Minister of Health,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Ryall

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.

In your letter of 23 June 2009 to this Society you advised that you had not made a decision on this matter. I would be grateful if you would advise if you have now made a decision in response to the above recommendation of ACART. Our Society continues to be opposed to  experimentation on human embryos.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

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.

It is an unique unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. It is not a lump of cells nor is it the products of conception. It is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family, it deserves our respect and protection.  Abortion is never safe for the unborn child whose destruction is sought. It is also not safe for the mother who may experience a lifetime of sorrow regret and psychological damage.

The debate that the community should be having is not when abortions should be performed but whether they should be done at all. The fact that we have state funded and sanctioned abortions is an indictment on a society that has failed to provide vulnerable women and their unborn children with the care and protection that they desperately need and deserve.

We should also be debating the lawfulness of these abortions. It was Justice Miller in the High Court in Wellington in June 2008 who declared in his judgment on the Judicial Review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee,”There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended.” 

That damming  conclusion raises the question, how many of the abortions included in the study of Dr Silva were lawful and were children  deprived of their lives unlawfully?

There is a legal requirement that women seeking an abortion be offered counselling. It is of serious concern that 3.1% of the women participating in this study were not offered counselling. It is noted that 37.95% of women in the study believed that the delay was too long, 54.7% of women said it was just right or that they did not mind waiting as it gave them more time to consider. It is a disservice to women to put pressure on them to make a quick decision to kill their child in the first trimester when many women are ambivalent about their pregnancy. With more time women bond with their child and choose life for the child and avoid a lifetime of sorrow, regret and psychological damage.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Re: Proposed Bill to Decriminalize Abortion.

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.

The Commission in its report to Parliament stated;”The unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and 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.” The Commission was instituted by the Rowling, Labour government that promised to implement the recommendations of the Commission in legislation. The current abortion legislation is an enactment of the Commission’s recommendations. The decriminalisation of abortion would entail the repeal of the current legislation. It is contended that before that took place there should be a further Royal Commission.

What would become of the effects?

With no criminal law, abortion numbers would increase because people often equate the lack of criminal sanction with acceptable behaviour. Abortion would become normal behaviour with no restraints. Studies conducted in the United States reveal that 60% of women are coerced into having an abortion with the decision being made by family and often by the father of the child who wants to escape his responsibilities to the mother and his unborn child. With the decriminalisation of abortion we would expect an increase in abandoned pregnant women.

The Bill would be a violation of human rights

We hold it to be self evident that we are all created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human life begins at conception, at which moment we are endowed with inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. Our human rights are not conferred on us by Parliament or by society. It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for our human rights. It would be a grave injustice if Parliament decriminalised abortion, it would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, "that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law".

What is the value of the provisions of the New Zealand Criminal Code?

The New Zealand Criminal Code has, in principle stated that the life of the child in the womb is worthy of protection. If abortion is removed from the Criminal Code, unborn New Zealand babies and their mothers would lose this protection.

Is Unborn Human Life Worthy of Protection?

Yes. The unborn human as a member of the human family is entitled to full legal protection. We know more about unborn human life than ever before. Through photographs, scans and other technology we can actually ‘see’ into the womb and experience the life within. The unborn child can be treated as a patient, separate from his/her mother. Now that we can clearly identify the new human, society should be considering how to increase legal protection for him/her.

How would the decriminalisation of Abortion change our Society?

Society exists to preserve itself and its individual members. Any law which condones the destruction of a member purely for convenience erodes and attacks that society.
If abortion on demand was no longer illegal, the number of abortions could exceed the number of live births as in other societies with permissive abortion laws.

The Bill is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party

The Bill is contrary to the principles of the Labour Party which seeks to protect the weak and the marginalized in society. Today the unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The 2008 Labour manifesto states that “New Zealand has always been a great place to bring up kids. Labour wants to ensure that we continue to be a country where all new Zealanders can be proud of the way we give all our kids the best possible start.” The proposed Bill is in complete conflict with the commendable aspirations of the Labour Party’s policy for families.

In conclusion, there is increasing evidence from studies conducted overseas that abortion results in physical and psychological damage to women. We believe that as a society we need to provide compassion and practical support for women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy to enable them to bring their child to birth. It is ironic that the law deems it unlawful to smack a child, while it is now being proposed that we may kill it on request before birth. We earnestly request that in the interest of mothers and their babies that you oppose this proposed Bill.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

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

Contact Us

John and Janine

(09) 2925059 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting   (09) 2925059 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

021 1359165 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting   021 1359165 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (txts welcome)

0800 U CHOOSE

jgrant@maxnet.co.nz

If you contact us we would be happy to send you a free unexpected pregnancy pack with more info about abortion, care, adoption (including a dvd,) and other peoples stories. We can make this pack up according to your needs.

Also if you have had an unexpected pregnancy and want to share your story feel free to email it to us.Also love any comments or suggestions on how we can improve our website to best help you.

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.

For the entire article click here to go to the article at the Dominion Post Website

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.

28 October 2005  RTL filed an amended claim in accordance with Judge Wild’s decision.

29 November 2006 Associate Judge Gendall heard an appeal by the ASC to disallow affidavits from six women who had suffered mental ill health as a result of having an abortion The other affidavit was from a consulting specialist psychiatrist Dr Julia Aranui-Faed who had evidence of psychiatric illness in women caused from having an abortion.

21 December 2006 The judge ruled the affidavits admissible. The ASC appealed requesting that the case be heard again by a full judge (not an associate judge).

28 May 2007 Mr Justice Young heard the case in closed chambers and ruled in favour of the ASC by having the affidavits of the six aggrieved women struck out as irrelevant to the case but the affidavit of Dr Aranui-Faed a clinical specialist psychiatrist was allowed. Dr Faed presented evidence in her affidavit that an abortion could cause serious psychiatric complications for women undergoing an abortion.

24 September 2007 Mr Justice Simon France heard arguments on whether affidavits from two paediatricians relating to foetal surgery and foetal diagnosis should be allowed.

3 October 2007 The judge ruled in favour of RTL.

7-9 April 2008 Mr Justice Miller in the High Court Wellington rejected RTL’s claim seeking legal status for the unborn child as a human being from conception and endowed with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. He also rejected RTL submission that abortion counselling be independent of abortion providers and the unlawfulness of appointments being made for an abortion at clinics prior to an abortion being authorised by two certifying consultants. He did however question the legality of over 98% of abortions being done on the grounds of mental health, complying with the abortion law. Justice Miller in his judgment of the 9th June stated that; “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee has stated that the law is being used more liberally interpreted than Parliament intended.” He also stated; “The Committee does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered,” and the abortion law certainly asserts a state interest in protecting the unborn child and not merely an interest that women have safe and legal abortions. The law precludes abortion on request and as a matter between the woman and her own doctor.”

The ASC (newly appointed in June 2007 with Professor Linda Holloway as chairperson, Dr Rosy Fenwick and  Rev Patricia Allan) appealed the judge’s decision on the 20th August questioning the lawfulness of the certifying consultants’ decisions. RTL has cross-appealed challenging Justice Miller’s

Judgment in respect to his rejecting RTLs case for the legal recognition of the unborn child, as a human being and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

12-13 May 2009  In the Court of Appeal the appellate judges, Justices Hammond, Chambers and Robertson after a brief hearing declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the ASC and the cross appeal of RTL on the ground that the issue of declaratory orders sought by RTL were required to be dealt with first by the High Court.

20 July 2009 In the High Court Justice Miller heard arguments from the counsel for RTL that declaratory orders were necessary. The ASC presented arguments against the issuing of orders.

3 August 2009 Justice Miller issued his judgment declining to issue declaratory orders. He stated that orders were unnecessary as the ASC should now be fully aware of its statutory duties. “There is no reason to suppose that the Committee will refuse to act now that its functions have been clarified. It remains the case that the Committee can be expected to administer the law as Parliament intended.” “Further non-compliance has been material. I found that the Committee has failed over many years to exercise some of its statutory powers at all… it is not possible to say how many unlawful abortions have been performed.”

20 August 2009 The ASC appealed again to the Court of Appeal and RTL followed with a cross appeal on the issues of the legal status of unborn children and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

5-6 October 2010 A hearing has been set down for the Court of Appeal to hear arguments on the appeals of the ASC and RTL. The hearing was originally set down for 4-5 May 2010, however due to the unavailability of Crown counsel the hearing was set down for 23-24 August 2010. It was then changed again due to there not being three judges free to preside at the hearing.

Right to Life is pleased with the achievements obtained to date in seeking the full protection of the law for the right to life of unborn children and for the health and wellbeing of women. Our Society is confident of a successful outcome at the conclusion of these important legal proceedings.

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.

New legislation was just introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by some of the most extreme pro-abortionists in Congress. It seeks to make good on Obama’s promise to provide additional U.S. money into the hands of abortionists — a mind-boggling $715,000,000. And this is on top of the vast amounts of money Obama’s already showered on U.N., Planned Parenthood, and other abortionists!

Right now, Obama’s pushing Congress for $715 million to …

• Bankroll international sex “education” and abortion for children as young as ten!
• Pay for world-wide abortion referral services
• Fund international training of more abortion “doctors”

You can help stop this new Obama abortion outrage. Right now, sign this urgent Petition  There’s not a minute to waste!

     Steven W. Mosher, President
     Population Research Institute

New Zealand Press Council,

PO Box 10 879,

The Terrace,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Major

Re: Complaint Against The Press

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.

Abortion, the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children is rightly an extremely contentious human rights issue in our community. There can be no compromise between those who believe that the killing of unborn children is a human right and those who believe in the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and who seek to promote the health and welfare of women with an unplanned pregnancy.

In our opinion, the article lacked balance in that commentary on the statistics was not included from a representative of any pro-life organisation in New Zealand or from any of the many doctors who treat the unborn child as a patient who is in need of care and protection and who are passionately opposed to the killing of unborn children.

We accept the statement of the editor of the Press that balance has been achieved in the past by comment being sought from representatives of the pro-life movement which have been published in articles on abortion. The Press has a reputation for fairness accuracy and balance in its reporting.

The reporting of the annual statistics on abortion by Statistics NZ is a very important event. It is our view that it is the public interest that these very important statistics be reported accurately and fully. I believe that the article was very superficial in its presentation of the abortion statistics. The statistics revealed that 3952 teenagers and children as young as 11, had induced abortions last year. Of them,592 had had a previous abortion and 67girls were on to their third or more. Last year there were 6446 repeat abortions representing 37% of the total.4423 women were having their second abortion, 1364 their third, 441 their fourth,136 their fifth,63 their sixth and 19 their seventh or more. These statistics are shocking but were not provided to the  public by the Press. In our view it is necessary that this information is provided to the public in order that the community can debate the serious social and human rights issues revealed by the statistics. If the Press had sought comment from informed pro-life organisations informed comment on these missing statistics would have been provided.

The Press refers to Dr MacKay as an expert. She claims that the reduced abortion rate for 2009 was due to the decreased Asian rate. This is incorrect, the statistics reveal that the number of abortions for Asian women in 2009 were 2892, 17 more than for 2008. The decrease of 390 for 2009 was actually caused by the reduction in the number of European women having an abortion. In 2009 there were 10,113 European women who had an abortion, 386 less than the 10,499 that were reported for 2008.

The abortion statistics represent a serious violation of the human rights of unborn children and the exploitation of vulnerable women. It would be unreasonable to expect either Dr MacKay or Dame Margaret Sparrow who have been involved in the termination of the lives of innocent and defenceless unborn children to mention these statistics or to say anything that could be construed as criticism of the statistics.

The Press, with its large circulation has considerable influence in forming attitudes in our community; In our view failure to provide accuracy and balance in the article infers that there was no comment from the pro-life movement on the statistics, this is not correct., I am aware that media releases commenting on the statistics were made by four prominent pro-life organisations on the day that the statistics were released. I accept that these media releases were not received by the Press. In order that we may engage in a fully informed public debate on what is the most important human rights issue of our age, it is necessary that both sides of the debate be heard.

In conclusion, our Society trusts that The Council will uphold our complaint.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

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?

We now hope that the Minister will nominate a suitable person to replace Dr Fenwicke who is not connected with the abortion industry and who is prepared to ensure that full regard is given to the human rights of unborn children.  The new member should also be committed to uphold the statutory duty of the committee to hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions that they authorise.

It is disappointing that the current Committee is prepared to accept an unlawful regime of  abortion on demand.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to life New Zealand

Hon Steve Chadwick

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Chadwick,

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.

Decriminalisation would be contrary to the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, 1977

The Commission in its report to Parliament stated;”The unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and 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.

What would be the impact for New Zealand?
The real impact of the decriminalisation of abortion would be the removal of all legal protection for the nine months of life in the womb.

How would New Zealand rate in the World?
Decriminalisation of abortion would mean that New Zealand would rank amongst the most permissive countries in the world.

What would be some of the effects?
With no criminal law, abortion numbers would increase because people often equate the lack of criminal sanction with acceptable behaviour. Abortion would become normal behaviour with no restraints. Studies conducted in the United States reveal that 60% of women are coerced into having an abortion with the decision being made by family and often by the father of the child, who wants to escape his responsibilities to the mother and his unborn child. With the decriminalisation of abortion we would expect an increase in abandoned women with child.
The bill would be a violation of human rights

We hold it to be self evident that we are all created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human life begins at conception, at which moment we are endowed with inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. Our human rights are not conferred on us by Parliament or by society. It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for our human rights. It would be a grave injustice if Parliament decriminalised abortion, it would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, “that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law”.

Would the decriminalisation of Abortion be an act of justice?

No. By omission the law would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, “that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law”.

In any society the law must protect the voiceless and the weak, and be seen to protect them.

What is the value of the provisions of the New Zealand Criminal Code?
The New Zealand Criminal Code has, in principle stated that the life of the child in the womb is worthy of protection. If abortion is removed from the Criminal Code, unborn New Zealand babies and their mothers would lose this protection.

Is Unborn Human Life Worth of Protection?
Yes. The unborn human as a member of the human family is entitled to full legal protection.
We know more about unborn human life than ever before. Through photographs, scans and other technology we can actually ‘see’ into the womb and experience the life within. The unborn child can be treated as a patient, separate from his/her mother.
Now that we can clearly identify the new human, society should be considering how to increase legal protection for him/her.

How would the Decriminalisation of Abortion change our Society?

Society exists to preserve itself and its individual members. Any law which condones the destruction of a member purely for convenience erodes and attacks that society.
If abortion on demand was no longer illegal, the number of abortions would exceed the number of live births as in other societies with permissive abortion laws.

How would ‘Fathers’ be affected?

As in the current legal situation Fathers would have no rights in the protection of their unborn children.

How would Decriminalisation affect medical personnel?
Abortion without criminal sanction would lead to a hardening of society and in particular doctors, nurses and ancillary staff of our hospitals. Medical staff may find themselves refused employment if unwilling to perform or assist abortions. Many others would be traumatised and medical staff lost.
Is not Abortion another medical procedure?
No other medical procedure has as its explicit aim – the termination of another’s life. The aim of medicine is to cure. Only those abortions performed to prevent the death of the mother could be called a medical procedure. Abortion is not a health issue but a human rights issue.

What is the view of Pro-lifers?
Pro-life people believe that abortion should not be decriminalised, because women deserve that the society in which they live would help them to examine and resolve their real problems. Assistance and support can be given in such a way that non-violent, true solutions are discovered in their time of crisis. Abortionists who break the law should be prosecuted – not the mothers.

The Bill is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party

The Billl is contrary to the hallowed and noble principles of the Labour Party which seeks to protect the weak and the marginalized in society. Today the unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

There is increasing evidence from studies conducted overseas that abortion results in physical and psychological damage to women. We believe that as a society we need to provide compassion and practical support for women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy to enable them to bring their child to birth.It is ironic that the law deems it unlawful to smack a child, while it is now being proposed that we may kill it before birth.

We earnestly request that in the interest of mothers and their babies that you withdraw your proposal to sponsor this proposed Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary