Dr Silva states that “abortion is a safe procedure and should be carried out at the earliest gestation possible” Abortion is promoted by abortion providers as a safe procedure and of benefit to women. They say every effort must be made to ensure that women have access to safe and speedy abortion services. Right to Life challenges this assumption. Human life begins at conception and the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is due to the human person. At 10 weeks the child in the womb has a beating heart with its organs – brain, liver, kidneys and stomach functioning, it is recognisably human , with a head, face, body and tiny arms, legs, fingers and toes.

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Right to Life welcomes this news. Our Society together with other pro-life organisations have previously made submissions to the Minister of Justice expressing concern and opposition to Dr Fenwicke’s appointment on the grounds that her appointment constituted a substantial conflict of interest. Dr Fenwicke is a certifying consultant appointed to authorise abortions. She is also an abortionist employed at the Level J abortion facility at the Wellington Hospital. How could she be expected to supervise the abortion industry when she was a prominent member of that industry?

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

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

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to life New Zealand

· If the Bill were passed, it would no longer be a crime to kill an unborn child.

· The Bill denies that the unborn child is a human being endowed with human rights.

· The proposed Bill effectively provides for abortion on demand up to birth.

· The Bill is an assault on human rights, the dignity of women and an assault on the conscience of the nation.

· Parliament has a solemn duty to protect the human rights of the weak and vulnerable in society. It would be an appalling injustice for Parliament to withdraw legal protection for the right to life of unborn children the weakest and most vulnerable member of the human family.

Human life begins at conception, at the moment of conception our Creator bestows on the newly created person inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. From the moment of conception the unborn child should be accorded the respect and protection due to the human person. Thomas Jefferson, a former President of the USA stated that; “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” The Hon Steve Chadwick is wrong in assuming that Parliament has the right to confer human rights on the unborn or to withdraw them. Our human rights are not conferred on us by the State or by society. It would thus be a serious violation of human rights for Parliament to withdraw protection of the human rights of unborn children.

Abortion is a crime in New Zealand and is found in the Crimes Act 1961, in the section for crimes against the person, section 182. Killing Unborn child-. The section states that on conviction for killing an unborn child one may be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 14 years. The Crimes Act also provides that in rare and unusual circumstances an abortion may be permitted under section 187A.

· The Hon Steve Chadwick falsely claims that this is “a human rights issue, a women’s health issue.” There is no human right that gives women the right to kill their own child. If we legalised abortion on demand it would become unlawful for a doctor to encourage a woman seeking an abortion to choose life for her baby. The doctor would have also have a legal obligation to facilitate an abortion. This would result in further exploitation and manipulation of vulnerable women by the fathers of their children who seek to avoid responsibility for the children they have fathered.

It is appalling that at this time when there is increasing evidence of the physical, psychological and spiritual damage inflicted on women by abortion, that we would contemplate the decriminalization of abortion. Right to Life is opposed to the war against our own children and will vigorously campaign against this proposed lethal attack. Right to Life urges all concerned citizens to write to their local MPs encouraging them to oppose this proposed Bill and to support increased legal protection for our unborn children. What future does a nation have that kills its own children?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand.

There were 17,550 abortions reported in New Zealand 2009. The statistics were released today by Statistics New Zealand. Right to Life New Zealand is pleased with the reduction of 390 abortions on the 17,940 abortions performed in New Zealand in 2008 which continues the downward trend over the previous two years. This is good news for our unborn children and their mothers. We believe the decrease is due to the increasing recognition in the community that abortion not only destroys an innocent and defenceless unborn child but is also harmful to the physical and mental health of women.

Women considering an abortion have a right to be offered the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan of their unborn child. It is believed that more women are now being given the opportunity to see an ultrasound scan. Right to Life believes that many women seeing their child with heart beating, complete with arms and legs moving in their womb, choose life for their child and refuse to terminate the developing child.

Right to Life is concerned about the lawfulness of many of the abortions authorised in 2009. The statistics for 2009 reveal that 98% of abortions performed were authorised on the grounds of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, this statistic has been constant since 1977. This conclusion on the unlawfulness of many of these abortions is supported by the judgment of Justice Miller delivered in the High Court in Wellington on 9 June 2008 in the judicial review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. [ASC]

Justice Miller stated in his judgment that “In my opinion, the statistics and the Committee’s comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Foster’s view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended.”

Dr Christine Forster was previously chairperson of the ASC from June 1993 to August 2001, a period of nearly eight years.

Right to Life believes that many innocent and healthy unborn children have been deprived of their life unlawfully; this is a grave injustice and a violation of their right to life. It also permits the exploitation and abandonment of women. This is the justice issue of our era.

Right to Life is also concerned at the number of repeat abortions in 2009, of the 17,550 abortions performed, 2023 abortions, 37% of the total were repeat abortions, the same percentage as in 2008. 4423, women were having their second abortion,1364, were having their third, 441, their fourth, 136, their fifth, 63 their sixth and 19 their seventh or more abortion. These statistics are a tragedy for the unborn child and for the women who have been used, exploited and abandoned.

It is pleasing that teenagers between the age of 15 – 19 had fewer abortions in 2009, There were 3873 teenage abortions a reduction of 224 on 2008.  There is clearly an urgent need for the introduction of chastity based education programmes into our secondary schools to replace the destructive Family Planning style comprehensive sex education programmes that promote the false “safe sex” message and promiscuity among our teenagers.

Right to Life earnestly requests that the government promote a culture of life by promoting adoption as a loving life affirming option. It should also stop a culture of death by ceasing to require taxpayers to  pay for the killing of our unborn children.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Committee is made up of three persons, Professor Dame Linda Holloway, chair, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke and Rev Patricia Allan. Two of the Committee are required to be registered medical practitioners. The members are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of Parliament. The term of their appointment is for three years and they may be reappointed by Parliament. The current members of the Committee were appointed on 14 June 2007. Their term will expire on 14 June 2010. They were nominated by the pro abortion Helen Clarke Labour government who withdrew the conscience vote of members of the government to ensure that her nominations were appointed. It is expected that the members appointed passed the litmus test of being supportive of abortion. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, s 10 requires that the Minister of Justice bring a motion to the House for appointment to the Committee.

Parliament is responsible to the people of New Zealand for appointing persons to this Committee that they have confidence in. Parliament should be aware that there are many people in New Zealand who are extremely concerned at the appointment of Dr Rosemary Fenwicke to this Committee which is required to supervise the abortion industry.

Our Society is greatly concerned that a member of this very important Committee responsible for supervising the performance of abortions in New Zealand, ensuring that abortions authorised by certifying consultants are lawful, appointing certifying consultants and issuing abortion licences to hospitals and clinics, has a substantial conflict of interest.

Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, she is a certifying consultant empowered to authorise the killing of unborn children and is an abortionist at the Level J abortion clinic at the Wellington Hospital.

This is the second busiest abortion facility in New Zealand. In 2008 there were 2,867 abortions performed at Level J abortion facility. It is the opinion of this Society that she represents a substantial conflict of interest. The Committee on which she sits has the duty of upholding the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, the long title of this Act states that abortions may be authorised only after full regard is given to the rights of unborn children, the Committee also has the statutory duty to oversee the administration of the abortion laws in New Zealand and to supervise certifying consultants to ensure that abortions authorised in New Zealand are lawful. How can she fulfil her duties as a member of the Committee while engaging as a certifying consultant and an operating surgeon at the Level J abortion clinic? Dr Fenwicke also receives a substantial amount of her income from this Committee for authorising abortions.

The Family Planning Association is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand which supports girls under the age of 16 having an abortion without the knowledge or consent of parents or guardian.

Dr Fenwicke from 1987 to 1990 was the medical director of the central region of the Family Planning Association. The Association is a loyal affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation that promotes abortion worldwide in the stated belief that abortion, the killing of an innocent and defenceless unborn child is a human right. It is believed that Dr Fenwicke is still a member of the FPA. Right to Life contends that because of the pro–abortion policy of the Association that it is highly inappropriate for Dr Fenwicke or any other member of the Association to be appointed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Justice Miller in his judgment delivered in the High Court in Wellington in the judicial review of the Performance of the Committee stated that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee has stated that the law is being used more liberally interpreted than parliament intended.” He also stated that “the Committee does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered.” He went on to state “the abortion law asserts a state interest in protecting the unborn child and not merely an interest that women may have safe and legal abortions. The law precludes abortion on request and as a matter between the woman and her own doctor.” It is mentioned that this judgment has been appealed by the Committee and will be heard by the Court of Appeal on the 5^th and 6^th of October 2010. In the event of the Committee’s appeal not succeeding it will be the duty of the Committee to implement the judgment of the Court. It is therefore imperative that the government appoint members to the Committee, who will in the interest of the women of New Zealand and their unborn children, implement the judgment of the Court.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc,

New Zealand could become the first “No Kill Nation” says United States animal rights advocate. Bob Kerridge, the National President of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [SPCA] stated in a recent media release, “Saving lives has always been a crucial aspect of their work. However we are now planning to make it absolutely central to helping hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats who find themselves in our centres. All life is precious and we want to ensure that every animal taken in by SPCA centres receives the optimum level of enjoying a full and happy existence.”

Cats and dogs are part of God’s creation, they have a right to life that should be respected and protected. The objective of SPCA is admirable and deserves the support of the community. However the campaign raises serious questions about our nation’s priorities. Human beings are more important than cats and dogs.

Why are we as a nation not also concerned about the plight of our unborn children? From the moment of conception the unborn child is endowed by its Creator with an inalienable right to life. How can our nation permit the killing of nearly 18,000 unborn children and yet seek to protect the lives of all cats and dogs that come into the care of SPCA “?

The government is commendably promoting legislation that will increase the penalty for violence against animals. It is a tragedy that the government is silent about the violent killing inflicted against defenceless and helpless unborn children in the womb. Right to Life calls upon the government to make New Zealand a truly “No Kill Nation” by providing effective legal protection for the lives of our unborn children, who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Conscience or Tyranny

Right to Life applauds a group of courageous pro – life doctors challenging the Medical Council’s provisions relating to abortion included in its draft document titled, ” Beliefs and Medical Practice” The pro – life doctors have filed an application with the High Court in Wellington for a judicial review of the draft document.

The draft document requires a medical practitioner to inform a woman who is ambivalent about her pregnancy, “is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy including termination.”

In the event that the doctor on the grounds of conscience is not prepared to provide advice on abortion the doctor is obliged to inform the woman requesting the service that she may obtain that service from another health practitioner or a family planning clinic.

Right to Life contends that the above requirements are an infringement on the conscience of medical practitioners and constitute a violation of human rights. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom to enable him to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his informed conscience. Our conscience enables us to do good and avoid evil. The Medical Council has a duty to protect the conscience of medical professionals.

· We are all called to defend life. Medical practitioners have a duty of care to their patients and to do no harm. When a doctor is being consulted by a woman who is with child, the doctor is dealing with two patients. He has a duty of care for the unborn child, who is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The doctor has no duty to offer the killing of the child as a treatment option nor is he obliged to facilitate its killing. Is it reprehensible for a doctor to believe and say that it is a violation of the human rights of his patient; an unborn child to kill it and that having an abortion could result in causing the mother to experience a lifetime of regret, anguish and serious mental ill health? It is tragic at this time when the High Court has warned that there is serious concern about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand that the Medical Council should be seeking to expedite the killing of unborn children.

· In 1948 the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Geneva passed a Declaration on the responsibilities of medical practitioners, it included, “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.” It also stated, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” The Geneva Declaration was made in response to the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Will the Medical Council learn from history?

· Right to Life requests that the Medical Council promotes a culture of life and opposes a culture of death by amending the draft document to uphold the primacy of conscience and protect women’s health and the lives of their unborn children.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Media Release

Conscience or Tyranny

Right to Life applauds a group of courageous pro – life doctors challenging the Medical Council’s provisions relating to abortion included in its draft document titled, ” Beliefs and Medical Practice” The pro – life doctors have filed an application with the High Court in Wellington for a judicial review of the draft document.

The draft document requires a medical practitioner to inform a woman who is ambivalent about her pregnancy, “is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy including termination.”

In the event that the doctor on the grounds of conscience is not prepared to provide advice on abortion the doctor is obliged to inform the woman requesting the service that she may obtain that service from another health practitioner or a family planning clinic.

Right to Life contends that the above requirements are an infringement on the conscience of medical practitioners and constitute a violation of human rights. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom to enable him to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his informed conscience. Our conscience enables us to do good and avoid evil. The Medical Council has a duty to protect the conscience of medical professionals.

· We are all called to defend life. Medical practitioners have a duty of care to their patients and to do no harm. When a doctor is being consulted by a woman who is with child, the doctor is dealing with two patients. He has a duty of care for the unborn child, who is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The doctor has no duty to offer the killing of the child as a treatment option nor is he obliged to facilitate its killing. Is it reprehensible for a doctor to believe and say that it is a violation of the human rights of his patient; an unborn child to kill it and that having an abortion could result in causing the mother to experience a lifetime of regret, anguish and serious mental ill health? It is tragic at this time when the High Court has warned that there is serious concern about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand that the Medical Council should be seeking to expedite the killing of unborn children.

· In 1948 the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Geneva passed a Declaration on the responsibilities of medical practitioners, it included, “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.” It also stated, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” The Geneva Declaration was made in response to the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Will the Medical Council learn from history?

· Right to Life requests that the Medical Council promotes a culture of life and opposes a culture of death by amending the draft document to uphold the primacy of conscience and protect women’s health and the lives of their unborn children.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

The High Court has stated in a judgment by Justice Miller that there are serious concerns about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand. In the event that Family Planning obtained an abortion licence our Society would have serious concerns about the lawfulness of abortions authorised by Family Planning doctors.

It is Family Planning’s objective to obtain government funding for providing abortions.  Right to Life is disappointed that the Minister of Health Tony Ryall is not prepared to intervene to stop the Waikato District Health Board from giving the Association funding provided by the taxpayer. There are many taxpayers who are totally opposed to their taxes being used to kill unborn children. Our taxes should be used to protect life not destroy it. It is scandalous that the government which proclaims that it wants to promote family life should use our taxes to kill unborn children, the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family.

Family Planning in announcing its plans for our families proclaims that it is providing a service to women by providing them with choice and access. This is an appalling falsehood, Women faced with an unplanned pregnancy don’t need choice in the way their child is to be killed or access to a killing clinic. Women need support, compassion and practical help for them to give life to their baby. If Family Planning really cared about the welfare of vulnerable women and their unborn child they would be providing women with real choice by providing them with the support needed to protect both the mother and her child.

Family Planning is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation which promotes contraception and abortion worldwide they are the leaders in promoting a culture of death. Right to Life calls upon the government to stop Family Planning killing unborn children by refusing government funding.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

It is commendable that Family Planning is seeking to reduce New Zealand’s high teenage pregnancy and STI rate. It is disappointing that the Association continues to promote as the solution a failed immoral campaign of “safer sex” with condoms which promotes promiscuity, fornication, more teenage pregnancies and STIs. Condoms encourage teenage males to become predators, mistaking lust for love.

Our sexuality is a gift of our Creator; He invites us to co-operate with Him within the institution of a loving marriage, procreation and the loving lifelong union of husband and wife. This is God’s plan for our happiness.

• Family Planning promotes the myth that condoms are the best protection against unplanned pregnancies, STIs including HIV, they are not. Chastity is the best protection.

• The Social Science Medicine [vol] 36, no 12, 1993 says “condoms are possibly only 85% effective for preventing pregnancy and 69% effective for reducing the risk of HIV infection.

• A United States Department of Health Task Force says “There is no clinical data supporting the value of condoms in preventing the spread of a range of diseases including Syphilis, Herpes Hepatitis B and HIV.” Condoms are also ineffective in preventing the spread of Chlamydia, which is spread by skin contact.

• Family Planning has a policy to support abortion as a backup for failed contraceptives. The Association accepts the sacrifice of the lives of innocent and defenceless unborn children as a price for sexual freedom. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its 2009 report to Parliament advised that 4,898 women who had an abortion in 2008 were using condoms at the time of conception of the child they sought to abort. There have been more than 371,000 abortions reported since the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act was passed in 1977. More than 103,000 of these abortions were on women who experienced a condom failure at the time of conception. This is a price for the failed “safer sex “campaign of Family Planning supported and funded by the government that Right to Life believes is totally unacceptable to the citizens of New Zealand. In

the interest of protecting the lives of our unborn children and the health and welfare of our teenagers, we urge Family Planning to terminate its failed campaign of “safer sex” with condoms and to promote chastity before marriage.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Family Planning claims that medical abortions are safe for women and that there have been worldwide only 12 reported maternal deaths. This figure is questioned, there is believed to be substantial underreporting as doctors are very reluctant to indicate on a death certificate that the death of the mother was the result of having an abortion.

Why is Family Planning in complete denial of the physical and psychological damage inflicted on women as a result of having an abortion? A preliminary report by a working group of psychiatrists studying the psychological effects of abortion states that women who obtain abortions have significantly elevated rates of depression, suicidal thoughts, sexual disturbances, and other psychological disorders. They also die at higher rates than non-abortive women.
The report, which examines manifestations of Post-Abortion Syndrome, was authored by Carmen Gomez-Lavin of the University of Navarra in Spain.  It states that 80 percent of women who had had abortions suffer from symptoms of depression, and 40 percent have contemplated suicide.
In addition, 70% of such women exhibit irritability, 60% suffer behavioural disturbances, 40% experience sexual disturbances, and 30% have been involved in drug abuse.
The report also states that women who obtain abortions have a mortality rate 3.5 to 6 times higher, and a suicide rate between 6 and 7 times higher than that of women who give birth.

New research published this last month continues to add to the evidence documenting the physical risks of abortion on women.

First, a study published in Finland found that women who underwent chemical abortions were 4 times more likely to suffer physical complications compared to women who underwent surgical abortions. 20 percent of women suffered complications after chemical abortions compared to 5.6 percent of women who had surgical abortions.

The most common complications were hemorrhage (which occurred among 15.6 percent of women having chemical abortions compared to 2.1 percent of women having surgical abortions) and incomplete abortion (6.7 percent compared with 1.2 percent).

.

At least six U.S. women have died after taking RU-486 and hundreds of adverse reactions to the drugs have been reported to the FDA, many life threatening.

Why does Family Planning deny a link between abortion and breast cancer? A second new study of women in China found that those who had abortions had a 17 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer. The study follows on the heels of a review published by Turkish researchers that found a 66 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer among women with a history of abortion.

Family Planning states that in the year to December 2008, 17940 abortions were performed in New Zealand. During that time Family Planning made 4866 referrals throughout New Zealand. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, requires that the women’s own doctor should refer the woman to an abortion certifying consultant if after considering if the women seeking an abortion has grounds under the Crimes Act 1961. If the woman does not have grounds, the doctor should decline to refer the woman. Right to Life challenges the Association to publicly state how many woman seeking an abortion were refused a referral to a certifying consultant on the grounds that in the opinion of the Family Planning doctor the woman did not have grounds. Secondly how many women were referred by an association nurse or social worker to a certifying consultant, such a referral is unlawful.

Family Planning claims to uphold the law on abortion. The Association has a policy “that the provision of abortion services is an important back-up measure in a comprehensive family planning programme.” The policy also “supports the principle that termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy should not be a legal offence.” The Association’s policy therefore supports the decriminalization of abortion and the removal of all legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. It would make the killing of unborn children a human right. In the event that Family Planning was granted a licence to kill unborn children, Right to Life would have serious concerns about the lawfulness of any abortions performed in their clinics.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to life New Zealand Inc.