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

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

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

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

Southland Times.

Dear Sir

Abortion Statistics 2010

Re 18 June, Jackie Edmund, chief executive of Family Planning claims that to reduce our unacceptably high abortion rate we need more comprehensive sex education in schools. This statement is false and is challenged, our children do not need information on how to use condoms and contraceptives. Our children need encouragement to be chaste, safe and happy.  Why does Family Planning continue to impose its plans for our families on society against the wishes of the majority of parents. Families have not forgotten that it is Family Planning that is opposed to girls under the age of 16 requiring to have parental consent or knowledge for an abortion or to obtain contraceptives.

It is Family Planning the major abortion  referral agency in New Zealand,  that is prepared to take young school girls  to have an abortion without the knowledge of the parents. Family Planning portrays itself as the friend of families it is indeed the greatest threat to the family in our time.

The Association opposes women considering an abortion the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan of their baby. Family Planning states that “this ‘ added an extra barrier to women making their decision.”Women have a right to see their baby. Family Planning knows that many women when they see their child alive, with arms legs and hear the beating heart choose life for their child. It  is appalling that  Family Planning should be opposed to women seeing their child. The government should cease funding this organisation.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Editor,

The Press,

Private Bag 4722,

Christchurch.

Dear Mr Holden

Re: Complaint against Article

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.

The article which reports on the abortion statistics released by Statistics NZ on 17 June 2010, includes comment 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.

The Press with its large circulation has considerable influence in forming attitudes in our community. In our opinion the article lacked balance in that there was no commentary on the statistics from a representative of any New Zealand pro-life organisation or from any medical professionals who treat the unborn child as a patient who is in need of care and protection and who passionately opposed to the killing of unborn children. There were in fact media releases made on the statistics by four prominent pro-life organisations on the day of release.

In order that there be balanced reporting on such an important human rights issue, surely it is necessary that both sides of the debate be heard.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Mr Harry Mikaere,

Waikato District Health Board,

PO Box 934,

Hamilton 3240.

Dear Mr Mikaere

Re: Licence to Kill Unborn Children – Family Planning

I am writing to you and your colleagues on the Waikato District Health Board to express our Society’s concern at your Board’s support for the Family Planning Association obtaining an abortion licence for its Hamilton clinic. We believe that should the Association obtain a licence to kill unborn children at its Hamilton clinic it will be a threat to the health and welfare of vulnerable women and to the lives of their unborn children. It is the objective of the Association to ultimately obtain an abortion licence for each of its 30 clinics. The Association claims that it is providing choice for women.

In July 2009 the Family Planning Association made an application to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence for its Hamilton clinic to kill unborn children up to 9 weeks gestation by medical abortion. The Association proposes to use the lethal drug Mifegyne RU 486. This drug is 98% effective in killing unborn children by starvation. The drug is followed by the administration of Misoprostol, a prostaglandin that causes a miscarriage. Our Society is opposed to the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children and is also concerned for the health and welfare of women.

Our Society has obtained documents under the Official Information Act that discloses that;

1. The Board has written to the Abortion Supervisory Committee fully supporting the Association’s application.

2. The Board has offered to enter into a contract with the Association to fund abortions at the Hamilton clinic.

3. The Board has agreed with the Board that for all women seeking an abortion in the Waikato the pathway would be through the Association’s Hamilton clinic.

4. The Board has agreed that decision making and abortion counselling would be provided by the Association’s staff.

The Waikato District health Board holds licences for the performance of abortions at the Waikato, the Thames and Tokoroa Hospitals. The Board does not have a statutory duty to support the application for an abortion licence from Family Planning for its Hamilton clinic. nor does it have a duty to abdicate its responsibility for the care of vulnerable women by allowing Family Planning to be the pathway for all women in the Waikato seeking an abortion. It does not have a duty to provide financing to Family Planning for the performance of abortions. Right to Life is opposed to the killing of innocent unborn children by either surgical or medical abortions. To ensure transparency and public accountability it is preferable that if medical or surgical abortions are to be performed that they be done in a public hospital or clinic.

In the opinion of this Society, the Family Planning Association is unfit to hold a licence for the killing of unborn children. The Association is strongly pro-abortion and its philosophy is alien to a culture of life. The Association believes that abortion is a human right and that abortion should be available as a back-up for so called contraceptive failure. The Association advocates for the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. The Association believes that unborn children are not endowed with inalienable rights, that the killing of an unborn child should not be a crime and that abortion should be a health matter for a woman to choose. 

It is the policy of the Association to employ only doctors who believe that the decision to have an abortion is one for a woman and a doctor of her choice, this is abortion on demand. Justice Forest Miller in the High Court in Wellington in his judgement of June 2008 in his review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee stated that abortion on demand was unlawful in New Zealand. Justice Miller also stated “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” The Family Planning Association is the major referral agency for abortions in New Zealand. In 2008 the Association referred 4866 women for an abortion. In the event of the Association being granted a licence to perform abortions, our Society would have serious concerns about the lawfulness of these abortions.

Our Society is greatly concerned at the damage done to women as a result of having an abortion. Studies done in the United States reveal that 60% of women who have an abortion are coerced into an abortion by the abandonment of the father who is not prepared to accept responsibility for the child that he has fathered or by family or friends. Many women are ambivalent during the first trimester of their pregnancy. Our Society is very concerned that counsellors at Family Planning will encourage women distressed by their pregnancy to quickly agree to have an abortion in order to qualify for a medical abortion. This decision could result in a lifetime of regret. Research conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine by Professor David Fergusson a “pro choice” researcher, in 1995 found that 42% of the women in his study who had an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35% higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born. Those who had an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared to 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.

In conclusion our Society earnestly request that in the interest of women’s health and the lives of unborn children you withdraw support and oppose the application of the Association for a licence to kill innocent and defenceless unborn children at its Hamilton clinic and that you also oppose the Boards financing the Association for abortions and oppose the Hamilton clinic being the pathway for all women seeking an abortion in the Waikato.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

Re: Early Medical Abortions

The document “Standards of Care for Women Requesting Induced Abortion in New Zealand” issued by the Abortion Supervisory Committee in October 2009 includes version 2003, Information for Referring Doctors and Nurses on Early Medical Abortion issued by the Team Leader for the Level J Unit.

The Level J document states that after a woman has been administered Mifepristine she is required to stay in the ward for 1 hour to ensure that the tablet is retained and that there are no side effects. At the second visit to Level J 36 – 48 hours later the prostaglandin Misoprostol is administered. This protocol is in accordance with the Guidelines for the use of Mifepristine issued by the Abortion Supervisory Committee. [ASC] It is understood that these Guidelines are currently being reviewed by the ASC.

I would be grateful if you would advise if the protocol set out in your document Version 2003 for the requirement that women stay in Level J following the administration of Mifepristine and Misoprostol is the current procedure. In the event that this is not the protocol would you kindly advise what the current practice is.

It is a matter of concern that there is there is an increasing evidence in Europe that women are being discharged by the clinic or Hospital immediately after being administered Misoprostol for an early medical abortion.

We are aware from earlier information kindly provided by Level J that there were in the year 2008, 244 EMA’s, at Level J. Two of the women concerned were treated for presumed cervical shock while on the ward and one woman was treated for heavy bleeding prior to discharge. Our Society would be grateful if you would advise if you believe that adherence to the protocol contained in the Version 2003 document relating to the discharge of women after being administered the required medication for an EMA, is necessary to protect women’s health? Would you oppose women having an EMA being discharged immediately following the administration of Mifepristine and Misoprostol?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

It has come to the attention of our Society that consideration may be given by your administration to make application to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for licences to perform abortions at Southern Cross hospitals. We are aware that your administration currently holds an abortion licence for the Brightside hospital.

Our Society has a national membership of several thousand members and many supporters. Right to Life wishes to express its strong opposition to Southern Cross choosing to become an abortion provider. Our Society seeks to uphold the sanctity of life and the inalienable right to life of unborn children from conception and to protect the health and welfare of women. Abortion entails the killing of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Abortion is also a threat to the health and welfare of women. Abortion is at the forefront of the promotion of a culture of death. Do you wish to have your good name associated with abortion, the killing of our unborn children?

Southern Cross hospitals promote a culture of life by the protection of life and the promotion of the health of its patients. Southern Cross rightly enjoys the esteem and respect of the community. It would be a great tragedy for the community, our unborn and their mothers if Southern Cross chose to embrace the killing of innocent children in the mistaken belief that it was providing a service.

Many of our members support Southern Cross hospitals and subscribe to Southern Cross insurance. In the event that Southern Cross chose to seek licences to perform abortions our Society would be obliged to initiate a campaign among our members, supporters and indeed in the community to withdraw their support from Southern Cross. It would indeed be a cause of sadness for our Society if this course of action became necessary. We sincerely trust that this will not prove to be an action we need to take in order to stand up for the unborn child.

Our Society would be grateful if you were able to provide us with an assurance that Southern Cross will not seek further abortion licences. Thank you for all that Southern Cross is doing to protect life and promote health.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

In May 2009, the Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal of the Committee until the High Court had addressed the issue of mandatory orders. Following the hearing on 20 July, the judgment of 3 August, stated that declaratory orders were unnecessary as the Committee should now be fully aware of its statutory duties and was accountable to Parliament. Right to Life has cross appealed seeking legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being endowed with a right to life and independence of abortion counselling.  

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.