“Parliament has

the responsibility

to protect life, especially

the life of the defenceless.”  -Owen Jennings MP ACT.

!! STOP PRESS!!

High - Court Action

Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) to betaken to court.

Right to Life New Zealand is committed to investigating laying an urgent complaint against the ASC with the High Court.The complaint would be for the failure of the ASC to fulfill its statutory duties by: allowing the violation of the right to life of unborn children permitting abortion on demand allowing a regime of unlawful abortions The court has the authority to order the ASC to comply with its duties. 

 

IN THIS ISSUE...

President’s Report Pg 2

The Exception Deception.......... Pg 4

RU 486 Pill.......... Pg 5

Society’s Report Pg 6

Legalised Prostitution.......Pg 6

Prostitution Reform Bill.......... Pg 7

World News.......... Pg 8

Stem Cell Debate Pg 9

From the Internet.. Pg 10

Abortion Law Review......... Pg 11

Notices.. Pg 12

 

 

Parliament Denies

Justice to the Unborn

 

It is a damning indictment of our Parliament that it has again turned its back on New Zealand’s unborn children.  Parliament has appointed Drs. Rothwell and Reid of Wellington and reappointed Marlene Lamb of Morrinsville to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.  

Dr Lesley Rothwell is a general medical practitioner and a clinical tutor in the Department of General Practice at the Wellington Clinical School.  Dr Rothwell is also a certifying consultant at the Parkview Abortion Clinic, in the Wellington Public Hospital and has been there since 1981.  Dr Rothwell was also appointed chairman.  Dr. Pakaarangi Reid is the director of the Eru Pomare Maori Health Research Centre in Wellington. 

It was a tense and emotional Parliament, that on the afternoon of Thursday 30 August passed the motion of the Minister of Justice Phil Goff by 85 to 26, to recommend to the Governor General that these appointments be made.  There were 33 female MP’s who voted, all of whom voted to support the appointment.  The committee was described by some members of Parliament in the debate as a ‘charade and a travesty of justice.’ It is an appalling conflict of interest to appoint a certifying consultant not only to the committee but also as chairperson.  Dr Rothwell derives a considerable portion of her income from approving and authorising the killing of unborn children by abortion.  How can she be expected to supervise the abortion industry and be an advocate for the unborn, when she is a major participant in an industry that provides abortion on demand?  It is worthy of note that Parliament in 1977 when it was committed to protecting the unborn child appointed Judge Augusta Wallace as the first chairperson.  Parliament’s objective then was to ensure that the unborn child received the full protection of the law. 

The appointments are a sad indictment of Parliament which has again failed to address the plight of unborn children.  This is a day of shame in the history of our Parliament.

It is now clear that Parliament has:

-  Accepted the failure of the committee to uphold the abortion laws to ensure that abortions are authorised only after full consideration of the human rights of the unborn child.

-  Accepted abortion on demand and a regime of unlawful abortion. 

Parliament is the highest court in the land it should be the defender of human rights and the protector of the weak.  These appointments by Parliament are a disgrace that undermines the rule of law and the credibility of Parliament.  We commend those 26 members who voted against the appointments.

Ten members spoke against the appointments.

Eric Roy (National) decried the fact that we have no statute that gives status to the unborn child.

Geff Braybrook (Labour) stated that he was concerned that abortion was being used as a form of contraception.

Owen Jennings (ACT) stated “Here we are again appointing a committee to carry on this travesty - committee that on its own admission is a failure that is set up as a charade.  We have a law that is an ass, a law that is not working.  The statistics are an abomination.” “The current programmes operated by the Family Planning Association are not working, they are hopeless.” He concluded by stating “ we have a right and a responsibility to protect life.”

Alec Neill (National) said that he was “anxious that the laws at this point in time are enforced as they should be.”

Phillip Field (Labour) said “This is a moral issue.  From my point of view there is a Christian ethical issue that relates to what we believe to be our Creator’s instructions as to how life should be lived and the protection and sanctity of human life.”

Dr Paul Hutchinson (National) and previously a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee in support of the motion said  “It is a great pity that the Government and Members of Parliament do not wish to recognise that the law that was enacted in 1977 is no longer relevant to women in the 21st Century”  He went on to say “It is relevant that since the law was enacted over 20years ago there has not been one death in New Zealand from an abortion that was carried out legally”  As an obstetrician and  gynaecologist he should be aware that with each abortion a child is killed, in some instances twins.  He may not be aware that at least one woman has died from abortion after being given in error a double injection of a prostaglandin to induce labour in a late term abortion.  This tragic death was subject to a cover up.

Anne Tolly (National) speaking in support of the motion said “Why do we not hear speeches in the House about ensuring free and easy access to contraception for people of all ages and of both sexes?”

Gerry Brownlee (National) strongly opposed the motion said “I also find it interesting to look at other societies that have existed in the world at various times.  I am speaking of societies that reached I supposed one would say, a degree of sophistication, then slipped back and were lost - societies such as the Roman society and the Greek society…. There  should be no reason for us to assume that our current Western civilisation will, in the whole anthropological scale of the world, be any different.  One of the things we can point to as unique about this particular civilisation at the moment is that we kill our children.”

Brian Neeson (National) opposed the motion saying that the committee was  “…really always was a farce.  Every time there is an abortion, somebody dies, yet we are a country struggling for a population base.  We are getting poorer by the minute while our prized possessions - people - go down the drain, literally.  It is an absolute shame.”

Peter Dunne (United Future NZ) stated that he opposed the motion for different reasons.  He said that he was concerned about the issues of accountability and the lack of information provided by the Minister of Justice on the nominees.

Wyatt Creech (National) supported the motion and said that the names of nominees to the committee should be reviewed by a Parliamentary select committee. 

The Minister of Justice advised our society that there had been 12 nominations with five being registered medical practitioners.  He had then selected the tree candidates he considered most suitable and submitted them to the Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee who approved the candidates.  Once cabinet had endorsed the appointments he then wrote to the Parliamentary parties not in the coalition government seeking their support.  The nominations were then brought to Parliament on Thursday 30 August.  Individual members could then have made nominations of their own candidates, none chose to do so.  The minister claims that the process is rigorous and that each of the nominees is subject to private and public scrutiny. 

For the first time in the history of the committee we have three women on the committee and all from the North Island.  It is worth noting that the term of appointments of the previous committee actually expired in December 1998 and have been rolled over because of the reluctance of previous Ministers of Justice to bring this highly contentious issue to Parliament. 

From early 1999 this society has vigorously and consistently lobbied to have the issue of appointments brought to Parliament.  Following these appointments this society wrote to the Minister of Justice seeking under the Official Information Act the names of the other nine candidates.  Copies of the CV’s of all candidates and the names of the Members of Parliament who had nominated them.  The Minister refused to provide this information citing privacy concerns.  We then immediately lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman seeking a review of the Ministers decision.  The Minister advised our society that there had been 12 nominations, five being registered medical practitioners.  The Minister claims that he has selected the best candidates for appointment who were referred to the Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee which made a recommendation for consideration by Cabinet.  The names were then referred to the caucuses of parties outside of the coalition government seeking their support.  Members of Parliament during the debate could have nominated other candidates, they chose not to.  The Minister claims to have selected the best candidates for appointment but how does the public know this when they are deprived of the names of other candidates and information on their qualification?  We believe the public have a right to know.  The procedure followed by the Minister allows for the selection of candidates who will comply with the political agenda of the government.  There is therefore little prospect of a candidate being selected who will seek to promote increased legal protection for the unborn child. 

This society will continue to vigorously lobby Parliament to have the committee conform to its statutory duties to ensure that the rights of the unborn child receive the full protection of the law.  Our society has written to the 26 members of Parliament who voted against the appointments congratulating them for their stand.  We have also written to the 85 members who voted for the appointments expressing our concern and disappointment.  A media release was made by this society to 30 media outlets which included TV, radio and newspapers.  Radio interviews were given to Independent Radio news and Radio Pacific.

 

n     ASC Appointments 30/08/01

Action members are encouraged to support the unborn child by writing to their electorate and list MPs on this important issue.  Letters may be sent to Parliament Building, Wellington, no stamp required.  The names of the Members of Parliament who voted on the appointments are as follows.  It is timely to remember that unborn children are the precious infants of God our creator.  God has said that, “if your mother should forget you I will not forget you.”  God will not be mocked! Can a nation that kills its own children expect a blessing from God?

 

FOR

Labour (41)             Barker                            Dyson                             Mallard

                             Barnett                           Gallagher                        O’Connor

                             Benson-Poke                  Gosche

                                                                  Hawkins                             Okeroa

                             Beyer                             Hobbs                             Peck          

                             Burton                             Hodgson                             Petti

                             Clark                             Keall                             Sutton

                             Cosgrove                             Helly                             Swain

                             Cullen                             King                             Tamiher

                             Cunliffe                             Laban                             Tizard

                             Dalziel                             Mackay                             Turia         

                             Duncan                             Maharey                             Yates         

                                                                                               

National (22)       Bradford                             Rich                             Tolley

                             Creech                             Ryall                             Vernon

                             Hasler                             Scott                             Williamson

                             Hutchison                             Shipley                             Wong

                             Kidd                             Shirley                             Wort

                             Luxton                             Sincock                             Young

                             Mapp                             Steel                                        

                             Power                             Tisch                                       

                                                                                                

 Act (4)                Eckhof                             Newman    

                             Hide                             Prebble     

                                                                            

NZ First (1)        Jennings                                

                                                                                               

Greens (7)          Bradford S                             Fitzsimons                             Tanczos

                             Donald                             Kedgeley   

                             Ewen-Street                   Locke        

                                                                                               

AGAINST

Labour (5)           Braybrooke                             Field                             Robertson

                             Dynhoven                             Hawke      

                                                                                               

National (14)       Anae                             Heatley                             Simich

                             Brownlee                             Herlihy                             Smith N

                             Carter D                             Kyd                             Sowry

                             Carter J                             Neeson                             Roy           

                             English                             Neill          

                                                                            

Alliance (Nil)       Anderton 

                           Bunkle

                           Campbell

                           Gillon

                            Gordon

                            Lee

                            Harre

                            Jackson

                            Robson

                            Wright

                                                                                             

                                                                            

 ACT (1)              Franks                                   

                                                                            

NZ First (5)        Brown                             Mark                             Woolerton

                             Donnelly                             Peters       

                                                                            

United Future NZ (1)      Dunne       

 

 

 

FOOTPRINTS

is the quarterly publication of the

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Editor: Ken Orr

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Officers:

President:              Phillip Creed

Vice Pres:              John Bryant

                          Ken Orr

Secretary:              Tarcille O’Connor

Treasurer:              Paul Christenhusz

Other Committee Members:

             Br Laurence Cole

             Peter Coleman

             Bede Cosgriff

             Herman Jansen

             David Malcolm

             Chris O’Brien

             Henry Allison               

PATRONS

Bishop John Cunneen D.D.

Bishop M.L. Wiggins B.A., L.Th.

Father Patrick Kennedy

Hon H.J. Walker C.M.G., J.P., K.C.L.J.

Rev J.A. Haverland B.A., B.D., Th.M

Mr Graham Capill B.D., LL.B.

Prof. Scott Davidson M.A. (CANTAB)

Councillor Carol Evans QSO, JP

Dr Norman MacLean, O&G

 

 

Subscription

Ask a friend? !

Subscription to this Newsletter is free with membership of this Society.

YES I would like to JOIN

..... $10 Single  ..... $12 Family

..... $15 Group

 

(Please print clearly)

NAME: ..........................................................

ADDRESS:..................................................

............................................................................

PHONE:........................................(Home)

................................................................(Bus)

Cheques to be made payable to

and subscription may be sent to:

  Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

  PO Box 668, Christchurch

Phone:                 (03) 359 4326

Fax:                 (03) 386 0447

Email:                rtl@right-to-life.org

Web Page: www.right-to-life.org

 

 

DEADLINE NEXT ISSUE

Any articles, reflections, notices or other pro-life material for the next newsletter to be submitted for consideration to FOOTPRINTS at the above address before February 31.

 

 

Message from the President

Members will note elsewhere in this issue of Footprints, that we are continuing to lobby Parliament and have appeared before a Parliamentary Select Committee, to state the case against the Prostitution Law Reform Bill of Christchurch Central M.P. Tim Barnett. We encourage all to write to your local member of Parliament and ask them to vote against this Bill when it is debated at the second reading next year.

Recent activities of our Society have included a garage sale, which raised over $200.

Also we have been campaigning against the appointment process to the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and have made a recent submission to the Minister of Justice outlining where and how we would like to see Abortion laws changed, including the makeup and representation on the ASC. When the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 was passed, and allowed for the setting up of the ASC, nobody could have predicted how many abortions would be performed in 2000 – over 16000 babies killed in their mother’s wombs.The fact that this committee presides over the appointment of certifying consultants,  who allow this carnage, is shameful.We have also recently taken a poll of candidates for several hospital boards, for the local body elections. These included Auckland, Lower Hutt, Wellington, and Christchurch, where most abortions are performed.Our questionnaire was designed to ensure that only prolife people answered yes to all our questions. The results were not spectacular, but we  wanted to provide you with a voting guide for suitable candidates.

I encourage you to attend the next prolife vigil, to be held at St. Mary’s, Manchester Street, on December  12th.  This vigil is organized by Family Life International.

Finally, Christmas greetings to all of our members, and thank you very much for your support during this year.

n    Phillip Creed

 

District Health Board (DHB) Elections

Our society sent a questionnaire to 349 candidates who sought election to their local DHB.  The DHBs were Auckland, Waikato, Capital Coast, Hutt, Canterbury and Otago.  These are the DHBs where the great majority of abortions are performed.  The questionnaire was say Yes/No to the following:

1.         Would you, if elected to the DHB, uphold the Judeo/Christian Sanctity of life ethic which recognises the inalienable right to life of every human being from conception to natural death?

2. Do you support increased legal protection for the unborn child?

3. To promote protection for unborn children and their mothers. Would you support operating surgeons employed      by the DHB being made accountable to the DHB for their pattern of authorisation for abortions to ensure:

-    that the rights of the unborn child are given full consideration.

-    that a regime of unlawful abortions with abortion on demand does not operate in the Board’s Facilities.

-    that all abortions are authorised in accordance with the Crimes Act Sect 187A and that the certifying consultants authorising abortions have “honest belief” in the grounds.

-    that abortions comply with the declarations of Oslo as stated in the ethics of the New Zealand Medical Association.

4. Would you support a decision of whether or not to apply to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for the renewal of the annual licence to perform abortions should be resolved by resolution at a public meeting of the Board?

A total of 72 candidates responded to the questionnaire.  The responses of the candidates were advertised on our society web page.  On the 20th September posters showing the responses of local candidates were sent to nearly 200 churches for display on a church noticeboard.  Church-goers were encouraged to vote only for candidates who had made a public commitment to uphold the sanctity of life ethic, and who supported increased protection for the unborn child etc. and who were otherwise suitable. 

An advert was placed in the Christchurch Star which is delivered free to over 116, 000 homes in greater Christchurch.  The advert listed the 10 candidates for the Canterbury DHB whom our society were promoting. This advert cost $500 and we are grateful to our members whose generous donations made this important project possible.  The NZ Catholic also carried a prominent article presenting the candidates responses.  It was disappointing that none of the candidates who had responded to our questionnaire with a pro-life response were elected.  This important exercise was however considered a success because:  It has raised the awareness of all candidates who received our questionnaire to the plight of the unborn child. 

A two page letter was sent to each candidate which explained that the human rights of the unborn children were being violated, that we had abortion on demand and a regime of unlawful abortions. 

We stated that it would be proper and essential for DHBs to require that consultants employed by the Board to perform abortions be questioned on their patterns of authorisations to ensure that abortions performed in the Board’s facilities are lawful.  In no other area of medicine are doctors unaccountable for their clinical judgements. 

We have made a start in having the community recognise that DHBs have to accept a major share of the responsibility for the killing of unborn children in our public hospitals. A growing recognition of the duty to vote for candidates for DHBs who will uphold the sanctity of life ethic and promote protection for the unborn child.  Our society’s intention is to now to pursue these objectives with the DHBs.

 

Bequests

Members and supporters who wish to continue supporting the work of defending life after their death are encouraged to consider remembering the Society in their will. For those who have arranged a bequest in their will for this Society they may need to amend their will to record this Society’s new name, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

 

 

The Exception Deception

Why flawed incrementalism can never achieve victory for the preborn.

n    By Patrick Delaney (First published in “Celebrate Life,” the journal of the American Life League)

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton decisions, abortion has been the focal point of a broader culture war where two mutually exclusive worldviews contend for dominance.  By classifying an entire segment of our human family as “non-persons,” Roe and Doe secured the ascendancy of a new culture-of-death ethic that denies moral absolutes and embraces moral relativism. 

The new atheistic ethic recognises no restraints outside the arbitrary will of man.  In other words, human rights are no longer recognised as being invested in man by the benevolence of a loving Creator.  These rights are now subject to the whims of those in political power.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to provide protection for all human persons from the moment of conception/fertilisation.  This is the cornerstone in building a culture of life.  We, therefore, must counter the atheistic lies of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton with a culture-of-life ethic founded on one scientific and philosophical principle: “All beings are human persons from conception/fertilisation and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - first and foremost, the right to life.”  We call this the “personhood principle.”

Though virtually all prolife groups share the goal of reestablishing personhood, debates arise regarding how to pursue it.  The merits and kinds of incremental approaches are the main points of contention.

Questions about tactics

In his 1995 encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II acknowledges the value and morally licit nature of certain forms of incremental measures that don’t violate fundamental moral standards.  Those incremental measures include legislative proposals that do not permit abortion  in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.  The advancement of these measures is called pure incrementalism.

Pure incrementalism works toward full protection of the preborn human person.  Such legislative proposals work first to protect all innocent human life from the moment of conception.  If this objective cannot be achieved, other advances that never contradict or detract from the foundational truth of personhood may be accepted.  Examples include total bans on third trimester abortions, embryonic experimentation, and human cloning.

Such proposals strive to limit abortions and build genuine momentum toward the reestablishment of a culture-of-life ethic.  They educate the public on the proper distinctions between truth and falsehood, personhood and non-personhood, pro-life and pro-death, without conceding that there could be any reasons for killing a preborn child.

Exceptions undermine foundation

Unfortunately, over the last 28 years, many pro-life organizations have abandoned the personhood principle in their legislative and political efforts and have employed flawed incrementalism.  Such efforts stray into the culture-of-death mentality.  Though they may be well intentioned, such measures explicitly sacrifice the truth and affirm the errors of moral relativism. 

If innocent preborn children can be legally killed in “exceptional” circumstances, then certainly they cannot be considered persons in the legal sense.  This flawed approach therefore affirms Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton and relegates preborn children to a false “non-person” status.

When pro-life organisations support candidates or legislation favouring  exceptions, their leaders are forced to capitulate on the fundamental principle that all human life is sacred, because they explicitly endorse the direct killing of certain innocent human persons.  The specific acceptance of aborting persons in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother affirms the relativistic culture-of-death dogma that the right to life is not after all, “inalienable,” but rather, very negotiable.

‘Tolerance’ of some abortions?

Since flawed incremental approaches have become the dominant strategy in much of the pro-life movement, public acceptance of legal abortion has increased.  National and regional polls demonstrate that when “exceptions” candidates are allowed to run for public office under the bogus “pro-life” banner provided by certain right-to-life Political Action Committees (PACs), perceptions in the electorate shift toward a greater public acceptance of legal abortion. These “right-to-life” PACs defend their actions by promising to advance better candidates and stronger legislation when the political climate is “friendlier to our cause.”  But is it reasonable to anticipate a friendlier political climate in the future when such grave compromises have consistently sowed confusion and hostility in the past?  Can we expect a public that is more accepting of legal abortion to elect representatives who will be “friendlier to our cause”? 

Indeed, the politician who takes a position in conformity with the simple truth of personhood has become an endangered species.  Since a few major “pro-life” PACs have classified the tolerance of some legal child killing to be an acceptable “pro-life” position, these courageous candidates have been characterised as “extremists” by their more moderate opponents.  Quite often, such statesmen receive little or no assistance from these pro-life PACs due to their annoyingly “divisive” public image.

For the last 28 years, the deadly cycle of compromise has fostered a cultural and political environment ever more hostile to the protection of the preborn.  The debate over abortion has consistently deteriorated over time from whether it is ethical to kill preborn children, to when such a murder can take place, and how.

Strategy must rely on truth.

It is, therefor, only reasonable to ask if such an “exceptions” strategy that:  1) denies personhood,  2) affirms the moral relativism secured by Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, 3) confuses the public, and 4) engenders greater acceptance of legal abortion can ever be successful at achieving total protection for every human being as a person from the moment of conception.  Can promulgating lies ever help our culture to establish truth?  It seems only logical to conclude: no, never.

Our movement must return to a strategy of promoting only those candidates and measures that embody the fullness of truth and uphold objective moral principles.  When it is clear to an elected official who is totally opposed to procured abortion that full protection is legislatively impossible, he may work to save children and advance our cause through pure incrementalism; but we are never allowed to propose, promote or advocate even one abortion.

When we consistently witness to the simple truth of personhood and the culture-of-life ethic, we wield a power exponentially greater than mere diplomatic skills could ever hope to achieve.  Indeed, we become conduits for the grace of Jesus Christ, who says, “I am the Truth,” and “without Me you can do nothing.”

Patrick Delaney works with American Life League’s divisions of public policy and youth outreach.

 

 

RU 486  Murder Pill

Consent under the Medicines Act in 1981 to use this lethal drug was granted by notice in the Gazette of Thursday 30 August.  Consent was given by the Minister of Health Annette King.  This marked a further shameful chapter in the history of our nation.  This was the first time in the history of New Zealand that a government had given approval for the use of a drug for the specific purpose of killing another human being.  The New Zealand government is a signatory to the international agreement outlawing chemical warfare.  Why then is the government conducting chemical warfare against its own children?  The Minister of Health in a media statement that day said  “I have approved RU486 because it is a safe and sound medication”  Our society in a media release of the same day stated: “pregnancy is not a disease, RU 486 is not a medicine, nor is it safe.  It is a human pesticide, it has no therapeutic value and its sole purpose is to destroy an innocent and helpless unborn child.”  We strongly urged the Minister to revoke her decision.  To recapitulate, how does Mifepristone RU 486 work?  It is an abortifacient drug that kills an unborn baby up to 7 weeks gestation and requires four visits to the doctor.

w The first visit is to confirm pregnancy and to ensure that there are no contra indications for the use of RU 486 such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes or heavy smoking.  She is then given three 200mg RU486 pills.  RU 486 is an artificial steroid that interferes with the action of progesterone a hormone crucial to the nourishment of the child.  The child starves to death.

w Two days later she returns to have a prostaglandin, Cytotec Misoprostole which is taken orally or by vaginal insertion.  The woman experiences powerful and painful uterine contractions which begin to expel the dead baby.  In US trials about half 49% aborted during the four hours they are required to wait at the facility.  Between 20-30% aborted sometime over the next 20 hours away from the facility.  The rest who aborted did so over the next two weeks.

w A third visit some 14 days from the woman’s initial visit allows the doctor to confirm whether or not the abortion is complete.  If it’s not complete, the abortionist will encourage the woman to undergo a surgical abortion to guard against the possibility that she will give birth to a child that may have been injured by the drugs.

It is highly significant that the Minister in compliance with an opinion provided by the Solicitor General made it a condition that women undergoing an RU 486 abortion were required after taking a prostaglandin to stay in the licensed premises until the dead baby was expelled.This is to meet the requirement of section 18 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act that abortions take place only in institutions licensed for that purpose in accordance with that Act. 

It is mentioned that 20 to 30 % of women after taking the prostaglandin abort away from the facility.  What the Minister is ignoring is the fact that about 6% of women abort after taking Mifepristone RU 486 and prior to taking the prostaglandin.  In the view of this society these abortions would also be unlawful.

What action has the society taken?

On the 1st September we wrote to the Minister of Health advising her of our belief in the unlawfulness of these abortions.  We also sought under the Official Information Act a copy of the report on RU 486 given by Medsafe to the Minister. 

The report was provided, it revealed that the committee believed that there was insufficient data to conclude that RU 486 is teratogenic ie. a cause of abnormalities in children.  This conclusion is contrary to the international evidence available.  The committee also stated that there was no evidence of any abnormalities in future generations.  The truth is that no research has been done on this subject as a consequence we just don’t know. 

On the 13th September our Society wrote to the Minister of Health requesting under the Official Information Act a copy of any memoranda she may have sent to District Health Boards on the use of RU 486.  The Minister replied on the 8th October that “no memoranda or advice had been provided to District Health Boards on the use of RU 486 following my approval for its use.”  

On the 26th September the Minister of Health advised our Society that “the consent process for the medicine does not affect section 18 of the CS&A Act.  Any change to that provision is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.  Ministry of Justice officials are looking at that matter in the context of a proposed amendment Bill for that Act.”  Our Society has now written to the Minister of Justice expressing opposition to the proposed amendment and presenting a case to support our stand which is:

w Amendment to the Act will allow 20-30% of women to deliver a dead baby in the privacy of their own home.  We believe that this will be a traumatic psychological experience for many women.  It will deprive women of the support of medical treatment should there be complications such as excessive bleeding which may require a transfusion.

wThe proposed amendment could ultimately have serious consequences for the performance of abortions in New Zealand.  In the future medical science may produce an abortion pill that could be prescribed by a general practitioner for a woman to take in her own home.  An abortion could then be a private matter between a woman and a doctor of her choice.  This situation would conflict with the duty of the state to provide legal protection for the human rights of unborn New Zealanders. It could lead to increased pressure for the decriminalisation of abortion.

District Health Boards (DHBs)

Following the approval for the use of RU 486 our society has written to the Chief Executive Officers of the Auckland, Waikato, Capital and Coast, Canterbury and Otago DHBs (these are the DHBs where most of the abortions in New Zealand are performed) to request that they don’t introduce RU 486 abortions in their clinics and hospitals.

Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) Says NO to French Abortion Pill In a letter to our society dated 23rd October, Cathy Handley, General Manager of the National Women’s Hospital, stated “In the foreseeable future the ADHB is not considering the introduction of RU 486 for use in abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.  If the ADHB decides to use RU 486 within the second trimester of pregnancy then a number of issues of process and protocols  would have to be decided prior to the introduction of RU 486, and the ADHB has not initiated that review.”  This is good news.  It means that the Epsom Day Abortion Clinic which is situated at the National Women’s Hospital will not be using RU 486.  Epsom Day is the busiest abortion clinic in New Zealand with more than 5, 800abortions per year.

The Otago District Health Board

Also advised this society that “the Board has not introduced the procedure and has not made a decision whether RU 486 will be introduced.”

These replies followed letters from this society to the DHBs in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato, Canterbury and Otago in September, asking them not to introduce chemical abortions with RU 486 and presenting them with reasons why they should not do so in the interest of the unborn child and women’s health.

The Canterbury DHB

Has acknowledged our letter and advised that a response would be made in the near future.  A follow-up letter have been sent to the Capital and Coast DHBs.

The Waikato DHB

Has advised us that a decision has not yet been made whether or not to use RU 486.

It is encouraging that RU 486 is unpopular in the United States.  A year after the drug had been approved by the Federal Drug Administration a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that only 6% of gynaecologists and 1% of general practitioners say they have used RU 486.  Of those gynaecologists who perform surgical abortions only 12% of them provided a chemical abortion with RU 486.  After one year abortions have not increased with RU 486 in the USA.  Women are not buying it, doctors are not buying it and the American public is not buying it.  RU 486 represents chemical warfare against our unborn.  Our society is steadfast in  its resolve to oppose the use of RU 486 in New Zealand.

Action

Please support the unborn child and mothers by 1. Writing to the Minister of Justice to oppose the proposal to amend section 18 of the CS&A Act to allow abortions to take place outside of licensed hospitals. 2.Write to the CEO of your District Health Board to oppose the use of RU 486 in your hospitals.

 

 

SOCIETY’S REPORT

 

NATIONAL MEDIA

Since August our society has made four media releases to 30 media including TV, radio and major newspapers.  The subjects were

1. Stem cell research

2. The delay