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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Re: Proposed Bill to Decriminalize Abortion.

I wish to express concern at the proposal of the Hon Steve Chadwick to sponsor a private members Bill to seek the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. It is her intention to seek cross party support. We believe that the proposed Bill is not in the best interest of women, their unborn children or of society. Our reasons for our opposition to the proposed Bill are as follows.

What does ‘Decriminalisation of Abortion Mean’?
It is the removal of all reference to abortion from the New Zealand Criminal Code, allowing abortion to be performed on any unborn child for "any" or "no" reason up until 24 weeks. It would no longer be a crime to kill an unborn child. We believe that effectively we would have abortion on demand up until the child is born. In this situation there would be no legal safeguards in place to protect the lives of the unborn child or the pregnant mother.
Decriminalisation would be contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, 1977.

The Commission in its report to Parliament stated;”The unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and most defenceless forms of humanity, should receive protection,” It accepted the biological evidence establishing that life begins at conception. The commission said the right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation.” It is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it. Its universal denial would threaten civilisation and would fail to recognise the dignity of man.” The Commission was instituted by the Rowling, Labour government that promised to implement the recommendations of the Commission in legislation. The current abortion legislation is an enactment of the Commission’s recommendations. The decriminalisation of abortion would entail the repeal of the current legislation. It is contended that before that took place there should be a further Royal Commission.

What would become of the effects?

With no criminal law, abortion numbers would increase because people often equate the lack of criminal sanction with acceptable behaviour. Abortion would become normal behaviour with no restraints. Studies conducted in the United States reveal that 60% of women are coerced into having an abortion with the decision being made by family and often by the father of the child who wants to escape his responsibilities to the mother and his unborn child. With the decriminalisation of abortion we would expect an increase in abandoned pregnant women.

The Bill would be a violation of human rights

We hold it to be self evident that we are all created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human life begins at conception, at which moment we are endowed with inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. Our human rights are not conferred on us by Parliament or by society. It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for our human rights. It would be a grave injustice if Parliament decriminalised abortion, it would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, "that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law".

What is the value of the provisions of the New Zealand Criminal Code?

The New Zealand Criminal Code has, in principle stated that the life of the child in the womb is worthy of protection. If abortion is removed from the Criminal Code, unborn New Zealand babies and their mothers would lose this protection.

Is Unborn Human Life Worthy of Protection?

Yes. The unborn human as a member of the human family is entitled to full legal protection. We know more about unborn human life than ever before. Through photographs, scans and other technology we can actually ‘see’ into the womb and experience the life within. The unborn child can be treated as a patient, separate from his/her mother. Now that we can clearly identify the new human, society should be considering how to increase legal protection for him/her.

How would the decriminalisation of Abortion change our Society?

Society exists to preserve itself and its individual members. Any law which condones the destruction of a member purely for convenience erodes and attacks that society.
If abortion on demand was no longer illegal, the number of abortions could exceed the number of live births as in other societies with permissive abortion laws.

The Bill is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party

The Bill is contrary to the principles of the Labour Party which seeks to protect the weak and the marginalized in society. Today the unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The 2008 Labour manifesto states that “New Zealand has always been a great place to bring up kids. Labour wants to ensure that we continue to be a country where all new Zealanders can be proud of the way we give all our kids the best possible start.” The proposed Bill is in complete conflict with the commendable aspirations of the Labour Party’s policy for families.

In conclusion, there is increasing evidence from studies conducted overseas that abortion results in physical and psychological damage to women. We believe that as a society we need to provide compassion and practical support for women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy to enable them to bring their child to birth. It is ironic that the law deems it unlawful to smack a child, while it is now being proposed that we may kill it on request before birth. We earnestly request that in the interest of mothers and their babies that you oppose this proposed Bill.

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 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.

Hon Steve Chadwick

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Chadwick,

I wish to express concern at your proposal to sponsor a private members Bill to seek the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. Our Society recognizes that you are motivated by a desire to act in the best interest of women, an objective that we share with you. We believe that the proposed Bill is not in the best interest of women, their unborn children or of society. Our reasons for our opposition to the proposed Bill are as follows.

DECRIMINALISING ABORTION VS HUMAN LIFE

What does ‘Decriminalisation of Abortion mean’?
It is the removal of all reference to abortion from the New Zealand Criminal Code, allowing abortion to be performed on any unborn child for “any” or “no” reason up until 24 weeks. We believe that effectively we would have abortion on demand up until the child is born. In this situation there would be no legal safeguards in place to protect the lives of the unborn child or the pregnant mother.

Decriminalisation would be contrary to the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, 1977

The Commission in its report to Parliament stated;”The unborn child, as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and most defenceless forms of humanity, should receive protection,” It accepted the biological evidence establishing that life begins at conception. The commission said the right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation.” It is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it. Its universal denial would threaten civilisation and would fail to recognise the dignity of man.

What would be the impact for New Zealand?
The real impact of the decriminalisation of abortion would be the removal of all legal protection for the nine months of life in the womb.

How would New Zealand rate in the World?
Decriminalisation of abortion would mean that New Zealand would rank amongst the most permissive countries in the world.

What would be some of the effects?
With no criminal law, abortion numbers would increase because people often equate the lack of criminal sanction with acceptable behaviour. Abortion would become normal behaviour with no restraints. Studies conducted in the United States reveal that 60% of women are coerced into having an abortion with the decision being made by family and often by the father of the child, who wants to escape his responsibilities to the mother and his unborn child. With the decriminalisation of abortion we would expect an increase in abandoned women with child.
The bill would be a violation of human rights

We hold it to be self evident that we are all created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human life begins at conception, at which moment we are endowed with inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. Our human rights are not conferred on us by Parliament or by society. It is the duty of Parliament to provide effective legal protection for our human rights. It would be a grave injustice if Parliament decriminalised abortion, it would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, “that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law”.

Would the decriminalisation of Abortion be an act of justice?

No. By omission the law would be condoning the taking of the life of the most defenceless human in our society, and thereby place itself far away from natural justice and its basic principle, “that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected by law”.

In any society the law must protect the voiceless and the weak, and be seen to protect them.

What is the value of the provisions of the New Zealand Criminal Code?
The New Zealand Criminal Code has, in principle stated that the life of the child in the womb is worthy of protection. If abortion is removed from the Criminal Code, unborn New Zealand babies and their mothers would lose this protection.

Is Unborn Human Life Worth of Protection?
Yes. The unborn human as a member of the human family is entitled to full legal protection.
We know more about unborn human life than ever before. Through photographs, scans and other technology we can actually ‘see’ into the womb and experience the life within. The unborn child can be treated as a patient, separate from his/her mother.
Now that we can clearly identify the new human, society should be considering how to increase legal protection for him/her.

How would the Decriminalisation of Abortion change our Society?

Society exists to preserve itself and its individual members. Any law which condones the destruction of a member purely for convenience erodes and attacks that society.
If abortion on demand was no longer illegal, the number of abortions would exceed the number of live births as in other societies with permissive abortion laws.

How would ‘Fathers’ be affected?

As in the current legal situation Fathers would have no rights in the protection of their unborn children.

How would Decriminalisation affect medical personnel?
Abortion without criminal sanction would lead to a hardening of society and in particular doctors, nurses and ancillary staff of our hospitals. Medical staff may find themselves refused employment if unwilling to perform or assist abortions. Many others would be traumatised and medical staff lost.
Is not Abortion another medical procedure?
No other medical procedure has as its explicit aim – the termination of another’s life. The aim of medicine is to cure. Only those abortions performed to prevent the death of the mother could be called a medical procedure. Abortion is not a health issue but a human rights issue.

What is the view of Pro-lifers?
Pro-life people believe that abortion should not be decriminalised, because women deserve that the society in which they live would help them to examine and resolve their real problems. Assistance and support can be given in such a way that non-violent, true solutions are discovered in their time of crisis. Abortionists who break the law should be prosecuted – not the mothers.

The Bill is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party

The Billl is contrary to the hallowed and noble principles of the Labour Party which seeks to protect the weak and the marginalized in society. Today the unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

There is increasing evidence from studies conducted overseas that abortion results in physical and psychological damage to women. We believe that as a society we need to provide compassion and practical support for women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy to enable them to bring their child to birth.It is ironic that the law deems it unlawful to smack a child, while it is now being proposed that we may kill it before birth.

We earnestly request that in the interest of mothers and their babies that you withdraw your proposal to sponsor this proposed Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary

What would the world have been like without Andrea Bocelli, Italian pop, opera, and classical singer? With millions of infants having been victim to abortion, the blind international music sensation has revealed that he too could have been one more abortion statistic. 
The “I am Whole Life” project has produced a YouTube video with Bocelli, playing the piano, recounting the story of a young woman who had been hospitalized and treated for a “simple attack of appendicitis.”
As Bocelli recounts, doctors had suggested to his mother that she “abort the child” because the child would be born with a disability.

“But the young brave wife decided not to abort, and the child was born,” recounted Bocelli. “That woman was my mother, and I was the child.”   Read more from the LifeSiteNews.com website

Mr Harry Mikaere,

Waikato District Health Board,

PO Box 934,

Hamilton 3240.

Dear Mr Mikaere

Re: Licence to Kill Unborn Children – Family Planning

I am writing to you and your colleagues on the Waikato District Health Board to express our Society’s concern at your Board’s support for the Family Planning Association obtaining an abortion licence for its Hamilton clinic. We believe that should the Association obtain a licence to kill unborn children at its Hamilton clinic it will be a threat to the health and welfare of vulnerable women and to the lives of their unborn children. It is the objective of the Association to ultimately obtain an abortion licence for each of its 30 clinics. The Association claims that it is providing choice for women.

In July 2009 the Family Planning Association made an application to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence for its Hamilton clinic to kill unborn children up to 9 weeks gestation by medical abortion. The Association proposes to use the lethal drug Mifegyne RU 486. This drug is 98% effective in killing unborn children by starvation. The drug is followed by the administration of Misoprostol, a prostaglandin that causes a miscarriage. Our Society is opposed to the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children and is also concerned for the health and welfare of women.

Our Society has obtained documents under the Official Information Act that discloses that;

1. The Board has written to the Abortion Supervisory Committee fully supporting the Association’s application.

2. The Board has offered to enter into a contract with the Association to fund abortions at the Hamilton clinic.

3. The Board has agreed with the Board that for all women seeking an abortion in the Waikato the pathway would be through the Association’s Hamilton clinic.

4. The Board has agreed that decision making and abortion counselling would be provided by the Association’s staff.

The Waikato District health Board holds licences for the performance of abortions at the Waikato, the Thames and Tokoroa Hospitals. The Board does not have a statutory duty to support the application for an abortion licence from Family Planning for its Hamilton clinic. nor does it have a duty to abdicate its responsibility for the care of vulnerable women by allowing Family Planning to be the pathway for all women in the Waikato seeking an abortion. It does not have a duty to provide financing to Family Planning for the performance of abortions. Right to Life is opposed to the killing of innocent unborn children by either surgical or medical abortions. To ensure transparency and public accountability it is preferable that if medical or surgical abortions are to be performed that they be done in a public hospital or clinic.

In the opinion of this Society, the Family Planning Association is unfit to hold a licence for the killing of unborn children. The Association is strongly pro-abortion and its philosophy is alien to a culture of life. The Association believes that abortion is a human right and that abortion should be available as a back-up for so called contraceptive failure. The Association advocates for the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. The Association believes that unborn children are not endowed with inalienable rights, that the killing of an unborn child should not be a crime and that abortion should be a health matter for a woman to choose. 

It is the policy of the Association to employ only doctors who believe that the decision to have an abortion is one for a woman and a doctor of her choice, this is abortion on demand. Justice Forest Miller in the High Court in Wellington in his judgement of June 2008 in his review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee stated that abortion on demand was unlawful in New Zealand. Justice Miller also stated “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” The Family Planning Association is the major referral agency for abortions in New Zealand. In 2008 the Association referred 4866 women for an abortion. In the event of the Association being granted a licence to perform abortions, our Society would have serious concerns about the lawfulness of these abortions.

Our Society is greatly concerned at the damage done to women as a result of having an abortion. Studies done in the United States reveal that 60% of women who have an abortion are coerced into an abortion by the abandonment of the father who is not prepared to accept responsibility for the child that he has fathered or by family or friends. Many women are ambivalent during the first trimester of their pregnancy. Our Society is very concerned that counsellors at Family Planning will encourage women distressed by their pregnancy to quickly agree to have an abortion in order to qualify for a medical abortion. This decision could result in a lifetime of regret. Research conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine by Professor David Fergusson a “pro choice” researcher, in 1995 found that 42% of the women in his study who had an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35% higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born. Those who had an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared to those who had a live birth and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. Those who had an abortion also suffered elevated rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviours.

In conclusion our Society earnestly request that in the interest of women’s health and the lives of unborn children you withdraw support and oppose the application of the Association for a licence to kill innocent and defenceless unborn children at its Hamilton clinic and that you also oppose the Boards financing the Association for abortions and oppose the Hamilton clinic being the pathway for all women seeking an abortion in the Waikato.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

The lead article in the the magazine features the above headline.

In this issue

Abortion Supervisory Committee
President’s Report /Society Report 2
Best Practice Termination of Pregnancy in New Zealand
Conscience or Tyranny
Abortion wars – seeing what we kill
NZ Govt Promoting a culture of death?
Family planning Assoc. – Death Peddlers
Downs Syndrome -A death sentence
Judicial Review-Performance of ASC
News in Brief
World News

NARAL a radical Pro-abortion organisation in the US have  just released survey results showing an “intensity gap” among young voters. More than half of pro-lifers under age 30 considered abortion a “very important” voting issue, compared to just one-quarter of abortion-minded youth. This comes at the heels of a Gallup poll announcing that 18- to 29-year-olds are now the most likely, of all age groups, to favour making abortion illegal in all circumstances.

The wave of pro-life passion puzzles NARAL President Nancy Keenan. In this week’s Newsweek magazine, Keenan recalled her visit to the March for Life rally in Washington, DC. The annual event drew tens of thousands of energized pro-lifers. “I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” she told the reporter. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.”

A similar thing is happening here in New Zealand. At the recent Pro-life march held in Christchurch in April, what was apparent was the large number of young people amongst the over 300 people who marched.

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

Dear Sir,

I wish to request under the Official Information Act copies of your Committee’s minutes subsequent to the 2 July 2009.

Your Committee is currently considering an application from the Family Planning Association for an abortion licence for its Hamilton clinic. Is the Association required to comply with the requirements of the Contraception sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, section 21. [1] [a],[b] and [c].

It is noted that the “Guidelines for the Use of Mifepristone for Medical Abortion in New Zealand”, specifically state in 6.3.4, that after the administration of Mifepristone the patient is required to be kept under medical/nursing observation for one hour to ensure there is no reaction to the drug and that it has been ingested…

It is further noted that 6.4.2.requires that after the administration of Misoprostol the patient is generally required to be kept under observation over the next 4 – 6 hours.

It would be appreciated if you would advise if Family Planning would be required to conform to these guidelines at its Hamilton clinic, should it be granted a licence.

It would be appreciated if you would also advise if complications arise for a woman undergoing a medical abortion after the administration of Misoprostol are required to be reported to your Committee.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.