Right to Life New Zealand » Media Releases

Dr Gill Greer and her push to support Global Family Planning will Cost Lives–not Save Them

Admin — Mon, 07 May 2012 09:41:32 +0000

The Abortion Law Reform Association issued a media release following its recent AGM. Dr Gill Greer, a former Director General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] claimed that it was necessary to put family planning back on the world’s agenda which could reduce maternal and child mortality by 70 per cent, saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of women and children.

Women in developing countries die in childbirth not because they do not have access to contraceptives and “safe abortion”, but mostly because they do not have access to proper health care during pregnancy. Every day 1,000 girls and women die in pregnancy or childbirth. The underlying cause is poverty. In the last 30 years the developed nations led by the United States and encouraged by the IPPF have spent $100 billion on population control. This money should have been spent on providing proper health services for women and their babies, immunizations against disease, clean water and proper child nutrition programmes.

The IPPF and its affiliate the Family Planning Association promote a culture of death. This destructive culture comprises contraception, sterilisation and abortion. All three are intrinsically evil, they destroy individuals, families and societies. Europe has a birth rate of less than 2.1 per couple, which is below replacement level. Europe is now firmly in the destructive grip of this culture of death that is contributing to a devastating demographic decline.

Planned Parenthood claims to support a woman’ right to choose. This is untrue; IPPF and by implication the New Zealand Family Planning Association, support China’s One-Child policy. The China Family Planning Association has been a full member of the IPPF since 1983. IPPF’s website states that “the China Family Planning Association plays a very important role in China’s family planning,” and that it “. . . supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation.” That policy, of course, is the ‘One-Child policy’, which states that women who conceive after already giving birth once, must abort their subsequent children, and those women who resist will be forced to comply. Additionally women who have forced abortions are sterilized against their will. These women have been attacked, fined, and stripped of everything they have as punishment for not adhering to the policy. Quite simply, the women who already have one child have no choice. Yet it is one of IPPF’s founding principles that woman must have choice? Why does the IPPF and the NZFPA support forced abortion? Surely this is a violation of human rights?

Dr Healey supports a woman’s right to choose to kill her child, but objects to doctors having a right to choose not to be involved in the killing of the child

Dr Healey the President of ALRANZ expressed concern at the expansion of so-called “conscientious objection” upheld by the High Court for doctors who were opposed on moral grounds for referring women seeking an abortion. Dr Healey supports a woman’s right to choose to kill her child, but objects to doctors having a right to choose not to be involved in the killing of the child. The opposition of ALRANZ is a threat to the right and duty of doctors to protect mothers and their unborn child. We should remember what happened in Nazi Germany when doctors were required to subvert their conscience and follow orders. ALRANZ is a threat to the welfare of women and the lives of their unborn children.

Ken Orr

Supreme Court – Appeal of Right to Life

Admin — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:49:54 +0000

The Supreme Court heard the appeal of Right to Life on the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the 13^th March 2012, in the matter of the Judicial Review of the Performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The Court comprised the Right Hon Justice Sian Elias, presiding, the Hon Justices Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Young. These proceedings commenced in the High Court in Wellington in May 2005.

Leave to appeal was granted in a judgment of the Court dated 26 August2011 on the following grounds:

(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a),(i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “the approved rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

Should the Supreme Court accept the submission of Right to Life and find that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has a statutory duty and the powers to hold certifying consultants accountable for the abortions that they authorise, it should result in certifying consultants being required to justify to the Committee the authorisation of the 98 per cent of abortions on mental health grounds.

Judgment was reserved by the Court and is expected to be delivered within three months.

The counsel for Right to Life were Peter Mckenzie QC, Dr Ian Bassett and Rachel Chan. The counsel for the Abortion Supervisory Committee were Ms Cheryl Gwyn and Ms W.Aldred of the Crown Law Office.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.

Phone 03 3856111

Right to Life Challenges Flawed UK Assisted Suicide Report

Admin — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:19:34 +0000

Right to Life challenges a seriously flawed and biased report which calls for the legalisation of assisted suicide in the United Kingdom. The report was produced by the self-appointed Commission on Dying. The Commission was chaired by Lord Charles Falconer an ardent campaigner for legal assisted suicide. The other ten Commissioners were almost exclusively, known advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia and were appointed by Lord Falconer.

the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals. James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England

The stated aim of the Commission was to ”investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die.” The Commission sat for 12 months, received submissions and visited overseas jurisdictions where doctors were permitted to assist in the suicide of their patients. The Commission was instituted under the auspices of the assisted suicide advocacy group “Dignity in Dying” and was wholly funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, an author who in 2011, produced and starred in a documentary promoting assisted suicide named “Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die.”

The Commission concluded that the current legal status of assisted suicide is inadequate and incoherent and that assisted suicide should be made legal for persons over the age of 18, who are mentally competent, who have been diagnosed as being terminally ill, who are expected to die within 12 months and who have made a voluntary decision to be assisted in their suicide.

The Commission’s report has been rejected by the Right Reverend James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England. He said the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals.

“Put simply the most effective safeguard against abuse is to leave the law as it is.” The Catholic Church upholds the dignity and inalienable right to life of every person from conception to natural death. It is the constant teaching of the Church that compassion should be extended to the terminally ill and to the aged and disabled. It is totally opposed to assisted killing.

The report has been dismissed as biased and seriously flawed by pro-life organisations. Dr Saunders, director of Care Not Killing, said “these recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. The right to die can so easily become the duty to die. ”Bernadette Smyth, director of Belfast’s Precious Life, said the report is another attack on the dignity of the weak and vulnerable, adding that the situation must never arise where the terminally-ill, disabled, or the elderly feel pressured by society to end their lives. This is part of a culture of death that is attempting to change attitudes in society, to the position where killing the weak and vulnerable becomes normal and acceptable. Britain’s Right to Life spokesperson, Phyllis Bowman states that the Commission is naïve in accepting the claims made by the providers of euthanasia in Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and in Oregon that they had no evidence of patients being pressured or unduly influenced in opting to be killed.

The Commission’s report should be seen as promoting a culture of death, that is a threat to the life of every person. It seeks to influence public attitudes to accept that there are lives unworthy of living. The legalising of assisted suicide is but the first step in achieving their final objective of allowing doctors to kill their patients. It is cheaper to kill patients than to care for them. The Dutch government is considering providing mobile euthanasia units 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 their family. These figures are conservative as many cases are simply not reported.

It is expected that the British Parliament will reject this biased report. There are those in our New Zealand community who will use this discredited Commission’s report to pressure our New Zealand Parliament to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

If we are not vigilant such action will result in the culture of death expanding from the killing of the unborn to the killing of the elderly and unwell. The alternative to the threatening culture of death, is a culture of life which recognises that life is a gift from the Creator which respects the dignity of every person. We must ensure that we continue to provides compassionate and loving care for the terminally ill including high quality palliative care to ensure that they truly have death with dignity.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

New Zealand Doctors Increasingly Recognise that Abortion is Not Healthcare

Admin — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:13:17 +0000

Right to Life is pleased that an increasing number of doctors in New Zealand recognise that abortion is not healthcare and are refusing to be involved in the killing of unborn children. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its report to Parliament for 2010 advise that the number of certifying consultants for the year ending the 30 June 2010 number 175, a reduction of 21 consultants on the 196 registered in 2009. This is good news for women and their unborn children.

The Committee reports that the total number of appointed certifying consultants continues to fall each year with fewer applications for new consultants being received and many consultants choosing not to apply to have their appointments renewed. The Committee notes that the “workforce” appears to be aging with fewer specialist being available.

The approval of two certifying consultants is required to authorise the killing of an unborn child. A consultant receives a fee of $135 for a 10 to 15 minute face to face consultation with a woman seeking an abortion. The Committee reports that fees to consultants totalled $4,551,929 [GST exclusive] for the year ending 30 June 2011. The highest paid consultant received $138,915 for approving 1028 abortions, while declining only one. The second highest paid consultant received $135,270 for approving 1000 abortions and declining just two.

There are more than 11,000 doctors registered in New Zealand, 3,500 being general practitioners. Right to Life applauds those doctors who are faithful to their medical ethics by upholding the right to life of their unborn patients and protecting the health and welfare of mothers facing an unplanned pregnancy.

Abortions kill innocent and helpless unborn children, they also damage women’s physical and mental health and may cause the mother a lifetime of grief and sorrow. Doctors who authorise and perform abortions may genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interest of women. It is however always wrong to kill the innocent. The unborn are also patients. Abortion violates the human rights of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Right to Life urges these doctors to promote a culture of life by respecting the right to life of the unborn and to refuse to authorise or execute their killing. Right to Life calls upon them to promote open adoption as the loving option.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Savingdowns Condemns Richard Boock’s Attack Against the Down Syndrome Community

Admin — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:00:37 +0000

Mike Sullivan who is the spokesperson for Savingdowns an organisation which seeks to protect the lives of unborn Down Syndrome children. A recent attack in the press by columnist Richard Boock showed a shocking lack of awareness and concern for the plight of these defenceless children. The growing eugenics programme targeting New Zealand unborn children is even being promulgated by our government via MOH screening programmes. An article in defence of the Down syndrome community is presented below.

Savingdowns condemns the unprecedented attack by New Zealand columnist Richard Boock against the Down syndrome community in his article

“A woman’s right to choose” in the “Auckland Now” blog site on the 8th December.

In his column, Boock called people with Down syndrome “biological bloopers”, a term that devalues their lives and implies that they have “lives unworthy of life”. His views point towards a eugenic mind-set, underpinned by theories of racial and biological hygiene. His article is an attack on the human rights of those who have Down syndrome and contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Boock states that “I found not a single woman who was hoping to be pregnant one day with a baby with Down syndrome”, clearly implying a view that babies with Down syndrome are undesirable and should be avoided. However, just because a woman hopes her child will not have an extra chromosome does not preclude the possibility that she will accept and love a child with Down syndrome, in the same way a woman who hopes to be pregnant with a girl and discovers she is expecting a boy can adjust her attitude accordingly and look forward to the birth of a son.

Boock goes onto to state “Many are even making bizarre claims about a need to maintain the presence of children with Down syndrome, as if they view them as some sort of endangered species.”. This statement infers that society should not be concerned about maintaining the presence of people with Down syndrome in the human race. Statistics for recent years show that around half of potential births of children with Down syndrome in New Zealand are prevented through antenatal screening and subsequent abortion. Government documents confirm that the so-called “quality improvements” to the screening programme, that were introduced last year, will further reduce the number of people with Down syndrome in New Zealand.

On the subject of voluntary screening and the resulting termination of pregnancies where there is a diagnosis of Down syndrome, Boock states “There’s no suggestion of coercion or persuasion or encouragement one way or another.” This is factually incorrect. Members of Savingdowns can personally testify to being encouraged to terminate a pregnancy based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome or Spina Bifida and even to offers to allow babies to be starved to death after birth if they are “disabled”.

Boock describes people who compare antenatal screening for Down syndrome with eugenics as “bat-shit crazy”. The only purpose of early routine antenatal screening for Down syndrome is to enable the birth of these people to be prevented, based on their biological identification and a discriminatory view that people with Down syndrome are somehow less human than others and will financially cost society more. This is state funded eugenics, targeting a specific group of our community for birth prevention, based on their biological difference. Savingdowns agrees with the National Down Syndrome Congress’ official statement, "… the NDSC is concerned about first trimester tests, as the primary reason for them is to facilitate early terminations. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as hospital selection and delivery management, do not require first trimester testing. “

Savingdowns spokesman, Mike Sullivan, is the father of three-year-old Rebecca Sullivan who has Down syndrome. He said people with Down syndrome and other disabilities are human beings who live full and rewarding lives. “They must be treated on an equal basis with other members of our society, without any form of discrimination.” On the issue of screening programmes, he said “The use of later term screening to enable safe birth outcomes and to support parent’s preparation is an appropriate use of technology. Early screening to prevent births is eugenics, resulting in a biological genocide against our community.”

Savingdowns is an advocacy group of parents and siblings of children with Down syndrome, who oppose discrimination against the Down syndrome community. We oppose the targeted persecution of our community through a screening programme specifically structured to identify and prevent the birth of children because they happen to have Down syndrome. Since Down syndrome usually occurs randomly and is not usually genetically inheritable, it can only be detected after a baby has been conceived, and one cannot eliminate the extra chromosome contained in every cell without also killing the child.

Savingdowns and Right to Life NZ Inc have a case lodged with the International Criminal Court against the New Zealand government for breaches of the Treaty of Rome. The basis of the case is that the current antenatal screening programme for Down syndrome persecutes an identifiable group of the civilian population through birth prevention. The case is currently under further analysis by the court.

For further information contact:

The article can also be found on the Savingdowns.com website

Mike Sullivan

SavingDowns.org.nz

09 436 1498

021 406 266

The Greens Hidden Agenda

Admin — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:15:54 +0000

11 December 2011

Media Release

The Greens Hidden Agenda

The election of 14 Members of Parliament from the Greens Party is a matter of grave concern. The electorate should be aware of the hidden agenda of the Greens Party.

In 2008 in the Victorian Parliament the Greens voted for the decriminalisation of abortion which meant that it was no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. Victoria now has the most permissive abortion law in the world. The law provides for abortion on demand and a woman can now demand an abortion for any reason.

The Greens in Australia support same sex marriage and same sex adoption. The Greens also support the education system teaching that homosexuality is normal.

In 2010 the Greens promoted Bills to legalise euthanasia in the New South Wales, Western Australian and Victorian Parliaments. Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens in Australia has said that passing euthanasia laws was a top priority.

The electorate should recognise that the Greens represent in our Parliament, a threat to the protection of the right to life of unborn children, the elderly and the ill and to the institution of marriage as exclusively between one woman and one man. The Greens Party in Germany has similar policies.

It is disappointing that the media did not challenge the Greens Party before the general election to reveal its hidden agenda. The Greens Party is a serious threat to the sanctity of life ethic and the right to life of every person from conception to natural death. It is also a threat to the sanctity of marriage.

We should recognise that the long term objective of the Greens is to reduce the world’s population, creating a world in which nature is the dominant “right” with humanity subservient to that “deity”.

The Greens captured 11.6 per cent of the votes cast in the general election. it is believed that many voted for the Greens unaware of their hidden agenda. Right to Life calls upon the Greens Party to confirm their hidden agenda.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.

A Victory for Conscience and a Culture of Life

Admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:13:20 +0000

Media Release

Right to Life welcomes the decision of the New Zealand Medical Council not to proceed with its appeal to the Court of Appeal of the judgment of Justice McKenzie given in the High Court in Wellington in December 2010. The judgment stated that a medical practitioner who was opposed in conscience to abortions was not obliged to refer a woman seeking an abortion to another doctor who would facilitate the abortion.

The Medical Council in withdrawing its appeal is acting in the best interest of the medical profession, the community and indeed women and unborn children. The decision will hopefully result in deterring some women from seeking an abortion and thus saving the life of their unborn child.

Parliament in passing the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977 provided protection for the conscience of doctors and others under section 46, 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:..if he objects to doing so on the grounds of conscience. The High Court in December 2010 had found that medical practitioners were only required to conform to the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act 2003 section 174 [2] which states that: “the health practitioner must inform the person who requests the service that he or she can obtain the service from another health practitioner or from a family planning clinic.”

Freedom of conscience is important for the practice of medicine. It was the imposition of the state in Nazi Germany that gave us the crimes against humanity perpetrated by doctors whose conscience was subject to the dictates of the Nazi regime. We must remain ever vigilant to protect the informed conscience of the medical profession. It is our conscience that guides us to do good and to avoid evil. 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.

The pro-abortion movement supported the assault on the conscience of medical practitioners on the pretext that abortion was an essential health service. Abortion is not a health service, it is the killing of a defenceless and innocent unborn child a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity.

The community should be aware that there is an organised international assault on the conscience of medical practitioners in many countries to compel doctors to assist and perform abortions. Sustained pressure is also being imposed on hospitals to provide abortions. This is a culture of death that is being strenuously resisted.

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,

Right to Life,

Peter Dunne, United Future –No Friend of the Unborn Child or Family

Admin — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:01:11 +0000

His response to an election questionnaire sent to him by Bob McCoskrie of Family First, is of great concern. Here is why

He is opposed to legislation that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

He is opposed to policies that promote marriage.

He is opposed to the right to life of unborn children.

He is opposed to parental notification for teen pregnancies.

He is opposed to abstinence and parental – based sex education.

He supports the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research.

He supports same sex adoption by non-biological adults.

He is unsure about legalising surrogacy.

He is opposed to repeal of Prostitution Act.

It is also not generally known that peter voted in 1986 in support of the Homosexual Reform Act.

In June 2008 Peter gave an interview to Gordon Campbell, the political reporter for Scoop. In that interview he expressed strong support for the decriminalisation of abortion. This interview is available on the internet.

Ken Orr

Secretary

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Crimes Act Amendment – Crime to Fail to Report Child Abuse

Admin — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:44:23 +0000

Parliament is to be congratulated for passing the Crimes Amendment Bill [No 2] which now makes it a criminal offence to fail to report child abuse. The Bill creates a new offence of failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child from the risk of death, grievous bodily harm or sexual assault. An offender may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

It is pleasing that the government Bill had the full support of the government members and the Labour caucus. The legislation is timely as New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the OECD. All New Zealanders will welcome this important legislation to protect our most vulnerable children. We remember those poor children who suffered appalling abuse before they were killed, Lilly Bing, Nia Glassie, Mikara Riti and the three month old twins Chris and Cru Kahui. Every year twelve children die from appalling physical abuse. Their names are engraved on our minds, may we never forget these beautiful children.

New Zealanders are deeply ashamed of our child abuse record, it is a terrible burden on the conscience of the nation. As a society we experience no difficulty in recognising child abuse and responding with horror, sorrow, grief and a determination to stop the abuse of the innocent and defenceless children.

Why is it then that as a nation that is implacably opposed to child abuse we allow each day in this country the equivalent of two classrooms of children to be violently dismembered and killed in abortions in our Hospitals’ sanctioned and funded by the government. It is also violence against the mother.

This is the ultimate in child abuse, the unborn child terrified, its mouth open in a silent scream, heart beating furiously as it frantically endeavours to avoid the suction tube of the abortionist paid by the State and determined to terminate the life of the child.

We all have a duty to defend life, it is always wrong to kill the innocent. As a nation we are suffering from a crippling and destructive blindness, a refusal to acknowledge the truth that we have a duty to protect the lives of all children, born and unborn, they are all members of our human family and God’s precious children. When will Parliament act to protect our unborn?

The new law requires that citizens have a duty to report cases of child abuse, to whom do we report the violent abuse of children in the womb?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

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

Admin — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:53:31 +0000

Letter sent to

Chief Executive Officers of the Fifteen NZ DHB’s

Dear Sir,

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

I wish to bring to your attention an important study recently completed in the United States that disclosed that there is a clear link between the killing of an unborn child and mental ill health. Our Society requests that this important information be brought to the attention of those members of your staff who have the responsibility of counselling women considering an abortion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour,” Dr. Coleman observed.

“Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews,” the report concluded, “the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services.”

Commenting on the results of the study, Pro Life Campaign of Ireland spokesperson, Dr. Ruth Cullen said, “These findings are extremely disturbing and completely undermine pro-choice claims that abortion alleviates mental health problems. In fact, the study further proves that the opposite is the case.”

“These findings cannot be ignored,” Dr. Cullen stated. “They raise very serious issues for everyone regardless of which side they are one in the abortion debate. The best interests of women can only be served by an honest and dispassionate appraisal of the facts.”

Dr. Mary L. Davenport, president of the American Association of ProLife Obstetricians and Gynecologists and medical director of Nigeria’s Magnificat Maternal Health Project, said the study, “sheds important light on the mental health of women,” and exposes the “egregious cover-up of abortion complications” that are an aspect of “the abortion distortion.”

“This review, which is larger than any study to date, contradicts the recent and biased and less systematic review by the American Psychological Association, which fails to find a relationship between mental health problems and abortion,” Dr. Davenport wrote recently in the American Thinker.

“The new meta-analysis also contradicts the stance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which has been silent on the mental health impact of abortion in its official publications despite overwhelming evidence over the last two decades of abortion’s adverse effects.”

“By so powerfully linking abortion to mental health problems, the Coleman study helps us comprehend the magnitude of the damage done to entire nations by reckless, permissive abortion policies,” Dr. Davenport concluded.

An abstract of the study titled “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009” with links to the full text is available on the British Journal of Psychiatry website.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary