|
NEWSARCHIVES
National Right to Life Letter Opposes Anti-Life Stem Cell Research Bill
Subject: National Right to Life Letter Opposes Anti-Life
Stem Cell
|
Germany Stops RU 486Source: International Right to Life Federation Inc (Vol 11 No. 6) The RU 486 pill, which had been legally being distributed in Germany, will be stopped as of January 1. According to the Federal Statistics Office, the total number of abortions in Germany has dropped by about 5% to 33,564. Of these, only 2% involved RU 486. The Femigen Company in Holzkirchen, Germany will also give up its distribution rights. The pill was approved in November 1999. It is not known whether another company will seek the license. Part of the reason for lack of use is the recent dramatic letter from the Searle Company denouncing the use of its drug, Cytotec, which is used two days after RU 486.
|
Dutch Parliament Legalizes Euthanasia
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly
Subject: Dutch Parliament Legalizes Euthanasia
Source: Assoicated Press, Reuters, BBC; November 28, 2000
The Hague, Netherlands --- The Dutch parliament approved a bill
legalizing euthanasia Tuesday, positioning the Netherlands to become
the first nation in the world to openly allow the anti-life policy.
Advocates of euthanasia voiced praise for the vote, but many Christian
and pro-life groups and others condemned it, led by the Vatican, which
said the law ``violates human dignity.''
Fending off concerns the Netherlands could become a haven for patients
from abroad seeking to end their lives, Dutch officials stressed that
foreigners would be unable to meet strict standards under the law for
allowing euthanasia. ``There is no possibility for foreigners to come
here for euthanasia,'' said Wijnand Stevens of the Justice Ministry.
``The criteria call for a long term doctor-patient relationship. They
are just too strict for that.''
All 100 seats in parliament's public gallery were full for Tuesday's
vote, in which legislators announced their votes aloud as requested by
a Christian political party opposed to the bill. After the 104-40 vote
in Parliament's lower house, the bill was expected to win approval by
the upper house early next year and become law.
"The same line of reasoning is being used as in Germany in
1935...In the Netherlands, your life is no longer safe," said
Bert Dorenbos of the Dutch pro-life group Scream for Life. "If
doctors are not hesitating to kill people then they will not hesitate
to withdraw medical treatment from people they do not like," he
added.
With the law, the Netherlands would formalize the tolerance it has
long held toward euthanasia - thousands of cases are reported every
year here and many more go unreported. In 1993, legislators passed a
set of guidelines that doctors could follow to carry out euthanasia
and - it was understood - go unprosecuted. Still, euthanasia was a
crime punishable by up to 12 years in prison. The new legislation
largely adopts the informal guidelines, which say the patient must be
feeling unrelenting suffering and know all the medical options.
``Doctors should not be treated as criminals. This will create
security for doctors and patients alike,'' said Health Minister Els
Borst, who drafted the bill. ``Something as serious as ending
one's life deserves openness,'' she said after the vote.
Switzerland, Colombia and Belgium tolerate euthanasia. Australia's
Northern Territory approved the practice in 1996, but the federal
Parliament revoked the law in 1997. Others, such as Denmark and
Singapore, Canada and Australia, give patients the right to refuse
life-prolonging treatment.
In Oregon, voters approved assisted suicide for the terminally ill in
1994. Since the law took affect in 1997, 43 people have died in
assisted suicides there. The House of Representatives passed a
pro-life bill, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, in October that would
restrict assisted suicides, but it faces a possible veto.
In assisted suicides, the patient administers a lethal dose of
medication to himself or herself. Under the new Dutch euthanasia law,
a doctor may give it directly to the patient.
Opponents in the Dutch parliament denounced the bill, saying it
challenges God's will by giving doctors the power to decide over life
and death. ``This a black day in the history of our Parliament,'' said
lawmaker Bas van der Vlies of the State Reform Party SGP. ``We believe
as Christians that our lives are not in our hands, that we cannot
ourselves decide. We must wait for God's leadership.''
The Vatican said the law was ``a sad record for Holland,'' and
spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said it ``violates human dignity.''
"The first problem this law poses is a very serious question of
conscience, which doctors will have to face up to," Navarro-Valls
explained. "Again, we are faced with a law of the state which
opposes the natural law of human conscience." He said the Dutch
law went against international declarations on medical ethics that had
been adopted for years by the medical community.
``It's cheaper to kill people than to take care of them,'' scoffed
Lori Hougens of the Washington-based National Right to Life Committee,
adding: ``We are very, very saddened'' by the law. ``It could have a
terrible impact around the world. When you tell people it's OK, it can
change them,'' she said.
In the United States, the Denver-based Hemlock Society said the
Netherlands' move was unlikely to help win legal approval for assisted
suicide elsewhere. But the president said it could have an impact on
U.S. public opinion. ``We are very excited,'' said Faye Girsh. ``We
have admired what the people of Holland have been doing for the last
20 years. They have been carefully and openly helping people to die.''
Under the new Dutch law, a patient must be undergoing unremitting and
unbearable suffering, be aware of all other medical options and have
sought a second professional opinion. The request must be made
voluntarily, persistently and independently. But the bill does not
stipulate that the patient's suffering must be physical and it also
does not require the patient's disease be terminal. Pro-life advocates
say these open up wide loopholes for abuse.
The Dutch vote was also condemned by Father Gino Concetti, a senior
moral theologian at the Vatican whose thinking is close to that of
Pope John Paul. "Life is inviolable," he explained. "So
any law that destroys it or approves of its destruction is inhumane.
This is an absurd decision that goes against the grain of thousands of
years of European civilization and tramples the dignity of the human
person."
"By making this choice, the Dutch parliament has opened a breach
in the political and social order of the countries of the European
Union and in other places where the issue is still being
considered," Concetti noted. Catholic Church canon (law) 2,278
says extraordinary, costly and dangerous life-support systems for a
terminally ill person can be discontinued at the patient's or family's
request, but actively ending a life is always morally unacceptable.
The lawyer for Jack Kevorkian, jailed by U.S. authorities last year
for televising a euthanasia, said he was happy about the Dutch action.
"He's very pleased that the law has been enacted in the
Netherlands for assisted suicide and feels that such a law, of course,
is humane and that it's appropriate under the proper guidelines,"
Mayer Morganroth told Reuters.
He said Kevorkian, now 72, believes that within the next three to five
years assisted suicide will start to be allowed under laws in the
United States.
But Rita Marker, executive director of the International
Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, said the law would send a dangerous
signal. "It will be like giving the household seal of
approval. What is currently a crime will be transformed into medical
treatment," Marker said.
Patients will also be permitted to leave a written request giving
doctors the right to use their own discretion of whether to carry out
euthanasia when patients themselves can no longer decide. A committee
consisting of at least three people, including a physician, a lawyer
and an expert in medical ethics, will review cases to ensure the
criteria are met.
Patients as young as 16 can seek euthanasia in consultation with their
parents, and children aged 12-15 must have parental consent, the
Justice Ministry said.
Recent figures show that Dutch doctors helped 2,216 patients, mostly
cancer victims, to die in 1999, but it is estimated that some 60
percent of cases are not reported.
Comment on Sunday Star Times Abortion Law Change Article
- Chris O'Brien
Abortion numbers have been steadily rising in NZ, reaching a high of 15,501 in 1999. Abortion remains a serious crime under the Crimes Act 1961, but when the Contraception Steralisation and Abortion Act was passed in 1977, the Crimes Act was also amended (Section 187 A). Under that amendment grounds were provided on which abortion could be allowed. (Abortions could be authorised, when proceeding with the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mental health of a woman.) The vast majority (98%) of abortions are approved on these grounds.
In a report to Justice Minister Phil Goff in February this year, the Abortion Supervisory Group (ASC), advised the Government that abortion should be legally allowed on demand. In a recent article in the Sunday Star Times (5/11/00), Christine Forester the chairwoman of the ASC, was reported to have said that allowing abortion on demand would more honestly reflect the ways abortion laws were already administered and that she did not believe all those women (98%), were in serious danger. She was also reported to have said "... I think in a way it's demeaning to be claiming this is something that is a serious mental health problem."
Here we have an interesting situation. First we have the 'mental health clause' (Section 187 A of the Crimes Act) instituted as means of authorising abortion in cases of serious danger to women's mental health, and then before long we have the clause invoked as a "loophole" to allow abortion and now, the "loophole" is itself being criticised as being demeaning and an appeal is then made, on this basis that the law should be changed. Something is strangely amiss here.
It does however provide a good illustration of how increasing liberalisation of our laws may be achieved by a process that might be described as "incremental acclimatisation."
In similar vein we may look at the mechanism by which many 'wrongs' are now being called 'rights' in our society. Initially the wrong is accepted as a wrong, then it is condoned, after that it is accepted and finally it is legalised.
Laila Harre, Women's Affairs Minister, was reported, in the above Sunday Star Times article to have said, "It is time to make an honest woman of abortion law." In a way she is right, because a farce is being made of the current law, but as Josephine Reeves, the national president for the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, said in the same article, this is an argument for enforcing not liberalising the law.
We cannot allow Abortion to be decriminalised in this country. Abortion is the fuel with which the moral fabric of society has been set alight. Condoning abortion has been pivotal in changing the value set of our culture. Removing abortion from the Crimes Act, would lead us much further down the very dark road upon which we are already traveling on.
It seems that in our country, we are on the threshold of seeing the floodgates open to a raft of socially damaging legislation. Not only are sweeping changes being proposed to our Abortion laws but we also face the prospect of the legalisation of Euthanasia, and the decriminalisation of both Prostitution and Marijuana. Liberals are also pushing more and more for measures that will result in further devolution of the structures of marriage and family.
But it is not too late. We are not powerless as individuals. It is up to each person to speak out. Remember for the triumph of evil all that is necessary is that the good do nothing. What can one person do, you may say? If you want to help preserve the rights of the unborn, and the infirm, then following the link at the bottom of this article may well be a good place to start.
Abortion Law To Change
Ken Orr
The unborn child will be increasingly threatened by a growing culture of death if Parliament implements the recommendations of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
These recommendations were made by the committee in its 1999 report to Parliament.
The Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, says he will recommend to Cabinet that there be a review of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act (CS&A Act). The previous Minister of Justice, Sir Douglas Graham, was strongly criticised by the Committee for failing to take up most of the recommendations.
The Minister of Justice states that he seeks to bring down the rate of abortions. Implementation of the recommendations however will result in an increase, not a decrease in abortions.
The committee recommends that the Minister of Justice arrange a review of the CS&A Act in the interests of the women of New Zealand.
This recommendation was previously made in 1998, it was ignored. The Act has not been reviewed since it was passed in 1977. There has been a great reluctance by succeeding governments to grapple with this issue for fear of the intense passion and division this human rights issue evokes
There is an urgent need for a review of the CS&A Act.
It was the intention of Parliament in passing this legislation to provide effective legal protection for the unborn child. Abortions have increased nearly 300% since 1980 when there were 5945 to last years total of 15029. Clearly the administration of the law has failed to protect the unborn child. The Minister states "Time and social attitudes have moved on. It is desirable that there be consistency between the law governing abortions and the practice."
It is contended that the law should be upheld and the rule of law should not be brought into contempt. The right to life is a human right bestowed by God, not by Parliament. It is Parliaments duty to provide legal protection for this fundamental human right. It should not be subject to the shifting sands of changing society attitudes.
Any review of the CS&A Act should be based on the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion. In their report to Parliament in 1977 they said: "The unborn child, is one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and most defenseless forms of humanity, should receive protection."
The commission said the right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation. "It is an indispensable guarantee of the individuals worth of the persons within it. Its universal denial would threaten civilisation and would fail to recognise the dignity of man. A review then should provide increased legal protection not less. In December 1997 Dr Forster, chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, said in a statement to the media "the Act fails to protect the unborn child."
The unborn child will be increasingly threatened by a growing culture of death if Parliament implements the recommendations of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
More members of Parliament support less restrictive abortion laws than oppose them, a survey by the Dominion newspaper reveals. Ninety-eight of Parliaments 120 MPs were contacted on the 23rd December. Twenty-seven said they would vote for more liberal laws, sixteen some change to laws, twenty-one would vote against more liberal laws, six would probably vote against them and twenty-eight either did not know or declined to comment.
The Committee recommends that all medical practitioners be appointed certifying consultants on registration.
The committee states that there is a shortage of doctors willing to be certifying consultants. There are 217 certifying consultants of whom 129 meet the Acts specialist category requirements. The vast majority of the medical profession do not wish to be consultants and have exercised their right not to apply.
The recommendation appears to have the support of the New Zealand Medical Association.
We should oppose it for the following reasons:
- A similar proposal was rejected by the Royal Commission in their report to Parliament in 1977. In this report they stated there were many doctors they would not trust with an abortion decision.
- It would trivialise the killing of the unborn child and make it a normal and acceptable part of medical practice.
- It will further undermine a 2400 year Hippocratic tradition of respect for life. The 1948 Declaration of Geneva states: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
- It could lead to the de-criminalising of abortion. This is advocated by Dr Edwards, abortionist and former director of the Lyndhurst abortion facility.
- It will restrict the right of families and expectant mothers to choose a doctor who is committed to upholding the sanctity of life ethnic.
- The CS&A Act section 30 (5) states that doctors with extreme views on abortion should not be appointed as certifying consultants.
- Implementation of this recommendation would effectively remove this important statutory safeguard.
- It would probably result in more abortions. If 217 consultants can authorise 15,029 abortions, how many will a potential 4000 doctors authorise?
- It will increase pressure on doctors to be involved in authorising the killing of the unborn through fear of not fulfilling a "duty" and of losing a patient.
Implementation of this recommendation will have a catastrophic affect on the medical profession. It will be a major victory for a culture of death. Can you imagine our society where every doctor has the right to decide who will be born and who will be killed before birth? It is only a short stop away from euthanasia when a doctor will decide who will live and who will die.
The Committee recommends that socio-economic factors be taken into account when determining the grounds for abortion. Are we now to seek to eliminate poverty by killing the children of the poor? There is documented evidence that an abortion was authorised because the pregnancy was interfering with plans for an overseas trip. It is widely believed that 98% of abortions that are currently authorised on mental health grounds are for socio-economic reasons masquerading as psychiatric.
The Committee recommends that the law be altered to permit legal post 20 week gestation abortion in cases of major fetal abnormality incompatible with normal life. It should be noted that Spina Bifida and Downs Syndrome are considered incompatible with life. The committee notes that fetal abnormality is currently an underlying factor in maternal health grounds beyond 20 weeks gestation.
The committee reported 35 abortions post 20 weeks for 1998. There were 179 pre-twenty week abortions authorised in 1998 because of substantial risk of a physically or mentally abnormal seriously handicapped child. We should note that this law change will allow the killing of a handicapped child in the womb right up to birth. This is a search and destroy mission. It is interesting to note that the Committee states in its report "It is the Committees view that these recommendations in many instances reflected and still reflect, the reality of the situation for women in New Zealand seeking an abortion." It appears that the Committee believes its task is to ensure that every woman who wants an abortion should get one that the law should be amended to ensure that abortion will be legal for whatever reason the woman presents. The Committee comments in its report its opinion "that a decision to have an abortion should only be between the woman and her doctor".
Call to Action
Are we concerned about the sort of society we are going to bequeath to our children and grandchildren? We now live in a post Christian era. Aere we prepared to watch passively as the forces of evil promoting a culture of death with abortion, infanticide, genocide and euthanasia decreeing that only the wanted shall be permitted to live? We need to act before it is too late!
Great horrors do not occur overnight, nor do they develop in a vacuum. They begin with small compromises, unnoticed by the people.
Remember the words of Deuteronomy "I offer you life and death choose life, in order that your children shall live."
RU 486 News
Family Planning’s link to the recent application for government approval to
use the French abortion pill in New Zealand is now exposed. The application was
made to Medsafe, by Dr Margaret Sparrow, on behalf of Istar Ltd, in June this
year. The Registrar of Companies records reveal that this firm was registered in
1999 with five directors two of whom have strong associations with Family
Planning. Dr Margaret Sparrow, previously the medical director at the Parkview
abortion clinic in Wellington, is employed by Family Planning and was formerly a
national vice president. Dr Dianna Edwards, medical director and an abortionist
at Lyndhurst abortion clinic, also works for family planning and was formerly an
executive member of that organization. Dr Sparrow when interviewed by the Sunday
Star Times regarding the application said. "We are not really wanting any
publicity…’’ which explains why Family Planning have been so
uncharacteristically silent on this issue. It was Family Planning that brought
Professor Emile Baulieu, the developer of RU 486, to New Zealand in 1990 to
promote this lethal drug. Since then Family Planning has been the leading
advocate for the use of RU 486 in New Zealand. RU 486 kills babies and is a
serious threat to the health of women and their future children. Why does Family
Planning, which is the biggest abortion provider in this country, promote
chemical warfare against the unborn? The Minister of Health should act in the
best interests of women and generations yet conceived by withholding approval to
use RU 486 in New Zealand. Does the Labour Alliance government want the shameful
distinction of being the first government in the history of New Zealand to
authorize the use of a drug to kill another human being?
Ken Orr
Spokesperson
Right To Life New Zealand
National Survey – Life Issues
Ken Orr
The Christchurch Branch recently commissioned the national research firm, A C Neilson, to conduct a national telephone survey to establish the community’s response to three important life issues. The survey has a margin of error of + or - 3%.
Respondents were told “The Abortion Supervisory Committee advises that there were 15 029 abortions reported in New Zealand for 1998. Some people who are concerned about the number of abortions in New Zealand would like to see Parliament take action to give greater legal protection to unborn children in New Zealand.
Question: Firstly, in principle, do you agree or disagree that Parliament should take action to give greater legal protection to unborn children?
| Strongly agree | 17% |
| Agree | 17% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9% |
| Disagree | 30% |
| Strongly disagree | 23% |
| Refused | 3% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
The results indicate that 34% of the population over the age of 15 years of age support legal protection for the unborn child in contrast to 53% of the population that does not support increased legal protection.
The question posed in this survey was the subject of a survey commissioned in January 1988 and conducted by AGB McNair. That survey disclosed:
| Strongly agree | 20% |
| Moderately agree | 10% |
| Mildly agree | 10% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 22% |
| Mildly disagree | 12% |
| Moderately disagree | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 15% |
The results indicate that in just over ten years, when abortions have increased from 8,789 in 1987 to 15,029 in 1998, the level of support for increased legal protection for the unborn child has fallen from 40% to 32%. At the same time the level of opposition to increased legal protection is now higher on 53% in comparison with the 35% revealed in 1988.
Across all demographic breakdowns a higher proportion of people disagree than agree that Parliament should take action to give increased legal protection to unborn children. There are few exceptions to this. There is a relationship between personal income and the tendency to disagree that Parliament should provide greater legal protection for the unborn child.
The higher the income the more likely people are to believe that Parliament should not give greater legal protection to the unborn child.
Demographic differences
Those demographic groups where a higher proportion of people agree rather than disagree that Parliament should give greater legal protection to the unborn child are:
- Those between the ages of 15 years and 17 years 55% agree or strongly agree.
- Households where the main earner describes their occupation as home duties 53% agree or strongly agree.
- People from Pacific Islands (66%), Chinese (82%) and Indian (55%) ethnic groups. (Note as these groups have smaller sample bases these statistics should be treated with caution.
Detailed Findings:
The survey revealed above average agreement when compared with the 33% agreement among the total sample that Parliament should give greater legal protection to the unborn child among the following groups:
- Those not in paid employment (42% agree or strongly agree.)
- Households with a child under 5 years of age (40%).
- NZ Maori (41%).
Why Are We Losing Ground?
In 1988, 22% of those surveyed did not have a view on supporting or opposing increased legal protection for the unborn child. In 1999 that figure has reduced to 9%. These statistics indicate that the community has now become more polarised on this issue.
- Each year with more than 15 000 abortions, possibly tens of thousands of New Zealanders who have experienced an abortion in their family, or among their circle of friends, have been coerced by this culture of death into supporting abortion.
- The media by their silence and, at worst, hostility, have contributed to the decline in support for the defence of the unborn child. The result is that many in the community no longer see it as an issue. This was indicated recently by the editor of a major local newspaper who said to a member of our executive, “Abortion is no longer an issue and people were sick of hearing about it.”
What Action Is Required
This is the most important human rights issue of our age, we need to have it at the top of the national agenda.
In spite of the opposition of the media and the apathy of the community, we need to have this human rights ‘ issue on the agenda of Parliament. This will then attract the interest and attention of the media and ultimately the community.
We can have abortion and the plight of the unborn child placed firmly on the Parliamentary agenda simply by our Society promoting legislation that will recognise the status of the unborn child as a human being and provide for increased and effective legal protection.