RTLNZ

The defeat of the Death with Dignity Bill by Parliament 60 to 57 in a conscience vote is a victory for a culture of life and defeat for a culture of death.

This was a conscience vote on the first reading of the bill sponsored by Peter Brown of NZ First on Wednesday 30th July. Right to Life has been engaged in intense lobbying of MPs to seek the defeat of this Bill.

This was the same Bill that was sponsored by Michael Laws MP and defeated at its first reading in 1995, 61 to 29.

Right to Life congratulates those members of Parliament who voted for the defeat of this Bill which was a threat to the right to life of every person in New Zealand.

The purpose of the Bill was to allow persons over the age of 18 who were incurably ill or terminally ill to request that a doctor kill them or assist in their suicide.

Our human rights are conferred on each one of us by our creator at conception, they are not conferred by the state. It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for our right to life from conception to natural death. Parliament would have exceeded its authority by passing this Bill to a select committee to give consideration to the proposal that the protection of the law should be withdrawn from among the most vulnerable members of our community, the incurably ill and the terminally ill. This is a debate that Parliament should not be having.

This Bill is in violation of the Bill of Rights that states that one may not be deprived of life. The Bill is also in violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which recognises that every person has an inalienable right to life.

Euthanasia is opposed to the 2400 year old Hippocratic tradition and the Judeo Christian sanctity of life ethic, the foundation stone of a civilized society. Euthanasia is opposed as unethical by the World Medical Association and by the New Zealand Medical Association. It would have been unwise and dangerous public policy for Parliament to pass this Bill allowing doctors to kill their patients; they would become the most dangerous men in the land. The right to die would soon become a duty to die.

Right to Life requests Parliament for the common good, to encourage Government to provide full funding for palliative care in New Zealand and to increase the training of doctors in palliative care.

The pro life movement in New Zealand encouraged by the defeat of this Bill from hell, should now renew its commitment to seeking effective legal protection for the inalienable right to life of our unborn children, God's precious infants who are the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand INC

PROSTITUTION REFORM ACT- MEDIA RELEASE

The passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill is a sad day for our nation. It marks a day of shame in our Parliament's history. Parliament has now decreed that it is acceptable and legal for women to prostitute their bodies. This is an affront to the dignity and status of women in New Zealand society.

Prostitution is sexual violence against women, it exploits them and is an attack on their dignity as human beings. The legalising of prostitution will not change this reality. The Act is anti-woman, anti-family and will do nothing to eliminate the psychological damage that is inflicted on all prostitutes. Prostitution has been defined in two Court of Appeal cases as a woman offering herself as "a participant in physical acts of indecency for the gratification of men in return for money". Why then would Parliament want to legalise indecency?

Parliament has now given a clear message to the community that it is all right for a woman to prostitute her body and to men, including married men, that it is all right to use prostitutes'. This is a message that married women don't want to hear.

In March 2001, there were 149,556 solo mothers with families. It is estimated that 75% of the clients of prostitutes are married men. With an anticipated 300% increase in prostitution there will be more family breakdowns to the detriment of children and women.

The Prostitution Reform Act will not promote the decent society in which all New Zealanders desire to live and raise their families.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC.

27th June 2003

Prostitution Reform Act Passes

The passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill is a sad day for our nation. It marks a day of shame in our Parliament’s history. Parliament has now decreed that it is acceptable and legal for women to prostitute their bodies. This is an affront to the dignity and status of woman in New Zealand society. The Bill was passed 60 to 59, with one abstention. The Labour government members gave substantial support to this private members bill of Labour MP Tim Barnett. 41 of their MP’s supported this bill, at it’s third reading. It is believed that there was substantial government pressure placed on Labour MP’s to support this bill, which was a conscience issue.

Prostitution is sexual violence against woman. It exploits them and is an attack on their dignity as human beings. The legalizing of prostitution will not change this reality. The Act is anti-woman, anti-family and will do nothing to eliminate the spiritual, physical and psychological damage that is inflicted on all prostitutes. Prostitution has been defined in two Court of Appeal cases in New Zealand as a woman offering herself as, “a participant in physical acts of indecency for the gratification of men, in return for money”. Why then would Parliament want to legalise indecency?

Parliament has now given a clear message to the community that it is all right for a women to prostitute her body and to men, including married men, that it is all right to use prostitutes. This is a message that married women don’t want to hear.

The Prostitution Reform Act will teach, institutionalize and normalize the abuse of women. It will not promote the decent society in which all New Zealanders desire to live and raise families.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

15 April 2003

High Court Decision Mifegyne RU 486

Right to Life New Zealand is disappointed at the decision of Justice Durie to interpret section 18 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act to allow women undergoing an abortion to complete the abortion away from a licenced facility. Right to Life was a party to these proceedings and was represented by Peter McKenzie QC.

This decision will herald a new era in the killing of unborn children. It will now permit an increased use of RU486 which represents chemical warfare against unborn children. The judgment is a sad and historic day for unborn children and their mothers.

It is a serious threat to women’s health. Many women undergoing a chemical abortion will now be faced with the trauma of delivering a dead baby possibly alone away from a hospital.

In a clinical trial in Iowa in 1994 one of the 238 women in the trial lost half of her blood volume and required an emergency transfusion to save her life. The results of a clinical trial in the United States with 895 women on this two pill regime was published in the May 1994 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Results	% of women
Complete abortion	97.7
Uterine bleeding	100.0
Abdominal pain	81.0
Pain severe enough to require pain killers	14.4
Nausea	41.7
Vomiting	16.2
Diarrhoea	12.3

Range of bleeding time 1 – 32 days

Median 1-4 days

In the US trial 49% aborted during the four hours they spent waiting in the hospital following the administration of the prostaglandin. An additional 26% aborted sometime over the next 20 hours away from the hospital. The rest who aborted did so at some point during the following two weeks.

This court decision facilitates the killing of unborn children and endangers women’s health. Women undergoing a chemical abortion should remain in hospital with emergency facilities and counselling readily available until the abortion is complete.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Queens Birthday Honours

Monday 3rd June 02

Press Release: Right To Life New Zealand Inc

Dr Margaret:Sparrow MBE has been awared the high honour of Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to medicine and the community. Right to Life New Zealand considers the honour as inappropriate and deplorable. It also gives offence to many New Zealanders.

Dr Sparrow (a Family Planning doctor) was for many years employed to perform abortions at the Parkview Abortion Clinic where more that 2000 abortions were performed each year.

This is not a service to unborn children, to medicine, to the community or to women. Dr Christine Forster, previously chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee stated in November 2000 that Parkview was one of the centres where abortion on demand was available. Abortion on demand is a violation of New Zealand's abortion laws.

Dr Sparrow is also a director and major shareholder of Istar Ltd, the Wellington firm set up to import the French abortion pill into New Zealand. The sole purpose of this lethal drug is to destroy innocent and helpless children before birth. This is also not a service to medicine, the community and to mothers and their unborn children.

The Labour Alliance government has honoured Dr Sparrow for work which is seen by many New Zealanders as promoting a culture of death.

Ken 0rr
Spokesperson
Right to Life New Zealand

9 May 2002

Embryo Research

The proposal of Dr Peter Benny, Medical Director of the Christchurch Fertility Centre, to destroy live human embryos in research is deplored as it is a violation of the human rights of the embryos.

Human life begins at conception and every human being has an inalienable right to life. The human embryo is a member of the human family and is entitled to respect and legal protection.

Every human embryo has a right to be conceived in its mothers womb. The child has a right not to be frozen and stored and not experimented on.

Dr Benny has said that there were an estimated 3,000 healthy embryos in storage left over from successful IVF treatments.

Scientists at Otago University with the Fertility Centre are conducting research to develop a genetic blueprint of a healthy baby using a procedure called a DNA chip.

Fertility experts hope to use this blueprint when selecting embryos during IVF, improving the chances of a pregnancy for couples who can’t have children naturally.

The Fertility Centre will supply the embryos and has already obtained ethical approval from the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction (NECAHR) to use non-viable embryos that are deemed to be so imperfect that they will not develop into babies.

Dr Benny said there were many members who wanted to donate their spare embryos to research. Right to Life New Zealand upholds the duty of parents to protect and nurture their children. Parents do not have a right to give their embryos to scientists to conduct research that will destroy their children.

An application for approval to use these embryos would be made as soon as the DNA chip was working. That is expected to be before the end of the year.

Dr Benny has said that "the issues have to be looked at very carefully but I think if the scientific hypothesis is sound and the research is well done then it should go on."

Initially, the researchers would have to extract all of the nucleaic acids from the embryos, totally destroying them.

This research raises important issues concerning the sanctity of human life. Is it ethical to conduct research on a human being which entails the destruction of that human being?

At the Nuremburg trials at the conclusion of World War Two, doctors who had conducted research on inmates of concentration camps were tried on charges of crimes against humanity.

The National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction is a Ministerial Committee appointed by the Minister of Health. The Minister has given the committee terms of reference which includes eight key ethical principles which the committee is obliged to uphold when scrutinizing proposals for ethical approval.

It is disappointing that the sanctity of life ethic is not included as a key ethical principle. How then can we expect ethical decisions from the committee when there is no requirement to uphold the intrinsic dignity of every human being from the moment of conception?

In the opinion of Right to Life New Zealand, the proposed application of Dr Benny should be declined as it breaches five of the ethical principles.

Participant’s right to autonomy

Participant’s right to informed consent

Protection of Participants from undue harm

Freedom from coercion and inducement

Research and treatment merit.

The proposal of Dr Benny, who is also an abortion certifying consultant, is a further step on the slippery slope to a culture of death.

Life is a gift from God and we are but stewards. The destruction of human life in embryo research is not part of God’s plan for the human race. It is an act of disobedience for man to seek to play God

It was Albert Sweitzer who said that when we deny the right to life of any section of humanity we threaten the right to life of all.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Law Suit Against Family Planning Association?

Tuesday, 5 February 2002, 11:39 am
Press Release: Right To Life New Zealand Inc

Published on Scoop www.scoop.co.nz

The New Zealand Family planning Association (NZFPA) is a direct affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation IPPF. Their large US affiliate, Planned Parenthood organisation is under a major class action law suit. Right To Life- New Zealand believes that if the law suit action may have direct repercussions on the NZFPA. Law suit action by complainants unhappy and hurt by the methods of the Family Planning Association in New Zealand could follow as a result.

"A major class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis against the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of St. Louis. The suit alleges medical malpractice, wrongful death, civil rights violations, mass fraud, and genocide by specifically targeting minority women for abortions.
The lawsuit centers around two major allegations of systematic "mass fraud" and "genocide." The suit contends that Planned Parenthood has systematically committed fraud by failing to inform women or outright lying to them about the risks, both physical and emotional, associated with having an abortion. Further, the suit also says that Planned Parenthood has, since the organization's inception, been engaged in genocide through the systematic targeting of low-income and minority women for abortions.
The suit reads, "Defendant has a long history, even dating back to its origin and founding, of intentionally targeting and encouraging lower income persons and those of minority races and ethnic groups, to have abortions, sterilization, and to use contraception, in order to lower the populations of said groups. Due to said efforts and intents of Defendant to lower the populations of lower income and minority groups, the populations of the African American, Hispanic, and American Indian peoples have declined sharply over the past three decades. Such acts on the part of Defendant reflect an intent on its part to commit genocide against Plaintiff and other African Americans, persons of lower socioeconomic status, and other minority groups, and to deprive them of their fundamental right to bear children, in violation of 42 USC 981."
It is a well-documented historical fact that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avid promoter and enforcer of the notions of white supremacy and subscribed to Adolph Hitler's philosophy of eugenics -- the science of "improving racial health" by socially engineering human reproduction. Both Hitler and Sanger advocated birth control, sterilization, and segregation of "undesirables" in concentration camps for the "unfit." In Sanger's book, The Pivot of Civilization, she point-blank called for the elimination of "human weeds" and sterilization of "genetically inferior races."
Evidence for Planned Parenthood's systematic targeting of low-income and minority women for abortions can also be found by simply examining the services and statistical information regarding their clientele.
Planned Parenthood may offer some health-related services, such as STD and HIV testing or annual gynecological exams, but when it comes to pregnancy-related health care, there are only two choices which they offer: prevention of conception (birth control) and prevention of birth (abortion). Planned Parenthood is not in the business of helping women prepare for parenthood. In fact, Sanger and her colleagues specifically opposed giving maternal care to poor women and those who she considered genetically inferior.
Examining the statistics regarding Planned Parenthood's clientele further supports the lawsuit's allegation of genocide. According to Planned Parenthood's own statistics, 42.7% of the abortions they perform are on minorities, which is three times more than on whites as a percentage of their respective populations.
In George Grant's book Grand Illusions, Grant quotes from a Department of Health and Human Services report that states that African American women made up 43% and Hispanic women made up 10% of the abortions performed in America. Not counting (only because figures were not made available) Native American, Pacific Islander, and other minority groups who had abortions during the reporting period, that means that at least 53% of the abortions performed were done on minority women, with the largest percentage being done on African Americans. Grant adds more fuel to the fire by observing that abortions outstrip births in most African American communities by 3 to 1. Another indicator is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods.
The primary plaintiff in this case is Nicole Smith, an African American resident of Alorton, Illinois, who was 27 years old with three children at the time the events, which gave rise to this complaint, took place.
On October 1, 1999, Smith went to the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, unsure whether or not she wanted to have an abortion. According to Smith, the counselor proceeded to encourage and even pressure her into having an abortion, despite the fact that she was in the second trimester of her pregnancy. Several times during the conversation, Smith mentioned her reluctance to have an abortion and mentioned that she could not afford the $600 fee. The counselor persisted and even offered to lower the price of the abortion from $600 to $400, stating that Planned Parenthood would obtain "different funds" to make up the difference to enable her to have the abortion.
When Smith asked about the health risks related to the abortion, the counselor said she did not know of any such risks and never mentioned any potential emotional harm from having an abortion. Smith was also shown a video about the procedure the clinic planned to perform that made no mention of any of the potential medical complications or emotional side effects from the procedure. Smith then underwent an ultrasound but was not shown the results.
The abortion required a physician with Planned Parenthood to place Laminaria, a chemical suppository that causes dilation, into Smith's cervix so that the abortion procedure could be done the following morning. When this procedure was done, Smith was then told to go home and return the next morning to complete the abortion.
Approximately 4 to 5 hours after the Laminaria were placed inside her; Smith had a change of heart and decided not to go through with the abortion. She then called the clinic to ask that the Laminaria be removed. According to Smith, the staff member at the clinic refused her request and told her to wait until the morning. Knowing that she would be completely dilated by morning and fearing that she would lose her child, Smith went to the emergency room at Belleville Memorial Hospital in Belleville, Illinois, and had the Laminaria removed that night. During the initial exam, it was noticed that leakage of fluid from her vagina was occurring, so Smith was admitted to the hospital and given intravenous medication. A sonogram was administered to Smith on October 5, revealing that the child had died in utero. Smith was devastated emotionally from the loss of her child and felt extremely guilty for even beginning the abortion procedure in the first place.
Shortly after her discharge from the hospital on October 11, and subsequent to the death of her child, Smith called the Planned Parenthood clinic to notify them of her illness, her hospital stay, and the death of her child. According to Smith, the nurse who received the call was extremely rude to her when she heard that she had had the Laminaria removed. The nurse then told Smith that she had "set herself up for all kinds of infection," and that she could not have sexual intercourse or take a bath as a result of her having the Laminaria removed. The nurse went on to chastise Smith, telling her that she should have told her counselor that she wanted to keep the baby and stated that she would not tell her anything more about her health and was not going to give her her money back." ( Source: Agape Press; January 22, 2002)
Peter Coleman (Right To Life Committee)
Ken Orr ( Vice President Right To Life)

13 October 01

Abortion Supervisory Committee Appointments Adds to Chapter of Shame

The recent appointment to the Abortion Supervisory Committee by Parliament marks a further chapter of shame for our Parliament in denying justice to our unborn children and their mothers.

Drs Lesley Rothwell and Papaarangi Reid of Wellington have been appointed with Mariene Lamb of Morrinsville being re-appointed.

Dr Rothwell is an abortionist at the Parkview Abortion clinic in Wellington where more than 2,200 unborn children are aborted each year.

The Committee has a statutory duty to supervise the performance of abortions in New Zealand, ensure that the laws on abortion are upheld and that the rights of unborn children have the full protection of the law.

The appointment of Dr Roswell represents a considerable conflict of interest. Dr Rothwell derives a considerable portion of her income from performing abortions, an activity she has been appointed to supervise.

The previous chairperson of the committee stated to the Sunday Star Times on 5 November 2000 that we had abortion on demand in New Zealand, particularly in the three main centres. This constitutes a regime of unlawful abortions.

How can the new chairperson be expected to stop abortion on demand and ensure that the human rights of the unborn child receive the full protection of the law?

Our society agrees with the 26 Members of Parliament who voted against the motion to make these appointments.

We agree with the many MP's who challenged the performance of the committee. Owen Jennings of Act said "Here we are are again appointing a committee to carry out this travesty, a committee on its own admission is a failure, that is set up as a charade."

This is a shameful charade that was supported by 85 MP's who voted for Dr Rothwell knowing full well of her involvement with abortions at Parkview.

It is clear from the debate in the House that Parliament, the highest court in the land, accepts the failure of the committee to uphold the law and protect the right to life of unborn New Zealanders - the weakest of the weak and most defenseless of all our human family.

The action of Parliament is a disgrace, bringing the rule of law into jeopardy and undermining the credibility of Parliament.

Why has there been a deafening silence from the media?

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

03 385 6111

30 August 2001

Minister of Health's Decision to Approve RU 486 Raises Serious Issues

This Society is disappointed that the Minister of Health has given approval for the distribution and use of the French Pill RU486 in New Zealand.

The Minister has said, “I have approved RU 486 because it is a safe and sound medication.” Pregnancy is not a disease. This decision marks a shameful chapter in New Zealand’s history, a decision that imposes chemical warfare before birth against our own children.

The sole purpose of this lethal drug is to destroy by starvation an innocent and helpless human being in its mother’s womb and to terminate pregnancy.

It is neither a medication nor is it safe.

The long-term effect of RU 486 on future children is unknown. The drug RU 486 has been found on the hair follicles in women’s ovaries, and we may have to wait another 10 years before we know of the long-term effects on future progeny.

The decision of the Minister also raises important questions for tax-payers; as women undergoing an RU 486 abortion are required to stay in the licensed facility until the abortion is complete to comply with the CS&A Act.

The Minister has advised this Society that she has not researched the cost to our healthy services for introducing abortions with RU 486.

Surgical abortions are costed at $1000 each. The taxpayer is entitled to know how much more will RU486 abortions cost our health service.

The Minister has confirmed that she has statutory authority to decline the application for RU486. This is a political decision that the Labour Alliance Government must accept responsibility for. The Minister has claimed that New Zealand women wanted RU486. Recently the Minister advised this society that she had not received a submission from any organisation supporting approval for RU486. So where are the women’s organisations supporting RU486?

It is not the women of New Zealand who want RU486 but doctors in the abortion industry who are tired of doing soul destroying surgical abortions.

The application for authority to distribute RU486 was made by Istar Ltd. The company has five shareholders all of whom are directors. All have been involved with the provision of surgical abortions.

Edouard Sakiz, then Chairman of Roussel Uclaf, the drug company that developed RU486 said "RU486" is not at all easy to use, in fact it is much more complex to use than the technique of vacuum extraction ... A women who wants to end her pregnancy has to live with her abortion for at lease a week using this technique. It is an appalling psychological ordeal."

Children are this country's greatest resource, with an increasing aging population and a fertility rate below replacement level. It is demographic suicide for the government to approve another method of killing children in the womb.

It is frightening to consider that there is a direct link between the German pharmaceutical giant IG FABIN that produced ZYKLON B gas used to murder millions of Jews in Concentration Camps and Roussal Uclaf the developers of RU486.

In the interests of New Zealand women and generations yet conceived we strongly urge the Minister to change her decision.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand.

August 2001

Minister of Justice's Decision to Withdraw Abortion Ground Review Welcomed

Right to Life New Zealand welcomes the decision of the Minister of Justice to withdraw the Governments promised review to consider widening the grounds for abortion. This is a victory for women and for the unborn.

It was his intention to seek an amendment to the law to permit abortions on socio-economic grounds. The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion in its report to Parliament was totally opposed to this concept. We don't eliminate poverty by killing the children of the poor. It is illegal to authorise an abortion on socio-economic grounds.

It is widely accepted that the 98% of abortions authorised on the grounds that the continuation of pregnancy presents a serious danger to the mental health of the mother are authorised for socio-economic reasons masquerading as psychiatric.

This society has documentary evidence that an abortion was authorised on the grounds that the pregnancy was interfering with a planned overseas holiday.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee acknowledges that we have abortion on demand in New Zealand. This is in violation of the Crimes Act. We thus have a regime of' illegal abortions operating in New Zealand. Why does the government allow this violation of law to continue?

The Government has a statutory duty to provide effective legal protection for unborn New Zealanders the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family.

The Minister of Justice has his name on both the Crimes Act and the CS&A Act. He is responsible for ensuring that the legislation is complied with for the protection of women and their babies.

When are New Zealand's unborn children going to receive justice and protection for their human rights, which includes their inalienable right to life?

We call upon the Minister of Justice to conduct an honest review of the law on abortion with the objective of stopping abortion on demand and ensuring that the right to life of unborn New Zealanders is fully protected.

The Minister cannot abdicate his responsibilities by leaving this important justice and human rights issue to the conscience of individual MP’s. Children are our nation's greatest resource, in destroying our children we are destroying our future.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson RTLNZ

19 July 2001

Killing of Security Guard Deplored

The killing of a Security Guard outside a Melbourne Abortion Clinic is deplored by Right to Life New Zealand as is the violence against women and the killing of innocent and helpless unborn children inside the clinic.

Campaigners from the Helpers of God's Precious Infants have been unfairly criticised for their prayer vigil outside the Melbourne clinic.

Members of this Society also belong to this organisation. They stand outside the Lyndhurst clinic, their prayerful presence is a witness to the value of life of every unborn child.

Helpers provide compassion with information and practical help not available at the clinic to assist women before and after the birth of their child.

Since 1993 three abortionists, two clinic employees, a clinic escort and a security guard have been killed in the United States. There have also been seventeen attempted murders of clinic staff.

These crimes are deplored, to stop the violence outside clinics it is first necessary to stop the violence against the unborn inside clinics.

Ken Orr (Spokesperson)

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

May 2000

Prostitution Reform Bill

Help Defeat This Bill

Prostitution is sexual violence against women, It exploits and degrades women and is an attack on their dignity as human beings.

The Bill will decriminalise prostitution in New Zealand and

Allow women to solicit for money and
Allow persons to live off the earnings of prostitutes
Allow for the establishment of brothels

The Bill seeks to protect human rights of prostitutes, it won't.

The United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of Others 1949, states in the preamble:

"Prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and endangered the welfare of the individual, the family and the community."

This Bill is another attack on the family. Don't let it.

ACTION:

Telephone, write or email to your local electorate or list MP's asking them to vote against this Bill.
You can contact your MP by following this link from this page
If you are a Christian discuss with your pastor, priest or minister, what your church can do to help defeat this Bill
Speak out on radio talkback shows

Right to Life New Zealand Inc. PO Box 668 Christchurch

New Members Welcome

April 2000

Abortion Supervisory Committee Fails in its Duty

Parliament will soon have the privilege and duty of making appointments to the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC).

It is the opinion of this society that the committee have failed in their statutory duty to ensure that abortions in New Zealand are lawful and authorised in accordance with the Crimes Act 1961 Section 187A.

We respectfully request that the present members of the committee be replaced. We would recommend that a District Court Judge be appointed chairperson. It is noted that Judge Augusta Wallace was appointed as the first chairperson in 1977.

In support of this submission we present for your consideration the following information. The statutory duties of this committee are set out in the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 Section 14. Among these duties is:

"To take all reasonable steps to ensure that the administration of the abortion law is consistent throughout New Zealand and to ensure the effective operation of this Act and the procedures thereunder."

The present Committee has recommended to Parliament that abortion be taken out of the Crimes Act and treated like any other medical procedure. It would then be a matter for a woman and her general practitioner and not subject to any restrictions.

It is contended that this recommendation is in conflict with the current statutory duty to uphold the Crimes Act 1961 which:

recognises that the killing of an unborn child is a serious crime

Recognises that abortions may be authorised only for the rare and exceptional circumstances laid down in Section 187A.

Abortion is recognised as a serious crime in the Crimes Act 1961. In Part VIII of that Act, Crimes against the Person Section 182 Killing Unborn Child states:

(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such manner that he would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being.

It is noted that for the purposes of this Act an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born.

Dr Christine Forster, chairperson of the ASC was reported in the Sunday Times, 5 November, (copy enclosed) as stating

"We do essentially have abortion on demand or request, however you like to put it" and "Certainly in the main centers, in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, if a woman wants an abortion I think she’ll get one."

Dr Forster went on to say:

"Abortions have been rising under the law, reaching a high of 15,501 that year. The vast majority, 98% are approved on the grounds that proceeding with the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mental health of a woman."

Dr Forster stated that she did not believe all those women were in serious danger and

"I think people are fitting the grounds to the women."

It is the view of this Society that these abortions are for socio-economic reasons, masquerading as psychiatric. These grounds are prohibited by the Crimes Act and are therefore unlawful.

In the Wall v Livingston case of 1982 the Court of Appeal stated:

"…. That the Supervisory Committee is given no control or authority or oversight in respect of individual decisions of consultants."

This is acknowledged and accepted, however it is contended that the ASC has the statutory duty and powers to ensure that the pattern of authorisations of certifying consultants comply with the law.

Section 24 Renewal of licences -

1. Every holder of a licence may from time to time apply to the Supervisory Committee for the renewal of the licence for a period of one year.

Subsection (3) states:

"On receiving an application for the renewal of a licence, the Supervisory Committee shall grant the application unless it is satisfied -

(b) that the holder of the licence has not, during the currency of the licence, taken all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure that the provisions of the abortion law were complied with in the institution.

Section 25 empowers the ASC to cancel a licence at any time if it believes that the above requirements are not being complied with.

The ASC appoint certifying consultants and section 30 (5) states that the Committee may not appoint consultants who hold the view stated in subsection (b)

"That the question of whether an abortion should or not be performed in any case is entirely a matter for the woman and a doctor to decide."

Appointments as certifying consultants are for one year and Section 30 (7) empowers the ASC to revoke an appointment at any time,

In our view the above section precludes the appointment of doctors as certifying consultants who believe that abortions should be authorised on request.

The long title of the CS&A Act states

"… abortions may be authorised after full consideration of the rights of the unborn child."

With abortion on demand prevailing, sadly the rights of the unborn child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family, are not being considered.

As a result since the CS&A Act was passed in 1977 there have been more than 250,000 abortions.

The New Zealand Government is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states in the preamble:

"The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

On 22nd January 2001 our Society wrote to the ASC requesting, under the Official Information Act, what action the Committee had taken to implement its statutory powers in response to the abortion on demand situation prevailing.

A copy of their response of 15th February is enclosed for your information. We believe this response to be unsatisfactory.

This submission is not just about the unborn child, it is also about the role of Parliament in a democratic society.

There is an urgent need for the government to reassert the rule of law and make each certifying consultant paid from the public purse, accountable.

The statement of Dr Christine Forster that she did not believe all those women who had an abortion on mental health grounds were in serious danger calls in to question the role of a number of doctors performing abortions.

The Crimes Act requires that a doctor performing an abortion must have honest belief in the appropriateness of the grounds laid out in Section 187A. An absence of honest belief renders the abortion unlawful.

Should Parliament permit a regime of abortion on demand with pseudo legal abortions to continue we would anticipate a further 50,000 abortions in the next three years during the next term of office of the committee.

This is an horrific loss of life that is greatly in excess of the 30,000 dead New Zealand suffered in two world wars.

Our abortion law should not only protect our unborn children but also protect their mothers from being exploited and abandoned. Abortion is frequently the choice of men as it allows them to escape responsibility for the children they have fathered.

Parliament is the defender of human rights, the protector of the weak and defenceless.

We earnestly urge you to exercise your conscience vote to reassert the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law by appointing a new committee that is pledged to ensure that unborn children receive the full protection of the law.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

For Executive.

5 November 2000

Abortion Supervisory Committee Fails Statutory Responsibilities

The statements made by Dr Christine Forster, chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, in the Sunday Star Times, 5 November, are alarming and raise serious questions about the rule of law in our society and the commitment of the Committee to fulfill its statutory duties.

The Committee is appointed by Parliament to ensure that the administration of the abortion laws upholds the rights of unborn children to life.

Dr Forster states “We do essentially have abortion on demand or request....” The Committee wanted to see abortion removed &am the Crimes Act, stating that abortion is purely a health issue. It is not. The Crimes Act rightly recognises that abortion is a crime against a person and a human rights issue, which is in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

Dr Forster has made a public admittance that the law is being flouted. She states that 98% of abortions are approved on the grounds that. proceeding with the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mental health of the mother. Dr Forster said that she did not believe all those women were in serious danger. “I think people are fitting the grounds to the women,” said Dr Forster.

This is a serious indictment of the doctors authorising pseudo legal abortions. The public are entitled to ask what is the Medical Association going to do about this scandalous situation?

Dr Forster and her committee have abjectly failed in their statutory duty to ensure that New Zealand" unborn children have the protection of the law as intended by Parliament in the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977 (CS&A Act).

The Minister of Justice is ultimately responsible for the administration of the Crimes Act and the CS&A Act and for the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

To uphold the rule of law he should demand that abortion on demand cease and that the lives of unborn children be protected by upholding the abortion laws.

He should also seek the immediate replacement of the Committee with members committed to upholding the law.

The Minister in his pending review of the abortion laws should ensure that the law be changed to give statutory recognition to the status of the unborn child as a human being with a right to life.

Doctors were held accountable at the Gisborne cervical cancer enquiry. Why are doctors not being made accountable for the taking of the lives of unborn children?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson