to a public meeting on Wednesday 18 August. The meeting was a joint project organised by Family Life International and this branch We are most grateful to Family Life International for bringing Dr Joel Brind to New Zealand and we are delighted that he has been invited to be a key note speaker at the FLI Conference in Auckland next year.

Dr Brind is a Professor of Biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York, where he has been teaching since 1986. He has been doing research on the connections between reproductive hormones and human disease and has included breast cancer since 1982.

Personal invitations to the meeting, together with a pamphlet detailing the link between abortion and breast cancer, were sent to many local members of the medical profession, practice nurses, abortion certifying consultants and to those doctors doing abortions at Lyndhurst.

Maria Schmetzer, leader of the Christchurch chapter of Family Life International, had personally telephoned Dr Pippa MacKay, chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association and an abortionist at Lyndhurst, to offer to arrange a private meeting for her with Dr Brind. Dr Mackay’s curt response was “I an too busy and I am not interested.” This response was disappointing, especially in view of her previous public statement, as chairman of the NZMA, one of her chief concerns would be women’s health. Dr Mackay’s response has been taken up with the NZMA.

Statistics provided by the Ministry of Health reveal that the incidence of breast cancer has tripled in 30 years. In 1963 the number of cases was (529), in 1963 (849), in 1970, (1135), in 1980, (1655) in 1990 and (1865) in 1995, the latest year for which figures are available.

Tragically women are dying from breast cancer. Ministry of Health statistics show that these deaths have been increasing – (422) in 1970, (509) in 1980, (635) in 1990 and (638) in 1995. The mortality rate from breast cancer is about 38%.

A 1981 University of Southern California study showed that women who aborted their first pregnancies were more than twice as likely to get breast cancer. There are more than 15000 abortions reported in New Zealand each year, with approximately 48 per cent of them on women who had no previous children.

Currently, one New Zealand woman in ten will develop breast cancer during her lifetime.

Based on the conclusions of the American study of the approximately 7000 women who terminate their first pregnancy, approximately 1400 will develop breast cancer and more than 450 will subsequently die as a consequence, many of them as a direct result of their abortion.

It is clear that we have a public health disaster.

Following the meeting, Sandra Coney, Women’s Health executive director, issued a press release disputing the claim that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer. She said that Dr Brind and the organisation that brought him here were wrong to scare women with theories that have been shown to be wrong.

“People opposed to abortion will go to any lengths to try and scare women from having abortions. Dr Brind’s research has been superceded by more recent, more reliable research”, said Sandra Coney.

 

This is the same Sandra Coney, ardent pro-abortionist and champion of women’s health, who said at the Cartright Cervical Cancer Enquiry that women have a right to be fully informed, however, for those who worship at the sacrificial altar of legal and safe abortion, the truth that abortion causes breast cancer must be resisted at all costs.

                                                           

Dr Joel Brind

In 1970, the World Health Organization published the results of its study on reproductive experience in relation to te incidence of breast cancer. This study of more than 17,000 women in seven locations on four continents gained knowledge which is still undisputed almost 30 years later.

Women who begin bearing children at a young age are less likely to get breast cancer than those who have children later, or those who have no children at all.

  How much protection against breast cancer do they get? Based on their findings, the W H.O. scientists concluded:

   It is estimated that women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about _ the breast cancer risk of those whose first birth is delayed until the age of 35 years ,or more.

Does this mean that a young woman who gets pregnant lowers her risk of getting breast cancer, even if she has an abortion? In relation to abortion, the W H.O. scientists said their results

“suggested increased risk associated with abortion ‑ contrary to the reduction in risk associated with full term births.”

Research published in respected medical journals has since confirmed these findings and the hormonal basis for them:

Twenty five out of 31 epidemiologic studies worldwide on women of African, Asian and European ancestry, have found that even one abortion increases the risk of getting breast cancer later in life.

 Importantly, the increased risk from abortion is in addition to the increased risk from delaying a woman's first childbirth, so abortion increases breast  cancer risk in two ways!

Do you wonder why, in less than half a century, while abortion became legal and common, the incidence of breast cancer in the industrialized world, has more than doubled?

Do you have questions about the real impact on the women of your country of importing “reproductive rights” from the industrialized world?

 

Is your country's health care system prepared

  for an epidemic of breast cancer?

The World Conference on Breast Cancer acknowledges  the link between Abortion and Breast Cancer            

The first World Conference on Breast Cancer took place in July of 1997 in Kingston, Ontario, The conference was co‑founded by the women’s Environment and Development Organization, which was chaired at the time by the late Bella Abzug. At the conference, Dr. Joel Brind, Ph.D., Professor of Endocrinology at   Baruch college of the city University  of NY and Editor of the Abortion‑ Breast Cancer Quarterly Update, led a seminar on the connection between abortion and breast cancer. Dr Brind’s talk included an update of the “Comprehensive review  and meta‑analysis on the subject”, originally published in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and community Health. Ms. Abzug attended Dr. Brind’s seminar, participating in a lively and cordial discussion on the abortion‑breast cancer link.       

 A year later, in the fall of 1998, the World conference published its Globa1 Action Plan Report , in which the organization outlined its agenda for the ultimate eradication of breast cancer. Under the subject of risk factors related to hormones, the Report reads in pertinent part:

“Today, women in general are exposed to higher levels of estrogen during their lifetime than was the case in previous generations. It is believed that women now face excess levels of both natural and synthetic estrogens, increasing their risk of breast cancer. Prolonged use of the birth control pills, late or lack of pregnancies and breast-feeding, INDUCED TERMINATION OF PREGNANCIES, a diet high in fat, meat or dairy products, and hormone replacement therapy following menopause, all are cited as risk factors for increased estrogens and breast cancer.” 

 

The Oestrogen Connection: Why induced abortions raise breast cancer risk ‑ ‑  and most miscarriages don't

          Oestrogen is the hormone ‑ the chemical messenger ‑ that turns a  girl’s body into a woman’s body at  puberty. Actually, there is a whole class of similar steroids, oestrogens, which can stimulate the growth of the breasts and other female tissues The most abundant and important oestrogen secreted by a woman’s ovaries is called oestradiol. Oestradiol is so potent that it’s concentration in a woman’s blood is measured in parts per trillion! There is even some oestradiol ‑ about a tenth as much ‑ made in a man’s body,  and both men and women need  some oestradiol for normal growth and maintenance of the bones.

After puberty, the levels of oestrogen rise and fall twice with each menstrual cycle. Under the influence of the pituitary gland’s follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), new, egg-containing follicles develop in the ovaries during the first half (called the follicular phase) of the menstrual cycle. The follicular, oestradiol-secreting cells surrounding the eggs proliferate, and so the ovaries secrete ever large quantities of oestradiol, reaching a peak about one day before ovulation. The pre-ovulatory peak is the highest blood level of oestradiol a women ever normally experiences in the non-pregnant state. It stimulates her pituitary gland to secrete another hormone, luteinizing hormone, (LH ), which actually triggers ovulation.

After ovulation, the follicle which has expelled the egg becomes filled with another kind of cell called a luteal cell. These luteal cells proliferate under the influence of pituitary LH, thus secreting ever large quantities of both oestradiol and the pregnancy hormone progesterone, from which oestradiol is made.

Since pituitary secretion of LH falls off quite sharply after ovulation, the corpus luteum (as the former follicle is now called) begins to regress about a week after ovulation, unless  fertilization of the egg (conception) has taken place.   If conception has occurred, the embryo begins ‑ almost immediately ‑ to secrete another chemical messenger, human chorionic godadotropin (HCG)* which acts like LH to “rescue” the corpus luteum. If conception has not taken place, the corpus luteum essentially dies. Since luteal estrogen and progesterone are needed for (respectively) the growth and maturation of the endometrium (the uterine lining in which the embryo implants), the endometrium is shed as the menstrual flow or menses.

If however, conception has occurred and the corpus luteum has been rescued, it proceeds to generate enormous concentrations of progesterone (necessary to permit implantation of the embryo and maintenance of the pregnancy) and estradiol. Significantly elevated levels (compared to non-pregnant levels at the same time of the menstrual cycle) of estradiol can be detected as early as 5 days after conception. By 7 to 8 weeks gestation (after the last menstrual period or LMP) a pregnant woman’s blood already contains six times more (i.e. 500% more) estradiol than it did at the time of conception, more than twice the highest level attained in the non-pregnant state (pre-ovulatory peak.)

In marked contrast, pregnancies destined to abort spontaneously (i.e. end in miscarriage) during the first trimester usually do not generate estradiol in quantities exceeding non-pregnant levels.

One team of Swiss obstetricians, as far back as 1976, was actually able to predict spontaneous abortions with 92% accuracy with just a single measurement of estradiol. Theoretically, this makes perfect sense: the very reason for the abortion is an inadequate supply of progesterone from which estradiol is made.

How oestradiol, or oestrogens in general, relate to breast cancer risk, has to do with their role in the growth of breast tissue. It is oestradiol which makes the breasts grow to mature size at puberty, and which makes them grow again during pregnancy (at least the first two trimesters). The cells in the breast which are responsive to oestradiol are those which are primitive, or undifferentiated. Once terminally differentiated in milk-producing cells, something which happens under the influence of other (still largely unknown) factors, breast cells can no longer be stimulated to reproduce.

It is the undifferentiated cells, which are also vulnerable to the effects of carcinogens (radiation, certain chemicals, etc.) which can give rise to cancerous tumours later in life. If a women therefore has gone through some weeks of a normal pregnancy, and then aborts that pregnancy, she is left with more of these cancer-vulnerable cells than she had in her breasts before she was pregnant. In addition, any abnormal, potentially cancer-forming cells already in her breasts (and such cells are present to some extent in all people) have also been stimulated to multiply. All this translates into statistically greater probability that a cancerous tumour may eventually arise.

In contrast, a full term pregnancy results in full differentiation of the breast tissue for the purpose of milk production, which leaves fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in the breasts than were there before the pregnancy began. This translates into the well known breast cancer risk lowering effect of a full term pregnancy.

It is also widely known that women who start having children at a younger age, lower their risk of getting breast cancer later in life _ the sooner the breasts become fully mature for the purpose of milk production, the less likely is the presence of abnormal, potentially cancer-forming cells, from accumulated carcinogenic insults (and what these are is largely unknown).

In support of this theory, an experimental study of the effect of pregnancy and induced abortion on breast cancer incidence in young rats treated with chemical carcinogens was published in 1980. The same research team has also published an excellent study of the differentiation in human breast tissue as a function of pregnancy and age.

In addition, since there are always some undifferentiated cells (and even some abnormal cells) in a women’s breasts, overexposure to the growth-promoting effects of oestradiol or other oestrogens, whenever the exposure takes place contributes to breast cancer risk.

Even risk factors which are unrelated to reproduction seem to operate via an oestrogen-mediated mechanism. For example, post-menopausal obesity increases risk, presumably because adipose (fat) cells actually synthesize oestrogens, thus raising an obese woman’s blood oestrogen levels. Even chronic alcohol consumption seems to raise breast cancer risk by increasing oestrogen levels in a woman’s blood. Likewise for a diet high in animal fat, compared to a vegetarian diet. Conversely, certain vegetables known to help protect against cancer, such as members of the broccoli and cabbage family, help a woman’s body to eliminate oestrogens more rapidly.

Since the effect of oestrogens on breast cancer risk has been well recognised for many years, doctors have been wary of prescribing such medications as post-menopausal oestrogen replacement therapy for older women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer. As it turns out, such medications do seem to raise the risk of breast cancer risk slightly, when they are used for several years.

One would think, therefore, that doctors would long ago have been concerned about possible increases in breast cancer risk attributable to induced abortion, given the extremely high oestradiol levels experienced by women even in the first several weeks of a normal pregnancy.

Finally, there is one additional and crucial aspect of spontaneous abortion vis-a-vis breast cancer risk that must be noted, namely the effect of post-first trimester miscarriages. Most miscarriages occur in the first trimester, and over 90% of these are characterized by abnormally low maternal oestradiol levels. However, there is reason to believe that pregnancies which survive the first trimester (and they couldn’t survive without adequately high progesterone levels, which are parallelled by oestradiol) are likely to raise breast cancer risk, if they go on to miscarry.

 

Editor’s Note: This article “What Every Woman in the World Has A Right To Know” is reproduced with permission of Family Life International and is taken from the FLI Report of April-June 1999.

Abortion seekers must view photos

 

Date: 04/09/99 Sydney Morning Herald

 

By JACKIE DENT

 

Women seeking an abortion will be shown a booklet with photographs of

developing foetuses under a controversial new regulation introduced in the

ACT. 

 

The law change, to take effect from Monday, has outraged doctors' and

women's groups who say politicians are interfering in doctors' work and

stopping women who want to have abortions. The Australian Medical

Association, Family Planning ACT, the Division of General Practice and

the Women's Legal Centre ACT say they are appalled at the decision and

that the photographs are misleading. 

 

"This is just trying to lay a guilt trip on these ladies, let's face it," said Dr

Stan Doumani, president of the ACT Division of General Practice, which

represents about 300 doctors. 

 

"This basically amounts to an unprecedented interference in how we

approach our patients and a prescription of how we run our consultations

and what information we give and how we give it." 

 

Under the law, doctors and patients have to sign a certificate confirming

that a brochure on terminating pregnancies has been read. 

 

"Politicians should stay out of the consulting room," said Dr Sandra

Hacker, vice-president of the AMA. "This is not what clinical medicine is

about. It is absolutely improper." 

 

The executive director of Family Planning ACT, Ms Sandra MacKenzie,

said the move was designed to stop women having abortions. 

 

Abortion is a criminal act in the ACT, except in circumstances where it

would affect the woman's health. It is estimated that each year about 2,000

women have abortions. 

 

The decision to include the pictures goes against the advice of an expert

advisory panel set up by ACT Health Minister, Mr Michael Moore, after

debate raged during the passing of the Health Regulation (Maternal Health

Information) Act 1998. 

 

The seven-member advisory panel - including medical professionals from a

public and a Catholic hospital - wrote to Mr Moore in May, saying: "It is the

unanimous view of the panel that the presentation of pictures or drawings of

foetuses is irrelevant and in some cases could be counterproductive and

cloud the issues." 

 

A brochure without foetal drawings or information on foetal development

was released in June. But on Wednesday, the Attorney-General, Mr Gary

Humphries, introduced a regulation to allow the pictures. 

 

A spokeswoman for Mr Humphries said yesterday that when the advisory

panel was set up most politicians believed it was to decide what kinds of

photographs should be used. People should have access to information,

she said. 

 

***************************************************

The material contained in this file is made

available courtesy contributors and editors of

Pro-Life E-News. 

 

Copying of this material is free for non-commercial

educational and research use.  Unless explicitly stated,

copyright of this material is owned by the author

and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services.

 

Check out:

InterLIFE: http://www.interlife.org/

The Bubble Zone: http://www.interlife.org/bubble/

The Genetic Cleansing Project:  http://www.interlife.org/gene/

The Kevorkian Papers: http://www.kevork.org/

The RU-486 Files:  http://www.ru486.org/

The Morgentaler Files: http://www.interlife.org/morgentaler/

 

Woman wins landmark case over abortion

 

A Melbourne woman has successfully sued the Royal Women’s Hospital and a gynaecologist, after she suffered years of acute depression following an abortion procured at the hospital.

The case is considered particularly important, as it sets a precedent which is relevant to many other cases. The barrister who represented the woman, Charles Francis QC, said that the case could encourage hundreds of other women who had suffered post-abortion trauma to take action against hospitals.

The woman, identified as “Ellen”, took action alleging that the hospital and doctor had breached their duty of care, or been negligent, in not advising her of the possible psychological damage she would suffer as a result of the abortion.

Information provided

A key document in the case was the Pregnancy Advisory Service Patient Information leaflet, issued to Ellen when she presented herself for the abortion in 1990. The leaflet gives women advice as to which options are available when they fall pregnant. These include proceeding with the pregnancy and keeping the baby, adoption, and termination of pregnancy.

The leaflet describes how the hospital performed abortions, and mentioned that there are some side-effects, including some vaginal bleeding and depression, which it attributed to hormonal changes brought about by the sudden termination of pregnancy.

However, it said, “There is no evidence that if a termination is done early in the pregnancy by an experienced doctor, that there will be harmful after-effects. There is no evidence to connect terminations with infertility.”

“Nor is there any evidence to suggest that women who have had a termination suffer from any long-term psychological effects. It is important though that if a woman has a termination that she does so by her own choice and is not pressured into it by other people.” the leaflet said.

The case followed the principles outlined in the case of Whitaker v. Rogers, which went on appeal to the High Court of Australia in 1992. That case involved a woman who was legally blind in her right eye, who was advised to undertake surgery to it, which led to her losing the sight in her other eye.

The High Court held that except in the case of emergency, or where disclosure would prove damaging to the patient, a medical practitioner has a duty to warn the patient of a material risk inherent in proposed treatment.

The case highlights not only the fact that a significant number of women suffer post-abortion depression, but other health problems as well.

The recent British Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the effects of abortion on women, The Rawlinson Report, found that 87 per cent of women surveyed suffered post-abortion trauma.

A recent study from Finland published in the British Medical Journal in December 1996 found that “the suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general rate and six times that associated with birth... Suicides are more common after a miscarriage and especially after an induced abortion than in the general population.”

 

                                                                                             News Weekly, October 17, 1998

 

Editor’s Note:

Abortion counselling in New Zealand is similar to that experienced by “Ellen”. With the passing of the ACC Act the right to sue for damages for personal injury was forfeited.

Women who have been suffering from post abortion stress (PAS), or physical complications following an abortion, should submit a claim to ACC for compensation on the ground of “medical misadventure”.

There is, of course, no compensation for the loss of a baby. Claims made to ACC will alert government and the medical profession that abortion not only kills a baby but is the cause of  terrible suffering and trauma for women.

 

Dr Pippa MacKay, a general practitioner of Christchurch, has been elected by the New Zealand Medical Association as its new chairman. This is high honour and is recognition by colleagues of her perceived contribution to her profession.

It is a matter of public record that Dr MacKay is employed by Canterbury Health as an “operating surgeon” at the Lyndhurst Abortion facility in Christchurch . She has been employed there for more than ten years and is personally responsible for thousands of abortions. She has, therefore, presided over the violent deaths of thousands of innocent unborn babies. Her election is a victory for a culture of death.

Her election should be a matter of great concern to her profession, the community and to the pro-life movement. Ten years ago an election of an abortionist as chairman of the NZMA would have been unthinkable. What has happened? Her election raises many important questions. Does this election indicate a profound reduction in the ethical standards of the profession?

The medical profession is entrusted by the community to uphold the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. It should be the defender of life, guardian of the womb and advocate for a culture of life. This ethic is enshrined in the Hippocratic oath written in the fifth century BC, quote,

“¼I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”

 

In recent times doctors have not taken this oath and are now required to uphold the declaration of Geneva 1948 which states:

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception. Even under threat I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”

Medical practitioners, therefore, have a very serious ethical duty to protect the life of the unborn child.

The election of Dr MacKay appears to be a betrayal of this ethic? Has the profession now discarded the sanctity of life in preference for a secular humanist utilitarian quality of life ethic? They do so at our mutual peril.

We should remember the words of Dr Christopher Hufeland, an eighteenth century German physician and medical writer, who wrote:

“If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state.”

There was a time in the medical profession when performing abortions was considered disgraceful conduct and those doctors who did them were considered the outcasts of their profession.

The NZMA in bestowing on Dr MacKay the mantle of leadership have:

·             Indicated that the killing of the unborn is no longer disgraceful conduct and is now acceptable and respectable. This message is given to the profession and to women who are distressed with their pregnancy and considering an abortion.

 

There are many good doctors dedicated to protecting the life of the unborn child and their mothers. Did they loudly protest when Dr MacKay was nominated as chairman?

 

·             Dr MacKay, as chairman and spokesperson for the NZMA, now commands considerable influence. The association has a great deal of influence eg with government in formulating health policy and legislation. She is a strong advocate for the abortion industry and, on her election, publicly stated that she would continue to promote abortion as an acceptable and normal part of medical practice.

What does this mean for the pro-life movement? May we now anticipate NZMA lobbying for:

·                      The decriminalisation of abortion

·                      To have all doctors made certifying consultants?

 

The NZMA chief executive, Cameron McIlver, on Dr MacKay’s election, stated that the association had no position on abortion. If, today, the association has no position on abortion, perhaps tomorrow they will have no position on infanticide and euthanasia.

This is an astounding statement from a profession that is, supposedly, dedicated to protecting life. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. It is also a patient!

When a mother carrying a baby in her womb places herself and her baby in the care of a doctor, that doctor has the privilege and duty of caring for not one patient but two, the mother and the child.

The code of ethics of the NZMA states in its principles of ethical behaviour, applicable to all physicians including those who may not be engaged directly in clinical practice, that the first principle is “consider the health and well-being of your patient to be your first priority.”

As the association accepts this responsibility of delineating ethics, it also has a responsibility to police them and to censure those doctors that fail to uphold them.

Dr MacKay, in a regional television interview on 14 June, stated that the NZMA were very concerned about ethics.

The NZMA is well aware that, with more than 15 000 unborn babies being killed each year, that:

·             The law protecting the unborn child is being flouted.

·             That abortions are being authorised for social reasons masquerading as psychiatric.

·             That abortions are being authorised and performed by members of the NZMA in violation of the ethics of their association.

We are compelled to ask the NZMA why does the association:

Remain silent while a small number of its members violate the law by taking the lives of innocent unborn children?

The medical profession depends on the confidence and trust of the community. Would you place the life and health of yourself and your family into the hands of a doctor who was prepared to consider the taking of human life as a treatment option?

How can the NZMA claim to uphold its ethical standards, retain its credibility and retain the trust and confidence of the community when it says they have no position on abortion?

Is this the medical profession that we want? NZMA’s GP council chairman, Phillip Rushmere, provided a further insight into the attitude of some doctors when he said that Dr MacKay preformed abortions was irrelevant to the office she held with the NZMA.

Ultimately it is the community itself that determines the ethics of the medical profession.

We, the community, should demand that the profession upholds the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and that it supports a culture of life.

We should not be prepared to accept a profession that accepts a secular humanist quality of life ethic and that accepts a culture of death. The solution is in our hands.

 

 

 

 

PARLIAMENT’S RECOGNITION OF PARENTAL CONSENT SOUGHT

          Ken Orr

 

A Parental Notification Bill has been presented in September to Parliament by Frank Grover MP of the Christian Heritage Party.

This Bill represents a strategic move. The objective and intention was to have a Parental Consent Bill which the Parliamentary law draughtsman advised requires amendment of other statutes and could not be prepared this year.

The Parental Notification Bill does not require amendment of other statutes and was drafted quickly.

In the event that this Bill is drawn from the ballot this year, it will be argued by the presenter as a Parental Consent Bill and amendments sought at the appropriate time to have it provide for parental consent.

The Parental Consent Bill is now being draughted and will replace the Parental Notification Bill which, if not drawn this year, will be withdrawn.

The Guardianship Act 1963 provides that a girl under the age of sixteen years of age may choose to have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents.

In practice, a girl may be taken from school by a teacher, school counsellor, or friend, to have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents. In the event that a complication should occur during the abortion that requires surgery, the consent of parents is required before surgery may be undertaken. The present situation is the result of a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion. In its report to Parliament in 1977 it had this to say:

“There remains the further question of the girl under 16 who desires an abortion in face of the wishes of her parents that she continue with the pregnancy. Again we think on balance that the girl’s wishes should prevail¼”

This Bill emanates from CHP’s strong pro-life and family policy. It has a non-negotiable policy to recognise the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. It also has major policy principles:

To uphold the values of traditional marriage and family life.

  Encourage parents in their responsibilities to provide for, educate and train their children.

The CHP has pledged that when elected to Parliament this Bill will be but the first of many other legislative measures that will be introduced to protect the unborn child, defend the right to life and uphold and protect the family.

The present situation is contrary to the best interests of the young girl, her unborn child and is a violation of parental rights and responsibilities.

The Parental Notification Bill was presented to the Speaker of the House of Representatives the Hon. Doug Kidd. When the House is sitting there is one day allotted each month for dealing with private members’ bills which are drawn by ballot.

The Case for Parental Consent:

1.         The family is the basic unit of society instituted by God, it has a duty and privilege to nurture and protect life. Parents, thus, have been conferred by God with the duty and right to protect the welfare of their daughters and the lives of their grandchildren from the evil of abortion.

2.         It is the duty of the state to provide effective legal protection for these rights. The state has no authority to restrict or abrogate the rights of parents. The state in legislating against the right of parental consent has acted unjustly. We have no moral obligation to respect this unjust law and, in fact, have a duty to have it repealed.

3.         There are those who would accept parental notification, without parental consent. In the USA there are seven states that have parental notification laws and fourteen states that have parental consent laws. This is, in fact, a “pro-choice position”, it accepts the false and dangerous proposition that abortion is a women’s right to choose, even for girls under the age of sixteen. It is noted that in the States where there are Parental Notification Laws, strenuous unsuccessful efforts were first made to seek an enactment of Parental Consent Laws.

4.         The unborn child of the under 16 year old girl has a right to the protection of its life by the family. This can only be assured with parental consent.

5.         It is believed that parental consent would have the support of the majority of parents. Many overseas studies indicate substantial support for parental consent. A 1992 Guy Gannett poll conducted in Maine USA revealed 75% support for parental consent before a minor’s abortion.

The Christchurch Branch of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, with the objective of evaluating community support, has commissioned the national survey organisation, A C Neilson  MRL to conduct a national telephone survey. There will be several questions on important life issues, including a question on parental consent. We are confident of substantial support. The result will be given to MPs as an encouragement to support the Bill.

 

What is the history of parental notification /consent in New Zealand?

The Abortion Supervisory Committee, in its report to Parliament in 1998, reported that there were 215 abortions performed on girls under the age of sixteen in 1997 (latest figures available). At this time the family is under severe attack and the rights of parents are being increasingly challenged and curtailed. Following the Helen Clark amendment to the CS & A Act in 1991, children under the age of sixteen can be given information about contraception and contraceptives without the knowledge and consent of parents.

A further threat to parents’ rights is being promoted by Family Planning to have the Health Syllabus being made mandatory, making sex education compulsory in schools which would take away the current right of parents to withdraw their children from these classes. Overseas experience shows us that we can expect strong organised opposition from the pro-abortion movement led by Family Planning, also some elements of the medical profession, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Privacy Commissioner.

We believe that Parental Consent will have the support of the vast majority of New Zealand parents. It also deserves and needs the support of the pro-life movement by encouraging support in the community and by a sustained and comprehensive campaign of lobbying members of Parliament, both electorate and list,  seeking their support in a conscience vote to support the passing of the Bill through its first and second reading to be sent to a Parliamentary Select Committee. This will t