By Carl Anderson
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, MARCH 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Having served for nearly a decade as a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I know that there are few subjects as controversial in American society as those issues touching race relations.
Nonetheless, an article appearing this weekend in the New York Times — titled "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case" — is worth considering.  Without getting into the controversy concerning the well-documented eugenic philosophy of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), or the debate over whether or not African Americans are actually deliberately targeted by abortion providers today, several disturbing facts remain.
For one, as the New York Times pointed out, black women account for almost 40% of the abortions in the United States, though they make up only 13% of the population.
Regardless of the cause for that high rate, abortion is an especially large-scale tragedy for African Americans. There are no winners in abortion. There are only the dead and the wounded. And all involved need to be embraced with compassion and love.
Those in the black community who are most at risk for abortion must be offered concrete alternatives. Those who have experienced an abortion must be offered the message of healing and hope.
As we try to build a support of compassion, we should also remember Benedict XVI’s last encyclical, "Charity in Truth." And as part of our charity, we must come to terms with the falsehoods which led millions to accept injustices as social necessities — and resolve to let the truth guide our charity, and let our charity be the spokesman of truth.
Legal limbo
Last month, the United States celebrated Black History Month. Sadly, there are legal parallels between the horrible legacy in the United States of denial of the rights of black people — and their treatment as less than human — and the current legal rights limbo of the unborn in this country.
For one thing, both the unborn and black community have been the victims of terrible jurisprudence. In fact, the Supreme Court decisions that enabled unrestricted access to abortion (Roe v. Wade) and established the segregationist principle of "separate but equal" (Plessy v. Ferguson) were both, as it happens, based on falsehood.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the majority opinion asserted that segregation could in fact allow for equal treatment of black and white Americans. In the Court’s opinion, black Americans who saw this separation as "a badge of inferior," created their own reality, not the reality assigned by the law. The Court insisted that any semblance of inferiority was "not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
But as Justice John Marshal Harlan noted in his dissent in Plessy: "Everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied or assigned to white persons."
Unhinged
In Roe v. Wade too, a fiction was allowed to become the law of the land. In Roe, the court argued that it could not decide when human life begins.
Everyone, nonetheless knew at the time, and science has only made increasingly clear since then, that the unborn child before birth is precisely that — a child.
What is notable about both Plessy and Roe, is that the majority in each found it necessary to ignore the obvious to rule the way they did. At best, they bought into a lie. And sadly, whatever the motivations of individual judges, the black community targeted by Plessy, has also been affected disproportionately by Roe.
The majority’s decision in Roe could not have had a good outcome under any circumstances, but the current controversy is yet another example of how poorly adjudicated decisions tend to have unintended — and often terrible — consequences beyond those readily realized.
Of course, in the 1950s, many legal experts, law professors and politicians insisted that the segregation allowed by Plessy was "settled law." Today, "experts" and politicians say the same about the abortion legacy of Roe.
But Plessy was unhinged from reality, and the courage of brave men and women such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks unsettled this "settled law" and earned the respect of the judgment of history.
Roe too is unhinged from the truth that everyone knows. Needed are more brave men and women willing to stand up and demand that a nation’s law on abortion will never be settled until it is brought into conformity with the truth.
* * *
Carl Anderson is the supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus and a New York Times bestselling author

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.

Each year at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life joins the march and members carry large laminated photos of our precious kids.  I received the photo below from the IDSC to let me know that Chloe participated in this year’s March – the smallest voice can have the largest impact!  Please check out my site (Stop Aborting Down Syndrome Individuals Now)  http://sadsin.blogspot.com/

Blessings,

Kurt Kondrich

From the International Down syndrome Coalition for Life http://idscforlife.wordpress.com/

Ken Orr

For Right to Life Executive

2. This statement explores the ways the Council expects doctors to approach
some of the issues arising from their personal beliefs and those of their
patients. It attempts to balance doctors’ and patients’ rights – including the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the entitlement to
care and treatment to meet clinical needs – and advises doctors on what to
do when those rights conflict.
3. While the Council does not impose unnecessary restrictions on doctors, we
expect doctors to be prepared to set aside their own beliefs where this is
necessary in order to provide care in line with the principles outlined in Good
medical practice.
Doctors’ personal beliefs and patient care
4. Your first duty as a doctor is to make the care of the presenting patient your
first concern, whatever their medical need. Patients are entitled to expect that
you will offer them good quality care based on your clinical knowledge and in
accordance with this statement.
5. Investigations or treatment should be provided on the basis of the
assessment you and the patient make of his or her needs and priorities, and
on your clinical judgement about the likely effectiveness of the treatment
options.1
6. You must not allow any personal views that you hold about patients to
prejudice your assessment of their clinical needs, negatively affect your
relationship with them or delay or restrict their access to care. This includes
where you believe that the patient’s actions have contributed to their condition
as well as your views about their age, culture, disability, ethnic or national
origin, gender, lifestyle, marital or parental status, race, religion or beliefs,
sex, sexual orientation, or social or economic status.
1 Good medical practice, clause 21
7. You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients. You
must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the
inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or
views. Equally, you must not put pressure on patients to discuss or justify
their beliefs (or the absence of them). Recognise when your actions might
not be acceptable or might be offensive to patients2.
8. However, you must advise patients – both in person and in printed materials
such as practice leaflets – about any treatments or procedures that you
choose not to provide or arrange because of your personal beliefs, but which
are not otherwise prohibited.
9. Challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance.
Ensure patients receive all the information they want or need
10. Give patients all information they want or need to know about:
• Their condition and its likely progression.
• Treatment options, including expected risks, side effects, costs and
benefits3.
11. You must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or
treatment because carrying it out or giving advice about it conflicts with your
personal beliefs.
12. If you have an ethical concern about providing a service that is not prohibited
by law or a statutory code of practice, you should be aware of who else in
the area can provide this service. You should advise patients who request
this service of the options available to access the service.
13. In such cases you must tell patients of their right to see another doctor with
whom they can discuss their situation and must ensure that they have
sufficient information to exercise that right. In deciding whether the patient
has sufficient information, you must explore with the patient what information
they already have, and what information they may need.
Making a referral
14. If the patient cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another
doctor you must ensure that arrangements are made, without delay, for
another doctor to take over his or her care. You must not obstruct patients
from accessing services or leave them with nowhere to turn. Ensure that your
staff understand and comply with this guidance.
15. Work with colleagues in ways that best serve the presenting patients’
interests4.
16. If you refer the patient, ensure that the practitioner you refer to has
appropriate training, expertise and experience and is able to provide the
services requested with appropriate care and skill in accordance with this
guide.
2 Statement on cultural competence, clause 15c
3 Good medical practice, clause 13. For more information, refer to the Council’s statement on
Information and consent.
4 Good medical practice, foreword.
17. Whatever your personal beliefs may be about the treatment or procedure in
question, you must be respectful of the patient’s dignity and views.
18. Take steps to ensure the patient’s privacy is respected and protected.
19. The local funding agency should ensure that all the costs to the patient of
travelling outside the area for services are met when there is no other
practitioner in the area who can provide that service. Advise the patient
about how to access that funding.
20. If your role involves arranging treatment or carrying out procedures that
conflict with your personal beliefs, you should explain your objection to your
employer or contracting body. You should explore constructively with them
how to resolve the difficulty without compromising patient care, and without
placing an unreasonable burden on colleagues5.
Advance directives
21. Always respect a patient’s wishes expressed in an advance directive, unless
the patient is being treated under specific legislation such as the Mental
Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Act 1992.
Advance directives have legal standing under the Code of Health and
Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. If you hold a moral objection, you
should transfer responsibility for the patient to another doctor6.
Patients’ personal beliefs
22. Trust and good communication are essential components of the doctorpatient
relationship. You must respect patients’ rights to hold religious or
other beliefs and should take those beliefs into account where they may be
relevant to treatment options. However, if patients do not wish to discuss
their personal beliefs with you, you must respect those wishes.
23. Demonstrate the ability to work with the patient’s cultural beliefs, values and
practices in developing a relevant management plan7. Work in partnership
with patients by:
• Listening to them and responding to their concerns and preferences.
• Respecting their right to reach decisions with you about their
treatment and care8.
• Making sure the patient agrees before you provide treatment or
investigate their condition.
24. Respect the patient’s right to decline treatment9.
25. Occasionally, when people are unable to comment or refuse to consent to
treatment, a legal opinion should be sought whether to seek authority from
the High Court. Such cases may include:
5 Refer to the Council’s statement on A doctor’s duty to help in an emergency for guidance on
what your responsibilities are when urgent care is required.
6 Good medical practice, clause 24
7 Statement on cultural competence, clause 15d
8 Good medical practice, foreword
9 Good medical practice, clause 15
(a) a blood transfusion or caesarean section to save life; or
(b) termination of treatment to allow the patient to die peacefully,
for example patients in permanent vegetative states; or
(c) sterilisation of a patient who is unable to consent but for whom
the family and other carers, supported by medical opinion,
request the operation to enhance the quality of life of the
patient and prevent deterioration in his or her physical or
mental health10; or
(d) a dispute between parents about the treatment to be provided
to a child.
Specific requirements relating to contraception and abortion
26. The Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 sets out the
procedures and requirements for an abortion as well as the responsibilities of
medical practitioners. If you work in a field where you are likely to encounter
patients requesting an abortion, you should make yourself familiar with this
Act.
27. While the Council recognises that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it
remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to
you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the
pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or
assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options
for her pregnancy including termination.
28. If you object on the grounds of conscience to providing advice or other
services with respect to contraception, sterilisation, abortion or other
reproductive health matters you are required, under section 174 of the Health
Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, to inform the person
requesting the service that he or she may obtain that service from another
health practitioner or a family planning clinic. In doing so, you must ensure
that the referral is timely and complies with the guidance outlined in
paragraphs 14-20 of this document.
29. If a funder or employer decides to fund an abortion or contraception service,
do not allow your personal beliefs to interfere in the implementation of that
service.
30. You have no legal or ethical right to refuse to provide medical care to a
patient who is awaiting or has undergone a termination of pregnancy, on
grounds of a conscientious objection to the procedure. The same principle
applies to the care of patients before or following any other procedure from
which you have withdrawn because of your beliefs.
31. Access to abortion is not restricted on grounds of age11. The consent of a
parent or guardian is not required in order for a child or young person to
access abortion information or services. However, that young person must
receive the same counselling and approval by a certifying consultant as any
other woman seeking an abortion.
10 Council’s statement on Information and consent, clause 18
11 The Care of Children Act 2004.
32. There is no restriction on a doctor giving contraceptive advice, or prescribing
contraception to people under the age of 16, without consent from their
parents. Minors have the same right to privacy as any other person.
Male infant and pre-pubescent circumcision
33. You should use your professional judgement when a request is made for
routine infant and pre-pubescent male circumcision. While the preference of
the parents and their cultural and religious beliefs are important, factors like
the best available evidence regarding potential benefits and complications,
alternatives to this intervention and the child’s best interest should be
discussed with the parents.
Female circumcision
34. Female genital mutilation – sometimes referred to as female circumcision – is
a serious crime and also a child protection issue, whether undertaken in the
New Zealand or abroad. You must decline to perform these procedures and
must refuse to refer the patient to any other person or the purpose of having
these procedures performed. If you learn that such a procedure has been
performed or is being contemplated you must notify appropriate child
protection or law enforcement agencies. If you treat a patient who has
undergone these procedures, treat them with sensitivity and compassion.
Other relevant Council resources
• Good medical practice
• Statement on cultural competence
• Information and consent
• Cole’s Medical practice in New Zealand
The Medical Council of New Zealand also acknowledges the work done by the
General Medical Council in this area, particularly its resource booklet “Personal
beliefs and medical practice”.
March 2009
This statement is scheduled for review by March 2014. Legislative changes may make this statement obsolete
before this review date.

Conscience or Tyranny

Right to Life applauds a group of courageous pro – life doctors challenging the Medical Council’s provisions relating to abortion included in its draft document titled, ” Beliefs and Medical Practice” The pro – life doctors have filed an application with the High Court in Wellington for a judicial review of the draft document.

The draft document requires a medical practitioner to inform a woman who is ambivalent about her pregnancy, “is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy including termination.”

In the event that the doctor on the grounds of conscience is not prepared to provide advice on abortion the doctor is obliged to inform the woman requesting the service that she may obtain that service from another health practitioner or a family planning clinic.

Right to Life contends that the above requirements are an infringement on the conscience of medical practitioners and constitute a violation of human rights. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom to enable him to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his informed conscience. Our conscience enables us to do good and avoid evil. The Medical Council has a duty to protect the conscience of medical professionals.

· We are all called to defend life. Medical practitioners have a duty of care to their patients and to do no harm. When a doctor is being consulted by a woman who is with child, the doctor is dealing with two patients. He has a duty of care for the unborn child, who is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The doctor has no duty to offer the killing of the child as a treatment option nor is he obliged to facilitate its killing. Is it reprehensible for a doctor to believe and say that it is a violation of the human rights of his patient; an unborn child to kill it and that having an abortion could result in causing the mother to experience a lifetime of regret, anguish and serious mental ill health? It is tragic at this time when the High Court has warned that there is serious concern about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand that the Medical Council should be seeking to expedite the killing of unborn children.

· In 1948 the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Geneva passed a Declaration on the responsibilities of medical practitioners, it included, “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.” It also stated, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” The Geneva Declaration was made in response to the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Will the Medical Council learn from history?

· Right to Life requests that the Medical Council promotes a culture of life and opposes a culture of death by amending the draft document to uphold the primacy of conscience and protect women’s health and the lives of their unborn children.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Media Release

Conscience or Tyranny

Right to Life applauds a group of courageous pro – life doctors challenging the Medical Council’s provisions relating to abortion included in its draft document titled, ” Beliefs and Medical Practice” The pro – life doctors have filed an application with the High Court in Wellington for a judicial review of the draft document.

The draft document requires a medical practitioner to inform a woman who is ambivalent about her pregnancy, “is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy including termination.”

In the event that the doctor on the grounds of conscience is not prepared to provide advice on abortion the doctor is obliged to inform the woman requesting the service that she may obtain that service from another health practitioner or a family planning clinic.

Right to Life contends that the above requirements are an infringement on the conscience of medical practitioners and constitute a violation of human rights. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom to enable him to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his informed conscience. Our conscience enables us to do good and avoid evil. The Medical Council has a duty to protect the conscience of medical professionals.

· We are all called to defend life. Medical practitioners have a duty of care to their patients and to do no harm. When a doctor is being consulted by a woman who is with child, the doctor is dealing with two patients. He has a duty of care for the unborn child, who is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. The doctor has no duty to offer the killing of the child as a treatment option nor is he obliged to facilitate its killing. Is it reprehensible for a doctor to believe and say that it is a violation of the human rights of his patient; an unborn child to kill it and that having an abortion could result in causing the mother to experience a lifetime of regret, anguish and serious mental ill health? It is tragic at this time when the High Court has warned that there is serious concern about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand that the Medical Council should be seeking to expedite the killing of unborn children.

· In 1948 the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Geneva passed a Declaration on the responsibilities of medical practitioners, it included, “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.” It also stated, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” The Geneva Declaration was made in response to the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Will the Medical Council learn from history?

· Right to Life requests that the Medical Council promotes a culture of life and opposes a culture of death by amending the draft document to uphold the primacy of conscience and protect women’s health and the lives of their unborn children.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

The High Court has stated in a judgment by Justice Miller that there are serious concerns about the lawfulness of many abortions authorised in New Zealand. In the event that Family Planning obtained an abortion licence our Society would have serious concerns about the lawfulness of abortions authorised by Family Planning doctors.

It is Family Planning’s objective to obtain government funding for providing abortions.  Right to Life is disappointed that the Minister of Health Tony Ryall is not prepared to intervene to stop the Waikato District Health Board from giving the Association funding provided by the taxpayer. There are many taxpayers who are totally opposed to their taxes being used to kill unborn children. Our taxes should be used to protect life not destroy it. It is scandalous that the government which proclaims that it wants to promote family life should use our taxes to kill unborn children, the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family.

Family Planning in announcing its plans for our families proclaims that it is providing a service to women by providing them with choice and access. This is an appalling falsehood, Women faced with an unplanned pregnancy don’t need choice in the way their child is to be killed or access to a killing clinic. Women need support, compassion and practical help for them to give life to their baby. If Family Planning really cared about the welfare of vulnerable women and their unborn child they would be providing women with real choice by providing them with the support needed to protect both the mother and her child.

Family Planning is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation which promotes contraception and abortion worldwide they are the leaders in promoting a culture of death. Right to Life calls upon the government to stop Family Planning killing unborn children by refusing government funding.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson

Their absence is mourned for they were created with many talents to enrich our society. Our society is impoverished by their absence. We should also have deep sympathy for their mothers who will be mourning the loss of their children. Mothers who so often were coerced into in to an unwanted abortion because of the abandonment of the mother and child and because of pressure from family and friends.

The National led government has proudly launched its National Standards in schools programme. Children have a right to attain basic literacy and numeracy skills; above all they have an inalienable right to life. It is a great injustice that the killing of these children was sanctioned and funded by the government; this is a violation of human rights. When will the government ensure that every child has a right to be born and the right to enjoy an education and contribute to society?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Investigate Magazine.

Dear Ian

The Right to Debate

In response to Judith Hill, February edition. Your correspondent propounds a hedonistic, secular and utilitarian quality of life ethic which proposes that only the fit have a right to life. This ethic is opposed to the sanctity of life ethic which respects the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death..The society that she proposes would sadly be selfish, uncaring and unloving. The message that she is giving to those with Down syndrome is that you are not welcome in society, you have nothing to contribute and you are a burden on the taxpayer. Every child is a gift from God that comes into this world to love and be loved. There is a more serious disability than Down syndrome and that is to fail to love.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that our human rights are inalienable and universal. Being inalienable they cannot be taken away from us and being universal they are conferred on every human being. She wrongfully claims that, "the concept of the "Right to life "does not apply to the fetus, let alone a malformed fetus." This is untrue, the Crimes Act 1961, recognises the fetus as an unborn child and having a right to life. Section 182 “ killing unborn child” states that to kill an unborn child in New Zealand is a serious crime and on conviction, the person convicted may be imprisoned for a term of up to 14 years. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, states in the long title that "abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child." Every unborn child including a child with Down syndrome is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creators loving creation and should be accorded the respect due to the human person. Our human rights do not come from the state or from society. At conception the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life.  The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and deserves our respect and protection. We all have a duty to defend life and the first duty of the state is to provide effective legal protection for the right to life of every member of the human family especially the weak and the defenceless. The writer falsely claims that it is not the business of anybody else, including politicians, whether a couple decide to terminate the life of their unborn child. That is incorrect, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of future citizens and therefore is obligated in justice to provide effective legal protection for unborn children.

The United States Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, states that the classification for Down syndrome is a "mild to moderate disability." Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

Every abortion is the violation of the human rights of the unborn child. Abortions are excused for rare and serious reasons. under the Crimes Act. s 187A, [1] [aa], states that an abortion may be authorised on the following ground, “That there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped…”This ground relates to a pregnancy of not more that 20 weeks gestation.

It is noted that the test for that section is that the handicap is serious. As the clinical definition for Down syndrome is a mild to moderate disability it is contended that Down syndrome does not meet the threshold of being serious.It is thus our Society’s opinion that; it is unlawful for certifying consultants to authorise an abortion, or for doctors to perform an abortion for Down syndrome, on the grounds of fetal abnormality as set out in the Crimes Act 1961, s [1] [aa].

Why then is the government promoting a culture of death by sanctioning and funding the unlawful killing of unborn children with Down syndrome?

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.