The 50th anniversary of the birth control pill — the Food and Drug Administration gave it final approval in 1960 — has been the occasion of much media fanfare, societal reflection — and what we might call Secular Triumphalism. We, the Enlightened, knew all along that giving women control over their fertility was going to be simply marvelous. End of story. Some of us have tried to point out that the pill had some negative consequences, but few seem interested.

The reason for the disconnect is that the ideology surrounding the pill is more significant than the pill itself.

Behind the apparently benign goal of giving people more choices lies a deeper goal: re-creating society. And since this new society is neither appealing nor natural, its advocates are not so eager to call attention to it.

The New Contraceptive World Order holds these tenets: Sex is a sterile recreational activity. “Safe” sex (meaning sex with a condom) has no significant negative consequences. Marriage is not necessary for either sexual activity or childbearing. And unlimited sexual activity is an entitlement for everyone old enough to give meaningful consent.

But there is a serpent in this man-made paradise: All of these tenets are false.

It isn’t true that sex is a sterile activity. Contraception fails — regularly. Even the pill only reduces the probability of pregnancy, but not all the way to zero. Uncommitted sex has plenty of negative consequences that cannot be prevented by contraception. Marriage really is the best place for both sexual activity and childbearing. And, because we have been convinced that unlimited sexual activity is an entitlement, we have sex in relationships that cannot possibly sustain a pregnancy. When the inevitable pregnancies result, we fall back on abortion to continue clinging to our belief in the New Contraceptive World Order.

Thus, the attempt to create this new society cannot succeed.

The New Contraceptive World Order is an artificial creation of the state. It requires continual support and coddling from the state, including ever-increasing efforts to suppress dissent and enforce conformity.

Cheerleaders for this new heaven on earth insist that all doctors be trained in abortions, that all pharmacists prescribe all forms of birth control, that all employers provide contraception and abortion in their health plans. Suppressing the choices of doctors, pharmacists, insurers and employers makes no sense — unless the real goal is to create the new and unnatural society of sterile sex.

Public-interest law firms defending First Amendment rights report that student pro-life groups are subjected to more restrictions on their free-speech rights than virtually any other student groups.

Obviously, restricting free speech in the name of reproductive “freedom” is incoherent. None of this would be necessary if the only purpose of the pill were to give everyone more choices.

This fundamental incoherence is also the underlying cause of the contentiousness of the Supreme Court nomination process. Since this new world cannot sustain itself by the ordinary actions of ordinary people making voluntary decisions, it has to be sustained by the continual applications of force by those in power. This explains why the stakes for seats in the judiciary are so high.

You might think that consistent failures would compel people to reconsider their ideas about sex. But this cannot be left to chance. The propaganda surrounding the pill has been just as revolutionary as the pill itself. Griswold v. Connecticut, allowing married couples to access contraception to reduce the probability of pregnancy, was never enough for the radicals of the sexual revolution.

To bring their dream world into existence, contraception has to be actively promoted. The federal government finances contraception education in public schools. The sexual-revolution radicals become hysterical over the mere mention of abstinence education. Even people who are normally not ideological have become convinced that it is more “realistic” to expect teenagers to use a condom every time than to persuade them to postpone sexual activity in the first place.

As for the great benefits to women supposedly created by contraception, consider this: In the New Contraceptive World Order, women have the freedom to participate in the labor market on the same terms as men with this proviso: We agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak reproductive years.

But it never was necessary for women to make the Faustian bargain. The trend toward the increasing participation of women in higher education and the labor force began around the turn of the 20th century — well before the pill, The Feminine Mystique and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Women never needed contraception to be free, even according to the crabbed and truncated vision of freedom that claims that acting on impulse is the ultimate expression of human liberty.

The Catholic Church and other advocates of natural society have taken a beating for being hopelessly “out of step” with modern times.

Do not be deceived by this incessant rhetoric.

The New Contraceptive World Order is inhuman, irrational and, ultimately, unsustainable. It is time to insist that our government stop trying to create something that would not make us happy — even if it could be forced into being, which it cannot.

Continue reading this and other articles on the Ruth Institute home page.

20 June 2005 The ASC applied for orders striking out the proceedings against the ASC. The ASC described the action as vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.

8 September 2005 In the High Court in Wellington Mr Justice Wild heard the case between RTL and the three members of the ASC, Dr Lesley Rothwell, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Mrs Marlene Lamb (the latter had resigned from the committee in March 2005, leaving a vacancy.). Counsel from the Crown Law Office, are representing the ASC. RTL named the Attorney-General as second defendant. The judge decided that some of RTL’s claims should be struck out but that others, if rewritten, could proceed. The Attorney-General was named by RTL as a defendant, Justice Wild struck his name out of the action.

28 October 2005  RTL filed an amended claim in accordance with Judge Wild’s decision.

29 November 2006 Associate Judge Gendall heard an appeal by the ASC to disallow affidavits from six women who had suffered mental ill health as a result of having an abortion The other affidavit was from a consulting specialist psychiatrist Dr Julia Aranui-Faed who had evidence of psychiatric illness in women caused from having an abortion.

21 December 2006 The judge ruled the affidavits admissible. The ASC appealed requesting that the case be heard again by a full judge (not an associate judge).

28 May 2007 Mr Justice Young heard the case in closed chambers and ruled in favour of the ASC by having the affidavits of the six aggrieved women struck out as irrelevant to the case but the affidavit of Dr Aranui-Faed a clinical specialist psychiatrist was allowed. Dr Faed presented evidence in her affidavit that an abortion could cause serious psychiatric complications for women undergoing an abortion.

24 September 2007 Mr Justice Simon France heard arguments on whether affidavits from two paediatricians relating to foetal surgery and foetal diagnosis should be allowed.

3 October 2007 The judge ruled in favour of RTL.

7-9 April 2008 Mr Justice Miller in the High Court Wellington rejected RTL’s claim seeking legal status for the unborn child as a human being from conception and endowed with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. He also rejected RTL submission that abortion counselling be independent of abortion providers and the unlawfulness of appointments being made for an abortion at clinics prior to an abortion being authorised by two certifying consultants. He did however question the legality of over 98% of abortions being done on the grounds of mental health, complying with the abortion law. Justice Miller in his judgment of the 9th June 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; “The Committee does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered,” and the abortion law certainly asserts a state interest in protecting the unborn child and not merely an interest that women have safe and legal abortions. The law precludes abortion on request and as a matter between the woman and her own doctor.”

The ASC (newly appointed in June 2007 with Professor Linda Holloway as chairperson, Dr Rosy Fenwick and  Rev Patricia Allan) appealed the judge’s decision on the 20th August questioning the lawfulness of the certifying consultants’ decisions. RTL has cross-appealed challenging Justice Miller’s

Judgment in respect to his rejecting RTLs case for the legal recognition of the unborn child, as a human being and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

12-13 May 2009  In the Court of Appeal the appellate judges, Justices Hammond, Chambers and Robertson after a brief hearing declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the ASC and the cross appeal of RTL on the ground that the issue of declaratory orders sought by RTL were required to be dealt with first by the High Court.

20 July 2009 In the High Court Justice Miller heard arguments from the counsel for RTL that declaratory orders were necessary. The ASC presented arguments against the issuing of orders.

3 August 2009 Justice Miller issued his judgment declining to issue declaratory orders. He stated that orders were unnecessary as the ASC should now be fully aware of its statutory duties. “There is no reason to suppose that the Committee will refuse to act now that its functions have been clarified. It remains the case that the Committee can be expected to administer the law as Parliament intended.” “Further non-compliance has been material. I found that the Committee has failed over many years to exercise some of its statutory powers at all… it is not possible to say how many unlawful abortions have been performed.”

20 August 2009 The ASC appealed again to the Court of Appeal and RTL followed with a cross appeal on the issues of the legal status of unborn children and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

5-6 October 2010 A hearing has been set down for the Court of Appeal to hear arguments on the appeals of the ASC and RTL. The hearing was originally set down for 4-5 May 2010, however due to the unavailability of Crown counsel the hearing was set down for 23-24 August 2010. It was then changed again due to there not being three judges free to preside at the hearing.

Right to Life is pleased with the achievements obtained to date in seeking the full protection of the law for the right to life of unborn children and for the health and wellbeing of women. Our Society is confident of a successful outcome at the conclusion of these important legal proceedings.

Teenage delinquents were killing their neighbours.  A few years ago, the TV news program "60 Minutes" first reported on this story.  But they weren’t talking about humans; they were talking about elephants.  It seems this story actually began about 20 years earlier in South Africa when an overabundance of elephants in a preserve forced ecologists to relocate elephants.  It was difficult to relocate adult elephants, so most of the male elephants were killed and the young elephants and some of their mothers were relocated to another preserve.

Years later those fatherless and orphaned elephants developed into troubled teen-agers; teenagers that began harassing and killing other animals in the wildlife preserve – namely the scarce and prized white rhinos. In addition to killing rhinos, the juvenile elephants acted aggressively toward tourist vehicles.   Eventually researchers had to kill five of the elephants because there is no reform school for animals.  Or is there?  Read on following this link to United Families Website

Pro Life Campaign (PLC) a non-denominational lobby group has set up a new petition which is being circulated worldwide calling on the Leaders of  China and India to halt the established practice of the selective killing of baby girls by abortion, infanticide and fatal neglect.  The petition can be signed by clicking on this link

Why sign the petition?

100 million baby girls are missing – and the number is rising. They were aborted or killed at birth. Why? Because of a preference for baby boys. It is a human rights violation on a massive scale perhaps the most widespread form of violent anti-female discrimination in the world today.  For more information (direct from the PLC Website’s Petition page see below)

The mission of the Stop Gendercide Now Campaign is to highlight the fact that so many baby girls have disappeared through abortion, infanticide, or neglect and to work for political change to remedy this.

By signing the petition, you’ll be joining others in sending a strong message to the leaders of countries like China and India, which have deplorable records in defending the rights of baby girls, born and unborn. Your voice can really make a difference – please sign the petition today!

Sign Petition Now

Background to the Stop Gendercide Now Campaign

The number of baby girls’ lives lost through gendercide has risen sharply as cultural pressures against the birth of baby girls are reinforced by harsh inhumane traditions, coercive population control policies as well as political ideologies.

As a result of this, 100 million baby girls who should have been born have been aborted, killed or left to die. It is a human rights violation on a massive scale.

Boy-preference leading to dramatically fewer baby girls being born and surviving is concentrated primarily in China but also in India and other countries.

The mass destruction of girls has produced a systemic gender imbalance in whole populations for example; there are more unmarried young men in China than the entire population of young men in America.

The Stop Gendercide Now petition puts pressure on the governments of countries with significant sex ratio imbalances:

• To introduce measures to ensure that the killing, fatal neglect or abandonment of baby girls because they are girls is ended.

• To carry out and publish an annual audit giving the sex ratio, the measures put in place to address it, and the progress or otherwise of these measures.

The Stop Gendercide Now petition will also be copied to the Secretary General of the United Nations calling on the UN to adopt a meaningfully proactive leadership role in ending the horrific practice of signalling out baby girls for abortion and infanticide.

Many steps can be taken. Initiatives can be developed to encourage education for girls: reform of laws and customs that exclude or disadvantage daughters in property inheritance; facilitation of women’s participation in all dimensions of public life; requiring family planning officials, midwives and hospitals to publish the birth sex ratios, and reward advances towards the normal balance of girls to boys.

For further information, visit the following link
The Economist – Gendercide – The War on Baby Girls 4th March 2010.

Click here to join our cause on Facebook and Invite your friends.

Click here to visit our blogspot and have your say.

Dear President and Prime Minister,
We, the undersigned, members of the international community, are shocked and disturbed at the continued practice of selective abortion, infanticide and fatal neglect of baby girls after birth in your country. The imbalance in your national sex ratio indicates the scale of the lethal bias against baby girls.
We call on you to address policies and practices, traditions and cultural attitudes that are producing and reinforcing the preference for baby boys over baby girls in your country.

We are particularly disturbed at the manner in which ideological population control policies, and the family planning personnel implementing them, are reinforcing the cultural attitudes of bias against baby girls.
We call on your government

• To measure and publish the sex ratio regularly.
• To put in place legal and cultural measures to stop the practice of Gendercide, and
• To carry out, and publish an annual audit giving the sex ratio, the measures put in place to address it, and the progress or otherwise of these measures.

We appeal to you to do everything within your power to end this unjust practice urgently.
Yours faithfully,

It has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years that contraception is a serious violation of the natural law of God and is a grave sin. It is a tragedy for mankind that many Christian Churches have in the last 50 years abandoned defence of the natural law of God and accepted contraception. In recent times the Catholic Church has reiterated this teaching in encyclicals, which are a beacon of truth and a precious gift to humanity. In the encyclical Casti Cannubi, of Pius XI in 1930 and more recently in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, of Paul VI in 1968. In his introduction to his encyclical Pope Paul VI stated that, “The transmission of life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.” He also stated, “For the natural law, too, declares the will of God and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. As a consequence, husband and wife, through the mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop the union of two persons in which they perfect one another, co-operating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.” Paul VI guided by the Holy Spirit was prophetic, his first prophesy was that the widespread use of contraception would “lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality” The increase in the number of divorces. Abortions, out – of wedlock pregnancies and venereal diseases are the fruit of contraception. His second prophesy was that contraception would lead to men losing “respect for women” and they might come to consider her “as an instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer his respected and beloved companion.” The third prophesy was that contraception would place “a dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.”Today we see the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the UN Population Fund Agency and the International Planned Parenthood Association promoting contraception worldwide, especially in developing nations with the objective of reducing population. China’s one child family policy with forced sterilisations and abortions is based on the availability and imposition of the contraceptive pill on the Chinese people.

It is a tragedy that the culture of life espoused by the encyclicals was met with dissent by some Bishops and priests. It is known that there are many Catholics who have chosen to reject the teaching of the Church on the sanctity of marriage and the prohibition of contraception. This is an important pastoral issue facing the Church at this time. The Catholic Church blesses and encourages the lay faithful and people of good will to use natural family planning [NFP] to assist married couples through fertility awareness to plan their child bearing. NFP if used correctly is 99% effective.

The contraceptive pill not only prevents ovulation it also has a tertiary abortifacent action that destroys an embryo from implanting in the uterus of a woman. This is an abortion that gives grave offence to God. It also is a violation of the right to life of the human embryo. Abortion is promoted as a backup for failed contraception. In 2008, 2533 women had an abortion in New Zealand who had conceived their child while using the contraceptive pill.

Contraception is a serious threat to women’s health. The contraceptive pill has a failure rate of 13%.This is the price of “sexual freedom”, the blood of our children.

The contraceptive pill is a serious threat to women’s health. In 2005 the World Health Organisation said that the contraceptive pill containing estrogen and progestin increased the risk of breast cancer, liver and cervical cancer and classified them as class 1 carcinogens.

A Mayo Clinic study said that women who use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy have a 52 % higher risk of developing breast cancer.

Women who use a hormonal contraceptive for more than 5 years are 4 times more likely to develop cervical cancer.

Prior to the sexual revolution and the pill there were known to be 5 sexually transmitted diseases: today there are more than 30.

Tragically, a culture of death has been embraced by our nation. The contraceptive pill is funded by the government and promoted by the Ministry of Health and the Family Planning Association as an integral part of “reproductive health” The pill may be given to girls under the age of 16 without the knowledge or consent of parents. In 2009 there were 202,000 women in New Zealand using the contraceptive Pill. Under the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, doctors may refuse on conscience grounds to prescribe contraception, pharmacists are also exempt from filling prescriptions. Doctors and nurses are also exempt from assisting in abortions on conscience grounds.

This is what 19^th century feminists said, they knew that contraception enslaved women, they emphasized two basic Christian concepts: mutual fidelity and mutual respect. They condemned male promiscuity. They demanded that husbands honour their commitments to their wives, and that sons learn to honour the integrity of all women. Equal rights, they believed, could be achieved only by fidelity, mutual sacrifice and commitment, with self-control, not self-indulgence. Wives, they insisted, cannot be treated like prostitutes, available on demand. Feminists demanded "voluntary motherhood," the wife’s freedom to accept or refuse intercourse… Contraceptives would deny women their rightful fertility, turning wives into little more than prostitutes, always "safe" for husbands to exploit to satisfy their passions. Widespread contraceptive use, feminists argued, would encourage promiscuity, undermine chastity, lure their husbands and sons into illicit sexual exploits, and expose more women to seduction, abuse and abandonment. Feminists also condemned abortion, they insisted it was immoral to kill an unborn child. Susan B. Anthony, Victoria Woodhill and virtually every other noted feminist leader of the 19th century described abortion as "infanticide, child – murder." and the exploitation of women.

Contraception is contributing to the failure of most European nations to achieve a replacement birth rate which is internationally recognized as being 2.1. New Zealand has a birth rate of 1.99. We are witnessing the death of western civilization. The United Nations lists 195 countries, 72 of these countries have fertility rates below replacement level. Carl Djarassi who helped invent the contraceptive pill now says that his co-creation has led to “demographic catastrophe” He outlined the “horror scenario” that has occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame.

As God is the author of life we can look forward to the triumph of the culture of life as the culture of death has within it the seeds of its own destruction.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Right to Life New Zealand Inc

While Bedard is less well known than the conference’s keynote speaker – Cardinal Marc Ouellet – whose staunchly pro-life statements made later that afternoon were seized on by the anti-life Quebec media, she might be the speaker who most touched hearts that Saturday afternoon.

Read more on the Lifesitenews website

Rebecca of Florida describes the hellish experience of her third abortion after her parents refused to sign the papers to give the child up for adoption. (Click here to watch video of Rebecca’s testimony.)

How many New Zealand women are hiding their grief, anguish and despair over aborting their child. Thankfully there is help. If You or someone you know has been effected by abortion click here to go to the New Zealand PATHS website

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

20 June 2005 The ASC applied for orders striking out the proceedings against the ASC. The ASC described the action as vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.

8 September 2005 In the High Court in Wellington Mr Justice Wild heard the case between RTL and the three members of the ASC, Dr Lesley Rothwell, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Mrs Marlene Lamb (the latter had resigned from the committee in March 2005, leaving a vacancy.) Counsel from the Crown Law Office are representing the ASC.  RTL named the Attorney-General as second defendant. The judge decided that some of RTL’s claims should be struck out but that others, if rewritten, could proceed. The Attorney-General was named by RTL as a defendant, Justice Wild struck his name out of the action.

28 October 2005  RTL filed an amended claim in accordance with Judge Wild’s decision.

29 November 2006 Associate Judge Gendall heard an appeal by the ASC to disallow affidavits from six women who had suffered mental ill health as a result of having an abortion The other affidavit was from  a consulting specialist psychiatrist Dr Julia Aranui-Faed who had evidence of psychiatric illness in women caused from having an abortion.. 

21 December 2006 The judge ruled the affidavits admissible. The ASC appealed requesting  that the case be heard again by a full judge (not an associate judge).

28 May 2007 Mr Justice Young heard the case in closed chambers and ruled in favour of the ASC by having the affidavits of the six aggrieved women struck out as irrelevant to the case but the affidavit of Dr Aranui-Faed a clinical specialist psychiatrist  was allowed. Dr Faed presented evidence in her affidavit that an abortion could cause serious psychiatric complications for women undergoing an abortion.

24 September 2007 Mr Justice Simon France heard arguments on whether affidavits from two paediatricians relating to fetal surgery and fetal diagnosis should be allowed.

3 October 2007 The judge ruled in favour of RTL.

7-9 April 2008  Mr Justice Miller in the High Court Wellington  rejected RTL’s claim seeking legal status for the unborn child as a human being from conception and endowed with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. He also rejected RTL submission that abortion counselling be independent of abortion providers.and the unlawfulness of appointments being made for an abortion at clinics prior to an abortion being authorised by two certifying consultants. He did however question the legality of over 98% of abortions being done on the grounds of mental health, complying with the abortion law. Justice Miller in his judgment of the 9^th June 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; “The Committed does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered,” and the abortion law certainly asserts a state interest in protecting the unborn child and not merely an interest that women have safe and legal abortions. The law precludes abortion on request and as a matter between the woman and her own doctor.”

The ASC (newly appointed in June 2007 with Professor Linda Holloway as chairperson, Dr Rosy Fenwicke and  Rev Patricia Allan)  appealed the judge’s decision on the 20^th August questioning the lawfulness of the certifying consultants’ decisions. RTL has cross-appealed challenging Justice Miller’s

Judgment in respect to his rejecting RTLs case for the legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

12-13 May 2009  In the Court of Appeal the appellate judges, Justices Hammond, Chambers and Robertson after a brief hearing declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the ASC and the cross appeal of RTL on the ground that the issue of declaratory orders sought by RTL were required to be dealt with first by the High Court.

20 July 2009 In the High Court Justice Miller heard arguments from the counsel for RTL that declaratory orders were necessary. The ASC presented arguments against the issuing of orders.

3 August 2009 Justice Miller issued his judgment declining to issue declaratory orders. He stated that orders were unnecessary as the ASC should now be fully aware of its statutory duties. “There is no reason to suppose that the Committee will refuse to act now that its functions have been clarified. It remains the case that the Committee can be expected to administer the law as Parliament intended.”  “Further non-compliance has been material. I found that the Committee has failed over many years to exercise some of its statutory powers at all… it is not possible to say how many unlawful abortions have been performed.”

20 August 2009 The ASC appealed again to the Court of Appeal and RTL followed with a cross appeal on the issues of the legal status of unborn children and the independence of abortion counselling from abortion providers.

5-6 October 2010 A hearing has been set down for the Court of Appeal to hear arguments on the appeals of the ASC and RTL. The hearing was originally set down for 4-5 May 2010, however due to the unavailability of Crown counsel the hearing was set down for 23-24 August 2010. It was then changed again due to there not being three judges free to preside at the hearing.

Right to Life is pleased with the achievements obtained to date in seeking the full protection of the law for the right to life of unborn children and for the health and wellbeing of women. Our Society is confident of a successful outcome at the conclusion of these important legal proceedings