Right to Life New Zealand » RTL Activities

Why Beneficiaries are the Victims of Paula Bennetts Social Engineering Policies

Admin — Sat, 12 May 2012 11:18:06 +0000

Right to Life is disappointed that the government is victimising women on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The Hon Paula Bennett has announced the introduction of free contraception for women on the DPB and for their daughters over the age of 16. The contraception comprises the intra uterine device, [IUD], Depo Provera and long term Jadell implants.

The contraceptive programme was included in the recommendations of the Welfare Working Group as being a compulsory requirement for women to receive the DPB. This would be a gross violation of the human rights of women. The community should vigorously oppose this programme. If today we accept this programme offered under the guise of choice, tomorrow it may become a compulsory requirement for women who seek the DPB to be subject to long term contraception to prevent them having further children while on the DPB. We are living in dangerous times when the government may in the future consider using contraception as a weapon to control the community. We could follow China with its one child family policy, with forced abortions and sterilisations. The government’s proposed programme is morally reprehensible:

Contraception is part of a culture of death, is contrary to the natural law, violates a woman’s body and is intrinsically evil.
The programme upholds the government’s failed Family Planning style comprehensive sex education and its so called “safe sex “programme that promotes sexual activity outside of marriage.
Offering free contraceptives to the daughters of those on the DPB is giving the message to young girls that being promiscuous is acceptable.
The Jadell long term implant releases the hormone levongestral into a woman’s body. The long term effects on a woman’s health are unknown.

The programme is insulting, discriminatory and demeaning to women. The introduction of this programme wrongly infers that women on the DPB are promiscuous and irresponsible. The truth is:

There are 112,000 persons on the DPB, the vast majority are women. Teenagers number only 1165, which is only 2.7 per cent of the total. Only 20 per cent of women on the DPB have additional children while on the benefit.
The government claims that the programme’s objective is to reduce benefit dependency. This is untrue, 67.7 per cent of women are on the DPB for four years or less, hardly a lifetime choice.
Women on the DPB are the most maligned sector of our community; it is often claimed that many are defrauding the government. This is untrue; in 2007 Social Welfare set up a special fraud intelligence unit to detect benefit fraud. The Department checked 29 million records and found that benefit fraud rate amounted to only 0.10 per cent (in plain terms one in a thousand) that showed that women receiving the DPB were exceedingly honest.

The Welfare Working Group has failed;

To address the plight of many women who have been abandoned by the fathers of their children.
To take into account he social and economic contribution that those who are on the DPB make to society in raising their children.
To recognise the limited availability of work for those on the DPB.
To acknowledge the extent of poverty among those on the DPB.
To address the availability of – and affordability of child care.

It is not beneficiaries who have failed society, it is the government which has failed beneficiaries. Offering free contraception to those on the DPB is not the solution, it is part of the problem. Women who have courageously chosen life for their children instead of abortion deserve our admiration and support.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.

Screening for Down syndrome – A community perspective

Admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:43:44 +0000

Screening for Down syndrome – A community perspective

Saving Downs are a New Zealand based group of parents and siblings of people with Down syndrome. Thye have formed in response to the New Zealand Government’s new state funded eugenic antenatal screening programme that targets and identifies unborn children with Down syndrome for selective abortion. They have recently produced the following resource for Health Professionals.

Midwives and general practitioners have been invited to a series of nationwide workshops in May and June 2012 to further enhance skills, knowledge and understanding in relation to antenatal screening for Down syndrome & other conditions.

The Down syndrome community has been excluded from participation in the workshops and we are taking this opportunity to provide our perspective on the screening programme.

11 facts for Midwives, GPs and Parents to know; see below

1.Like all people, those with Down syndrome are defined by their basic human dignity and not by their genetic makeup. They are loved and valued members of our families and communities. They make positive contributions to our society.

2.Down syndrome is a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always been a part of the human condition.

3.In a recent Children’s Hospital Boston survey 99 percent of parents of children with Down syndrome reported that they loved their child, 97 percent were proud of their child, and 79 percent attributed a more positive outlook on life to their child.

4.The screening pathway is non-therapeutic . It imposes more harm than benefit to a mother’s unborn child, through miscarriage and morbidity due to diagnostic testing.

5.The screening pathway leads to maternal anxiety and foetal hazard . Interrupting the pregnancy has adverse mental health outcomes for the mother.

6.There is no evidence that babies with Down syndrome can have a better medical outcome due to screening and testing. Medical problems associated with Down syndrome can be detected by routine antenatal clinical care without a diagnosis.

7.For every 100 women who screen at high risk for Down syndrome, RANZCOG state that only between four and six of them will be carrying a baby with Down syndrome.

8.It costs around $70,000 to detect an unborn child with Down syndrome.

9.Before the 2010 quality improvements around 55% of all babies with Down syndrome were not born due to antenatal screening and intervention. When Denmark introduced the same “quality improvements” the impact was a further halving in births of children with Down syndrome . A similar trend here would result in around 80% of all births of children with Down syndrome being prevented. Many people recognise that this is eugenics .

10.The New Zealand Down Syndrome Association does not consider Down syndrome in itself a reason for termination of a pregnancy.

11.People with Down syndrome and their families are best placed to provide parents with a diagnosis with accurate information and knowledge based in direct experience.

Ethics and the Hippocratic Oath

The original Hippocratic Oath has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva . It has been adopted by the World Medical Association and reflects the dedication of medical professionals to the humanitarian goals of medical practice. It includes:

A commitment to the service of humanity. A duty to act with conscience and dignity.

A commitment to not allow a disability to intervene between ones duty and their patients. Upholding the utmost respect for human life.

Many people in the Down syndrome community consider the screening programme to be eugenics , as it targets this community for birth prevention based on their biological difference. Such practices offend medical ethics, human dignity and the basic principles of humanitarian justice and international law.

Midwives and general practitioners have a statutory right to refuse to participate in antenatal screening for disabilities under Section 174 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. This provides for conscientious objection in relation to any reproductive health service.

Loving Every Child: Defying Eugenics

It is one of life’s great paradoxes that the most gentle, loving and enduring amongst us have always been the target of the eugenicists – those with Down syndrome: the very people who embrace those defining human qualities of unconditional love and compassion.

The Down syndrome community has witnessed with grave concern the return of eugenics in New Zealand under the guise of prenatal health care, reproductive choice and human rights. It is inflicting serious harm on our unborn children, parents and the Down syndrome community.

In response to this Family Life International NZ and SavingDowns are holding a one-day seminar “Loving Every Child: Defying Eugenics”. This will be held in Auckland on the 4th August 2012 at the Columba centre. This will be an opportunity for people to learn about the history of eugenics and its recent emergence into New Zealand society. The seminar will be looking to raise awareness around the issue and to map out a response towards restoring respect and dignity towards the Down syndrome community. Midwives and general practitioners have a commitment to the service of humanity and are particularly welcome to attend and participate in this seminar.

Please contact Mike Sullivan at mike.b.sullivan@xtra.co.nz for further information.

Green Paper for Vulnerable Children – Why is the Link Between Violence in the Womb and Violence Beyond Being Totally Ignored by Our Government?

Admin — Sat, 05 May 2012 01:50:43 +0000

Hon Paula Bennett,

Minister of Social Development and Employment.

Dear Ms Bennett

Green Paper – Child Abuse

Thank you for the invitation to contribute to this important debate on child abuse. This submission is made by Right to Life New Zealand Inc. The fundamental object of our Society is to uphold the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death. We commend you and your government for seeking solutions to the abuse of our vulnerable children. It is a cause of national shame that New Zealand has the third highest rate of child abuse in the OECD. We fully support you in the measures that will flow from this discussion document. As a nation we must succeed in protecting our children.

Our Society is disappointed that this discussion document concerns only those children who have been born. Human life commences at conception and the first nine months of the child’s life is critical for the future development of the child. Unborn children are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. An abortion is violence against the child. It entails the violent dismemberment of the child. The killing of the unborn child by abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. You advise that New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which sets out basic rights for everyone under 18. This Convention in its preamble states; “the child because by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. It is the view of this Society that to exclude the child before birth in this discussion paper is discrimination. It is disappointing that the violence against unborn children is sanctioned and funded by the government. Professor Philip Ney an eminent child and family psychiatrist of Canada has completed extensive research into the relationship of the violence against the unborn with abortion and the child abuse of the born child. We believe that there is an important link for the following reasons:

Abortion lessons respect for the sanctity of life

Abortion is freely available in New Zealand, it cheapens the value of children and results in a loss of respect for the right to life of unborn children. Abortion thus results in a loss of respect for the human rights of born children.

Abortion lessons the restraint on exercising violence against children

We have a natural restraint to inflict violence on children. This natural restraint is impaired when we give consent to inflicting violence against the unborn child who is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. As a consequence of damaging this natural restraint by consenting to violence against the unborn it is easier to lose control and fail to restrain the infliction violence against born children.

Abortion impedes bonding with future children

It is instinctive for a mother to bond with a child in her womb. This bonding is destroyed when her child is violently destroyed by abortion. As a consequence a mother who has aborted a child could have difficulty bonding with future children, first in the womb and then when they are born. A failure to bond fully with her child, could result in the neglect of the child and make it more likely to abuse that child.

Abortion destroys a woman’s self esteem

Abortion destroys a woman’s self esteem as she may consider herself a failure as a mother that she was unable to protect and care for her child. A consequence is that with low self esteem she could consider herself as unworthy of being a mother which could lead to neglect and abuse of her born children.

Our Society’s response to the questions raised in the Green Paper are as follows:

Parents and caregivers

We support government agencies intervention when there is imminent danger of physical or psychological harm to the child.

Communities

The government is prepared to sanction and fund violence against unborn children as a core health service with freely available abortion. The government is providing the community with a very poor example of care of children. The message the government is unfortunately giving to the community is that you may kill the child in the womb but once it is born you may not smack it.

Vulnerable Children’s Action Plan

As the vast majority of cases of child abuse tragically occur within the Maori community, we believe that in partnership with Maori leadership an action plan needs to focus primarily on the protection of Maori children.

Legislation Changes

Under the Crimes Act 1961, the law does not recognise the unborn child as a human being, this is a great injustice. Human life begins at conception and every child is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creator. To provide increased protection for children we request that the government amend the law to recognise that from conception the unborn child is a human being endowed with an inalienable right to life that is entitled to our respect and protection. This important action would reduce the killing of children in the womb and enhance the value of born children.

In conclusion Right to Life commends the Minister for this important public discussion about the future of our children. We trust that our submission will contribute to a better and safer future for all of our children both born and unborn.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Steven Mosher talk on Abortion and the Population Control Debate

Admin — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:36:21 +0000

Friday 20 April 2012, 07:00pm – 08:30pm

Location : Rochester Hall/Rutherford Hall, University of Canterbury. The Ashby building is best accessed off Ilam Road

On Friday 20th April, 2012, Steven W. Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute and an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues will be talking on the role and ethics of abortion in the population debate.

This will include a look at his experiences as the first American research student to conduct anthropological research in rural China after the Cultural Revolution. He has worked tirelessly since 1979 to fight coercive population control programs and has helped hundreds of thousands of women and families worldwide over the years

This event in Christchurch is one of three he will give in NZ and is hosted by Right to Life and Pro-Life NZ.

Food and refreshments will be provided. (Free Pizza and soft drink)

Whether you are interested in Pro-Life issues, the population debate or simply cultural and anthropological studies come along and hear this engaging speaker.

The event will be held on the second floor of Rochester Hall at Canterbury University and will be signposted from Waimairi and Ilam Rds.

Right to Life Calls for Government to Stop Funding the Killing of Unborn Children

Admin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:08:46 +0000

Hon Bill English,

Minister of Finance,

Dear Mr English

Re: Government Funding for the Killing of Unborn Children

Our Society wishes to express its opposition to the government funding of the killing of unborn children as a core health service under the guise that the life of the baby is a threat to the mental health of the mother. Right to Life is opposed to abortions being funded by the government for the following reasons;

In 2010 there were 16,630 abortions performed in New Zealand at an estimated cost of $16,630,000. In addition there was $4,551,929 paid in fees to certifying consultants for having consultations with women seeking an abortion. The Minister of Health has advised that in 2003 there were 25,000 hospital bed stay days due to complications from abortion. It is estimated that the cost for this hospitalisation was an estimated $25 million. The current abortion regime was established with the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, [CS&A Act]. Since then a total of 405,567 abortions have been reported to the Abortion Supervisory Committee, [ASC]. Abortions are not genuine health services.

Why does the government not cease this funding and invest it in genuine health services that protect life and promote health?

Abortions are a core health service and are mainly performed in public hospitals and clinics. The ASC have reported each year since 1978 that 98 per cent of abortions are authorised on the grounds of mental health. In 1988 the ASC in its report to Parliament alluded to the majority of abortions being performed for pseudo legal reasons. The Committee have repeatedly reported to Parliament that the abortion law is not being interpreted as Parliament intended. It is generally accepted that we have abortion on demand which is unlawful. For the year ending 30 June 2011 the busiest certifying consultant approved 1028 abortions and declined just one. The second busiest consultant approved 1000 abortions and declined just two.

Why does the government fund abortions that are depriving unborn children of their lives unlawfully?

It is contended that the government is violating the human rights of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. It is in contravention of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3, which states that, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. It is also in violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It states in the preamble, Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Why does the government fund abortions that violate human rights?

98 per cent of abortions are being performed for socio-economic reasons and not to preserve the life of the mother. It is contended that these abortions are elective surgery and should not be a charge on the public purse.

It is noted that 39 per cent of abortions are repeat abortions. Statistics NZ have provided detailed statistics for the year 2010.

The total of repeat abortions was 6407, which was 39 per cent of the total. The number of women having a second abortion was 4427 women while 1332 had their third, 446 their fourth, 136 their fifth, 47 their sixth, 10 their seventh and nine their eighth or more.

It is believed that some women may be using abortions as a form of contraception. Right to Life is very concerned at the damage that is being done to the health and wellbeing of these hapless women who may be on a path of self- destruction paid for by the taxpayer.

Why should the taxpayer be required to pay for abortions that are imposing violence against women and their unborn and damaging women’s health?

Studies conducted overseas reveal that 60 per cent of women who have an abortion are coerced into it. The decision to have an abortion is often made by friends, family and frequently by the father of the child who wants to escape responsibility for the child he has fathered and for the mother of the child. Why should the taxpayer be a party to this coercion by paying for an abortion that is not the wish of the mother. It is contended that the father of the child should generally be responsible for paying for the abortion. If this were the case Right to Life believes that there would be a substantial reduction in unplanned pregnancies and consequently in abortions.

Why should the taxpayer be required to fund coerced abortions?

The CS& A Act, section 46 provides protection for the conscience of any doctor nurse or any person from assisting or facilitating in an abortion. It is acknowledged that there is no protection in law to provide protection for the conscience of taxpayers who are deeply offended at being obliged to be a party to the killing of children before birth. It is right and just that there should be legal protection for doctors, nurses and other persons from involvement with abortions.

Why is there no legal protection for the conscience of taxpayers who are intrinsically involved in funding abortions?

It is acknowledged that on occasions there may not be universal approval for specific items of government expenditure, but for the common good they are accepted. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. In this instance we are considering the deliberate and violent killing of innocent and defenceless children in their first nine months of life. It is an intolerable violation of the conscience of many that we should be compelled to fund with our taxes the killing of the unborn. We are being forced to have the blood of innocent children on our hands. It is also an appalling injustice that we should be compelled against our will to fund abortions which are inflicting damage to the physical and mental health of women.

I would be grateful if you would advise why abortions are funded by the taxpayer? In conclusion our Society would be grateful if you would give consideration to withdrawing government funding for the killing of children before birth.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

December 2011 Footprints Magazine now available on-line

Admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:20:48 +0000

This issue of Footprints the tri-annual magazine of Right to Life is printed in colour for the first time.

This Issue contains the following Articles

Abortion Statistics – 2010 Our Nation’s Loss pages 1-3
Crimes Act Amendment page 2
Society Report page 3
Supreme Court of New Zealand -Judicial Review page 4
Abortion Supervisory Committee upholds right of conscience pages 4-5
Further Staff refuse to assist in the Killing of unborn children page 5
Protecting the unborn with Down Syndrome pages 6-7
Down Syndrome Awareness page 7
The Primer Minister – Forfeited right to govern page 8
A Victory for Conscience and a Culture of Life page 9
New FDA Report page 10
News in Brief page 11

Download

Dr Gill Greer – Advocate for Culture of Death Honoured by Queen

Admin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 04:48:36 +0000

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth has honoured Dr Gill Greer by making her a Commander of the British Empire [CBE]. The award was made to Dr Greer in the British New Year honours list for her international work of promoting the sexual health of women and girls. Dr Greer was previously the Director General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] for six years, which operates in 180 countries. Dr Greer was prior to that appointment, the Executive Director of the New Zealand Family Planning Association for eight years. The government of Helen Clarke was instrumental in Dr Greer being made a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2005

Right to Life is disappointed that this high honour has been bestowed on Dr Greer by the British government. It is inappropriate to honour Dr Greer who has presided over the largest abortion enterprise in the world which aggressively and relentlessly promotes a culture of death. In 2009 affiliates of the IPPF worldwide killed 1,411,494 innocent and defenceless unborn children by abortion. This is a violation of the human rights of unborn children and is a crime against humanity. The Federation had an income of US $33 million.

The award is giving public approval to the work of the IPPF in promoting the killing of innocent unborn children worldwide in 180 countries. IPPF is racist and promotes eugenics. Planned Parenthood in the United States was founded by Margaret Sanger who sought to reduce the Negro population by promoting abortion, sterilisation and contraception. She believed that only the fit had a right to be born and promoted the sterilisation of those she termed “the feeble minded”.

The IPPF promotes itself as the champion of women and their children. It is certainly neither. It claims to promote the human rights of women by advocating contraception and abortion as a human right and an integral part of reproductive health. Behind the charade of women’s advocacy is an agenda that is both anti-life and anti-women. IPPF does not provide a service to the international community; it is destructive to families, promotes a hedonistic and pagan view of human sexuality and promotes sexual perversions. It seduces our youth by promoting promiscuity and believes that the killing of unborn children is a legitimate part of reproductive health and necessary as a backup for so called failed contraceptives.

The IPPF supports abortion on demand, the decriminalisation of abortion, same sex marriage and is also supportive of China’s brutal one child policy which includes forced abortions, infanticide and sterilisations.

The IPPF exerts intense pressure with assistance from the United Nations on nations in Africa and Latin America to remove laws protecting the right to life of unborn children on the pretext of providing “safe abortions”. If the IPPF were really concerned about reducing maternal mortality it would promote better health services for women in pregnancy and child birth. The IPPF vehemently promotes the lie that the killing of the unborn child is a “women’s right to choose”. The Federation is equally vehemently opposed to the right of doctors to choose on conscience grounds to refuse to assist or perform abortions.

That the British Government has seen fit to bestow upon Dr Greer such an award, is at best inappropriate and at worst it promotes and rewards those who are involved in promoting the killing of unborn children. This is not acceptable.

Dr Greer has returned to New Zealand. She supports the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand and will doubtless exercise her energies to endeavour to achieve this objective. Her presence here therefore poses a serious threat to the lives of unborn children and to the health and wellbeing of women.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc,

Right to Life Lays Complaint with NZ Press Council Over Boock Statements Concerning Down Syndrome Persons

Admin — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:30:58 +0000

Secretary,

New Zealand Press Council,

Dear Sir

Re: Complaint against Auckland Now – “A Woman’s right to choose.”

Right to Life New Zealand Inc wish to make a complaint against an article written by Richard Boock, that was published by Stuff on the website “Auckland Now” on 8^th December 2011. The title of the article was “A woman’s right to choose,” a copy of which is enclosed. Our complaint is that the article contravened the Principles of the Press Council, specifically Principle 1, 3 and 6.

Richard Boock in his article has made statements about people with Down syndrome that are deeply offensive and devalue their lives and implies that they have lives unworthy of living. His views are eugenic and promote the dangerous philosophy that only the perfect have a right to be born. This is an important issue. It is a well documented fact that the notorious T4 programme introduced in Nazi Germany in 1939, prior to the Second World War sought to eliminate “undesirables” and to achieve racial purity, commenced with the murder of those with Down syndrome and other disabilities and culminated with the “final solution” of the murder of 6 million Jews in concentration camps. The media played an important role in conditioning the German nation to accept the eugenic cleansing of the population. It is contended that the article written by Richard Boock is perhaps unwittingly assisting in encouraging the public into accepting the need for the elimination before birth of those with Down syndrome. The article directly expresses the view that such a practice is a “woman’s right” It is important that we learn from history lest we repeat the same human tragedies.

Richard Boock states:

“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 persons with Down syndrome are not welcome in our community and that they could be viewed as worthy of eradication. Society should therefore not be concerned about maintaining the presence of people with Down syndrome in our community. This is discrimination and is in violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights that prohibits discrimination against other persons. It is also in violation of the government’s Disability Strategy which seeks to develop a more inclusive society for the disabled. The Hon Lianne Dalziel, when Minister of Disability issues, stated:

“The Government will take the lead – but we will also be doing everything we can to influence the attitudes and behaviour of society as a whole. All New Zealanders need to consider issues for disabled people and their aspirations as individuals. We must also consider the families and wh?nau of disabled people, and others who support them.”

The New Zealand government is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which states;

“States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.”

It is contended that we all have a duty to promote an inclusive society for those with a disability. The media and journalists have a special responsibility to promote an inclusive society which welcomes and values the contribution that those with Down syndrome and other disabilities make to society.

It was factually incorrect and a breach of Principle 4, for the writer to state on the subject of voluntary antenatal screening and the killing of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome that:

“There is no suggestion of coercion or persuasion or encouragement one way or the other”

Members of Savingdowns and members of the Down syndrome community can personally testify to being encouraged to have an abortion based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome or Spina Bifida and even offers to allow babies to be starved to death after birth if they are “disabled” .

Richard Boock describes those who consider that antenatal screening for Down syndrome is eugenics as “bat- shit crazy.” This is factually incorrect and also in breach of Principle 4.The sole purpose of early antenatal screening for Down syndrome is to offer abortions to mothers solely on the basis of a diagnosis of Down syndrome. This has the consequence of reducing the number of births of these babies and has the same objective.

Eugenics is the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”, usually referring to human populations.(“Eugenics”, Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms) National Library of Medicine, 26 Sep. 2010.)

The international Down syndrome community recognise the early antenatal screening as eugenic. The National Down Syndrome Congress in Atlanta, Georgia in 2010 in a media release stated,” – While information in and of itself is neither good nor bad, 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.” It is important for the community to have an informed debate about eugenics and the threat that it poses for our nation. Richard Boock’s rejection that the antenatal screening as eugenic in its purpose, is a denial of the truth and covering up the eugenic purpose of the screening.

It is contended that the article also breaches Principle 3. Children and Young People. The article could have a detrimental effect on the attitudes of those who read it, causing them to discriminate against those with Down syndrome or those that have a disability both before birth and after birth. Today those children with Down syndrome or disabilities are main-streamed in our educational system. This attitude of discriminating against the disabled could affect the way children and adults with Down syndrome are treated in school and in our society in general.

Right to Life is a national pro-life organisation that has as its objective to uphold the right to life of every person from conception to natural death. Our Association is privileged to support the Savingdowns organisation which is an advocacy group of parents and siblings of children with Down syndrome. Right to Life has joined with Savingdowns in laying a complaint against the New Zealand government for crimes against humanity including genocide for breaches of the Treaty of Rome. The complaint is in respect to the government’s antenatal screening programme that targets unborn babies with Down syndrome to prevent their births.

In conclusion we fully support the right of free speech in a democratic society. But with rights come responsibilities. We are pleased to have this opportunity to speak up in defense of our unborn with Down syndrome and other disabilities who cannot defend themselves. It is abhorrent that Richard Boock has attacked and insulted the families of those with siblings who have Down syndrome which devalues the lives of their children. This is a gross misuse of freedom of speech. The article of Richard Boock will not help to promote an all inclusive society where those with Down syndrome or a disability are welcomed and valued.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Seven Billion People: Demographic Dividend or Demographic Disaster?

Admin — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:33:30 +0000

The following article is from the Family Watch International Website

Not surprisingly, the symbolic birthday of the seven billionth person on the earth recently has spawned a range of predictable, and mistaken, reactions.

Those who favor population control have seized upon this milestone to push for more aggressive population control measures and are using it as an excuse to call for greater access to abortion as a means of family planning.

The attitude of many is “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts." Seven billion people, they say, is way too many and we must do something to stop this!

It reminds me of the saying that every so many seconds somewhere in the world a mother is giving birth to a baby. Population control activists would add, “So we better find that woman and stop her!”

However, the reality is despite this 7 billion people milestone, most nations are not experiencing a population explosion. They are experiencing a population implosion with not enough young people being born to fuel their economies.

The big die off that was predicted for the world in the 60’s due to burgeoning populations triggering famines and scarcity of food, simply never happened.

This is due in part to the rapid development of advanced technologies and farming techniques that have enabled the world to produce more life-sustaining essentials quickly with substantially less resources.

As a result of advances in medical sciences and the improved delivery of healthcare worldwide, people are living much longer, which is creating a new population dynamic. Most countries now have a higher percentage of older people than ever before in human history.

Consider these facts and projections:

While worldwide population is increasing, it is increasing at a much lower rate. In 1960 the rate was 2.1 percent but this year the rate has dropped to 1.2 percent.

Today, only 10 of the 193 countries in the world have an annual population rate increase above 3.0 percent.
Family size has been steadily shrinking, even in developing countries.
As a result, by 2050, worldwide there will be twice as many people aged 65 or older as there are aged 15 or younger.

The most reliable estimate suggests that world population will peak at somewhere over 8 billion in about 30 years and then begin a steady decline.

Worldwide population is likely to shrink back to below 7 billion by the end of the century.

One hundred years from now, at the projected rate of decrease, world population will be 6 billion people and will likely lose another billion every 20 years thereafter into the 22nd century.

While these may seem like positive trends, shrinking populations are predicted to cause serious economic and social problems, particularly over the next couple of generations. This is because the proportion of the population that is older and beyond their working years will have to be supported by an ever smaller number of younger people still in the workforce.

In developed countries where birthrates first began falling, only a few are now at or near the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Currently, 80 countries with about half the world’s population are below replacement birthrate levels.
Many developed countries with declining birthrates are taking steps to increase the birthrate by offering various financial and other incentives. However, despite these incentives few of these countries have increased their fertility rates. As a result, these countries are currently in the process of committing “demographic suicide.” Unless something is done, eventually they will simply cease to exist.

For those interested in more detail on what has led to this population decline and the consequences for societies around the world we highly recommend “Demographic Winter” and “Demographic Bomb.” More information is available here.

To be sure, essential resources are not readily available in many parts of the world. But the problem is not so much one of scarcity of resources as it is the efficient and economic distribution of them. This is a political and economic problem.

In light of this, how can the continued push by so many for population control be explained? Ignorance of the facts is one reason, of course. But the more sinister one is that population control is camouflage for the push for unrestricted and easy access to abortion worldwide.

Population control advocates already are seriously being discredited simply by the fact that so many populations are declining. As these downward population trends continue and economic problems worsen it will become increasingly evident to everyone how destructive population control policies are.

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), which is at the forefront of the world’s efforts to decrease population growth, needs a complete reversal of policy. Their goals should be to encourage child-bearing, not to promote abortion under the euphemism of “reproductive health.”

We still have a big job ahead of us to bring the hard facts to bear in exposing the other initiatives and policy agendas that are continuing to undermine the institution of the family around the world.

But to the 7 billionth baby who was born on October 31st, we welcome you to a world that needs more babies!

Sincerely,

Sharon Slater
President

Electorate’s Right to Know Denied

Admin — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:44:04 +0000

It is disappointing that the leaders of the two main political parties and the Maori party have refused to answer a questionnaire recently presented to them by Family First. Peter Dunne, the leader of the United Future Party and Winston Peters, Leader of the New Zealand First Party are commended for their openness in providing a full response to the questionnaire.

We have a Parliamentary democracy, which requires a society that is free and fully informed. Those who stand for public office and seek election to govern our country have a very serious duty to provide information on their position on important moral and family issues that concern our community. By refusing to provide any answers to this authoritative national questionnaire they are in fact inferring that the community has no right to know what their views are. This is dismissive and unacceptable. Why should we be expected to elect to Parliament leaders who refuse to tell us what they will do when elected?

We who have the privilege and duty to elect those who are to govern our nation, have a duty to elect persons of character and integrity. Those who govern do so with the consent of the governed. We have a right to know if they have an informed conscience and what their views are on matters that concern the community.

Some of the questions in the questionnaire concerned the definition of marriage, as one man and one woman, the right to life of the unborn child, abstinence sex education, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and prostitution. All of these issues are current and will continue to be issues before Parliament during the next term.

The first duty of the state is to protect the right to life from conception to natural death of all the members of the community. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and has an inalienable right to life. The recognition in law of the right to life of the unborn child is the justice issue of our era. Now that the Supreme Court of New Zealand has refused to hear Right to Life’s submissions on the right to life of the child, this justice issue will now be presented to the highest Court in the land, Parliament. The electorate have an absolute right to know from our political leaders what their position is on this and other important justice and moral issues. Government should be government for the people by the people. The untenable refusal of our political leaders to answer the questionnaire is unacceptable and undermines our democracy. Their refusal to communicate is the first step towards a dictatorship.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right To Life New Zealand Inc.