The decision to cut funding is very good news as Komen was funding abortion when numerous studies have pointed to a strong link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.

The cut-off of funding is the result of the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by  authorities to determine allegations that Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the US, handles criminal conduct improperly, and has mishandled federal funding to pay for abortions.

The very  latest news from the US (Feb 3)  is that there is a danger that the Komen charity may cave in to the mafia like pressures applied by Planned Parenthood and the media who are right now leaning on Komen’s CEO Nancy Brinkler to just let this go.  You can help by contacting / emailing Nancy  Brinkler at Komen and expressing your support for the decision.

Dear Mr Hill,

Re: Family Planning Booklet- “Abortion – What You Need to Know”

I wish to lay a formal complaint against the New Zealand Family Planning Association for its production of an abortion information booklet, “Abortion  – What You Need to Know,” copy enclosed. The title of the booklet infers that the booklet contains all of the information that a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy needs to know. The booklet was approved and funded by the Ministry of Health. It is contended that the title is misleading as there is important information that a woman needs to know that is omitted from the booklet. The Code of Health Rights set out in the Health and Disability Act states in Right 6, Right to Be Fully Informed, that every consumer has the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that situation, would expect to receive. I believe that the following information should have been provided in the booklet:

On page one of the booklet it lists a number of options that are available to the  pregnant woman. It lists parenting, adoption or fostering and abortion. There is no information on where a woman will get assistance on the first three options. There are organisations in the community that will provide compassionate care and assistance for the woman wishing to choose one of these options. Why is this information not provided?

Information on the possible neo-natal consequences of having an abortion

That having an abortion in the second or third trimester increases the risk of having a baby with a low weight birth in a subsequent pregnancy by 35 per cent and of having a premature baby by 36 per cent. If a woman should have more than one abortion the risk increases by 72 per cent for a low birth weight. The risk of a premature baby increases by 93 per cent. Prematurity is a leading cause of neonatal deaths. Why is this important information not being given to women?

Information on the link between abortion and breast cancer

It is a scientific fact that pregnancy provides protection from breast cancer. This protection is lost if a woman has an abortion. There have been 38 international studies on the abortion breast cancer link [ABC], 29 studies showed a substantial increase in breast cancer. There have been recent studies in China, Sri Lanka, Turkey and the United States. These all reveal a substantial increase in breast cancer as a result of having an abortion. In Ireland where abortion is illegal, that country has a breast cancer rate half that of the United States where abortions are readily available. When abortion was unlawful in Romania, it had the lowest rate of breast cancer in Europe while  now that abortion is lawful it has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in Europe. Why is this important information not being given to women? 

Information on the possible psychological consequences of abortion

Professor David Fergusson of the Christchurch School of Medicine who describes himself as “pro-choice” in 2006 produced a study of 500 women which revealed that those women who had an abortion, had suffered major depression during the previous four years. They were also twice as likely as those women who had a live birth to drink alcohol to dangerous levels  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. A recent study by Professor Priscilla Green in the United States revealed that 81 per cent of women who had an abortion suffered mental illness as a result of having an abortion. Why is this important information not being given to women?

Information on alternatives to abortion

On page one of the booklet it lists a number of options that are available to the  pregnant woman. It lists parenting, adoption or fostering and abortion. There is no information on where a woman will get assistance on the first three options. There are organisations in the community that will provide compassionate care and assistance for the woman wishing to choose one of these options. Why is this information not provided?

Information on abortion methods

On page eight there is information on abortion methods. The information is incomplete and misleading. The booklet states that an abortion entails the removal of the pregnancy. An abortion entails the killing of an unborn child either by a medical or surgical abortion. In an Early Medical Abortion [EMA] the mifepristone blocks the embryo from nourishment and causes the embryo to die of starvation; this information is not provided for the woman. The booklet states that for a surgical abortion the pregnancy is removed by suction. The truth is that the abortionist inserts a suction tube into the uterus, at which point the arms, legs, feet, hands, bones and organs, including a once-beating heart, functioning nervous system and lungs of the fetus will be sucked into the tube and thrown away. Since the head of the child is too big to be vacuumed away, the doctor will then use tongs to crush the head of the baby so it can be removed piece by piece. Then, in order to ensure there are no bone fragments or body parts left behind, he will attempt one final vacuuming of the woman’s uterus. The booklet makes no reference to the destruction of a child. The mother is entitled to have this information to save her from a potential lifetime of grief and sorrow at the loss of her child.

In conclusion, Right to Life believes that the booklet is seriously deficient in providing women faced with an unplanned pregnancy with the necessary information that they need to  assist them  in making decisions that are in the best interest of themselves and their unborn children. The emphasis is on the rights and needs of the mother with no recognition given to the needs and rights of the child. It completely ignores the right of a father to protect the life of the child that he has fathered. In our opinion the booklet is designed to obscure the reality of abortion and to encourage vulnerable and distressed women to have an abortion believing that it is a simple and safer procedure than giving birth to their children. It is not. An abortion entails the violent destruction of an innocent and helpless unborn child; it is violence against both the mother and her child.

It is mentioned that the Ministry of Health has an acceptable abortion information booklet previously published and distributed to general practitioners in New Zealand by the Ministry titled “Considering an Abortion what are Your Options?”  This booklet was highly acclaimed by doctors. We therefore request that in the interest of women’s health and wellbeing you give consideration to our complaint and request Family Planning to withdraw this grossly misleading booklet.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

Dear Mr Mallard

Re: Euthanasia Legislation

I wish to draw to your attention important information on the issue of euthanasia. On 25 January, in Strasbourg, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a non-binding resolution stating:

“Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

The purpose of the resolution, entitled “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”, defines the principles that should govern the practice of “living wills” or “advance directives” in the 47 States of the Council of Europe.

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) welcomed the adoption of the PACE resolution. “This Resolution is a major victory for the protection of life and dignity,” said ECLJ Director  Grégor  Puppinck.

Puppinck  noted that because “living wills” or “advance directives” are open to abuses, and are a “backdoor” for introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide into legislation, PACE’s resolution was necessary.

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States. Another positive principle introduced by the Italian MP Mr Luca Volontè, states “in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and in favour of the prolongation of life.”

Last year, on January 20th 2011, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ruling (Haas versus Switzerland) that while there is a “human right” to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Puppinck noted that although not legally binding on member states, the PACE resolution would nevertheless have a positive effect.  “It should have a direct impact on the upcoming judgment of the European Court in the case Koch v. Germany concerning the ban of assisted suicide in Germany,” he said.

This important development at the PACE is further evidence that the international community is opposed to removing protection for the right to life of those most vulnerable in our society.

The Labour Party has a long and distinguished history of protecting life. Right to Life believes that legislation allowing for doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide would be dangerous and unwise public policy and contrary to the best traditions of the Labour Party.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary 

STRASBOURG, January 26, 2012  – Yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a non-binding resolution stating: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

The purpose of the resolution, entitled “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”, defines the principles that should govern the practice of “living wills” or “advance directives” in the 47 States of the Council of Europe.

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) welcomed the adoption of the PACE resolution. “This Resolution is a major victory for the protection of life and dignity,” said ECLJ Director Grégor Puppinck.

Puppinck noted that because “living wills” or “advance directives” are open to abuses, and are a “backdoor” for introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide into legislation, PACE’s resolution was necessary.

The resolution is comprised of a list of principles already elaborated in three documents previously adopted in the Council of Europe, including the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), which legally binds the majority of member States.

Another positive principle introduced by the Italian MP Mr Luca Volontè, states “in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and in favour of the prolongation of life.”

Last year, on January 20th 2011, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ruling (Haas versus Switzerland) that while there is a “human right” to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

Puppinck noted that although not legally binding on member states, the PACE resolution would nevertheless have a positive effect.  “It should have a direct impact on the upcoming judgment of the European Court in the case Koch v. Germany concerning the ban of assisted suicide in Germany,” he said.

When I was expecting our second baby, I felt great. Minimal morning sickness, lots of energy, and so much joie de vivre it was positively annoying. Compared to the first time around it was a doddle, but, even more than that, I felt as if I was positively benefiting from carrying this little person about, kicks and aches and all.

One day my husband remarked that he had seen an article online which said that women did in fact receive ‘something’ from their unborn babies which might benefit their health. "It’s why you live longer then us men apparently," he added. I looked up the article in the New Scientist which reported that a team at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston showed that fetal cells were transferred from the unborn baby which seemed to help to heal skin wounds in the mother, both during and after pregnancy. It was pretty amazing stuff.

Now, as reported last week on LifeSiteNews, these and many other amazing findings have been explored by science writer Jena Pinctott who draws on studies in biology, reproductive genetics and epigenetics and concludes that a baby’s fetal cells "repair and rejuvenate moms."

She gathers the evidence in her book "Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy", and what has been revealed is simply astounding.

Eminent experts say that the fetal cells given by the baby, through the placenta, to the mother are a like a gift that can protect and help her for the rest of her life, especially if she becomes critically ill.

For example, some of the fetal cells that are passed along to the mother are stem cells – and they can then become liver cells, or brain cells or thyroid cells when they are needed to help the mother battle illness. And there seems to be no downside: this is a thank you gift, from baby to mother.

Isn’t that a breathtaking revelation? Doesn’t it make the wonder of life seem even more miraculous?

The synergy and incredible beauty of the exchange left me in awe at the meticulous planning of the Man Above. Truly we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

There will of course be a tiny minority of people – mostly screechy pro-aborts – who will try to reject this good news, They are the type of people that are still droning on with lame descriptions of a baby as a parasite and a burden.

They won’t want to welcome any news that shows that not only is a child a gift – the child also gives a gift, and a precious one at that.

But most people will find what science has now uncovered to be absolutely mind-blowing : so let’s celebrate this good news, and appreciate our babies for giving us a health boost as well as an opportunity to experience unconditional love.

Let me just add that I was sick as a dog during my subsequent pregnancies, so clearly the easy ride with the second baby was just a lucky break. But now I’ve got all those fetal cells to help me with problems that arise in the future. So, thanks kids.

Author: Niamh Ui Bhriain

view article on LifeInstitute.net   website

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

Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Dear Mr McCully,

Government funding – NZFPA  IPPF & UNFPA Official Information Act Request

I wish to request under the Official Information Act the amount of funding that the New Zealand government has provided in 2010 and 2011 to the New Zealand Family Planning Association [NZFPA], the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] and the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA].

Right to Life is concerned at information recently received concerning a confidential audit of UNICEF and UNFPA that found “gross” failures in transparency and surprisingly billions of dollars of unspent cash. Both agencies refused to disclose information on staff costs and travel. The auditor found that donors have “little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny” of funds.

It is understood that a draft report written by the consulting firm IDC at the request of the government of Norway was given to Fox News in the United States.  UNFPA and UNICEF refused to answer Fox News’ questions, other than claiming the cash reserves were earmarked for future work on programs.

The audit of five UN agencies sought to discover “where does the money go.” The report found UNFPA and UNICEF had $3.2 billion in cash in 2009. UNICEF, which is free to spend money where it wants despite the project that earned it, gained $109 million in interest income in 2008. The United Nations Development Program had $5 billion in cash reserves, invested large amounts on bonds, and increased personnel costs 80% in the last decade. These together with the World Food Program (which alone was judged transparent and its performance “impressive”) had $12.2 billion in unspent cash. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees did not have a cash stockpile but refused to disclose spending, particularly on staff costs.

The report found UNFPA was unable, or unwilling, to account for $200 million a year funnelled to governments and non-governmental groups. It refused to disclose details of wages, salaries, travel, consultant costs, and other items. The report declared, “UNFPA fails grossly” in its official commitment to transparency.

Details on UNICEF’s overhead were lacking, and scraps of information on expenditures make “it difficult to track use of funds from headquarters down to the ultimate beneficiaries on the ground.” It, too, could not account for expenditures within countries, which is the majority of its spending, earning a designation of “gross failure.”

Several UN agencies are increasingly focusing on giving policy advice and advocacy, and relying on others to deliver goods and services. They form vague strategic plans at headquarters that defy tracking outcomes or progress within countries. The UN refugee agency delegates most of its program activities to “implementing partners” that do the work on the ground.

The study warned that the hoard of money “implies that substantial donor funding is not being used for development purposes.” Donors may be reluctant to fund the UN until the “reserves are utilized.”

For years UN agencies have resisted divulging their finances. Government officials have suspected the lack of transparency hides lavish salaries and expensive travel. Diverting funds to non-governmental groups provides a coterie of accomplices who defend the UN agencies.

Shadowy accounting often signals systemic waste, fraud and abuse. In a moment of candour in 2007, a UNFPA executive boasted at a conference that, though the agency was barred from directly funding abortion, it disburses money to abortion providers.

An examination of UNFPA annual reports finds its budget ballooned from $249.9 million in 1999 to $870 million in 2010. Despite its vast resources and audit failure, in November it urged leaders to “galvanize greater political, financial support for family planning.”

The NZFPA is a loyal affiliate of the IPPF. It is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand and supports the decriminalisation of abortion and the withdrawal of legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. Both UNFPA and the IPPF continue to support China’s one child family policy with its human rights abuses. In 1983 the IPPF welcomed the Chinese Family Planning Association into full membership saying that the goals of the Chinese Association were entirely consistent with its own.

We now ask you as minister,  Is the government aware of the audit conducted of these United Nations Agencies on behalf of the Norwegian government and is the government concerned that funding provided by the government to these audited agencies is being used for the purposes that it was given?

It is disappointing that the New Zealand government continues to provide funding to the UNFPA the IPPF and the NZFPA. Right to Life requests that funding of the UNFPA the IPPF and the NZFPA for the worldwide promotion of abortion and a culture of death cease.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals. James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England

The stated aim of the Commission was to ”investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die.” The Commission sat for 12 months, received submissions and visited overseas jurisdictions where doctors were permitted to assist in the suicide of their patients. The Commission was instituted under the auspices of the assisted suicide advocacy group “Dignity in Dying” and was wholly funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, an author who in 2011, produced and starred in a documentary promoting assisted suicide named “Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die.”

The Commission concluded that the current legal status of assisted suicide is inadequate and incoherent and that assisted suicide should be made legal for persons over the age of 18, who are mentally competent, who have been diagnosed as being terminally ill, who are expected to die within 12 months and who have made a voluntary decision to be assisted in their suicide.

The Commission’s report has been rejected by the Right Reverend James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle and spokesperson on health care topics for the Church of England. He said the Commission excluded anyone who objected to legalising assisted suicide and the report “singularly failed “ to provide evidence that vulnerable people would be protected under the new proposals.

“Put simply the most effective safeguard against abuse is to leave the law as it is.” The Catholic Church upholds the dignity and inalienable right to life of every person from conception to natural death. It is the constant teaching of the Church that compassion should be extended to the terminally ill and to the aged and disabled. It is totally opposed to assisted killing.

The report has been dismissed as biased and seriously flawed by pro-life organisations. Dr Saunders, director of  Care Not Killing, said “these recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. The right to die can so easily become the duty to die. ”Bernadette Smyth, director of Belfast’s Precious Life, said the report is another attack on the dignity of the weak and vulnerable, adding that the situation must never arise where the terminally-ill, disabled, or the elderly feel pressured by society to end their lives. This is part of a culture of death that is attempting to change attitudes in society, to the position where killing the weak and vulnerable becomes normal and acceptable. Britain’s Right to Life spokesperson, Phyllis Bowman states that the Commission is naïve in accepting the claims made by the providers of euthanasia in Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and in Oregon that they had no evidence of patients being pressured or unduly influenced in opting to be killed.

The Commission’s report should be seen as promoting a culture of death, that is a threat to the life of every person. It seeks to influence public attitudes to accept that there are lives unworthy of living. The legalising of assisted suicide is but the first step in achieving their final objective of allowing doctors to kill their patients. It is cheaper to kill patients than to care for them. The Dutch government is considering providing mobile euthanasia units as there are many persons with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease who are being missed by the euthanasia laws. The mobile units would allow these patients to be “treated” in their own homes. In Holland in 2009 there were 2636 patients killed by their doctor including 400 where the doctor assisted in the patient’s suicide. There were also 500 patients who were killed by their doctor without the knowledge of the patient or their family. These figures are conservative as many cases are simply not reported.

It is expected that the British Parliament will reject this biased report. There are those in our New Zealand community who will use this discredited Commission’s report to pressure our New Zealand Parliament to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

If we are not vigilant such action will result in the culture of death expanding from the killing of the unborn to the killing of the elderly and unwell.  The alternative to the threatening culture of death, is a culture of life which recognises that life is a gift from the Creator which respects the dignity of every person.  We must ensure that we continue to provides compassionate and loving care for the terminally ill including high quality palliative care to ensure that they truly have death with dignity.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

More on this topic

The New Year should begin with ideas for saving lives, not for killing them  (MercatorNet)

Sick people need help to live, not help to die  (The Telegraph UK)

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,

The above video is from the Women’s Rights Without Frontiers Website. To watch the video click on the graphic.

Watch this short video to learn the truth about “family planning” in China.  Then share this video with your friends.  The world must know!