Dear Mr Hill,

Re: Family Planning Booklet- “Abortion – What You Need to Know”

I wish to lay a formal complaint against the New Zealand Family Planning Association for its production of an abortion information booklet, “Abortion  – What You Need to Know,” copy enclosed. The title of the booklet infers that the booklet contains all of the information that a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy needs to know. The booklet was approved and funded by the Ministry of Health. It is contended that the title is misleading as there is important information that a woman needs to know that is omitted from the booklet. The Code of Health Rights set out in the Health and Disability Act states in Right 6, Right to Be Fully Informed, that every consumer has the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that situation, would expect to receive. I believe that the following information should have been provided in the booklet:

On page one of the booklet it lists a number of options that are available to the  pregnant woman. It lists parenting, adoption or fostering and abortion. There is no information on where a woman will get assistance on the first three options. There are organisations in the community that will provide compassionate care and assistance for the woman wishing to choose one of these options. Why is this information not provided?

Information on the possible neo-natal consequences of having an abortion

That having an abortion in the second or third trimester increases the risk of having a baby with a low weight birth in a subsequent pregnancy by 35 per cent and of having a premature baby by 36 per cent. If a woman should have more than one abortion the risk increases by 72 per cent for a low birth weight. The risk of a premature baby increases by 93 per cent. Prematurity is a leading cause of neonatal deaths. Why is this important information not being given to women?

Information on the link between abortion and breast cancer

It is a scientific fact that pregnancy provides protection from breast cancer. This protection is lost if a woman has an abortion. There have been 38 international studies on the abortion breast cancer link [ABC], 29 studies showed a substantial increase in breast cancer. There have been recent studies in China, Sri Lanka, Turkey and the United States. These all reveal a substantial increase in breast cancer as a result of having an abortion. In Ireland where abortion is illegal, that country has a breast cancer rate half that of the United States where abortions are readily available. When abortion was unlawful in Romania, it had the lowest rate of breast cancer in Europe while  now that abortion is lawful it has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in Europe. Why is this important information not being given to women? 

Information on the possible psychological consequences of abortion

Professor David Fergusson of the Christchurch School of Medicine who describes himself as “pro-choice” in 2006 produced a study of 500 women which revealed that those women who had an abortion, had suffered major depression during the previous four years. They were also twice as likely as those women who had a live birth to drink alcohol to dangerous levels  and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. Those who had an abortion also suffered elevated rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviours. A recent study by Professor Priscilla Green in the United States revealed that 81 per cent of women who had an abortion suffered mental illness as a result of having an abortion. Why is this important information not being given to women?

Information on alternatives to abortion

On page one of the booklet it lists a number of options that are available to the  pregnant woman. It lists parenting, adoption or fostering and abortion. There is no information on where a woman will get assistance on the first three options. There are organisations in the community that will provide compassionate care and assistance for the woman wishing to choose one of these options. Why is this information not provided?

Information on abortion methods

On page eight there is information on abortion methods. The information is incomplete and misleading. The booklet states that an abortion entails the removal of the pregnancy. An abortion entails the killing of an unborn child either by a medical or surgical abortion. In an Early Medical Abortion [EMA] the mifepristone blocks the embryo from nourishment and causes the embryo to die of starvation; this information is not provided for the woman. The booklet states that for a surgical abortion the pregnancy is removed by suction. The truth is that the abortionist inserts a suction tube into the uterus, at which point the arms, legs, feet, hands, bones and organs, including a once-beating heart, functioning nervous system and lungs of the fetus will be sucked into the tube and thrown away. Since the head of the child is too big to be vacuumed away, the doctor will then use tongs to crush the head of the baby so it can be removed piece by piece. Then, in order to ensure there are no bone fragments or body parts left behind, he will attempt one final vacuuming of the woman’s uterus. The booklet makes no reference to the destruction of a child. The mother is entitled to have this information to save her from a potential lifetime of grief and sorrow at the loss of her child.

In conclusion, Right to Life believes that the booklet is seriously deficient in providing women faced with an unplanned pregnancy with the necessary information that they need to  assist them  in making decisions that are in the best interest of themselves and their unborn children. The emphasis is on the rights and needs of the mother with no recognition given to the needs and rights of the child. It completely ignores the right of a father to protect the life of the child that he has fathered. In our opinion the booklet is designed to obscure the reality of abortion and to encourage vulnerable and distressed women to have an abortion believing that it is a simple and safer procedure than giving birth to their children. It is not. An abortion entails the violent destruction of an innocent and helpless unborn child; it is violence against both the mother and her child.

It is mentioned that the Ministry of Health has an acceptable abortion information booklet previously published and distributed to general practitioners in New Zealand by the Ministry titled “Considering an Abortion what are Your Options?”  This booklet was highly acclaimed by doctors. We therefore request that in the interest of women’s health and wellbeing you give consideration to our complaint and request Family Planning to withdraw this grossly misleading booklet.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Dear Mr McCully,

Government funding – NZFPA  IPPF & UNFPA Official Information Act Request

I wish to request under the Official Information Act the amount of funding that the New Zealand government has provided in 2010 and 2011 to the New Zealand Family Planning Association [NZFPA], the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] and the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA].

Right to Life is concerned at information recently received concerning a confidential audit of UNICEF and UNFPA that found “gross” failures in transparency and surprisingly billions of dollars of unspent cash. Both agencies refused to disclose information on staff costs and travel. The auditor found that donors have “little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny” of funds.

It is understood that a draft report written by the consulting firm IDC at the request of the government of Norway was given to Fox News in the United States.  UNFPA and UNICEF refused to answer Fox News’ questions, other than claiming the cash reserves were earmarked for future work on programs.

The audit of five UN agencies sought to discover “where does the money go.” The report found UNFPA and UNICEF had $3.2 billion in cash in 2009. UNICEF, which is free to spend money where it wants despite the project that earned it, gained $109 million in interest income in 2008. The United Nations Development Program had $5 billion in cash reserves, invested large amounts on bonds, and increased personnel costs 80% in the last decade. These together with the World Food Program (which alone was judged transparent and its performance “impressive”) had $12.2 billion in unspent cash. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees did not have a cash stockpile but refused to disclose spending, particularly on staff costs.

The report found UNFPA was unable, or unwilling, to account for $200 million a year funnelled to governments and non-governmental groups. It refused to disclose details of wages, salaries, travel, consultant costs, and other items. The report declared, “UNFPA fails grossly” in its official commitment to transparency.

Details on UNICEF’s overhead were lacking, and scraps of information on expenditures make “it difficult to track use of funds from headquarters down to the ultimate beneficiaries on the ground.” It, too, could not account for expenditures within countries, which is the majority of its spending, earning a designation of “gross failure.”

Several UN agencies are increasingly focusing on giving policy advice and advocacy, and relying on others to deliver goods and services. They form vague strategic plans at headquarters that defy tracking outcomes or progress within countries. The UN refugee agency delegates most of its program activities to “implementing partners” that do the work on the ground.

The study warned that the hoard of money “implies that substantial donor funding is not being used for development purposes.” Donors may be reluctant to fund the UN until the “reserves are utilized.”

For years UN agencies have resisted divulging their finances. Government officials have suspected the lack of transparency hides lavish salaries and expensive travel. Diverting funds to non-governmental groups provides a coterie of accomplices who defend the UN agencies.

Shadowy accounting often signals systemic waste, fraud and abuse. In a moment of candour in 2007, a UNFPA executive boasted at a conference that, though the agency was barred from directly funding abortion, it disburses money to abortion providers.

An examination of UNFPA annual reports finds its budget ballooned from $249.9 million in 1999 to $870 million in 2010. Despite its vast resources and audit failure, in November it urged leaders to “galvanize greater political, financial support for family planning.”

The NZFPA is a loyal affiliate of the IPPF. It is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand and supports the decriminalisation of abortion and the withdrawal of legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. Both UNFPA and the IPPF continue to support China’s one child family policy with its human rights abuses. In 1983 the IPPF welcomed the Chinese Family Planning Association into full membership saying that the goals of the Chinese Association were entirely consistent with its own.

We now ask you as minister,  Is the government aware of the audit conducted of these United Nations Agencies on behalf of the Norwegian government and is the government concerned that funding provided by the government to these audited agencies is being used for the purposes that it was given?

It is disappointing that the New Zealand government continues to provide funding to the UNFPA the IPPF and the NZFPA. Right to Life requests that funding of the UNFPA the IPPF and the NZFPA for the worldwide promotion of abortion and a culture of death cease.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

NZ Nurses Association,

Dear Susanne   Re: Conscientious Objection – Abortion

Recently our Society was approached by a senior nurse employed by a district health board. She was distressed and concerned that she was obliged by her employer to participate in abortions. She believed that it was always wrong to kill the innocent and a violation of her nursing ethics. She was therefore opposed to being involved in the killing of innocent unborn babies because it was a violation of the child’s human rights, the foundation right being a right to life.

The nurse was unaware that Parliament in passing the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977 provided protection for the conscience of doctors, nurses and any other persons from performing or assisting in abortions. Right to Life was pleased to be able to help her by informing her of her legal conscience rights.

The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, [CS & A Act] Sec 46, provides protection for conscientious objection. The section reads –I, Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, or any rule of law, or the terms of any oath or of any contract [whether of employment or otherwise], no registered medical practitioner, registered nurse, or other person shall be under any obligation-

[a] To perform or assist in the performance of an abortion or any operation undertaken or to be undertaken for the purpose of rendering the patient sterile:

The section goes on to say that it is unlawful for any employer to deny employment to any employee who refuses a duty as outlined in this section. Every person who suffers loss under this section may claim damages from the person responsible.

Right to Life believes from information received that there may be other nurses employed by district health boards who are distressed at being required to assist in abortions against their conscience, unaware of the protection provided by section 46 of the C S and A Act 1977.

Before any nurse is required to assist in abortions, Right to Life believes that the nurse should be advised by her employer of the protection provided by section 46, of the C S & A Act 1977. To ensure that your members are aware of their rights, our Society believes that your Association should inform them of this important legal protection provided for their conscience.

I would be grateful if you would advise me of what action you will take on this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Abortion Supervisory Committee,

Dear Ms Cole

Re: Adoptions

The Ministry of Social Development advises that in 2009 there were 40 adoptions in New Zealand. 1968 was the peak year when there were 2,617 non relative adoptions. Since that date the numbers of adoptions has steadily decreased. It is assumed that the majority, if not all the adoptions in recent years involve birth mothers who did not make the decision to place their child for adoption after being counselled by an abortion counsellor.

It should be a matter of great concern for our community that the number of babies available for adoption is so small. It is recognised that today many unmarried women courageously choose to raise the child as a single parent. There are many families who would dearly love to adopt a baby but cannot do so because there are so few babies available.

It is noted that the guidelines for counsellors require that they explore with the woman seeking an abortion, the option of choosing to place the child for adoption. Today with open adoption it is possible for the mother to have an ongoing relationship with her child and the adopting family. It is disappointing that in 2009, there were only 40 adoptions in New Zealand while in 2009, 17,550 women had an abortion, with presumably most of them receiving counselling with the option of adoption being discussed. It would appear that the counselling is failing to encourage women seeking abortion to choose life for their child by placing it for adoption. 

Our Society respectfully suggests that your Committee consider producing a pamphlet promoting adoption as a loving option to be given by counsellors to all women receiving abortion counselling.

The low adoption statistics for New Zealand raise several important questions:

· Is your Committee concerned at the very small number of adoptions that might be arising from abortion counselling?

· Does your Committee propose taking any action to encourage an increase in adoptions arising from counselling?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary 

The Press.

Dear Sir

The Hidden Agenda of the Greens

Re Bruce Whitehead 22 November. The electorate should be aware of the hidden agenda of the Greens Party. In 2008 in the Victorian Parliament the Greens voted for the decriminalisation of abortion which meant that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. Victoria now has the most permissive abortion law in the world. The  law provides for abortion on demand and a woman can now demand an abortion for any reason. The Greens in Australia support same sex marriage and same sex adoption. The Greens also support the education system teaching that homosexuality is normal. The electorate should recognise that the Greens represent in our Parliament a threat to the protection of the right to life of unborn children and to the institution of marriage as exclusively between one woman and one man. A vote for the Greens is a vote against the right to life and the traditional  family.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Secretary,

Abortion  Supervisory Committee,

Private Bag 32001,

Panama Street,

Wellington 6146.

Dear Ms Cole

Re: Abortion and increase in Mental Health Risks

Thank you for your reply dated 17 October 2011. Our Society is pleased that your Committee has now had a peer review of Professor Fergusson’s studies into the relationship of abortion to mental health problems. Thank you for providing our Society with a copy of the review conducted by Dr Sheila Williams. The review is very interesting.

It is assumed that your Committee has now decided what its position is in respect to the findings of Professor David Fergusson. The study indicated that abortion destroys the psychological health of teenagers. The study the largest of its type and most detailed long-term study ever undertaken, had attracted international attention. The research was conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development Study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine. The research was led by Professor David Fergusson, Ph.D. who is a psychologist and epidemiologist; He said that his research team had followed the progress of 1265 children born in Christchurch in the mid 1970s, from infancy to adulthood. Nearly 500 women in the study became pregnant by the age of 25 and 90 women had an abortion.

His research found 41 per cent of the women studied had become pregnant by age 25, and that 14.6 percent had had an abortion. By the age of 25, the study found that 42 per cent who had undergone an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years. In total, 90 pregnancies ended with the deliberate termination of the life of the child, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born.

Those who had endured an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared with those who had a live birth, and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. Those who had an abortion also suffered elevated rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviours.

Professor Fergusson describes himself as “pro choice”. He commenced this study with the conviction that abortion did not cause mental ill health; he was surprised with the results which he claimed cannot be challenged as they were statistically strong. He has been extensively interviewed by the international media. He has said that there was little evidence to suggest that abortion improved the mental health of women. “This study suggests possibly the opposite.

Abortion is by far the most common surgical procedure that young women receive. In our study cohort one out of seven women had had an abortion by the age of 25.” A much more difficulty issue in New Zealand is that abortion grounds are medical grounds, and the majority of women who seek abortions do so on mental health grounds. This research shows it might not do too much to encourage mental health.” He stated that he had experienced difficulty in having the research published as three American medical journals had refused to publish the results. The research was ultimately published in the British Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry.

Your  Committee in a media statement on the release of the study stated that the connection between abortion and mental ill health was “a grey area and that the results of the study were inconclusive”

It is the opinion of this Society that the stance of the Committee on the acceptance of the finding of the study that the killing of a child in the womb can result in grief, sorrow and serious psychological problems for the mother would have an important influence in ensuring that women who were considering an abortion were given this information.

I would be grateful if you would advise what is the position of the Committee in respect to the findings of the study conducted by Professor David Fergusson? 

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Abortion Supervisory Committee,

Private Bag 32001,

Wellington 6146.

Dear Ms Cole

Re: Abortion Increases Risk of Women’s Mental Health Problems 81%

I wish to bring an important study recently completed in the United States that disclosed that there is a clear link between the killing of an unborn child and mental ill health.

A new study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by leading American researcher Dr. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University finds women who have an abortion face almost double the risk of mental health problems as women who have their baby.

Coleman’s study is based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole.

“Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the study says. “Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10 percent of the incidence of mental health problems were shown to be directly attributable to abortion.”

The peer-reviewed study indicated abortion was linked with a 34 percent chance of anxiety disorders, and 37 percent higher possibility of depression, a more than double risk of alcohol abuse (110 percent), a three times greater risk of marijuana use (220 percent), and 155 percent greater risk of trying to commit suicide.

When compared to unintended pregnancy delivered women had a 55% increased risk of experiencing any mental health problem.

Dr. Coleman said she conducted the study “to produce an unbiased analysis of the best available evidence addressing abortion as one risk factor among many others that may increase the likelihood of mental health problems. There are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counseled prior to an abortion.

In 2006 our Society asked your Committee if they accepted the findings of the Christchurch Health and Development Study conducted by Professor David Fergusson that revealed a strong link between abortion and subsequent mental ill health for women who had undergone an abortion. You advised that your Committee had not taken a position on this study and was seeking expert advice on this study.

I would be grateful if you would advise if you had now reached a decision on this important study.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Philantropy & Community Advisor,

Telecom NZ Ltd,

Private Bag 92028,

Auckland.

Re; Grants to Family Planning Association.

Our Society has previously written to you concerning our concern and opposition to your corporation providing financial assistance to the New Zealand Family Planning Association.

You may not be aware that Family Planning is an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and a sister organisation of Planned Parenthood USA.

There is an increasing awareness of the damage that Planned Parenthood is doing in the community to families and young people. As a consequence many State legislatures in the United States are defunding Planned Parenthood and denying it State funding. The latest example is the State of Texas which has withheld $64 million from Planned Parenthood. Our Society hopes that your Corporation in the interest of families and young people in New Zealand will cease funding Family Planning.

I would be grateful if you would kindly advise the names of organisations in New Zealand in the current programme of financial grants.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary    

Capital & Coast District Health Board,

Private Bag 7902,

Wellington.

Dear Sir

Re: Level J Abortion Facility

It has recently come to the attention of our Society that the staff at the Te Mahoe, Level  J Abortion facility have made a request to the Abortion Law Reform Association [ALRANZ] for assistance in providing transport to the Te Mahoe facility for women to terminate the life of their unborn child.

Right to life acknowledges that the staff of Te Mahoe believe that they are acting in the best interests of the women concerned. Our Society however  does have some serious concerns and objections to this initiative for the following reasons.

• The Board, as a publicly elected body is accountable to the community for its actions. There are many in the community who are opposed to the killing of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family and would be deeply offended at the Board allowing staff to seek assistance with transport from ALRANZ.
• The Board has chosen to hold a licence for the killing of children before birth, there is no legal requirement for the Board to arrange private transport for women seeking an abortion.
• ALRANZ is a small radical organisation that believes that it is a women’s right to kill an unborn child. It supports repeal of the current abortion laws, the decriminalisation of abortion and the removal of all legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. Your Board has a legal responsibility to uphold the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. It is the view of this Society that your Board should be seen by the public to maintain its support for this legislation by keeping its distance from organisations such as ALRANZ.
• The provision of transport by members of ALRANZ could be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of vulnerable women and to the lives of their unborn children.When a woman is ambivilent about killing her child, she could be persuaded that terminating the life of her child is the desirable option. A woman considering an abortion could also be persuaded that she should reject counselling.

Right to Life requests that you advise what other organisations were contacted by the staff at the Te Mohoe facility to provide transport for women seeking an abortion. In the interest of women and their unborn, we request that the use of transport by members and supporters of ALRANZ cease.

Yours Sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Chief Executive Officer,

Counties Manukau District Health Board,

Private Bag 94052,

Manukau 2241.

Dear Sir/Madam

Re:  Official Information Act – Request and A New FDA Report – Mifepristone RU 486 Kills 14 Women, Injures 2,200

I wish to bring to your attention a new United States, Federal Drug Administration report released 30 April 2011, that reveals that not only does Mifepristone RU 486 destroy innocent unborn human beings but has also resulted in the death of 14 women in the United States and caused injury to 2,207 women.

Of the women experiencing medical and physical problems resulting from the abortion drug, 612 women required hospitalizations, 339 experienced blood loss significant enough to require a transfusion, 256 experienced infections and 48 women experienced what the FDA labeled as “severe infections.” Given that the RU 486 abortion drug caused sepsis, a potentially lethal infection that resulted in the deaths of women from around the world, the “serious infections” were very likely life-threatening situations.

“Severe infections generally involve death or hospitalization for at least 2-3 days, intravenous antibiotics for at least 24 hours, total antibiotic usage for at least 3 days, and any other physical or clinical findings, laboratory data or surgery that suggest a severe infection,” the FDA report states.

Women developing infections from usage of the RU 486 abortion drug experienced endometritis (involving the lining of the womb), pelvic inflammatory disease (involving the nearby reproductive organs such as the fallopian tubes or ovaries), and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs).

Despite the FDA indicating, administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the uterus,” the abortion drug was given to women in 58 cases where they had an ectopic pregnancy.

The dangerous complications associated with this drug continue include hemorrhaging and infection. In the U.S., at least 612 women have been hospitalized after taking RU-486; and at least 339 women required blood transfusions as a result of serious blood loss after taking the abortion drug.

Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women. RU-486 is in a class of drugs categorized as selective progesterone receptor modulators, which, in addition to blocking progesterone necessary for the developing baby, also suppresses a woman’s immune system. Additionally, it is sometimes the case that the remains of the pregnancy are not entirely expelled from a woman’s uterus, causing infection and other problems..

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortion, it is a worldwide trend.  A recent Australian audit conducted by the Ministry of Health of nearly 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 and 2010 compared the safety of RU-486 with surgical abortion, with the outcome being in the words of one major media outlet “The Abortion Pill ‘Less Safe than Surgery’”. “The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 patients who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU-486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention.

The report also indicated approximately 1.52 million women have used the dangerous abortion drug through the end of April 2001.

Despite the seriousness and intensity of adverse effects related to RU-486, use of this form of abortion is being promoted in New Zealand. The FDA report raises several important questions.

·Are you aware of the FDA report and the Australian Health Department report on the use of Mifepristone?

·Are you  concerned at the disturbing maternal mortality rate following the use of Mifepristone?

·What action have you taken to ensure that women considering a medical abortion with Mifepristone are informed of the potential risk to their life and health?

It is disappointing that the Abortion Supervisory Committee does not publish statistics on the complications that arise as the result of abortions. I therefore request under the Official Information Act the following information.

·The number of women who received a medical abortion with Mifegyne, RU 486 at your Board’s facilities in each of the years 2009 and 2010?

·How many of these women were treated for a complication resulting from the abortion prior to discharge?

·How many of these women after discharge were subsequently readmitted to Hospital for the treatment of a complication resulting from the medical abortion?

·What was the nature and number of these complications?

·What was the number of women who had a blood transfusion following a medical abortion?

Thank you for your assistance with this enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary  RTLNZ