Letters to Editor

In response to Dr Margaret Sparrow April issue. Why does Dr Sparrow label those who seek to uphold the sanctity of life ethic and are concerned about womens health as antiabortionists? Dr Sparrow in denying that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer has a vested interest in promoting the killing of unborn children as safe for women. She is after all the accepted spokesperson for the multi million dollar abortion industry.

For many years she was an abortionist and the medical director of the Parkview abortion facility in Wellington where more 2000 unborn babies were killed each year. Dr Sparrow is one of the directors and shareholders of Istar Ltd which was established in August 2000 solely to import and distribute the French abortion pill RU486. For many years she was employed by the New Zealand Family Planning Association the biggest abortion referral agency in New Zealand. She has served on their national executive and was involved in having the highly acclaimed information booklet.

Considering as abortion? What are your options? Produced by the Ministry of Health withdrawn from publication. The withdrawal of this booklet is a further example of withholding important information from women. This booklet advised that there was a possible link between abortion and breast cancer.

Women are entitled to know that in 1970 the World Health Organisation published the results of its study on reproductive experience in relation to the incidence of breast cancer.

This study of more than 17000 women in seven locations on four continents “suggested increased risk associated with abortion” of developing breast cancer.

The first World Conference on Breast Cancer took place in July 1995 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. In 1998 the conference published its Global Action Plan which cited abortions as one of the risk factors for increased estrogens and breast cancer.

The abortion industry knows that if they accept that abortion increase the risk of breast cancer it would deter many women from having an abortion.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Editor

Christchurch Star

Dear Sir,

Dying with Dignity

The question is should we allow voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide.

For two and a half thousand years the medical profession has upheld the traditions of the Hippocratic Oath which reads;

“The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgement, and not for their hurt or any wrong. I 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 1987 the World Medical Association declared “that euthanasia, the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, was unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.”

The New Zealand Medical Association endorsed this declaration as policy and later stated that “a proposed respect for the sanctity of human life is embedded in our law and in our moral philosophy.” It would be in the best interest of our community to support the medical profession in promoting a culture of life. The code of ethics of the New Zealand Medical Association states “Always bear in mind the obligation of preserving life but allow death to occur with dignity and comfort when the death of the body appears to be inevitable.

The medical profession recognises that their role in society is that of a healing profession committed to protecting the life and health of their patients and that a doctor who is prepared to consider killing his patient as a treatment option becomes the most dangerous person in the land.

Why then would Parliament consider amending the Crimes Act dealing with homicide to require doctors to kill their patients or when requested? This would be an arrogant misuse of legislative power to challenge the ethics of the medical profession which in defence of the sanctity of life is steadfastly opposed to euthanasia.

Any debate of euthanasia is particularly disturbing for our elderly living in rest homes for it is cheaper to kill a patient than to care for them. A right to die can quickly become a duty to die.

It should be acknowledged that if Parliament withdrew its legal protection for those over the age of 18 with an incurable disease or those with a terminal condition many others who did not want to die could be killed by their doctor.

The Dutch Governments 1990 Remlink report revealed that there were

25, 306 cases of active euthanasia in Holland nearly 20 per cent of the reported deaths for 1990

Those cases that did not have the patients consent totalled 14, 691. There is a link between euthanaisa and abortion, both come from a culture of death. Society has accepted the killing of unborn children who are deemed to be inconvenient. Is it now going to accept the killing of the incurably ill and terminally ill? With an aging population and long hospital waiting lists where is it going to end?

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand INC

Government's Hidden Agenda and Prostitution Reform Bill

Writen on the 5th March 2003 and published in the Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

Re the 28th February. The Minister of Women's Affairs is promoting the Governments action plan to implement the United Nations Condable objective,nvention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) The plan is to lead the world in women's equality, a comme

The governments fifth report on this convention supports the Prostitution Reform Bill exposing the governments hidden agenda that the Bill is government policy.

If this Bill is passed it will be a major set back. for the status of women in New Zealand. There will be no equality for women while we accept that women are a commodity that can he bought and sold.

It is truly ironic that we have a UN Convention allegedly seeking the elimination of discrimination against women being used by government as an instrument of support for discriminating against women through the decriminalising of Prostitution. Is CEDAW a wolf in sheeps clothing

This letter will not he sent to any other newspaper

Yours, faithfully

Ken Orr

for Right to Life New Zealand

When the Right to Die Become a Duty to Die

Published on the 8th January 2003 in the Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

Re your editorial (January 3), the World Medical Association, in 1987 declared "that euthanasia, the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, was unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness."

The New Zealand Medical Association endorsed this declaration as policy and later stated that " a proposed respect for the sanctity of human life is embedded in our law and in our moral philosophy".

Any debate on euthanasia is particularly disturbing for our elderly living in rest homes. A right to die quickly becomes a duty to die.

The Dutch Government's 1990 Remlink report revealed that were 25,306 cases of active euthanasia in Holland, nearly 20 percent of all reported deaths for 1990.

Those cases that did not have the patients's consent totalled 14,691.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand

No Waiting Lists for Abortions

Published on the 24th January 2003 in the Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

The Canterbury District Health Board advises that there are 7465 people waitng as at December 2002 for an operation at Christchurch or Christchurch Women's Hospitals. This is a 26 percent increase on the 5800 at December 2001.

The board attributes this to a shortage of nurses and beds. In contrast there was no waiting list for the 2290 women offered an abortion by the board's doctors in 2001.

The board advises that for the 2001 year, abortions were provided by the board to 536 women who came from outside the board's area, where boards with the support of their community refuse to provide an abortion service. Seventy-three of these women were hospitalised and had abortions at Christchurch Women's Hospital.

The community has a right to know why, our scarce health resources are being spent on making Christchurch the abortion centre for the South Island.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand

NZ Government Funding Organisation that Supports Forced Abortion and Steralisation

Published on the 19th December 2002 in the Christchurch Press

Dear sir,

Shoud New Zealand fund human rights violations? The United States found that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) had supported forced abortions in China (December18) and the forced steralisations of Peruvian women. This is a massive violation of human rights. The US government subsequently cancelled a $34 million annual grant to UNFPA.

This year our Government has given through NZ Aid, $2.2 million to UNFPA with the mission to eliminate poverty. We will not eliminate poverty by killing the children of the poor.

As these violations were a matter of public record in May, why did the government make an additional payment of $400,000 in July this year.

It is abhorrent that the government is funding the violation of human rights with our taxes. It shoud cease all future funding of UNFPA.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand

Right of Doctors to Retain Right to Refuse to do Abortions

Published on the 14th December 2002 in the Christchurch Press

Dear sir,

Doctors and nurses who reject abortions (December12) are to be congratulated. They, not the abortionists, are being true to their time-honoured Hippocratic oath.

Doctors and nurses should retain the right to refuse abortions on ethical grounds through the Contraception, Steralisation and Abortion Act of 1977. Doctores and nurses need to unite on this issue, especially if legislative changes are on the agenda of pro-abortion MP's.

Your report inaccurately states that the district health boards have legal obligations to ensure women have access to abortion servicess. DHP's are under no legal obligation whatsoever.

Dr Rothwell of the Abortion Supervisory Committtee stated in the report that she could not explain the growing reluctance of doctors and nurses rejecting abortion. The answer is obvious. Taking the life on an unborn child can neve be part of the mainstream medical service of health providers.

Peter Coleman

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand

Privacy of Unborn Child Protected in Pornographic Movie Case

Published on the 29th of October 2002 in the Christchurch Press

Dear sir,

The Minister of Health, 15^th October 2002, is to be commended for making “a moral judgment” in banning the planned filming in a public hospital of a woman giving birth for a pornographic movie.

The minister’s decision raises many important issues. Her decision to protect the right to privacy of the unborn child is implicit recognition of the humanity of the child and its endowment by it’s creator with human rights. If the child has a right to privacy it also has an inalienable right to life, the foundation of all our human rights.

Abortions generally performed in public hospitals represent the ultimate violation of the right to life of unborn children. We fervently hope that the minister will continue and extend her commendable desire to protect the rights of unborn children.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Coleman

(Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand Inc.)

Life Begins At Implantation According to Family Planning

Published on the 31st of July 2002 in the Christchurch Press.

Dear Sir/Madame

Life begins at implantation. Is this true or false? Dr Susan Bagshaw of the New Zealand Family Planning Association and founder of a youth health centre in Christchurch publicly stated in a radio talk back show (27th February 2002) that life begins at implantation of the fertilised egg. This position is in line with public statements made by their parent body International Planned Parenthood Federation. This stance represents a serious and misleading shift in the definition of when life begins. Many scientists acknowledge that at conception the sperm enters the egg and a new life is formed. All the genetic information is contained in a complete set of human chromosomes. Right to Life New Zealand Inc. took this matter seriously and wrote first to the radio station and then to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) as an issue regarding truth and factual accuracy. Our complaint was rejected by the BSA.

Peter Coleman (Spokesperson)

Right To Life New Zealand Inc

Euthanasia

23rd April 2002

The Editor

The Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

The Press editorial of 23rd April states that when a doctor provides palliative care to control pain and knows that a secondary inintended effect will be to shorten the life of the patient it is a semantic nciety to regard this as euthanasia.

Such statements ar incorrect and confuse the debate. There is a clear distinction between palliative care, which belongs in a culture of life, and euthanasia the intended killing of a patient, which belongs in a culture of death.

This statement brings palliative care and those noble doctors and nurses who generously provide it into disrepute.

The Press appears to approve of those doctors who admit to unlawfully and unethically administering drugs with the interntion of killing their patients.

Doctors who believe they have the right to decide who will live and die are the most dangerous men in the land.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Orr (Spokesperson RTLNZ)

Formal Complaint

28th March 2002

Mr. Russell Hubber

Team Leader

News Talk ZB

Dear Mr. Hubber,

Our society wishes to lodge a formal complaint against statements made by Dr Sue Bagshaw of the New Zealand Family Planning Association in an interview on News Talk ZB at 8.30 am on 27 February 2002.

Dr Bagshaw stated that human life began at the implantation of the human embryo in a woman's womb and not at conception.

The Broadcasting Act 1989 requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with: balance, fairness and accuracy.

Dr Bagshaw's statements were inaccurate and contrary to accepted medical knowledge. The Royal Commission on Contraception, Steralisation and Abortion in its report to Parliament in 1977 stated: "From a biological point of view there is no argument as to when life begins. Evidence was given to us by eminent scientists from all over the world. None of them suggested that human life begins at any time other than conception:"

Dr Bagshaw's statements are both inaccurate and dangerous. As a medical practitioner and spokesperson for the Family Planning Association her statements have a perceived authority that would seriously mislead those listening to the programme that she was upholding accepted biological knowledge.

Dr Bagshaw's statements undermine the respect that is due to the human embryo from conception.

This is a very important issue and we trust that in the interest of the common good you will give earnest consideration to this complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

For Executive

News Talk ZB Reply

Mr Ken Orr

Right to Life New Zealand Inc

PO Box 668

Christchurch

Dear Mr Orr,

I handle formal complaints for the Radio Network and yours has been passed to me for action.

Because of the time lapse in receiving your complaint there is no tape available of the broadcast.

However we have been back to Dr Bagshaw and she says categorically, "I am always extremely careful when discussing this issue and remember clearly stating, 'there are some who believe that life begins when the sperm enters the egg but at present life begins when the fertilised egg attaches itself to the lining of the uterus'. "

In the wider discussion during the interview that morning (a story about the Ministry of Health making the morning after pill, Psotinor, more readily available for women), Dr. Bagshaw goes on to state "contraception is before implantation, abortion is after it."

Dr Bagshaw is the Medical Training Co-ordinator for the Family Planning Association and is highly respected nationally for her experience, knowledge and expertise in the area of women's sexual health.

Under Principle 6 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice Dr. Bagshaw has made a number of factual statements consistent with Family Planning Policy.

The issue you raise appears to be when conception takes place.

It is acknowledged there are varied opinions on this point.

Family Planning is a recognised leader in reproductive health and we are satisfied that Dr. Bagshaw's comments were well founded.

Your complaint is not upheld.

If you are dissatisfied with the decision you have the right to take this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority within 20 days.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Francis

Manager

Newstalk ZB & Radio Sport

NZFPA Director "Honoured"

Dr Sue Bagshaw, clinical director of the New Zealand Family Planning Association (NZFPA) has been honoured in the New Year honours. Dr Bagshaw has been made a companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to youth health.

In honouring Dr Bagshaw, the government is in fact honouring the NZFPA. In view of the damage done in our community by the NZFPA, such an hounour is scandalous and outrageous, and an endorsement of the culture of death.

The NZFPA is opposed to the legal protection for the unborn child and believes that it is a woman's right to choose to have her child killed before birth.

The NZFPA is the largest abortion provider in New Zealand, it encourages girls under the age of 16 to have and abortion without the knowledge or consent of parents.

The Association also supports those under the age of 16 being provided with contraceptives without the knowledge or consent of parents, it also promotes promiscuity and sex outside of marriage with its failed programme of so called "safe sex:" with condoms.

We should not forget that it was Dr Gill Greer, executive director of the NZFPA who publicly stated, "it is exciting to see that 70 percent of young women had used condoms by the age of 20.

The Association promotion of women's rights is a sham. The NZFPA supports China's one child family policy with compulsory abortions and sterilisations.

Today we live in an age when the works of darkness are applauded as virtue and honoured.

The NZFPA is a great threat to the family, the unborn, and to youth health. The Association should be recognised as a part of the culture of death.

Abortion Photos

Australian Capital Territory (ACT) women considering an abortion will no longer be required to view pictures of dead babies killed in abortions. The chief Minister Ian Stanhope said that making women look at these pictures was unnecessary, insensitive and patronising.

"Women in these situations may already be under enormous emotional stress and they do not deserve to be subjected to further pressure." Regulations created in 1999 under the territory's Maternal Health and Information Act made it mandatory for women to view pictures before they had an abortion.. The actions of the Chief Minister are a violation of the right of women to be fully informed before making a decision that would result in the taking of the life of an unborn child.

Viewing pictures of a dismembered child killed in an abortion would be painful and stressful, however it is essential to being fully informed. This information could deter a women from an abortion and a lifetime of regret and suffering.

Sadly in New Zealand, there is not requirement to show such pictures to women as part of "informed consent." Pictures showing the development of a child in the womb are also not now shown to women except on request.

A previous Minister of Health, Bill English was responsible for producing an excellent information booklet for women in spite of strong opposition from Ministry of Health officials. The booklet contained accurate photographs of foetal development and was widely acclaimed by women and doctors.

The Family Planning Association, the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand strongly objected to the photographs and refused to give the booklet to women. The Association was successful in having the booklet withdrawn.

In Australia as in New Zealand, the Police promote TV advertising to reduce the road toll of injury and death. Frequently this advertising depicts graphic and dramatic scenes of children killed in horrific motor vehicle accidents showing the consequences of alcohol and speed.

Abortion kills children, why then is there a reluctance to show the consequences of abortion - a dead child?

Yours faithfully,

Ken Orr

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Surrogacy

The intention of the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction to approve an application for a sister to be a surrogate mother for her brother is unethical.

God the Lord of life has entrusted to us the whole mission of safeguarding life, and we must carry it out in a manner worthy of ourselves.

Surrogacy violates the human rights of the child and parents. Every child has the right to be conceived in its mother's womb and to receive the protection, nourishment and love of the mother. The child also has a right to bond with its mother.

The committee is unwise to challenge community standards by approving this surrogate arrangement, which has overtones of incest.

How does the committee propose to prevent the commercial exploitation of surrogacy? If surrogacy is approved we could ultimately end up with wombs for hire.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Orr

Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Unpublished Letters

These letters were sent to newspapers for publication as "Letters to the Editor" but were not published.

Phil Vincent and Euthanasia

The Editor

Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

Phil Vincent was recently quoted as saying that voluntary euthanasia proponents are fighting a battle similar to those fought by early advocates of ‘legal’ abortion. But perhaps if Mr Vincent is going to make this comparison then we should also look at what happened rapidly following the passing of the CS& A Act in 1977. Through a small ‘mental health’ clause legal loophole, an ever- increasing number of our New Zealand unborn children’s lives (over 16,000 in 2002) have slipped.

If society can condone the mass destruction of human life at one end of the spectrum through an aberration in law, then what hope really is there to expect we shall be protected from similar destruction at the other. Indeed one only needs to look at the ‘enlightened’ country of the Netherlands. As early as 1990, well prior to the legalisation of euthanasia there, thirty percent of all euthanasia cases were involuntary.

Yours sincerely,

Chris O’Brien

19 February 2003

The Editor

The Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

Abortion Pill

Diana Edwards 16 Feb claims that Mifegyme RU486 provides "an important option for some women" and is less traumatic. Ile option now is a chernical abortion that entails the starvation of the child or a surgical abortion that entails the painful dismembermernt of the child.

Edouard Sakiz then chairman of Roussel Uclaf the company that developed RU486 stated that using RU486 "was an appalling psychological ordeal." A chemical abortion is administered by the woman to herself, she alone accepts responsibility and guilt for the death of her child.

RU486 is also unsafe for women, a clinical trial in the USA resulted in one woman losing half her blood volume and required a blood transfusion to save her life. The American Federal Drug Agency reports the death of three women using RU486.

RU486 is chemical warfare against our unborn children, women deserve real options that will protect both mother and child,

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

10 October 2002

The Editor Christchurch Press

Smacking and Child Violence

Right to Life is opposed to violence against all children both born and unborn.

Cabinet will soon consider whether parents have a right to smack their children.

One of the options is to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act which acknowledges parents right to smack their children.

This option has the support of the Hon. Steve Maharey, Minister of Social Services.

The government is to be commended in seeking to combat violence against children. But is a loving gentle parental smack violence?

The government is displaying a great inconsistency in its treatment of children.

How can Mr Maharey and the government be concerned about the smacking of children by parents and yet readily accept and legally sanction and fund the violent deaths by abortion of more than 16,400 unborn children each year.

The unfortunate message the government is in danger of giving to the community is that mothers have a right to kill their children before birth but after birth do not have a right to smack them.

The government in considering its plan for giving children a better future should include both born and unborn children.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

The Editor Christchurch Press

11 September 2002

Designer Babies - Eugenics

The revelation in the Sunday Star Times of the birth of New Zealand's first designer baby is disturbing. It is also disclosed that the Ministry of Health is developing ethical guidelines for use in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The rules will also cover selecting embryos to create &, saviour siblings" to donate healthy organs to help siblings with existing diseases.

These proposals are a violation of the human rights of the embryo. Human life begins at conception and each human being is endowed by God at conception with human rights among which is the right to life. Our human rights are not conferred by Parliament or by any ethics committee.

The proposals are a further step on the slippery slope and one other example of eugenics, with the proposition that only the fit have a right to life. This is situation ethics where the end justifies the means and it is contrary to the sanctity of life ethic, which recognises the dignity, and worth of every human being.

It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for the human rights of every human being from conception. At present there is no legislation providing legal protection for the human embryo. This is an intolerable situation and deeply disturbing to many in the community.

A Private Members Bill on assisted human reproduction has been with a select committee since 1995. This Bill would outlaw sex selection and cloning. It is time that the Government accepted' responsibility for protecting the human embryo by bringing this legislation to Parliament.

The treatment and cure of disabling genetic disorders should be the objective of good medicine not the elimination of the disorder by killing the patient or embryo. The birth of the child featured in the Sunday Star Times entailed the fertilization of ten other embryos. One was destroyed and the remainder stored and frozen for possible use. This is a violation of the human rights of these embryos. They have a right to life and a right not to be frozen.

There are currently more than 3000 human embryos stored and frozen in fertility clinics in New Zealand. Many will be experimented on and destroyed. This is an inhuman way to treat human beings who are the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family.

When we lose respect for any section of humanity we lose respect for all.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Spokesman

Family Planning Association Supports Prostitution Reform Bill

Aug 2002

The Editor The Christchurch Press

Dear Sir,

It is disappointing that the Family Planning Association (FPA) supports the controversial Prostitution Reform Bill. Dr Susan Bagshaw, Association spokesperson (10 Aug) states " I will be interested to see whether protecting people is more important than principle." Dr Bagshaw, the principle is that women are not for sale. Why does the FPA accept that women should be permitted to be bought and sold. The current legislation provides protection for young women being exploited by prostitution. It is a criminal offence to conduct a brothel for the purposes of prostitution . It is also a criminal offense to live off the earnings of prostitutes. Prostitution is incompatible with the intrinsic dignity and worth of women. It endangers the welfare of women, the family and the community. Why then does the FPA support the establishment of brothels and the decriminalisation of prostitution?

Right to Life New Zealand

The Editor The Christchurch Press

23^rd April 2002

Euthanasia and Palliative Care

Dear Sir

The Press editorial of 23rd April states that when a doctor provides care to control pain and knows that a secondary unintended effect will be to shorten the life of the patient it is a semantic nicety not to regard this as euthanasia.

Such statements are incorrect and confuse the debate. There is a cleat distinction between palliative care, which belongs in a culture of life and euthanasia the intended killing of a patient, which belongs in a culture of death.

This statement brings palliative care and those noble doctors and nurses who generously provide it into disrepute.

The Press appears to approve of those doctors who admit to unlawfully and unethically administer drugs with the intention of killing the patients.

Doctors who believe that they have the right to decide who will live and die are the most dangerous men in the land.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand INC.

The Editor The Christchurch Press

14th April 2002

The Case Against Prostitution

Dear Sir

In reply to Catherine Healy 2^nd April. The Swedish response to prostitution is not ludicrous, it was the result of women campaigning to reinstall a taboo, "men should never be able to buy women." Over forty percent of the Swedish parliament are women who see prostitution as the sexual oppression of women.

New Zealand should follow the Swedish laws which makes it an offence to purchase prostitution. It would give the message that women are not for sale.

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare reporting on the new law stated the police and social services supported the legislation. An opinion poll revealed that 84 percent of Swedes supported the law.

Street prostitution has decreased by fifty percent and the Swedish police maintain that the majority of these women have not moved into hidden prostitution.

The decriminalising of prostitution will institutionalise the sexual abuse of women.

Yours faithfull

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand Inc,

The Editor The Christchurch Press

10^th January 02

Remains of Unborn Children Treated as Disposable Waste

Dear Sir

The story of Father Frische a Northland Catholic Priest working in a morgue at ground zero is a touching testimony of the sanctity of all human life.

He said he has "watched the medical examiners handle the body parts as they try to find out what it is. This is done with such reverence. Even a small part of bone ... wonderful respect because it is a person."

It is disappointing that the Canterbury District Health Board does not follow this example when dealing with the human remains of children aborted at Lyndhurst and Christchurch Women's hospital. They are treated as medical waste and incinerated as disposable rubbish.

Unborn children are also members of the human family and should be treated with respect in life and in death.

It is understood that at the Wellington hospital foetal remains are cremated by an undertaker and respectfully dispersed at a cemetery.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Editor The Christchurch Press

21^st December 01

Breast Cancer Abortion Link

Dear Sir,

More than 600 women die each year from breast cancer in New Zealand, why are women not being told of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

In the first study of its kind in Britain, researches said the risk of breast cancer is significantly increased if a woman has undergone an abortion.

The study, which looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain, Finland and Sweden draws a direct link between abortion and breast cancer.

The research, by the Populations and Pensions Research Institute, an independent group of statisticians suggests that up to fifty percent of breast cancer cases in England and Wales over he next 26 years will be "attributable to abortion."

A surge in levels of the hormone oestrogen in the first three months of pregnancy by around 2000 percent is the most likely mechanism for increasing risk in women who subsequently undergo an abortion.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand

The Editor The Christchurch Press

25^th October 2001

Istar Ltd Seeks to Use Taxpayer Money to fund RU 486 Court Action

Dear Sir,

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) are wasting tax payers money. The committee has filed proceedings in the High Court to clarify legislation for the use of the abortion pill RU 486. To establish whether or not women using the Pill are required to stay in the hospital or clinic until the dead baby is expelled. The committee is making this application on behalf of Istar Ltd, the company importing and distributing RU 486.

This application has important implications for the care and healing of women undergoing a chemical abortion. The committee previously sought an opinion from a Queens Counsel who confirmed the law, that abortions are required to be performed in a licensed institution.

If Istar Ltd wants to contest the law to promote their business they should meet the cost of court action not the taxpayer

Yours faithfully,

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand