Right to Life New Zealand » Letters

Right to Life Questions Paula Bennett on DPB Contraception

Admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:26:19 +0000

Hon Paula Bennett,

Minister of Social Welfare,

Dear Ms Bennett

Re: Free Long Term Reversible Contraception for Women on DPB

Right to Life supports your government’s objective of reducing welfare dependency and discouraging women on the benefit from having further children while on the DPB.

Right to Life however is disappointed that your government is introducing free long term contraception for women on the DPB and their daughters over the age of 16. We are opposed to this strategy for the following reasons:

Contraception violates the natural law, is intrinsically evil and is part of a culture of death that has given us abortion the killing of an unborn child as a backup for failed contraception.
The contraception programme upholds the government’s failed Family Planning style comprehensive school sex education and its so called “safe sex”programme that promotes sexual activity outside of marriage.
Offering free contraceptives to the daughters of those on the DPB is giving the false message to young girls that being promiscuous is acceptable.
Contraception is bad and dangerous medicine. The contraceptive Depo Provera increases the risk of breast cancer and the long term effects of filling women’s bodies with powerful hormones contained in implants is unknown.

We believe that women on the DPB who are courageously raising children and women who heroically choose life for their child in the face of pressure to abort their child deserve the admiration and support of the community. The vast majority of women simply want to have a loving and faithful husband and father for their children. It is a great tragedy for women and society that today we have so many women who refuse to accept responsibility for the children that they have fathered. We believe that contraception has given many men the false belief that they can have sex without taking responsibility for the children that might result from an unplanned pregnancy. It is understood that 30 per cent of children in New Zealand are living in a home where the mother is alone. The abandonment of women and their children is a major social problem.

Our Society is also opposed to the proposal of having Income Support case managers raising the issue of contraception with clients on the DPB. This is not a matter for case managers to raise with clients as it is a breach of the clients privacy and could also be construed as intimidation. It is understood that it was the recommendation of the Welfare Working Group that the government make it a requirement for a woman applying for a DPB that she agree to accept long term contraception. This is a disturbing recommendation that raises several important questions:

What is your personal view on the recommendation?

Has the government resolved to reject the recommendation as unacceptable for this term of Parliament.

What assurance can you give that this recommendation will not be pursued by a future National government?

In view of the fact that the government proposes to have case workers at Income Support raise the issue of long term contraception with clients on the DPB, in the event of a client having an unplanned pregnancy, is the case worker expected to support the birth of the child?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Steralisation of Women

Admin — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:14:32 +0000

Secretary,

Abortion Supervisory Committee,

Dear Ms Cole

Re: Sterilisation of Women

It is noted that at the recent hearing before the Justice and Law Reform Parliamentary Select Committee that Dame Holloway expressed concern that the number of publicly-funded tubal ligations for long term contraception was decreasing.

Right to Life is committed to upholding the dignity of women and promoting their health and welfare. We are therefore opposed to the sterilisation of women by tubal ligation for the following reasons.

It undermines the nature and purpose of marriage and sexuality. It goes against the dignity of sexual relations as intended by our Creator. It prevents the total gift of self because it excludes the potential for fertility.
Tubal ligation is the mutilation of a woman’s body and a violation of her human rights. Women have a right to the protection of the State.
Tubal ligation is an assault on the integrity of a woman’s body.
It is bad medicine, pregnancy is not a disease. There is no disease for which ligation would be a treatment. It is a medical procedure which is intended to destroy healthy organs.

The female reproductive organs are not just for reproduction; they are an essential part of any woman’s body and interact with brain chemistry and other hormones. One of the most common side effects of female surgical sterilisation is Post Tubal Ligation Syndrome [PTLS] caused by a lack of blood flow to the fallopian tubes, which in turn may cause an interruption in progesterone levels . Symptoms of PTLS include loss of libido, weight gain, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue, heavy clotting during menstrual periods, mood swings, hair loss and severe pre-menstrual syndrome.

Women who have a tubal ligation increase the risk of an ectopic pregnancy seven fold.

Our Society shares your desire to see a reduction in the number of children killed in the womb. We don’t however believe that the mutilation of a woman’s fallopian tubes is an acceptable practice. Our Society believes that your Committee’s support for tubal ligation raises several important questions:

Does the Committee believe that it has a statutory duty to encourage women to seek a tubal ligation?
What action does the Committee take to encourage women to seek a tubal ligation?

In conclusion our Society respectfully requests that your Committee, in the interest of the health and welfare of women, reconsiders its support for tubal ligation.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Caring Not Killing

Admin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:22:28 +0000

The Editor,

Bay of Plenty Times.

15 April 2012

Dear Sir

Caring not Killing

We should oppose Maryan Street’s euthanasia Bill. There is no dignity in being killed by your doctor. Euthanasia is all about doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide. In the Crimes Act homicide and assisted suicide are serious crimes against the person. These laws are there to protect us all, especially the vulnerable. Euthanasia comes from a culture of death, palliative care from a culture of life, they are totally incompatible. The concept of so called “Dignity Havens” where killing and caring would be offered is to accept a wolf in the guise of a lamb. In Holland the Dutch government has recently announced that it will provide six mobile euthanasia units to cover all of Holland as there are many persons with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease who are being missed by the euthanasia laws. The mobile units would allow these patients to be “treated” in their own homes. In Holland in 2009 there were 2636 patients killed by their doctor including 400 where the doctor assisted in the patient’s suicide. There were also 500 patients who were killed by their doctor without the knowledge of the patient or family. These figures are conservative as many cases are not reported.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Euthanasia Legislation – A Threat to the Disabled and the Elderly

Admin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:36:05 +0000

The following letter has been sent to 32 Labour MP’s

Mrs Darien Fenton MP,

Re: Euthanasia Legislation – A Threat to the Disabled and the Elderly

Right to Life recently learned that it was the intention of Ms Maryan Street to present a Private Members Bill to allow for doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide.

Our Society is opposed to this proposed legislation for the following reasons: At the outset, we should define what is euthanasia. Euthanasia is allowing doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. This is not a religious issue, as some might suggest but a human rights issue. Euthanasia is not the withholding or withdrawing of treatment from a patient who is in a terminal condition when that treatment would be futile or burdensome. It is also not euthanasia for a doctor to administer medication for the purpose of pain relief to a patient when it may also have the effect of shortening the patient’s life; this constitutes good palliative care. The objective is to relieve pain and suffering, not shorten the life of the patient.

Under the Crimes Act section 158 Homicide and section 179 Suicide, the taking of life or assisting in the suicide of another person, are serious crimes against the person. This legislation is necessary to protect the lives of every member of the community, especially the defenceless and vulnerable.

It is noted that euthanasia is totally opposed by the NZ Medical Association because it violates their medical ethics. The Association supports excellent palliative care and considers that with proper palliative care there is no need for a person in a terminal condition to suffer. It would be an unwise and dangerous move for Parliament to legislate to require doctors to act against their conscience and ethics by killing their patients or assisting in their suicide. If euthanasia were provided, it would destroy the trust that we have in the medical profession. Could we ever trust our doctor if we knew that killing the patient was a treatment option. Doctors would become the most dangerous persons in the land.·New Zealanders have access to 35 world class hospices which ensure that all patients have access to the best hospice care at the end of their lives. Hospice care neither hastens or postpones death. They provide compassionate and effective pain control and meet the emotional, social and spiritual needs of patients. In our hospices patients can truly die with dignity.

Right to Life supports the New Zealand disability sector in its opposition to euthanasia. In the attempt to label opponents to euthanasia and assisted suicide as a moral, usually ‘religious’, minority, advocates often fail to take into account disabled groups. At the 2004 National Conference of the Disabled Persons Assembly, Associate Professor Christopher Newell said in the in his keynote address. “…I notice in the New Zealand debate to do with euthanasia, something I would suggest will recur time and time again. Strong leadership is required from governments in these areas. Precisely because people with disabilities live with the very conditions and situations whereby we become members of categories who may, and indeed should, die covered under euthanasia legislation.

“Sadly, all too often euthanasia advocates are not interested in taking on board the reality of disability – precisely because our lives are seen as exactly what they want to avoid. We are the opposite of choice and freedom according to non-disabled values. I say this as someone who once desperately sought death from a health professional in really appalling circumstances, and am always grateful for a response which supported me as a person, rather than just viewing this as an understandable request.”

The Dutch government has recently announced that it will provide six mobile euthanasia units to cover all of Holland as there are many persons with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease who are being missed by the euthanasia laws. The mobile units would allow these patients to be “treated” in their own homes. In Holland in 2009 there were 2636 patients killed by their doctor including 400 where the doctor assisted in the patient’s suicide. There were also 500 patients who were killed by their doctor without the knowledge of the patient or family. These figures are conservative as many cases are not reported. Holland is upheld as a country that has strict guidelines. Doctors are now killing newborn babies. In 2010 a woman in her eighties with symptoms appropriate to her age including impaired vision believed that her quality of life was impaired sought and obtained assisted suicide. It is cheaper to kill patients than to care for them. In Holland the quality of palliative care has deteriorated with the result that pressure is imposed on patients to seek euthanasia.

The Labour Party has traditionally supported social justice and has been an advocate for the marginalised and defenceless members of the community. It would be a retrograde step to support legislation that would permit doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. Our Society believes that support for this legislation would have an adverse affect on electoral support at a general election.

To protect the vulnerable in our society we must be ever vigilant and resist this culture of death. The alternative to the threatening culture of death is a culture of life which recognises that life is a gift from the Creator, that respects the dignity of every person, that provides compassion and loving care for the terminally ill and high quality palliative care to ensure that they truly have death with dignity. Euthanasia legislation would result in subtle pressure being imposed on the elderly and handicapped to choose death. Many persons would die who did not wish to die and the right to die would soon become a duty to die.

In conclusion it is always wrong to kill the innocent. The first duty of Parliament is to support legislation that protects the lives of every person from conception to natural death, especially the vulnerable and the disabled and not to preside over their destruction. The protection of human life is an indispensable part of our social contract and the foundation of a civilised society. Right to Life supports the current legislation which protects the lives of the vulnerable in society and the continued support of government for high quality palliative care.

Right to Life requests that you uphold the current legislation which prohibits homicide and assisted suicide and that you withhold your support for legislation that would permit doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. Thank you for all that you are doing to promote the common good.

I would be grateful if you would advise our Society of your position on this important human rights issue.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Right to Life asks ASC if it believes sex selective abortions are taking place in New Zealand

Admin — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:13:37 +0000

Secretary,

Dear Ms Cole

Re: Sex Selection Abortions.

I wish to draw your attention to a recent development in the United Kingdom concerning illegal sex selection abortions in the United Kingdom.

An expose of sex selection abortions was recently conducted by the London Telegraph. First of all, it emerged in the British press that UK abortion clinics are falsifying paperwork so that they can carry out their clients’ requests for sex-selective terminations. Undercover reporters for the London Telegraph accompanied pregnant women and taped doctors arranging an abortion after an unequivocal request to abort a child because it was of the wrong sex.

The reporters visited nine clinics; at three of them they were able to obtain sex-selective abortions. At the Calthorpe Clinic in Birmingham, one of the oldest in Britain, a doctor was initially reluctant.

“It’s like female infanticide isn’t it?” he said. But the pregnant woman suggested that he record a different reason for the termination. “That’s right, yeah, because it’s not a good reason anytime,” he replied. “I’ll put too young for pregnancy, yeah?” The patient agreed and the doctor continued, “It’s common in the Third World to have a female infanticide.”

Another doctor in Birmingham, told the Telegraph team, “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination”. She then telephoned a colleague to book the procedure and explained that it was for “social reasons” and the woman “doesn’t want questions asked”.

An obstetrician on Harley Street, where the finest of British doctors have their offices, was recorded organising the abortion of a boy because the couple already had a boy from the husband’s first marriage and wanted a girl.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was outraged and has referred the Telegraph’s allegations to the police. Is it finally dawning on the community that abortion is being turned against the very class it is supposed to protect – women? There are 90 million girls missing in China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Bangladesh and Taiwan. Now the corruption of sex-selective abortion is being exported to the West in migrant communities.

It is noted that there 2778 abortions on Asian women in 2010 reported to your Committee. Sex selection abortions are illegal in New Zealand. These abortions are not only unlawful they constitute the ultimate discrimination against woman, for it is female babies that are generally aborted. Our Society believes that they are taking place in New Zealand. This important issue raises important questions.

Does the Committee believe that sex selection abortions are taking place in New Zealand?

What action does the Committee take to prevent sex selection abortions in New Zealand?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Green’s policies may be environmentally friendly but are certainly not respectful of human life

Admin — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:49:40 +0000

The Editor,

NZ Catholic.

Dear Peter

Greens Hidden Agenda

In reply to Roger Bolton, 12 February. The Green Party is commended for some excellent social justice and environmental policies. Metiria Turei, co- leader of the Green Party, gave a speech in Parliament on 7 December 2005 on the Marriage [Gender Clarification] Amendment Bill’s first reading. The purpose of this Bill was to establish in law that marriage was exclusively for one man and one woman. Ms Turei is recorded in Hansard as having said; ”The Green Party is opposed to this Bill and will vote against it as a party. Our Party policy requires us to support the extension of all legal partnership arrangements and rights to same –sex couples as are afforded heterosexual couples. That includes not just eligibility in relation to parenting, for example, but also marriage.” The six Green MPs supported same sex marriage and voted against the Bill.

In 2003 the nine Greens MPs voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill. In July 2003 the eight Green MPs voted for the first reading of the euthanasia Bill, Death with Dignity, with one voting against. The Green Party supports the killing of unborn children; Its public policy states; “that it will review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.” Ms Turia in a written response to the pre-election questionnaire of Family First stated that she was opposed to policies that promote marriage, opposed to the right to life of the unborn child, opposed to informed consent for women seeking abortion, opposed to parental consent for teen pregnancies and opposed to abstinence and parental based sex education.

The Green Party Population policy places humanity as subservient to the environment. A key principle is that; ” the population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions.” The Church teaches that support for abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage are intrinsically evil. It is disappointing that the Green Party takes positions on these issues that are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church and which promote a culture of death. These issues are non- negotiable and Catholics with an informed conscience may not support or vote for candidates for public office who hold positions that are contrary to the Church’s teaching.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

5 Mascot Place,

Christchurch 8061.

Right to Life Criticises MOH Funded Family Planning New Zealand Abortion Booklet

Admin — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:55:26 +0000

Health Commissioner,

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

Right to Life Questions NZ Funding of National and International Agencies which Fund Abortion

Admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:54:52 +0000

Hon Murray McCully,

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

Right to Life Request to NZ Nurses Association to Advise Members of Conscience Rights

Admin — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:54:28 +0000

Susanne Trim

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

Right to Life Asks Abortion Supervisory Committee if the Low Number of Adoptions in New Zealand Concerns Them

Admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:53:54 +0000

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