|
RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND
Recent Right to Life New Zealand Outwards Correspondence (Postings made regularly) DHB may not renew Abortion Licence Our October 6th letter to MOH Media Releases and Opinion Pieces
New
Zealand Right to Life Wins Court Ruling on 1977 Abortion Law
Right
to Life New Zealand wins ruling in court (The
Christchurch Press)
DHB May not apply for renewal of Abortion Licence District Health Board Elections Coerced Abortions – A Violation of Human Rights RTL calls for the NZ Education Review Office (ERO) to stop telling our children lies concerning 'Safe Sex' Aug 26th 2007 Peter Dunne, A Catholic, Votes to replace ASC Committee member with Abortionist NZ's Appalling MP Voting Record on Appointments to Abortion Supervisory Committee Abortion Supervisory Committee Appointments and Conflict of Interest RTLNZ Media Release on High Court's Ruling to Strike Out Evidence of Women Damaged By Abortion Right to Life on Amnesty International's betrayal of the Unborn Child May 15th 2007 RTLNZ letter to Time Magazine on US Supreme Court Decision to Ban Partial Birth Abortion 2nd May 2007 Right to Life is disappointed that the proposed United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities excludes protection for the human rights of unborn children with disabilities Sep 4th 2006 (published Scoop) Ministry of Health Funding $8000 towards private abortion providers conference is a scandalous waste of taxpayers money Aug 20th 2006 Operation Outcry to Visit New Zealand in November 06 Click Here for details Aug 15th 2006 The projects were born when two women used to legalize abortion in the U.S. came to Mr. Parker, and asked for help to overturn their landmark cases. Being a man of God, he prayed and was led to a scripture that confirmed what he was called to do. As the project grew and the call became louder, Operation Outcry was formed. It is our intent to end legal abortion by exposing the truth about its devastating impact on women and families. We believe that this will be accomplished through prayer and with the testimonies of mothers who have taken the life of their own unborn babies and of others who have suffered harm from abortion. We are working to restore justice and to protect women, men and children from the destruction that abortion causes Submisssion by Right to Life New Zealand to the Ministry of Health on Guidelines on the Use of Human Tissue for Future Unspecified Research Purposes August 12th 2006 Abortion Certifying Consultants Fees July 19th 2006 Funding of International Abortion Agencies is of Concern to RTNZ June 14th 2006 ` Abortion Supervisory Committee Appointments National Media Release 29th April 2006 Is Abortion a Health Issue? Article Submitte to Chritchurch Press in response to Press Editorial 23rd Jan 2006 Decriminalisation of Abortion 11th Sep 2005 Media Release on New Zealand Medical Association's Call for Reveiw of Euthanaisa Policy 17th July 2005 Statistics New Zealand Latest 2004 New Zealand Abortion Figures Right to Life New Zealand High Court Action Against Abortion Supervisory Committee 6th June 2005 Government's Vulagar Hubba Rubber Campaign Media Release 23rd May 2005 Letter to Minister of Health Regarding Hut Valley DHB decision not to renew Abortion Licence 6 October 2007 Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Health, Parliament, Wellington.
Dear Mr Hodgson It is noted that the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, provides that District Health Boards [DHBs]may under section 20 of the Act apply for an annual licence to perform abortions in an institution under the control of the Board. A board may therefore if it chooses decline from performing abortions and applying for a license. It is understood that several DHBs have resolved not to apply for a licence. Recently the Hutt Valley DHB choose not to renew their abortion licence. I wish to request under the Official Information Act copies of any correspondence between the Ministry of Health and the Hutt Valley DHB specifically on the subject of the abortion licence. I would be grateful if you would advise if members appointed to DHBs by you as Minister are given instructions to support the Board in choosing and retaining an abortion license. Yours sincerely
Ken Orr For executive
17 September 2007 Media Release District Health Board – Elections We all have a duty to defend life, promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death. Citizens voting in this year’s election of members to their District Health Boards [DHBs] have a serious moral obligation to vote only for candidates who are publicly committed to upholding the sanctity of life ethic and are opposed to the killing of unborn children. Statistics New Zealand has advised that 17930 unborn children were killed in New Zealand in 2006. The great majority of these abortions were performed in Public Hospitals under the control of DHBs. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, provides for DHBs to apply to the Abortion Supervisory Committee if they wish to have an annual licence to perform abortions. There is no legal duty for a DHB to hold a licence and they may, if they wish, choose not to perform abortions. There are several DHBs that have chosen not to seek a licence to perform abortions. Hospitals should be places that uphold the sanctity of life ethic. Respect for the inalienable right to life of every patient should be the guiding ethic that governs the practice of medicine. Unborn children are also patients. They are the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family and deserve special legal protection of their human rights. It is appalling that the government sanctions and funds the killing of innocent and defenceless children in their mother’s wombs. We can be unwitting accomplices to this killing if we vote for persons to our DHB who are committed to continuing this silent holocaust. Right to Life has written to all candidates seeking election to the following DHBs; Auckland, Waikato, Capital Coast, Canterbury and Otago. The great majority of abortions are performed at hospitals controlled by these DHBs. A questionnaire was also sent concerning the sanctity of life ethic and abortion. The results of this important survey will be displayed on our Society’s web site: www.right-to-life.org On behalf of our unborn children and their mothers, please vote only for candidates who are prepared to uphold the sanctity of life ethic and who are opposed to the killing of our unborn children.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. Media Release 26 August 2007 RTL
calls for the NZ Education Review Office (ERO) to stop telling our
children lies concerning 'Safe Sex' Right to Life is disappointed that the recent Education Review Office [ERO] report on sexuality education failed to evaluate the effectiveness of the current education programme. What are the results of decades of comprehensive sex education in schools? New Zealand has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies in the OECD and an increasing rate of teenage abortions. We also have an alarming and escalating epidemic in sexually transmitted diseases, [STDs]. ERO states that the stated objective of the review was; · Reduce the number of teenagers with sexually transmitted infections. · Reduce the rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies; and Improve the ability of teenagers to avoid and/or deal effectively with coercive and other abusive practices. Right to Life requests that the ERO produce the evidence that proves that the teaching of comprehensive sex education in our schools achieves these objectives. The ERO report states; that “New Zealand research shows that many teenagers have incomplete or inaccurate knowledge about safe sex practices.” “Safe sex”is a pernicious, false and dangerous lie. Why does ERO continue to promote to our youth this immoral falsehood. The official line that “Safe Sex” is effective, is sending a message that is actually endangering the health of our young people. Morally it promotes fornication and it is also an attack on the dignity of our God given sexuality? The review reveals that of the 100 schools studied, 30 per cent were implementing the Ministry of Education, programme, Curriculum in Action, and 18 per cent were using resources provided by Family Planning officers. Both of these resources promote comprehensive sex education and “safe sex” with condoms. The review states that “...programmes should treat delaying sexual intercourse as a priority, but should also focus on safe sexual practices.” Stop telling our children lies. Our children deserve the truth. The only safe sex is abstinence. The time has now come for ERO, the Ministries of Education, Health and Women’s Affairs, to stop promoting a culture of death with its false “Safe Sex” message. Failed comprehensive sex education, as promoted by the Ministries of Education and Family Planning should be withdrawn and replaced with successful abstinence based programmes that will result in a decline in teenage pregnancies, abortions and STDs and promote happy and healthy teenagers. Ken Orr Spokesperson Right to Life New Zealand Inc Phone 03 3856111 1 August 2007 Media Release Child Abuse Our community is outraged at the horrific child abuse of Rotorua three year old, Nia Glassie sustained at the hands of her family. To our countries shame New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the OECD. The Government’s response is focussed on the launch in September of a $14 million education campaign of action to prevent child abuse. The campaign is welcomed as a positive step; however it is doomed to failure. As a society are we really concerned about preventing violence against our children? We are suffering from moral blindness for we are concerned about protecting born children from violence, but not unborn children. If we lose respect for the child in the womb, it is natural that we should lose respect for the born child. Unborn children are the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family. Should we be surprised that if we allow the killing of unborn children by abortion, it would follow that there is also going to be violence against born children? Studies conducted overseas reveal that there is a link between abortion and subsequent violence against children by women who have had an abortion. It is inappropriate for the Government to claim the high moral ground. The Prime Minister expresses indignation at the violence against Nia Glassie, by protesting at “....those who frankly are maiming and killing our children.” It is to our nation’s undying shame that our Government sanctions and funds violence against innocent and defenceless children in their mother’s womb. In 2006 the Labour led Government spent more than $23 million to fund the killing of 17,930 unborn children. The abortion industry is part of a culture of death that has brutalised and desensitised our nation. Each day in New Zealand we kill the equivalent of two classrooms of children. We urgently need to build up a culture of life where all children both born and unborn are valued and protected from violence. We weep for our children, James Whakaruru, “Lillybing,” Coral Burrows, the Kahui twins who were murdered and the countless thousands of unnamed children whose lives are terminated in our Public Hospitals. If as a nation we wish to protect all of our children from violence, then we need to give legal recognition to the status of unborn children as human beings endowed by their Creator with human rights, based on an inalienable right to life. Are we prepared to accept this challenge? Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
17 July 2007 Media Release Peter Dunne, A Catholic, Votes to replace Abortion Supervisory Committee member with Abortionist Right To Life New Zealand is disappointed that the Hon Peter Dunne, leader of United Future voted on the 15 June to support the appointment of Dr Rosemary Fenwicke an abortionist to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC]. His vote is highly significant as United Future is promoted as the party that upholds the family as the foundation of a sound society. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. At conception the child is endowed by God with an inalienable right to life. The child because of its helplessness is entitled to effective legal protection both before and after birth. The Minister of Justice moved that Dr R. Fenwicke and Patricia Allen be appointed as members of the Committee and that Professor Linda Holloway be appointed chairman. Mr Copeland moved that Dr Ate Moala, a highly respected Tongan medical practitioner be appointed in preference to Dr Fenwicke. The Hon Peter Dunne voted against this amendment. He subsequently voted to support the Minister’s motion. We all have a duty to defend life, to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death. Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is an abortion certifying consultant, she is also an operating surgeon employed at the Level J abortion facility at the Wellington Hospital. She has been terminating the lives of unborn children since at least 1989. During this period she has probably been personally responsible for killing several thousand innocent and defenceless unborn children. Dr Fenwicke is a certifying consultant appointed by the ASC, how can she be a member of the Committee that appoints and supervisors her? Her appointment creates an intolerable conflict of interest. Right to Life sought an explanation from the Hon Peter Dunne as to the reasons for his voting on this very important issue. He ignored the conflict of interest and replied; ” The presumption that Parliament has always operated on when making appointments to the ASC is that one of the three appointees will be neutral, one is likely to be “pro-choice, and one is likely to be “pro-life”. In this instance Dr Fenwicke was seen as the “pro-choice “nominee, while as I understand it Dr Moala was a “pro-life” nominee, therefore to replace Dr Fenwicke with Dr Moala would have been to upset the accepted balance of the Committee. I did not think this was warranted....” Right to Life believes that there is no such convention and is unaware of a Labour led government ever nominating a person acceptable to the pro-life movement to the Committee. It is disappointing that Peter Dunne failed in this critical vote to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death.
Ken Orr Spokesperson
Appointments Abortion Supervisory Committee Thursday 14 June 2007 A personal vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington”, and substituting the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”. Ayes 36
Noes 81
Amendment not agreed to. A personal vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch”, and substituting the words “Dr Peter Hall of Whangaparāoa”. Ayes 29
Noes 76
Amendment not agreed to. A personal vote was called for on the question, That pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway DCNZM of Dunedin, Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington, and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch, as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. Ayes 102
Noes 11
Abstentions 5
Motion agreed to. MEDIA RELEASE Abortion Supervisory Committee – Conflict Of Interest 15 June 2007 Right to Life New Zealand is concerned at the considerable conflict of interest that has arisen with the recommendation of Parliament that Dr Rosemary Fenwicke be appointed by the Governor General to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC]. Dr Fenwicke is a certifying consultant appointed by the ASC, she is also an operating surgeon employed at the Level J abortion facility at the Wellington Public Hospital to perform abortions. The lives of 2882 unborn children were terminated at that facility in 2005.We have abortion on demand, with 98 per cent of abortions being authorised on mental health grounds. It is believed that these abortions are for socio- economic reasons masquerading as psychiatric. Abortion on demand and for socio-economic reasons is unlawful. Dr Fenwicke is a prominent member of a small group of doctors who support and provide a regime of pseudo-lawful abortions in New Zealand. This is a violation of the rights of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. The ASC is a supervisory committee that is required to supervise the abortion industry and to uphold the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act [CS&A Act], and the Crimes Act. The purpose of the CS&A Act is found in the long title of that Act. It states...to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of unborn children. Dr Fenwicke is part of the abortion industry that has little regard for the rights of unborn children. How can she now uphold the rights of unborn children and require fellow consultants to be accountable for the lawfulness of abortions that they authorise? This is an unacceptable conflict of interest. Dr Fenwicke was previously employed by the Family Planning Association [FPA]. The FPA is the largest abortion referral agency in New Zealand. The FPA have a policy to employ only doctors who accept that the decision of a woman to have an abortion is one for the woman and a doctor to decide. This policy supports abortion on demand and is in conflict with the law. FPA also support the decriminalisation of abortion. This policy would remove all legal protection for the rights of unborn children. It is assumed that Dr Fenwicke supports these policies. How then can Dr Fenwicke uphold the current legislation that recognises the right to life of unborn children when she believes that abortion should be decriminalised and that legal protection for unborn children should be withdrawn? The appointment of Dr Fenwicke to the ASC entails an unacceptable conflict of interest; it is a sad day for unborn children and their mothers. Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc
RTLNZ Media Release on High Court Decision To Strike Out Evidence of Women Damaged By Abortion 29 May 2007
Media Release
Right to Life – High Court Proceedings
A Justice in the High Court has struck out the evidence of six women who have given evidence of the alleged inadequacy of abortion counselling and the damage done to their mental health as a result of the abortion. Their evidence was judged to be irrelevant and inadmissible. Right to Life is disappointed with the judgment.
The judgment followed an Interlocutory application made by the Crown for a review of the judgment of Associate Judge Gendall given on 21 December 2006. Judge Gendall had held that the evidence of the six women was relevant to the statement of claim filed with the Court by Right to Life against the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The claim alleged that the Committee had failed to fulfil its statutory duties by ensuring that full regard is given to the human rights of unborn children, by ensuring that certifying consultants are held accountable for the abortions that they authorise and to stop abortion on demand. It is also alleged that the Committee had also failed to protect the health and safety of women by ensuring that women considering an abortion are informed of the development and humanity of their child and the serious potential damage to their physical and mental health, resulting from abortion. The application for the review was heard by Justice Ronald Young on 17 May 2007. The Justice notes in his judgment that by making this ruling the case of the plaintiff, Right to Life will not be fatally wounded as many of the allegations of the Committee’s failure to fulfil its statutory duties relies upon statements made by the Committee and from research publications.
The judgment also struck out part of the evidence of Right to Life’s expert witness, a specialist consulting Psychiatrist. Right to Life is pleased that the Court has accepted a transcript of evidence given by this expert witness at the District Court in Christchurch in March 1993. In this evidence she stated that there were no psychiatric indications for abortion. She also stated that doctors who authorised abortions on mental health grounds were misusing psychiatry.
It is the firm commitment of Right to Life to continue to work on behalf of women and their unborn to bring these important proceedings to a successful conclusion. It is noted that since the 1 March 2007 that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has no person appointed. The legislation provides for three persons to serve on the Committee, two of whom must be medical practitioners. The members are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. One member resigned in March 2005 and has not been replaced. The two remaining members resigned on 1 March 2007.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
New Zealand Government Failing to Uphold the Rule of Law 25 May 2007. Media Release In a Parliamentary democracy it is imperative that the government uphold the rule of law. The protection of our democracy requires constant vigilance. The government is currently undermining the rule of law by failing to ensure that appointments are made to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. Marlene Lamb resigned from the Committee in March 2005. Dr Lesley Rothwell, chairperson and Dr Paparangi Reid resigned in March 2007 from the Committee after giving three months notice.
The Committee serves an important function in the legislative framework governing the performance of abortions in New Zealand. The long title of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, states.....to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child. Right to Life has for many years been lobbying government for the removal of the members of this Committee to be replaced with members who will ensure that the rights of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family are given full regard, that certifying consultants are made accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions that they authorise and that abortion on demand is stopped. The Committee has also failed to protect the health and welfare of women by ensuring that women considering an abortion are fully informed of alternatives to abortion such as adoption. The Committee has also failed to provide women with information on the humanity of their unborn child, its development and the serious potential damage to the physical and mental health resulting from abortion. Right to Life filed a mandamus with the High Court in Wellington in 2005 against the Abortion Supervisory Committee for failing to fulfil its statutory duties. Theses important proceedings on behalf of women and their unborn children will continue.
This is an important constitutional issue; it raises a number of serious questions;
The Committee is appointed in terms of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. It is accountable directly to Parliament. Appointments are made for a three year term by the Governor-General on the recommendation of Parliament. Members who wish to resign from the Committee may do so by written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker the Hon. Margaret Wilson was advised of these two resignations in December 2006. The Speaker had a serious duty to advise the House on its first sitting day, nearly six months have elapsed, why has the Speaker not advised the House. This failure to act is contempt of Parliament and the community. The Speaker also had a duty to advise the Minister of Justice of the resignations. Did she do so and if so when did she inform him? The Act requires the Minister of Justice to bring nominations for vacancies on the Committee to Parliament for debate and resolution, The three year appointments of Dr Rothwell and Dr Reid expired in August 2004. Why did The Minister not bring nominations to Parliament in 2005? Why too has he not acted promptly to fill the vacancies made by these resignations? Because of the Minister’s inaction we now have a legal crisis caused by a non functioning Committee. It is appropriate to ask the Minister is he planning to bring amending legislation to Parliament seeking to remove the Committee from the Act?
There is now a serious challenge to the lawfulness of abortions in New Zealand. The Act requires that abortions be authorised by two certifying consultants. These consultants are appointed and issued with a licence by the Committee. Appointments are for one year and are required to be renewed each year. It is probable that there are many certifying consultants whose licence has expired. They may no longer legally authorise abortions. Abortions authorised by these doctors are unlawful. Has the Tribunals Division of the Justice Department advised these doctors that they may no longer authorise abortions? Certifying consultants receive from the Justice Department $135 for each abortion consultation. Are these doctors still claiming and been paid this fee?
Section 18, of the Act, Restrictions on where abortions may be performed,[1] states ; Subject to the provisions of this Act, no abortion may be performed elsewhere than in an institution licensed for the purpose in accordance with the Act. Licences are granted by the Committee for a period of one year commencing on the date that they are issued and then expire. There are probably a number of previously licensed facilities whose licence has now expired. Any abortions performed in these facilities are now unlawful. Has the Minister of Justice written to these facilities to advise them that they may no longer perform abortions? Right to Life calls upon the government to take urgent action in having Parliament appoint members to the Committee who will ensure that the human rights of unborn children receive the full protection of the law. Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc 22 May 2007 Media Release This week Family Planning and Durex have joined in promoting New Zealand’s first ever condom week. Condoms are a con perpetrated on our community. It was Nazi Germany’s propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbles who said,if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe you. For many years the New Zealand Family Planning Association has been promoting the falsehood that condoms provide safe sex. This falsehood is a threat to the health of teenagers and to public health. Condom week provides the Family Planning Association [FPA] with the opportunity of promoting their humanistic and hedonistic ideology on the community. It also provides Durex with the opportunity of promoting their product. The press release of FPA and Durex states that, condoms are “the most reliable source of protection against STIs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies.” This is demonstrably false. What is the evidence? The World Health Organisation Bulletin, June 2004: “ No published prospective study has found protection against human papilloma virus [cervical cancer/warts/ HPV] infection.” American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004: A study of 4314 participants who visited STD clinics found consistent use of condoms still resulted in an infection rate of 82% compared against those who did not use condoms. We have an escalating epidemic in STDs in New Zealand. Condoms offer no protection against gonorrhoea for females- and only partial protection for males. Human Papilloma Virus [HPV] is the biggest factor in cancer of the cervix, a potentially fatal disease. Condoms give no protection from HPV. Condoms offer no protection against Chlamydia. Genital herpes is painful and incurable. It risks fatal infections to babies born of infected mothers. Condoms offer no effective protection against herpes. The Abortion Supervisory Committee, reported to Parliament in their 2006 report to Parliament that 4903 women who had an abortion in 2005 were using condoms at the time of conception. This is the price in human lives for so called “safe sex.” The false and dangerous message of “safe sex with condoms”, is a lie promoted by the Ministry of Health and FPA. Why does the government continue to fund FPA? In 2006 the government gave FPA more than $8million, to promote a programme that is undermining public health. When is the government going to fund abstinence education that is the proven and only way to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies? Why to is the secular media generally silent on this serious threat to public health? Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Latest Mandamus Action in High Court 18 May 2007 Media Release Right to Life New Zealand filed a mandamus in the High Court in Wellington in May 2005 against the Abortion Supervisory Committee for its alleged failure to fulfil its statutory duties. These duties included the failure of the Committee to ensure that the human rights of unborn children received the full protection of the law, that certifying consultants were held accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions that they authorised and to stop abortion on demand. Counsel for the Crown representing the Abortion Supervisory Committee presented their submissions on their Interlocutory Application for review of the decision of Associate Judge Gendall given in the High Court on 21 December 2006. Justice Young presided over this one day hearing in Chambers on the 17 May in the High Court in Wellington. Associate Judge Gendall had previously rejected the petition of the Crown to have the evidence of six women who had an abortion struck out as irrelevant and inadmissible. The Judge also rejected the request of the Crown to lift the order for name suppression previously granted by Justice Wild in 2005. Judge Gendall had also rejected the petition of the Crown to strike out the expert evidence of a consulting specialist Psychiatrist as being irrelevant and inadmissible. The Counsel for Right to Life, Peter McKenzie QC, argued that the evidence of the six courageous women demonstrated the failures of the Committee that were alleged by the plaintiff. Continued name suppression was sought as it was imperative to protect the privacy of the women who were giving important evidence on the way they were treated by abortion counsellors and certifying consultants and the psychological trauma that they had experienced at the loss of their unborn children through abortion. There was no public good to be served by making their names public. The expert evidence of a consulting specialist Psychiatrist that there were no psychiatric indications for abortion was critical to challenging the 98% of abortions that are authorised each year on mental health grounds. Justice Young informed the litigants that he would be presiding over future proceedings in this Mandamus and that it was his wish to bring these proceedings to a speedy conclusion. He acknowledged that these proceedings were very important and of considerable public interest. The Court acceded to the request of counsel for Right to Life to present a further affidavit to the Court on the development of the unborn child and its status as a human being endowed at conception with an inalienable right to life. Justice Young reserved his judgment and indicated that it was his intention to present his judgment in three weeks. Ken Orr Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Amnesty International Abortion Supporters 15 May 2007 Media Release Amnesty International – Abortion Right to Life condemns the infamous decision of Amnesty International [AI] to reject the sanctity of life ethic and to enter into abortion advocacy. They have now discarded their former policy of neutrality on this important human rights issue. AI has adopted a new policy calling for all abortions to be allowed calling for abortions to be allowed worldwide when a woman is a victim of rape or her health is threatened by the continued life of her unborn child, it now sees abortion as a human right that should be promoted and protected. AI is now embracing a culture of death. The new policy will promote abortion on demand. There is no human right for a mother to kill her unborn child. AI now proposes to actively fight to deny the human rights of unborn children and their inalienable right to life; in taking this step it is turning its back on human rights. AI claims that they have changed their policy to prevent violence against women. Abortion is a serious violation of human rights and is itself deplorable violence against vulnerable women and their unborn children, the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights states that our human rights are inalienable and universal, these rights are conferred on us at conception by our creator and may not be taken from us. AI claims to support the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Convention states; “The child deserves special care and safeguards including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” We all have a duty to defend life, Right to Life calls upon A I to uphold a culture of life and reconsider the proposed policy change. It should adopt a true human rights policy of working to protect the human rights of unborn children and to oppose abortion as being violence against women. Amnesty International has a well earned international reputation in protecting freedom and human rights throughout the world. It is a tragedy that Amnesty International has adopted abortion as a “human right’, it now places in jeopardy the wonderful work that it currently performs. .Members and supporters of AI who are genuinely concerned about human rights should withdraw their support from AI which is now fatally compromised. Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc,
US Supreme Court Commended On Partial Birth Abortion Ban 2nd May 2007 The Editor, Time Inc. Dear Sir
The US
Supreme Court is commended for its 5 to 4 vote in Gonzales v Cathart,
upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Justice Kennedy in his
opinion for the majority stated “The government has a legitimate
interest in preserving fetal life.” The procedure banned entails
delivering the baby’s body and arms, everything except the head. The
doctor then plunges scissors into the back of the child’s head. He then
places a high powered suction tube into the opening and sucks the baby’s
brains out. Pro – abortion advocates said that the judgment was a
violation of a woman’s right to choose. This gruesome procedure is seen
by many as infanticide. The American Medical Association has said that
this procedure is never necessary to protect women’s health. Since the
passing of Roe V Wade in 1973, there have been 47 million abortions in
the Yours faithfully Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc
28 April 2007 Search and Destroy – Down Syndrome Right to Life deplores the decision of the Minister of Health the Hon Pete Hodgson to request the National Screening Unit to advise him on how to implement a national screening programme for Down syndrome. A programme for screening all pregnant women for Down syndrome is a search and destroy mission. The sole purpose of this programme would be to define who shall live and who shall die. This is unjust discrimination against the disabled. Every child at conception is endowed by its creator with an inalienable right to life. A child does not lose its right to life because it has a genetic condition. The Minister of Health has a responsibility to protect life and to promote the health of the community; his action reveals that the government does not welcome the birth of children with Down syndrome. Its response is to sanction and fund the killing of children with Down syndrome; this is eugenics which promotes a humanistic quality of life ethic which decrees that only the perfect have a right to life. The Minister in this action is promoting a culture of death. The right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation; it is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it, its universal denial would fail to recognise the dignity of man. There are many people who are born with Down syndrome who have a good quality of life and who make a valuable contribution to the family and society. Right to Life welcomes the Minister’s decision to discontinue risky diagnostic tests that have been leading to the miscarriage of dozens of unborn children. This proposed national screening programme should be seen in the context of the public debate on the government supported repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act that would outlaw the smacking of children. The Prime Minister has said that her government wishes to give a clear message to the community that violence against children is unacceptable. Violence against children begins in the womb. The government is giving the message that they support the killing of unborn children, including those with Down syndrome, but that after birth you may not smack them Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
8 March 2007 Right to Life New Zealand deplores the violation of the conscience of Members of Parliament by the government, the Greens and the Maori party. The government and the two other Parties have refused the right of their Members to vote according to their conscience on Sue Bradford’s bill. It is a commendable and long honoured convention for MP’s to vote in accordance with a fully informed conscience on Private Members’ bills. Our conscience is our most prized possession. It is sacrosanct. Man has a right to act in accord with his conscience and in freedom to make right moral choices. A democratic society should allow sufficient space for the expression of an MP’s liberty and responsibility in living out key social values, If Parliamentarians do not own their own conscience they become but pawns in the hand of those in authority. This is an outrage and the foundation for a dictatorship. Any MP who allows his conscience to be overridden by those in authority does not deserve our respect and forfeits their right to be in Parliament. Citizens concerned for the preservation of Parliamentary democracy should be deeply disturbed at the dictatorial action of the government. Right to Life calls upon the government and the other two parties to respect the conscience of its caucus by allowing them to vote according to their conscience at the third reading of Sue Bradford’s bill. The government is also inconsistent; it states that it is opposed to violence against children. Violence begins in the womb. How can the government that supports this bill accept sanction and fund the violent killing of more than 17,500 defenceless unborn children each year. The message that the government is giving the community is that parents have a right to kill their children before birth, but after birth they may not smack them. Right to Life calls upon the government to exercise consistency by passing legislation that will protect unborn children from the violence of abortion.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Crown Appeals High Court Judgment –Right to Life Proceedings against Abortion Supervisory Committee 22 January 2007 Media Release
Right to Life New Zealand is disappointed that the Crown continues to seek to prevent six women who have had an abortion giving evidence in the High Court. The Crown also seeks the removal of the name suppression for these women. Right to Life has been given evidence by these women of how they were exploited by the abortion system and the psychological damage inflicted on them as a result of their abortion. Right to Life is undertaking proceedings against the Abortion Supervisory Committee for the alleged failure of the Committee to fulfil its statutory duties by ensuring that the human rights of unborn children receive the full protection of the law. The High Court in a judgment of 21 December 2006 rejected the application of the Crown to rule the evidence of the women irrelevant and inadmissible. The Court also rejected the Crown’s application to remove name suppression. Also rejected by the Court was the application of the Crown to have the evidence of our Society’s expert witness, a specialist consulting Psychiatrist struck out as being irrelevant. The Crown has now lodged an appeal against the judgment with the High Court in Wellington. Right to Life supports the right of these courageous women to give words to their pain and suffering by giving important evidence on behalf of the women of New Zealand and unborn children.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. Phone [03] 3856111. 22 December 2006 Mandamus High Court – Proceedings Media Release Right to Life is pleased with the judgement of the High Court, it is a victory for women and their unborn children, and they now have the right to be heard. The High Court has rejected the applications of the Crown to have the Court declare that the evidence of six women who have had an abortion is irrelevant and should be inadmissible. The Crown also filed a second claim that the orders suppressing the name and identity of the women be withdrawn. The Crown also did not succeed in having the expert evidence of a specialist consultant Psychiatrist deemed irrelevant and inadmissible. The judgement of Associate Judge Gendall was delivered on Thursday 21 December 2006. The hearing for the strikeout action of the Crown in relation to the mandamus taken by Right to Life against the Abortion Supervisory Committee was held in a three hour hearing on 29 October. The evidence of the women recounts that the counselling received was to facilitate an abortion and that they were not informed of the potential physical and psychological damage that might follow having an abortion. The Court recognised that the evidence of the specialist Psychiatrist was relevant. Her evidence states; “Termination of pregnancy creates a significant risk of giving rise to increased and more severe depression”. “Termination of the pregnancy will not therefore be necessarily the appropriate treatment for depression”. She also states that “another difficulty in using the termination of a pregnancy to assist in the treatment of depression is that in the case of moderately and severely depressed women their judgement is distorted and their ability to give consent would be in doubt. In such cases, it would be other people who make the decision about their having an abortion rather than the woman herself”. The claim of Right to Life is now expected to be heard by the High Court in mid 2007. The statement of claim includes five grounds of review:
3 Alleged failure by the defendant to enquire into the circumstances in which certifying consultants are authorising the performance of abortions on the mental health ground having regard to the extent to which that ground is being used;
4. Alleged failure by the defendant to seek proper information on the mental health grounds from certifying consultants;
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. Phone [03] 3856111. 2 September 2006
Media Release
Right to Life is disappointed that the proposed United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities excludes protection for the human rights of unborn children with disabilities. These children comprise the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. The Convention is expected to be ratified at the General Assembly of the United Nations this September.
The draft document, Article 7 Children with Disabilities, states“That States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and ensure the equal rights of children with disabilities to the full enjoyment of all rights set out in this Convention.”
These objectives are just, noble and commendable however the Convention unjustly discriminates against unborn children with disabilities. There is an urgent need for the protection of the human right’s of unborn children, including those with a disability. The Abortion Supervisory Committee, in its report to Parliament in 2005 advised that 139 children were killed before birth in New Zealand in 2004 on the grounds “that there was a substantial risk of physically or mentally seriously handicapped child”
The New Zealand government has had a prominent role in guiding the proposed Convention through the United Nations. The ad hoc committee dealing with this Convention was chaired by Mr Don McKay, the New Zealand Ambassador to the United Nations. The unborn child is being excluded from this Convention on the grounds that the child is not a human being, nor a person endowed by its creator with human rights. This conclusion is both false and dangerous. It is reminiscent of the falsehood perpetrated in the age of slavery in the United States when a Negro slave was deemed not to be human. To have no rights and was the property of the slave-owner. From the moment of conception the human embryo should be accorded the respect and protection that is due to the human person.
Right to Life supports effective legal protection for the human rights of unborn children, including those with a disability. It is shameful that this country actually provides for the legal killing of unborn children including those with a disability. This Society asks does the Government support protection for the human rights of unborn children with disabilities. This Society also calls upon the Government to use its influence with the United Nations to have this Convention amended to provide protection for the human rights of unborn children with a disability.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc
20 August 2006 Media Release The Ministry of Health on behalf of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, in March provided funding of $8000 towards the cost of the private Abortion Providers Conference held in Wellington in April. The funding was made in response to a request to the Committee made by Dr Margaret Sparrow on behalf of the Organising Committee for the Conference. The funding was used to meet the traveling expenses from the United States of Mary Fijerstad, a nurse practitioner. This funding from the public purse was inappropriate and scandalous. Why should the government sponsor the abortion industry in providing a private conference? The Abortion Supervisory Committee has a statutory duty to supervise the abortion industry, it is inappropriate for the Committee to be engaged in promoting this industry. It is noted that the Ministry of Health sought to have this funding kept secret from the taxpayers of this country. This funding is further evidence that the government is seeking to promote abortion as a normal and acceptable part of our public health system, it is not. Research released by Professor David Fergusson of the Christchurch Health and Development Study last year indicated that abortion could result in serious mental ill health in women. If the government was really interested in promoting protection for the human rights of our unborn children and protecting the health and welfare of women it would provide financial support for extensive national research into the relationship of abortion and mental ill health of women as requested by Professor David Fergusson. The government has advised that money for this research is not available from government. The funding of this conference raises several important questions: · What were the criteria used by the Ministry of Health for making this funding available towards the cost of this conference? · What are the responsibilities that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has that the Ministry of Health sought to meet with the funding of $8000? · Why did the Ministry advise the Abortion Supervisory Committee in a letter dated 13 February that they did not want any acknowledgment for this assistance on the conference programme or at the conference? · Would the Ministry provide similar funding to assist in bringing overseas speakers to a pro-life conference in New Zealand organised by Family Life International, Pregnancy Counselling Services or other similar organisation? Right to Life has laid a complaint with the Minister of Health and is considering laying a complaint with the Audit Office for the misuse of the public purse.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. Phone 03 385 6111
10 August 2006 SUBMISSION
To the Ministry of Health On Guidelines on the Use of Human Tissue for Future Unspecified Research Purposes On the Discussion document 2006 This Submission is from Right to Life New Zealand Inc. P.O. Box 668, CHRISTCHURCH.
We wish to appear and present an oral submission.
Mr. Ken Orr Phone contact: 03 385 6111 Fax: 03 3860447 Email: rtl@right-to-life.org General Summary: Right to Life has some grave concerns with the Guidelines within this document and its proposals, as they threaten the life and safety of the most vulnerable in our society. We are concerned that fetal and other human tissue may be used for research and commercial gain without consideration given to the protection of that life continuing. This would also contribute to a diminished respect for the dignity of all human life, and threaten future life protection. Our society is encouraged to see appropriate use of human tissue to aid in the provision of studies that improve human health but would be most concerned to learn that unspecified future tissue use included the taking of fetal tissue for experimental use by the cosmetic industry for example. We also have similar concerns with the practice of organ donation where the dignity of the human body is violated and tissue is used in a utilitarian manner or for financial gain, often for little or remote benefit. Consent: We see as important the protection of an individuals’ autonomy and the need for informed consent while appreciating that some circumstances may make that consent impossible for that individual but none-the-less due prudence must be applied to those situations. It is important to our organization that individuals or their representative are able to place limitations on the use of their tissues for ‘unspecified future research’ that are compatible with their spiritual, and cultural beliefs and that uphold at all times the value of each individual human life. These people must also remain free not to partake of deemed ‘health benefits’ where the original source would be considered by them to be unethically obtained as has been the case with immunization programmes that have used aborted fetuses as their source. It would seem reasonable to establish in some cases “specific consent” tagged to spiritual or cultural requirements. Correct informed tagging at the time the tissue is collected could allow that sample to be used for further experimentation within the cultural /religious limitations set without needing to make further contact with the donor. Provision must be made for anyone to withdraw previously given consent for future tissue use, as one may have agreed to some organ or tissues use while under unusual emotional pressure which could be considered to have been an agreement made under duress. At the time of consent the donor or representative should state whether ongoing contact for future use in research is required by them and accept some responsibility for updating contact details through a mutually agreed mechanism. It is reasonable to allow children to withdraw consent to the continued storage of their tissues once they attain the age of 16. A donor or representative should retain the right to deny consent of international use of tissue. Linking Data: It is important to have coded linking where there is benefit for the donor to have feedback that would concern their future health and that of other family members. The availability of any relevant information for other family members should remain open to them to seek at a future date. Use of tissue sent overseas: Here one must be careful to research the ethical base and limitations both legal and in practice of each country also the scientists working within it before allowing tissue from New Zealand to be used, transferred or sold on within that country or to others. We understand the need to retain human tissue for medical diagnosis, archives and histology but these samples must always be treated with respect for life, and not be used in the name of science for macabre unethical experimentation that threatens the life of other humans e.g. the ethical considerations of xenograft and xenotransplantation. Organ donation: There are difficulties that need to be addressed within medicine and ethics about the diagnosis of whole brain death that allows the removal of vital organs while they are still functioning. Whole brain death is still debatable as it is still often hard to establish definitely that brain death has occurred. People have been known to recover under extra ordinary circumstances, sometimes years later. Often the assumption of death can be subjective where benefit of those organs to others adds biases to the decision taken. It is imperative that the human body and its tissues are not mere objects for use and supply but have an intrinsic value in themselves. The use of whole face transplantation and cadaver limbs is entry into the world of the macabre. The face is a point of immediate identification and its integrity is to be maintained. Ethics Committees and law must be extremely careful to ensure relational separation between the physician who determines death and the transplant team requesting organs. It is important to prevent a conflict of interest in those intended to care for patients in a health life crisis where a patient requires expensive treatment. For example a patient with multi-trauma may not receive the treatment he/she needs if they are perceived as a rich field of harvest for others on a waiting list for organs. This is also relevant to the ancephalic baby put on life support not for their own need but to be harvested. Blood and bone marrow are examples of renewable substance naturally made by the body and as such can be readily donated for appropriate use to support the life of others. While our society has strong objections to ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Research’ while it looks with hope and interest at the ethical and practical advances in ‘Adult Stem Cell Research’ that does not compromise the donor’s health or life. Any future DNA bank would need to come under strict guidelines of use to contribute to the welfare of those with rare disorders, not to aid theirs or others, future extermination. Where these disorders are extremely rare it is understood that international studies involving tissue may be required and exchange with ethical considerations of human respect allowed. Ethics Committees: It is obvious that research applications will be referred to Ethic Committees and it is imperative that those on these committees have a moral base that respects the inalienable right to life and the true good intent for all human life over any ‘want’ or ‘commercial gain’ as this will effect their judgment of acceptable and best practice. Decisions made in a moral vacuum devoid of natural or moral law will eventually be distorted and without restrain, allow the macabre as we have witnessed throughout history, highlighted in the experimentation by Nazi controlled Germany. We wish to appear before the Committee and speak to our submission. Those appearing will be Mr Ken Orr and Mrs Nancye Price
Yours sincerely,
Ken Orr For Executive Right to Life New Zealand.
18 July 2006
MEDIA RELEASE ABORTION CERTIFYING CONSULTANTS FEES
Right to Life is disappointed that the Government has recently increased the fees paid to certifying consultants for authorising abortions. The fee for authorising an abortion has been increased from $87.50 to $135. This is a scandalous waste of tax- payer’s money. The increase in fees will not reduce the number of abortions in New Zealand. The increase in fees was sought by the Abortion Supervisory Committee because it was concerned with the recruitment and retention of doctors prepared to authorise and perform abortions. The abortion industry in New Zealand is money driven and the increase in fees could lead to an increase in our shameful abortion statistics with more doctors being enticed into co- operating in the killing of innocent and defenseless unborn children. This will increase the spiritual, physical and psychological damage to vulnerable women. In the year ending the 30th June 2005, the Government paid certifying consultants $3,504,263 in fees for authorising abortions. It is now expected that these fees will exceed $7 million per annum. There are approximately 200 certifying consultants appointed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee. It is now expected on information received from the Committee that the five busiest consultants will receive in excess of $200 000 per annum in fees. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its annual report to Parliament in 1988 alluded to “the present unwieldy system of authorising the termination of potentially normal pregnancies on pseudo-legal grounds.” The previous chairwoman of the Committee, Dr Christine Forster stated in the Sunday Star Times of 5th November 2000, that 98% of abortions are authorised on the grounds that the life of the unborn child was a serious threat to the mental health of the mother. Dr Forster did not believe that all those women were in serious danger. “I think that people are fitting the grounds to the woman” Right to Life asks why then is the Government not only continuing to pay doctors to lie but is now increasing their fees to do so? The anticipated $7 million in fees should be used to promote a culture of life, not a culture of death. It should be used to protect the human rights of unborn children and to promote the health and welfare of women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. The Government should follow the commendable and compassionate example of the Australian Government. In March this year the Australian Government established the Pregnancy Advisory Committee and announced a $52 million program of financial assistance to pro-life counselling services. In New Zealand Pregnancy Counselling Services provide compassionate care to women before and after the birth of their child. Our Government refuses to provide any financial assistance to Pregnancy Counselling Services or any similar service. Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. Phone 03 3856 111
15 June 2006 Media Release Right to Life New Zealand is delighted with the substantial decrease in abortions reported in New Zealand for 2005. A total of 17530 abortions are reported for 2005, this is a decrease of 680 on the 18210 abortions reported for 2004. It is also a decrease of 981 on the 18511 abortions reported for 2003. It is our hope that this downward trend will continue. Right to Life attributes this decrease in abortions mainly to the growing awareness among women that abortions hurt women and may result in serious spiritual, psychological and physical damage to women’s health, including an increased risk of breast cancer. It is significant that there has been a substantial reduction in repeat abortions. In 2005 there were 6321 repeat abortions; this was a decrease of 194 on the 6515 repeat abortions reported for 2004. It is also significant that there has been a substantial decrease in European women having abortions. In 2005 there were 9732 European women who had an abortion, a decrease of 626 on the 10358 European women who had an abortion in 2004. Our abortion statistics still represent a violation of the human rights of unborn children and a disregard for the health and welfare of women facing an unplanned pregnancy. Our Society calls upon the government to provide increased legal protection for our unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Right to Life also urges the government to withdraw its failed “safe sex” program and replace it with abstinence based education, a program that does not result in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and hurt and abandoned women. Right to Life will continue to seek legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being endowed by its Creator with an inalienable right to life. We are committed to working for the ideal of no abortions in New Zealand and the day when regardless of circumstances every child from conception will be valued, respected and protected.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc, Phone 03 3856111
13 June 2006
Media Release Right to Life New Zealand is disappointed that the New Zealand government continues to fund two international organizations that promote a culture of death through promoting and providing contraception sterilization and abortion worldwide. It is appalling that the government has given $7.3 Million in 2005 to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, [IPPF]. Both of these organizations support China’s infamous one child family policy. The policy includes forced abortions of those women who have conceived a child without the permission of the state. The policy also includes forced sterilisations, heavy fines, loss of educational benefits for their children and loss of employment. These are appalling violations of human rights. UNFPA actively assists China in implementing its coercive population control policy. UNFPA was also actively involved in the forced sterilization of 20,000 Peruvian women during the government of the disgraced Albert Fujimora. A United States State Department delegation to China in 2001 found overwhelming evidence of UNFPAs involvement in the human rights violations of China’s one child family policy. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State Collin Powell who concluded that “UNFPA’s support of….China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. The United States government has ceased funding UNFPA because of its involvement in coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. Our government claims to uphold the human right of all women to choose to have a baby and to oppose forced abortions. Why then did the government in 2002 reject the documentary evidence obtained from the United States and provided by this Society implicating UNFPA in China’s family control human rights abuses? The taxpayers of New Zealand have a right to know why the government continues to fund UNFPA and IPPF.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand. Phone 03 3856111 Abortion Supervisory Committee – Appointments National Media Release. 29 April 2006 Right to Life calls upon the government to replace the members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee because they have failed to fulfill their statutory duties as laid down in the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. The present members of the Committee are Dr Lesley Rothwell and Dr Paparangi Reid. They were appointed by Parliament on 30th August 2001. Mrs Marlene Lamb resigned from the Committee in March 2005. It is the declared intention of the government to nominate and support the renewed appointment of these two members by Parliament in the near future for a further term of three years. This is an unwarranted vote of confidence by the government in this failed Committee. During the term of this Committee it has presided in silence over the destruction of more than 88,000 unborn children. Right to Life contends that the Committee has failed to uphold the purposes of the CS&A Act proclaimed in the long title of the Act by failing to ensure that abortions are authorized only after full regard of the rights of unborn children. The first right is the right to life and the right to be born. The Committee has also failed to protect the health and welfare of women by ensuring that women considering an abortion are fully informed of alternatives to abortion such as adoption, the humanity of their unborn child and its development and the potential complications and damage to their physical and mental health resulting from abortion. This is the Committee that recommended to the government in February 2000 that abortion be decriminalised and removed from the criminal code. It would then become a health issue with a decision to have an abortion being a decision between a woman and her doctor. This would mean that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child and the state would abdicate its responsibility to provide legal protection for the human rights of unborn children at any stage of pregnancy. This would be a serious violation of human rights. It is clear that the Committee is opposed to the legislation that it has been entrusted by Parliament to uphold. The Committee has a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the legislation in that it does not support legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. This is an intolerable situation; the Committee should resign or be replaced. This is the Committee that is withholding important information on the potential damage to women’s health resulting from an abortion. The Canterbury Health and Development Study are conducting an important longitudinal study at the Christchurch School of Medicine. Professor Fergusson recently published the results of research that indicated that teenage women who had an abortion were twice as likely to suffer a major episode of depression, have suicidal thoughts, become alcoholic and become dependent on illicit drugs than women who did not have an abortion. This study has received international recognition. Women considering an abortion have a legal right to be fully informed of the potential damage to their physical and mental health resulting from abortion. The Committee is responsible for the contents of abortion counseling. In the interest of women’s health it would be reasonable to expect that the Committee would ensure that this information was made available to women considering an abortion. In December 05 Right to Life wrote to the Committee requesting that this information be given by abortion counsellors to women. The Committee replied in a letter dated 15th February 06. The Committee dismissed the study and stated; “The Committee does not consider that Professor Fergusson’s study establishes any casual link between abortion and mental illness.” The Committee refused to take any action to ensure abortion counsellors provide women considering an abortion with the results of this study. Professor Fergusson had advocated further extensive research into the link between abortion and mental ill health. The Committee refused to support any further extensive research into the link between abortion and mental health. This is an incredible response that should be of grave concern to every New Zealander. It is shameful that the government supports the reappointment of this failed Committee. The government’s support for the members of this Committee is an endorsement of approval for the Committee. In the interests of the lives of unborn children and the health and welfare of their mothers the government should withdraw its support for the reappointment of this Committee. The government should nominate members who will uphold the law, stop the current unlawful regime of unlawful abortions, hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions they authorize and ensure that full regard is given to the human rights of helpless and defenceless unborn children.
Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc. An editorial in the Christchurch
Press on 19th January proposed that “a start towards a more
honest assessment would be to treat the matter as a health issue rather
than as a moral or political one.” This is a serious proposal that
should be addressed. It is a proposal that has implications for the legal
recognition of the personhood and human rights of every citizen in It should be remembered that the current legislation was passed by Parliament in 1977 to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion. It is important to recall that the Commission in its report to Parliament in 1977, stated, “that the unborn child as one of the weakest, the most defenceless forms of humanity; should receive protection,” It accepted the biological evidence establishing that life begins at conception. It said that from implantation to birth changes in the unborn child are of a developmental nature only. The Commission stated that “there is no point between implantation and birth of a biological kind which enables a particular point of time between implantation and birth to be accepted as one at which the status of the unborn child is changed. The Commission said that the right
to life is a sacred principle of civilization. “It is an indispensable
guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it. Its universal
denial would threaten civilization and would fail to recognise the dignity
of man.” The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 [CS&A
Act] and amendments to the Crimes Act were enacted by Parliament to
implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission. These
recommendations sought to protect the human rights of The great American statesman, Thomas Jefferson defined government`s role, “The care of human happiness and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” It is thus the duty of the state to protect the right to life of all its citizens. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that our human rights are universal and inalienable. They are universal because every human being is endowed by its creator with human rights at conception. They are inalienable because they cannot be taken away. Abortion entails the destruction of a defenceless and helpless human being; it is thus a human rights issue and not just a moral or political issue. Dr Christine Forster, previous
chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee stated in the media on Dr Forster proposed that abortion be decriminalised and made solely a health issue based on informed consent. It would then be a matter for a woman and her general practitioner or a doctor who agreed with the woman’s request. It would then not be subject to any restrictions in legislation and would be treated like any other medical procedure. An abortion is unlike any other medical procedure as it entails the termination of the life of another human being. This recommendation was made by the Abortion Supervisory Committee in a submission to the Minister of Justice in February 2000 to be considered by the Labour government’s review of the abortion laws. Why has this review not been completed? It is believed that the Committees option to decriminalise abortion has the support of the current government. The decriminalising of abortion would be a denial of the humanity of the unborn child and a denial that it was endowed with human rights. It would entail the withdrawal of the state from providing legal protection for its unborn children. It would then no longer be a crime to kill an unborn child. An unborn child would then become the property of the mother. Such a legislative step would have serious implications for every citizen. If we allow the state to withdraw recognition and legal protection for the human rights of unborn children, who is to say that in the future a government will seek to withdraw legal protection for the right to life of other members of our community such as the aged and the disabled? We should not forget that it was
the United States Supreme Court in 1857 in the infamous Dred V Scott
decision that decreed that Negro slaves were not human beings and were the
property of their owners. A just society is one that respects and provides
legal protection for the human rights of all its people especially the
weakest and most defenceless members.
17th Jan 2006 The Editor, The Christchurch Press. Dear Sir Dr Roke of Family Planning, 17 January, is to be
commended firstly, for supporting the right of women considering an
abortion to be informed that there is an increased risk of mental health
problems following an abortion and secondly for supporting further
extensive research into the mental ill health of women following an
abortion. Should we be surprised that the taking of the life of
an innocent and helpless child before birth results in grief, guilt,
depression,shame,low self -esteem and suicidal thoughts? In 1993 and in
1995, the Abortion Supervisory Committee recommended to Parliament,
“That research be undertaken to establish reliable statistical data
regarding the incidence of complications post abortion.” The Minister of
Health considered this research unnecessary. Women have a right to be
fully informed about the potential damage to their physical and mental
health.Hopfully the Minister will now support further extensive research
as requested by Professor David Fergusson. Yours faithfully Ken Orr Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
The Editor, NZ Catholic, Dear Pat The support of the Government for marriage being
exclusively for one man Right to Life wrote to all the 120 Members of
Parliament seeking their |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
