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

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,

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

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

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.

President Dmitri A. Medvedev has signed into law the first steps intended to restrict abortion since the collapse of communism, the latest salvo in what is beginning to resemble the fierce divide over abortion in the United States.

The changes require abortion providers to devote 10 percent of any advertising to describing the dangers of abortion to a woman’s health, and they make it illegal to describe abortion as a safe medical procedure.

Read on here to read this article on the NY Times website.

In considering euthanasia it is important to recognise that euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide. Euthanasia may be voluntary, involuntary or compulsory. If voluntarily administered by oneself, it is a form of suicide. If administered by another in an involuntary or compulsory way, it is a form of murder. Legislation permitting doctors to kill their patients would make them the most dangerous persons in the land.

The American statesman, Thomas Jefferson stated that the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government. It is not the prerogative of good government to provide for the killing of the ill or elderly.

There is no need for Parliament to give further consideration to euthanasia legislation. Parliament has previously considered so called ‘Death with Dignity Bills” the first that of Michael Laws in 1995 that was defeated at its first reading  by 61 to 29 and the second the Bill of Peter Brown in 2003 that was  defeated by 60 to 57.

The Prime minister should be aware that we have  excellent palliative care for the terminally ill and that the New Zealand Medical Association is totally opposed to legislation that would allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

Euthanasia is a threat to the elderly and the ill. In Holland in 2009, 2636 patients were put to death by their doctor. In addition there were 400 deaths where the doctor assisted in the death of the patient and 550 deaths where the doctor killed the patient without explicit consent or request.  

The prime Minister should recognise that abortion and euthanasia emanate from a culture of death. Euthanasia will continue to threaten our society until Parliament provides effective legal protection for the right to life of unborn children who are being killed, sanctioned and funded by the state.

Right to Life requests that the Prime Minister withdraws his support for euthanasia and actively promotes a culture of life that protects the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand.  

The New Zealand Herald reports that, according to Child Youth and Family, the number of domestic adoptions has fallen 40 per cent in the last five years.

This article which is from the MercatorNet website can be viewed in full by clicking here.

‘All those who don’t (have a generous pension or financial assets) will become outsize grey cuckoos, crowding out the nests of the overworked young…..

‘old people who, entirely of their own free will, decide to take their lives without pressure from anyone else are, I think, to be admired and thanked. They are sparing themselves and their families a great deal of suffering and are relieving those around them and the welfare state of a burden. Surely that is an honourable act.’

The other future is one in which we stop killing our children, build up families and live more simply in an interdependent world where every person is is loved and valued regardless of their level of infirmity.

Read on here by clicking this link which leads directly Saunders article which examines this issue.