The Right to Life Charitable Trust of the UK has produced a number of well produced educational resources for School Students on a number of life issues including Human Life, Abortion, Euthanasia. Media bias is explored in these resources, especially useful are insights into how statistics may be misused by liberal media sources.
I wish to request under the Official Information Act the following information;
Kindly advise if your member Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is a member of the New Zealand Family Planning Association?
In the event that Dr Fenwicke was a member but has since resigned, please advise the date that she resigned?
It is understood that Dr Fenwicke was the Medical Director of the Central Region for the Family Planning Association from 1987 to 1990. It is assumed that she was at that time a member of the Association.
Your Committee received an application on 29th July 2009 from the Family Planning Association for a licence to perform medical abortions at its Hamilton clinic.
It is understood that this application is still under consideration.
In the event that Dr Fenwicke is a member of the Family Planning Association, was this known to your Committee? It is contended that for Dr Fenwicke, if she were a member of the Family Planning Association, to be involved in any way with your Committee’s consideration of this application by Family Planning that it would constitute a serious conflict of interest.
Would you please advise in what way has Dr Fenwicke participated in your Committee’s consideration of the application for a licence by Family Planning?
Re: Ultra Sound Scan – Abortion – Official Information Act Request
It was reported in the Wairarapa Times on 26 August that, 98% of women who were considering an abortion when offered the opportunity to view a scan of their baby declined the opportunity.
Studies done in the United States reveal that where women considering an abortion are offered the opportunity of viewing an ultrasound scan of their baby between 62 to 95% of the women after seeing their baby chose life for their baby.
Re: The Killing of Unborn Children with Down syndrome Genocide
It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Convention). New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Our complaint is that in February 2010 the government of New Zealand instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and other conditions – Quality Improvements” programme.
It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Relevant section of the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishmentofthe Crime of Genocide
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Further to the “Cultural Damage from the Culture Wars”. The Family Planning Association [FPA] should be seen as the enemy of the family and the promoter of a culture of death. What plans does Family Planning have for our families?
They continue to seduce our children and undermine parental responsibility. The Association lobbied vigorously to have the law recognise that children under the age of 16 can be given contraceptives without the knowledge or consent of parents. The Association also lobbied against an amendment to the Care of Children Bill providing that girls under the age of 16 could not obtain an abortion without the knowledge of parents or guardian. The staff of the Association regularly smuggle girls out of school without the knowledge of parents to take them to have an abortion. It is outrageous that parents have to sign a school consent form for a child to visit the zoo but can have her unborn child, the grandchild of her parents killed without a consent form. The Association is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand. In the year 2008 17,940 abortions were performed in New Zealand, during that year the Association made 4866 abortion referrals throughout the country.
Dr John Clark, 9 August, suggests that it is time that society had a debate about abortion. It would be helpful if we could endeavour to see the issue from God’s perspective. God is the author of life, every child is conceived and endowed by God with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life. These rights are inalienable and universal. Being inalienable they cannot be taken away from us nor may we give them up. They are universal which means that every human being has them whether one is conceived in a loving marriage or conceived in rape, God does not make mistakes nor does He have accidents. Every child is the object of God’s infinite love, a love that commenced in eternity. Every child is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation, truly a precious infant of God that was purchased with the precious blood of Christ on Calvary. Every child comes into this world to love and to be loved and to fulfil a special plan of God. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family who deserves our love and protection.
Re editorial 11 August, it is imperative that there be a debate on the protection our abortion laws provide for the human rights of unborn children. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion 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. The commission said the right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation.”It is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it.
Re: Interpretation of Section 21, Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977
Thank you for your letter of 5July 2010. We have referred your opinion on the meaning of Section 21 [2] [b] to our counsel for his consideration and response.
Following consultation with our counsel our understanding of the above section is unchanged as expressed to you in our letter of 24 April 2010.
Section 28 of the CS &A Act 1977 empowers your Committee on its own motion to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on any question of law arising in any matter before your Committee. I request that your Committee exercise that power and of its own motion make application to the Court to have this important point of law as to the meaning of s21 [2] of the Act clarified.
Re editorial 11 August, it is imperative that there be a debate on the protection our abortion laws provide for the human rights of unborn children. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion 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. The commission said 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 threaten civilisation and would fail to recognise the dignity of man”.
It is disappointing that the Green Party has a profound difficulty in understanding and accepting the inalienable right to life of every human being from conception. The Party commendably upholds the right to life of dairy calves but not that of innocent and defenceless unborn children. Are dairy calves more valuable and important than our own unborn children? At the moment of conception every human being is conferred by the Creator with a right to life, this right is inalienable and universal. Dairy calves also have a right to life but not comparable to a human beings right to life, they deserve respect as party of God’s creation.
The Green Party Animal Welfare spokesperson, Sue Kedgley, on the 2nd August in a media release stated, that the Minister of Agriculture should ban “this inhumane and cruel practice” in the dairy industry of inducing cows to give birth to premature calves. Why is it that the Green Party strongly opposes a drug used to abort dairy calves and yet approves of the abortion murder pill, RU 486 used in the inhumane and cruel practice of killing unborn babies by starvation in the first nine weeks of life?
It is understood that you recently stated it was time that we had a debate about legislation that would allow for euthanasia. It is mentioned that the community and Parliament have in recent times had an intense debate on this important issue. In 1995 Michael Laws presented a Death with Dignity bill that was defeated at its first reading 61 to 25. In 2003 Peter Brown presented the same bill which was defeated at its first reading 60 to 57. In both debates Parliamentarians concluded that legislating for euthanasia was an unwise and dangerous social policy.
Euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients. Euthanasia may be voluntary or compulsory. If voluntarily administered by oneself, it is a form of suicide. If administered by another in an involuntary or compulsory way, it is murder. If administered by another with the victim’s consent or co-operation .it is both suicide and murder. The World Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the New Zealand Medical Association are totally opposed to euthanasia. The profession has a 2000 year Hippocratic tradition of opposition to euthanasia. Doctors should be healers not serial killers. If we legislated for euthanasia, doctors would become the most dangerous persons in the land.
Re: Official Information Act Request – Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I wish to request under the Official Information Act a copy of the recommendations if any from the Ministry of Health to you on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology [ACART] to allow for the experimentation on spare embryos stored in IVF clinics in New Zealand.
A study was made in 2009 into the delays experienced by women seeking an abortion. The study was conducted at 9 abortion facilities and included 2150 women. The study was conducted by Dr Martha Silva and two associates from the University of Auckland. The study found that the average delay from the time of referral at the clinic to the abortion was 25 days. The Abortion Supervisory Committee recommended that the delay should not exceed 2 weeks. Studies done overseas had revealed that women who have made a decision to terminate the life of their child suffer stress, anxiety and a diminished quality of life if they are required to wait for an abortion. The study promotes a culture of death. It is appalling that Dr Silva wants to have a debate about the best time to kill the child.
Dr Silva states that “abortion is a safe procedure and should be carried out at the earliest gestation possible” Abortion is promoted by abortion providers as a safe procedure and of benefit to women. They say every effort must be made to ensure that women have access to safe and speedy abortion services. Right to Life challenges this assumption. Human life begins at conception and the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is due to the human person. At 10 weeks the child in the womb has a beating heart with its organs – brain, liver, kidneys and stomach functioning, it is recognisably human , with a head, face, body and tiny arms, legs, fingers and toes.
I wish to express concern at the proposal of the Hon Steve Chadwick to sponsor a private members Bill to seek the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. It is her intention to seek cross party support. We believe that the proposed Bill is not in the best interest of women, their unborn children or of society. Our reasons for our opposition to the proposed Bill are as follows.
What does ‘Decriminalisation of Abortion Mean’? It is the removal of all reference to abortion from the New Zealand Criminal Code, allowing abortion to be performed on any unborn child for "any" or "no" reason up until 24 weeks. It would no longer be a crime to kill an unborn child. We believe that effectively we would have abortion on demand up until the child is born. In this situation there would be no legal safeguards in place to protect the lives of the unborn child or the pregnant mother. Decriminalisation would be contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, 1977.
John and Janine Grant of Auckland have started a group which provides practical help and support to women who are pregnant and looking at their options. Their group is called 0800UCHOOSE which is obviously their phone number.
0800UCHOOSE are a Christian couple who offer support and love to help women thinking about abortion or adoption. They have a very strong passion for families, especially young women struggling with doubt, worry and impending motherhood. Whether this is in the form of hands on care of mother and/or baby or in other ways. They are raising 8 children of their own ranging from 4 up to 21 years, three of whom no longer live at home and one who has become part of the family.
On their website they say “You might say this site is pro-life & yes we are for life, your life. I’ve sat with girls as they have cried after they’ve had an abortion and heard their pain. We’d like to spare you that pain if we can. If with our help you can get to the end of your pregnancy then you’ll be able to make a decision you can live with.” For their Contact details read on
A specialist who has worked with geriatric patients for two decades, has said he has never seen any doctor perform euthanasia.
On Tuesday night’s Close Up programme Dr John Pollock, who is terminally ill, claimed many doctors are already practising euthanasia.
"It’s called pain control or anxiety control, but the reality is many of the doctors who do this are deliberately shortening the lifespan of the patient, quite rightly," claimed Pollock.
But on Breakfast today, Professor Martin Connolly from North Shore Hospital’s geriatric unit, said he has never known of it.
"Clearly there has to be a distinction made between active euthanasia – that is, bringing a patient’s life to an end on purpose… and a person deciding not to have active treatment because they believe that treatment would be futile. But that is not the same as active euthanasia," Connolly told Pippa Wetzell
This article is from a post by Dr Jennifer Roback Morse on her website at www.ruthinstitute.org
The 50th anniversary of the birth control pill — the Food and Drug Administration gave it final approval in 1960 — has been the occasion of much media fanfare, societal reflection — and what we might call Secular Triumphalism. We, the Enlightened, knew all along that giving women control over their fertility was going to be simply marvelous. End of story. Some of us have tried to point out that the pill had some negative consequences, but few seem interested.
The reason for the disconnect is that the ideology surrounding the pill is more significant than the pill itself.
Behind the apparently benign goal of giving people more choices lies a deeper goal: re-creating society. And since this new society is neither appealing nor natural, its advocates are not so eager to call attention to it.
The following article is from the Tuesday 20th July Edition of the Dominion Post.
OPINION: It went unnoticed by the media, but Justice Minister Simon Power recently issued a press statement announcing that Rosemary Fenwicke had decided not to seek reappointment to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
There’s a story behind this. Dr Fenwicke, a member of the three-person committee since 2007, is an abortion certifying consultant who earns fees by approving the termination of pregnancies.
May 2005 RTL filed a mandamus in the High Court in Wellington against the ASC for its alleged failure to fulfil its statutory duties. These claims included the failure of the ASC to ensure that the human rights of unborn children received the full protection of the law, the failure to hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions they authorised and the failure to stop abortion on demand.
20 June 2005 The ASC applied for orders striking out the proceedings against the ASC. The ASC described the action as vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.
8 September 2005 In the High Court in Wellington Mr Justice Wild heard the case between RTL and the three members of the ASC, Dr Lesley Rothwell, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Mrs Marlene Lamb (the latter had resigned from the committee in March 2005, leaving a vacancy.). Counsel from the Crown Law Office, are representing the ASC. RTL named the Attorney-General as second defendant. The judge decided that some of RTL’s claims should be struck out but that others, if rewritten, could proceed. The Attorney-General was named by RTL as a defendant, Justice Wild struck his name out of the action.
If you do only one thing today to help save babies from the new Obama-U.N. abortion attack, make sure you sign the Petition!
Although this Act relates to the United States of America, it has global implications including international sex education for young children and paying for abortions world wide. At Right to Life NZ we therefore think it is relevant and important to oppose this act. For more read on below.
On behalf of Right to Life New Zealand Inc, I wish to lodge a complaint against an article that was published in the Press on page A5 on 18 June 2010. The article had the title, “Decline in abortion rates”.
Our complaint is submitted in our belief that the article breached Principle 1 of the New Zealand Press Council in respect to fairness and balance. Enclosed is a copy of the article and the relevant correspondence.
The article which reports on the abortion statistics released by Statistics NZ on 17 June 2010 includes comments sought from Dr Pippa MacKay and Dame Margaret Sparrow. Our Society has no objection to comment being sought from these two doctors who have considerable experience in terminating the lives of unborn children. We defend their right in a democratic society to be heard.
The Minister of Justice has announced that Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is not seeking reappointment to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. She was appointed to the Committee for a term of three years by the Governor General on the recommendation of Parliament made on the 14 June 2007. Her nomination by the previous government was highly controversial.
Right to Life welcomes this news. Our Society together with other pro-life organisations have previously made submissions to the Minister of Justice expressing concern and opposition to Dr Fenwicke’s appointment on the grounds that her appointment constituted a substantial conflict of interest. Dr Fenwicke is a certifying consultant appointed to authorise abortions. She is also an abortionist employed at the Level J abortion facility at the Wellington Hospital. How could she be expected to supervise the abortion industry when she was a prominent member of that industry?
I wish to express concern at your proposal to sponsor a private members Bill to seek the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. Our Society recognizes that you are motivated by a desire to act in the best interest of women, an objective that we share with you. We believe that the proposed Bill is not in the best interest of women, their unborn children or of society. Our reasons for our opposition to the proposed Bill are as follows.
DECRIMINALISING ABORTION VS HUMAN LIFE
What does ‘Decriminalisation of Abortion mean’?
It is the removal of all reference to abortion from the New Zealand Criminal Code, allowing abortion to be performed on any unborn child for “any” or “no” reason up until 24 weeks. We believe that effectively we would have abortion on demand up until the child is born. In this situation there would be no legal safeguards in place to protect the lives of the unborn child or the pregnant mother.
I wish to draw your attention to a new study coming from researchers in Sri Lanka that finds women who had abortions have more than triple their breast cancer risk compared with women who carry their pregnancy to term. The study was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology and found a 3.42 odds ratio against women having abortions compared with those who kept their baby. The new study article is titled, "Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: A case-control study."
The recent proposal to introduce a Private Members Bill to allow abortion on demand in New Zealand, by List Labour MP Steven Chadwick, has resulted in significant debate. A recent post by David Farrar on his www.kiwiblog.co.nz site entitled “Abortion on Demand” which commented on this proposal has generated over 400 comments.
How is it that at this time when there is increasing evidence of the physical, psychological and spiritual damage inflicted on women by abortion, that anyone would contemplate the decriminalization of abortion?
The belief that self autonomy is of such a high value that it trumps the sanctity of human life is one of the foundational lies that is destroying our culture our country and our world — Right to Life New Zealand
Secretary,
Loading ...
Recent Comments