|
Footprints MagazineJuly 2004RIGHT
TO LIFE TAKES PLIGHT OF UNBORN CHILDREN TO THE UNITED NATIONS Right
to Life has lodged a complaint with the Secretariat to the Committee on
the Rights of the Child. Their
office is with the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. The
Committee is responsible for ensuring that signatory states to the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child comply with the
Convention. The
New Zealand Government signed this important Convention on 1 October
1990. It was ratified in April 1993 and came into force on 6 May 1993. New
Zealand has the third-highest rate of child abuse deaths among the 26
OECD countries. Each year eight to ten children under the age of 15 die
as a result of child abuse. Right
to Life is opposed to all child abuse. The killing of unborn children
who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family is
the ultimate in child abuse. Human
life begins at conception. It
is contended that the preambular paragraph of the Convention recognises
the humanity of the unborn child. Article
6 recognises that the unborn child is the bearer of human rights
including an inalienable right to life conferred by our creator. Right
to Life's complaint to the United Nations is that the New Zealand
Government has failed its important duty to provide effective legal
protection for the lives of unborn children, as required by the UN
Convention. In
April this year this complaint was taken up with the Minister of Justice
and the Minister of Youth Affairs. The Associate Minister of Justice the
Honourable David Benson-Pope responded: “United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child “Prior
to New Zealand's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCROC), the Government undertook a comprehensive
review of existing legislation and policy to ensure that New Zealand law
and practice were in compliance with its provisions. Accordingly, the
Convention was ratified by the Government on the basis that our domestic
law was already consistent with it. “The
New Zealand Government has recently presented its second periodic report
on UNCROC to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. In
its report the Committee did not make any comment on the issue of
abortion. Similarly the NGO report (“Children and Youth in Aotearoa
2003”) prepared by the Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa did
not comment negatively on New Zealand abortion laws or practice. “I
note that the statement in the preamble to UNCROC that you refer to does
not create any binding international legal implications for parties to
UNCROC. Parties to the convention are left to determine in their
domestic legislation what protections are afforded to unborn children.
In New Zealand the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977
and Crimes Act 1961 define those boundaries with respect to abortion.” The
Honourable John Tamihere, Minister of Youth Affairs, responded: “As
with all international conventions, the inclusion of a preambular
paragraph can be used to interpret treaty provisions. However, the
preamble paragraph within UNCROC does not have binding international
legal implications for determining the starting point of childhood. In
addition, the preambular paragraph does not limit a State, such as New
Zealand, from establishing under domestic law the point in time when
childhood begins. “Generally,
international law recognises childhood beginning from birth. States are
not prohibited from extending the definition of a child to pre-birth.
However, such protection cannot, as a consequence, be read into treaty
provisions that protect the right to life. “In
New Zealand, statute establishes the concept of childhood beginning from
birth. The application of UNCROC and protections therefore follows.
Policy, programmes and legislation are aimed at enhancing the survival
and development of children from birth onwards. This is consistent with
the intent of Article 6 of UNCROC.” There
are many countries that recognise in law the humanity of the unborn
child and provide effective legal protection for unborn children. It
is inconsistent for the New Zealand Government to state that “policy,
programmes and legislation are aimed at enhancing the survival and
development of children from birth onwards,” when it has no policy,
programmes or legislation to enhance the survival and development of
children before birth. Right
to Life will continue to lobby the Government to recognise the status of
unborn children as human beings with a right to life. It
is disappointing that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
appears to be indifferent to the worldwide plight of the unborn child.
It has no comment on the killing of over 17 000 unborn children in
New Zealand each year, and an estimated 60 million surgical abortions
world wide. Last
year the UN Committee expressed grave concern to the New Zealand
Government that it had not yet passed legislation to ban the smacking of
children. It
is sadly ironic that it is concerned about the smacking of children
which they see as child abuse, and yet are silent on the violent killing
of children before birth. Action:
Members are encouraged to write to these two Ministers to instigate
legislation to recognise the status of the unborn child as a human being
with an inalienable right to life. This legislation would then assist
the New Zealand Government to comply fully with the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Preamble: “...Bearing
in mind that as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child
'the child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special
safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as
well as after birth.'...” Article
1: “...For the purposes of the
present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of
eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is
attained earlier...” Article
6: “...1.
State Parties
recognise that every child has the inherent right to life. 2.
State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival
and development of the child…” Message
from the President Dear
Members, It
certainly has been an eventful time for New Zealand of late as our
Government continues to make watershed changes to our laws and effect
sweeping social changes that have altered the very fabric of
our society. Lately I have been wondering what more has to happen before
Christians and others concerned for this country stand up and speak out
about the wholesale destruction of our social and moral landscape. What
can Right to Life New Zealand do in relation to all this? We are a small
organisation and at present it feels a bit like those who oppose
the negative changes are like the little Dutch boy plugging the
crumbling dam with his finger. I would like to think it more than
that but at the moment the liberal juggernaut is well and truly sailing
over many social norms that have stood the test of thousand of
years. How has this happened? The reasons on reflection are many,
but one important reason is that liberal humanists with anti-Christian
agendas have been positioning themselves in our institutions of power
for a long time now. Not only in politics but also in the media,
business, health, entertainment and education sectors. And we have done
nothing to oppose them. We have rested on our laurels and remained in
our pews and in my opinion we have not been salt and light. Now there
comes a point where those in Christendom appear to be split into those
who agree with Christians being involved in social political action and
those who don’t. But surely we have a template in Jesus who drove the
money-makers from the temple. He said that we were to be salt and light.
If we don’t take action and by action I mean getting heard, (not just
in dribs and drabs) but in the numbers that mean politicians can’t
simply ignore our concerns, then we can expect to see further
degradation and ultimately the destruction of everything that we hold
dear. We will also start to suffer the persecution in our back yards
that many Christians around the world are currently subject to. No
longer are we a Christian nation; we are well and truly secular and
rapidly becoming more anti-Christian every passing year. What
can we do? Well surely if concerned people spoke out at crucial times
and took every opportunity to do so, it would make a big difference.
Let’s put aside any political differences and get behind campaigns
such as “Enough is Enough” run by Brian Tamaki’s Destiny
Church. Does it really matter that we may not support a particular
Christian political party or church as long as they are taking
positive action? If Christians of all denominations came out and
put leather to the pavement we would see change. How about it New
Zealand? Let’s cut the apathy and get involved. Let’s be prepared to
put our faith on the line and speak out over the radio talkback shows,
write letters to the paper, lobby our MP’s and local councils. Let’s
risk the disapproval of our peers. Let’s speak out against the filth
that is purveyed as entertainment on our TV’s. Let’s get motivated
about halting the killing of 18,000 of our unborn children each
year, the destruction of our kids and our future. Let’s get angry
with this Baal god that is stealing our kids and sacrificing them to the
god of convenience. Let’s get serious about telling those in business
that we don’t approve advertising that demeans women and treats them
as commodities. Let’s tell our MP’s and Council leaders likewise,
that we do disprove of Prostitution and that no we don’t want it in
our suburbs. Let’s get active, just like the liberals have done. They
are the ones currently holding the trump cards. How much longer they do
so is up to us. Isn’t it? And
let’s pray more about all of this, without which all of the above is
wasted breath.
Chris O’Brien SOCIETY’S
REPORT The
AGM was held on Monday 26 April. The director of the Maxim Institute
Bruce Logan gave an informative address on the topic “Human Dignity:
What is it?” Election
Those
elected to the executive to conduct the affairs of the society for the
next twelve months were: President:
Chris O'Brien Vice
President: Ken Orr Treasurer:
Paul Christenhusz Executive:
Maria Parsons, Naomi Hansman, Sarah Capill, Susette McLaughlin,
Herman Jansen, Peter Coleman, David Malcolm, Morgan Williams, and
Henry Allison. Patrons
The
current patrons were elected: Bishop
John Cunneen D.D. Father
Patrick Kennedy Honourable
H J Walker C.M.G., J.P., K.C.L.J. Reverend
John Haverland B.A., B.D., ThM. Mr
Graham Capill B.D., L.L.B. Councillor
Carol Evans Q.S.O., J.P. Doctor
Norman MacLean O&G Mr
and Mrs Peter and Nina Barry-Martin. The
society is grateful to our patrons for their support, advice and
encouragement. We
welcome to our list of distinguished patrons two new patrons who have
made a unique contribution to the defence of life in New Zealand. Mrs
Nina Barry-Martin is one of the founders of Pregnancy Counselling
Services (PCS), a national counselling service that is responsible for
saving the lives of many unborn children and their mothers from a
lifetime of psychological and spiritual damage. Nina's husband Peter is
a former National President of the Society for the Protection of the
Unborn Child. Nina and Peter are currently members of the trust board
for PCS. Financial
report Our
treasurer Paul Christenhusz presented the society's financial report.
Members may obtain a copy of the society's full financial statement by
writing to the treasurer and enclosing a self-addressed envelope. Summary-statement
of Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31 January 2004 Income
(Jan03)
(Jan04) Subscriptions
6447
5862 Donations
10378
14332 Interest
etc.
777
1020 TOTAL
17595
21214 Expenditure
20952
18814 Money
held by Westpac Current
account
3053 Term
Deposit
17128 TOTAL
20181 MEDIA Right
to Life issued media releases in June on the society's complaint to the
United Nations and on the abortion statistics. The American based
worldwide news agency CNS News carried both media releases. The
society's response to the abortion statistics was mentioned by TV3 and
the Christchurch Press. Newspapers
The
Press published a major article on our national survey on the rights of
the unborn child. The
Hawkes Bay Today regional newspaper sought comment for an article on
abortion. Letters from the society were
published in the Press on the abortion statistics, hospital memorial
garden to include aborted babies, our society's national survey on the
rights of unborn children, zoning for brothels, Care of Children Bill. The
NZ Catholic published an article on our society's complaint to the UN. The
Challenge Weekly published an article on our survey. Radio
Abortion
statistics were carried on 3ZB, and Radio Rhema included an interview
with our society spokesperson on these statistics. Newspaper
Advertising
Right
to Life recently placed a two page advertising supplement on the plight
of the unborn child with the NZ Catholic and the Challenge Weekly. Abortion
Statistics
On
15 June Statistics New Zealand released the abortion statistics for
2003. The statistics reveal an appalling and increasing violation of the
human rights of unborn children in New Zealand, and the failure to
provide life nurturing assistance to vulnerable women faced with an
unplanned pregnancy. The
rate of abortions is rising across almost all age and ethnic groups but
most rapidly among Asian women and teenagers. The
latter increase has been prominent since the drinking age was lowered.
Since 1999 when the legal age for drinking was lowered from 20, the
abortion rate among 18 and 19 year olds has risen more rapidly than for
any other age group. More
than 1000 extra abortions were performed last year than in 2002, a rise
of 6.5 percent to a total of 18 500. One third of abortions were to
women who had had at least one previous termination. About 10% had
already had two or more. The number of terminations by Asian women leapt
22% to 3500 while the European rate rose 5%, Maori 4% and Pacific 7.5%. In
Canterbury, the number of abortions performed on non-residents has
almost trebled in the last four years – from 49 in 2000 to 146 in
2003. Asian women accounted for two thirds of the non-resident
terminations in 2003. Last
year the New Zealand Medical Journal reported that many young Chinese
students viewed abortion as a contraceptive method. Please
pray for the defeat of this culture of death and for the spiritual
healing of the 18 510 vulnerable women who will be grieving the
loss of their child.
Civil
Union Bill This
Government Bill is to provide an alternative to marriage for the
estimated 33 500 person living in a relationship other than marriage.
This Bill also includes those living in a same sex relationship. It is
estimated that there are about 10 000 persons living in a
homosexual relationship. The hidden agenda of this Bill is to provide
state sanctioned marriage for homosexuals. This
Bill should be seen as an attack on the institution of marriage. Murray
Smith MP of United Future is sponsoring a private members Bill to
provide that marriage may only be recognised between a man and a woman. The
traditional family of mother and father has been recognised by all
cultures for thousands of years as the best social structure for the
nurturing and raising of children. Right
to Life is strongly opposed to this Bill. Letters have been sent to all
MPs requesting that they oppose this Bill. The Bill passed its first
reading in Parliament 66 to 50. Right to Life will make a written and
oral submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. Action
In defence of the family members are encouraged to write to their local
electorate and list MPs seeking their support
for defeating
this dangerous
Bill which
is anti-family . Office
of Auditor-General Rejects Society Complaint
On
29 April 2004 the Office of the Auditor-General advised Right to Life in
writing that our complaint had been rejected. In February this year we
had lodged a complaint that certifying consultants employed by District
Health Boards (DHBs) were in addition to their salary also claiming fees
from the Justice Department. A
certifying consultant who interviews a woman seeking an abortion may
claim a fee of $87.50. The fee is intended to reimburse the doctor for
his time. It was contended by this society that a salary and fee
constituted double dipping and was a misuse of the public purse. The
Office of the Auditor-General refuted our allegation, stating that DHBs
“either did not employ the certifying consultants, or took the
Ministry of Justice fees into account when pricing contracts for
service.” The
Canterbury DHB assured us that certifying consultants employed by the
Board did not receive a salary when interviewing women as this was
considered to be part of their private practice. These interviews are
conducted at Lyndhurst and Christchurch Women's Hospital. The
Capital Coast Health DHB in Wellington in a letter to this society
stated: “We
do not accept that accessing fees from the Justice Department during
periods of employment with CCDHB necessarily constitutes a double
payment. The combination of salary and fee for service provides for full
payment for the service provided. We therefore do not intend taking any
action in regard to this matter.” Right
to Life is unhappy with the current situation. Efforts have been made,
without success, to obtain further information under the Official
Information Act. Right to Life will continue to pursue this important
issue. A further letter has been sent to the Minister of Courts opposing
any increase in the fees and seeking their withdrawal. Parliament - ASC Castigated Murray
Smith MP for United Future is a member of the Justice and Electoral
Select Committee. He strongly criticised the ASC in an address to
Parliament on 24 May. Here is the Hansard report of that important
address. The
Abortion Supervisory Committee has been the subject of scathing
criticism for many years – from the last term of Parliament, from the
Audit Office, and from this term of Parliament. If it had been any other
committee except this one, this Chamber would be in uproar and the
members of that committee would have been called upon to resign long
ago. In
the last term of Parliament, a unanimous comment of the Justice and
Electoral Committee stated: “We are concerned that the annual report
of the Abortion Supervisory Committee does not present information that
would enable us to form a view of how, or how well, the Abortion
Supervisory Committee's function are being discharged. The Abortion
Supervisory Committee does not consider strategic planning documents
necessary or appropriate to its task, though it does continue to review
and update those tasks each year. The Audit Office last year told the
Justice and Electoral Committee: 'The Abortion Supervisory Committee
annual report does not present information that would enable the
committee to form a view on how, or how well, its functions are being
discharged.' Since it appears that the Abortion Supervisory Committee
has determined that it will not collect such information,
notwithstanding the committee's expressed views on the matter, the
committee appears to have little choice other than to question the
Abortion Supervisory Committee in detail on what it actually does, and
to form its own view about whether or not those procedures comply with
the Act and constitute good performance.” What a scathing criticism of
any committee endorsed by this Parliament! In
the last review, the Justice and Electoral Committee again unanimously
concluded that the Abortion Supervisory Committee did not fulfil its
statutory functions. The Abortion Supervisory Committee stated that it
did not need to keep performance measures to evaluate how well it was
carrying out its statutory functions. It claimed it had a Crown Law
opinion that said it did not have to do anything other than meet minimum
statutory requirements, and that that was what it had chosen to do. The
committee pointed out that the law did not prevent it from doing more
than meeting statutory requirements, but it appears that fell on deaf
ears. The committee said: “It appears that the ASC will continue its
practice of not collecting information that would enable us to form a
clear view on how – or how well – its functions are being
discharged.” Section 14(1)(h) of the Act requires the Abortion
Supervisory Committee: “To keep under review the procedure... whereby
it is to be determined in any case whether the performance of an
abortion could be justified.” The
Abortion Supervisory Committee said it sent out information to
consultants, but never sought information in return, let alone
monitored, analysed, or collated the results. How can it possibly say
that it is fulfilling its statutory functions when it does not even
collect any information? Instead of the committee taking up the
challenge that the 2001-02 financial review put to it, in this year's
review it criticised the fact that the Justice and Electoral Committee
had challenged it. It referred back to a 1996 committee report that said
that “the Abortion Supervisory Committee and its individual members
were constantly criticised for alleged inadequacies in the performance
of its functions. In particular, it is asserted that in carrying out its
functions, the Abortion Supervisory Committee fails to have regard to
'the rights of the unborn child.' This criticism ignores the fact that
there is nothing in the Act spelling out what those rights are.” The
Abortion Supervisory Committee, and the committee, it appears, of the
time referred, in evidence of that, to the case of Wall vs
Livingstone, a 1982 Court of Appeal judgement in which, taken out of
context, the court said “it was important not to lose sight of what
must have been a deliberate parliamentary decision – the avoidance of
any attempt to spell out what were to be regarded as the legal rights of
an unborn child, with the consequential absence of any statutory means
by which rights could be enforced.” Now
the implication that the committee took from that, which is quite clear
in its report, was that because the rights of the unborn child were not
defined by the Act, the requirement in the preamble to the Act that
“the authorisation of abortions must have full regard to the rights of
the unborn child” was meaningless. But
when one looks at the Court of Appeal judgement, one seems that it
states nothing of the kind. It cites with approval the lower court
decision by Justice Speight, who said, in describing the general effect
of the legislation: “That Act and the Crimes Act consider not only the
rights of the mother and the need to protect her even against herself,
but also balance them against the 'rights of the unborn child' which in
the course of nature must mean the right to be born.” The committee is
certainly not considering anything of that nature, and I think it should
be sacked. Right
to Life congratulates Murray Smith on his courageous address. We are in
frequent correspondence with Murray and we continue to lobby other
members of the Select Committee in the interests of unborn children and
their mothers. A
C NIELSON SURVEY
In
March 2004 Right to Life commissioned A C Nielson to conduct a national
telephone survey. The survey of 929 respondents had a margin of error of
±3.2%. The
survey was a replica of that commissioned by the society in 1997. The
object of the survey was to establish what is the current support for
the Status of Unborn Children Bill being sponsored by Right to Life. The
results of this survey have been also used in support of lobbying
Parliamentarians. It has also been sent to the Minister of Justice to
indicate strong support in the community for protecting the human rights
of unborn children and to oppose the proposed decriminalising of
abortion. The
survey results are shown in the following two tables.
BALDOCK
LAMENTS INCREASE IN ABORTONS
Media
release 16 June 2004 United
Future MP Larry Baldock today lamented the increase in the number of
abortions in New Zealand – up to 18 510 according to the Abortion
Supervisory Committee – and asked why no one really seems prepared to
do anything serious to prevent the number going up every year. “Of
greater concern is the increase in teenage abortions, and while alcohol
and drugs clearly do play a part in this situation, it is just too easy
for the Family Planning Association to shift the blame to alcohol,”
said Mr Baldock. “How
they have the cheek to ask for more sexual and reproductive health
funding beats me. “It
is time the Government began to direct funding to agencies that are
delivering a better
message to our
young people if we really want to see the statistics turn around. “Encouraging
young girls to practice putting condoms on fake penises in schools is a
failed methodology and we continue year after year to reap the
consequences,” said Mr Baldock. REPEAT ABORTIONS The
Abortion Supervisory Committee has released to this society further
information on repeat abortions. There were 15 501 abortions
reported for 1999. 252 women had their third abortion, while 54 had
their fourth, 17 had their fifth, 6 had their sixth, 1 had her eighth,
and 1 had her ninth abortion. These
disturbing statistics indicate that some women are using an abortion as
a form of birth control. INFORMATION
BOOKLET “CONSIDERING AN ABORTION? WHAT ARE YOU OPTIONS?” The
information booklet was published in 1998 by the Ministry of Health at
the direction of the then Minister Bill English. It was withdrawn on the
direction of the Minister of Health Annette King in 1999, following what
we believe was pressure form the Family Planning Association. The
booklet was then placed on the Ministry's website. Doctors who wished to
give this to patients considering an abortion were invited to download
this eighteen page booklet. In
April this year Right to Life asked the Minister under the Official
Information Act the number of times the booklet had been downloaded. In
May the Minister advised that the document had been downloaded 1437
times for the period 31 October 2003 to 20 April 2004. Prior to October
information was not available due to hardware failure. Right to Life
estimates that the booklet is downloaded about 12 times each working
day. There are an estimated 67 abortions each working day. It is evident
that the majority of women are being deprived of this valuable
information. In May a further letter was
sent to the Minister requesting that the booklet be reprinted and
distributed to the estimated 3000 general practitioners in New Zealand.
Letters were sent to the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) and to the
New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) requesting that they support our
request in the interest of women. Both organisations declined to offer
support. The
Minister replied on 17 June 2004 again refusing to reprint the booklet,
stating that they no longer had copyright for the pictures of the unborn
child and that some of the information is out of date. Right
to Life has again written to the Minister asking under the Official
Information Act specifically what information is out of date and why
then is incorrect information being given to women through the
downloading of the booklet. It
is estimated that it would cost the Ministry of Health $4000 to print 10
000 copies of the booklet. If it saved the life of only one child it
would be well worth it. On
28 June 2004 Right to Life wrote to Gordon Copeland MP United Future. We
requested that in view of the Minister's reply that he take this issue
up with the Minister. On
6 July Gordon Copeland advised our society in writing that five United
Future MPs would write to the Minister on the issues raised by our
society and would seek a meeting with the Honourable Annette King to
seek the republishing of the information booklet to be distributed to
general practitioners. Right to Life is grateful to United Future for
its support and action on this important issue. Action
Please write to the Minister of Health, Parliament Buildings,
Wellington, requesting that this booklet be reprinted in the interest of
mothers and their unborn children. COMPLICATIONS
RESULTING FROM
ABORTION A
submission has been made by Right to Life to the Minister of Health on
the failure of certifying consultants to report all complications
arising at the time of the abortion. We have submitted that all
complications, including those that require readmission to hospital,
should be reported. A
study conducted with the eight District Health Boards (DHBs) where the
majority of abortions are performed suggests considerable
under-reporting of complications. Several DHBs could not provide
information without extensive research. In this era of computerisation
this information should be readily available. The
Waikato DHB advised that for the year 2001 a total of 42 abortion
related complications were recorded. The
Abortion Supervisory Committee advised that only seven of these
complications were reported. International
studies suggest that the immediate complication rate is about 5%. The
ASC receive advice of a complication rate of just 1%. Women considering
an abortion have a right to know of the correct complication rate. We
have requested the Minister to direct DHBs to ensure that all
complications are recorded and reported to the ASC. CARE OF CHILDREN BILL This
Bill has been referred back to Parliament by the Justice and Electoral
Select Committee for its second reading. Right to Life has previously
lobbied all MPs to oppose Section 37. This Section provides for a girl
under the age of 16 years to have an abortion without the knowledge or
consent of her parents or guardians. Right to Life has consistently
proposed parental consent, in conformity with the international pro-life
movement and other pro-life organisations in New Zealand. Right to Life
has also made a written and oral submission to the Select Committee. It
was disappointing that SPUC lobbied Parliament seeking parental
notification. This action unfortunately undermined our society's efforts
to seek a restoration of parental rights. Right to Life wrote to the
National Executive requesting that they reconsider their position and
join with the rest of the pro-life movement in New Zealand in seeking
parental consent. It was again disappointing that SPUC declined to
change their stance. |