Letters

27 October 2008

Hon Annette King,

Minister of Justice,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mrs King

Re Abortion Advisory Committee

Our Society is disappointed that your Ministry has declined to provide our Society with the names and qualifications of persons recently appointed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee to the newly established Standards Committee.

The information was sought under the Official Information Act 1982 in a letter dated 4 August 2008 to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. In a letter dated 4 September 2008, from Jonathon Day, Specialist Advisory Officer of the Tribunals Division of the Ministry of Justice our request for this information was declined pursuant to section 9[2] [g] of the Official Information Act. We were advised that the information was withheld in order to protect the members of the Standards Committee from improper pressure or harassment.

We fully support your Ministry’s desire to protect members of the Standards Committee from undue pressure and harassment in the exercise of their duties. Our Society has no desire to exercise improper pressure or harassment on members of the Standards Committee and have no desire to write to the committee unless invited to. We have not sought nor do we wish to receive the addresses of the committee members.

We believe that in a free Parliamentary democracy it is important that government is open and transparent. The Standards Committee is a public body appointed by the Abortion Supervisory Committee in accordance with the authority vested in the Committee by the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, section 15. The members of the Committee are paid for their duties from the public purse. We believe that the public have a right to know who the members of this Committee are and what their qualifications are.

I know that you are a fervent advocate of open government and I believe that you will understand our profound disappointment at this unjustified restriction on the right of the public to know. It is mentioned that a complaint has been lodged with the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

secretary

27 October 2008

Right Hon Helen Clarke,

Prime Minister,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Clarke

Re Official information Act – Request

I wish to request under the Official Information Act 1982 a copy of the CV for Dr Carol Shand that supported her appointment in this years Queen’s birthday honours as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

It is understood that Dr Shand has been employed as an abortionist at the Parkview Abortion Clinic and currently at Level J at the Wellington Hospital since 1980. It is conservatively estimated that she has been directly responsible for the “legal” killing of thousands of defenceless and innocent unborn children. Abortion is violence against unborn children, it is also violence against women.

It is a scandal that Dr Shand should be honoured by your government for hurting women spiritually, physically and psychologically by killing their children and violating the human rights of unborn New Zealanders. We applaud Dr Shand for her excellent work in dealing with the victims of sexual abuse.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

27 August 2008

The Chief Executive Officer,

(All NZ District Health Boards)

Dear Sir

Re Official Information Act, 1982 – Request, Judicial Review of Abortion Supervisory Committee.

I wish to bring to your attention an important judgment delivered by Justice Miller in the High Court in Wellington on 9th June 2008. The judgment was delivered at the conclusion of a Judicial Review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. It has important implications for those Hospital Boards that provide abortions for the termination of the lives of unborn children. Operating surgeons who perform abortions at your licensed facilities are employed by your Board. The Board thus has a serious responsibility to ensure that the lives of all unborn children terminated by abortion in your facilities are lawful.

Right to Life welcomes the judgment of Justice Miller. This is an historic judgment and the most important development in the abortion laws in New Zealand during the previous 30 years. The implementation of this judgment by the Abortion Supervisory Committee should result in a substantial reduction in the number of abortions performed in New Zealand and bring the law back into line with the intentions of the Royal Commission and Parliament. The judgment should herald in a new era of care and protection of women and their unborn children.

The judgment acknowledges that it was the intention of Parliament in 1977 in passing the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act [CS & A Act] to provide effective legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. This intention to provide effective legal protection is enshrined in the long title of the Act which states …”that abortions may be authorised only after full regard is given to the rights of unborn children.” The judge held that the Act creates a “moral claim” by the unborn child “on the conscience of the community and not merely that of the mother through the substantive criteria and procedures prescribed by the Act.”

The judge has acknowledged that we now have in New Zealand an abortion rate comparable to those of Canada and the United States where women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Justice Miller states that “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.”

Justice Miller stated that; “In my opinion, the statistics and the Committee’s comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request.”

The judge has said that “the Abortion Supervisory Committee has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law reasoning incorrectly that Wall v Livingston precludes the Committee from reviewing or scrutinising decisions of certifying consultants. The Committee does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered.”

Justice Miller also stated; “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 abortion as a matter between the woman and her own doctor.”

On 1st August the Committee advised that an appeal against several of the major findings of the judgment were being appealed to the Court of Appeal. A hearing is expected to be held early in 2009. In the meantime in the light of the Court’s serious doubt concerning the lawfulness of many abortions it is contended that your Board has a serious legal responsibility to stop unlawful abortion on demand and ensure that abortions performed in your facilities are lawful. It would be appreciated if you would kindly advise under the Official Information Act 1982 what action your Board will take to stop abortion on demand, ensure that all abortions are lawful, that the right to life of unborn children receive the full protection of the law and that the health and welfare of vulnerable and distressed women is protected.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

________________________________________________________________________________________

The Editor,

Taranaki Daily Times.

Dear Sir

Warning to halt abortions

Hugh Cunningham and his delegation are commended for challenging the Taranaki District Health Board [DHB] on the lawfulness of abortions performed at the Base Hospital. The operating surgeon who performs abortions is employed by the Board and should be accountable to the Board for her medical decisions to terminate the life of an unborn child.  District Health Boards have a responsibility to ensure that the human rights of unborn children their weakest and most defenceless patients receive the full protection of the law. Boards also have a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of vulnerable women who are the second victims of abortion. The Board has a duty to implement the judgment of Justice Miller to see what action the Board should take to stop unlawful abortions, stop abortion on demand and to question certifying consultants on their use of mental health grounds for authorising 98% of abortions.

There is no legal requirement for the Board to hold a licence to perform abortions. Why does the Board like a number of other Boards not choose to promote a culture of life by protecting its vulnerable women and unborn by refusing to perform abortions and promoting adoption as a loving option.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Editor,

Challenge Weekly.

Dear Lavinia

Evangelicals Support Obama

The election of the President of the United States, the leader of the western world is important for a just society and a culture of life. It should be a matter of great concern for evangelical Christians that Barack Obama the Democratic nominee is an evangelist for a culture of death. In the United States Senate he has a consistent voting record in support of abortion. He voted against a ban on partial birth abortions, and supports infanticide. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which requires that a child born alive from an abortion be given medical care and attention. Obama has said that the first thing he will do as President is to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act. This Act will remove all the pro life protective measures such as parental consent provisions from every State statute. Obama also supports same sex marriage. Please pray that the pro life Republican John McCain will be elected.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

The Secretary,

Abortion Supervisory Committee,

Private Bag 32001,

Wellington.

16 July 2008

Dear Mr Day

Re Official Information Act – Request

It has come to the attention of our Society that Istar Ltd, of Wellington, importers of Myfigyne RU 486 have a web site providing information relating to abortion services in New Zealand. The web site states;” that some abortion clinics accept referrals from midwifes.”

We assume that this information is correct. We are aware that the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, section 32 Procedure where woman seeks an abortion, states that it is the woman’s own doctor who after considering the case considers it may be one which meets the legal requirements for an abortion refer the case to two certifying consultants. There is no provision in law for a midwife to make the necessary medical judgment that a woman meets the legal requirements or to make a referral to two certifying consultants. Such a referral if made by a midwife would be unlawful.

Our Society is aware that the Committee was only appointed in June 2007 and that it would be unreasonable to expect the Committee to know if the alleged unlawful practice was indeed happening. We believe that the legal requirement that referrals to certifying consultants be made only by the woman’s own doctor is intended to be for the protection of the woman and her unborn child. This is therefore a very important issue of patient safety.

In order to pursue this issue I wish to request under the Official Information Act the names of the abortion clinics and hospitals in New Zealand, if any that accept referrals for abortions from midwifes.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

The Editor,

NZ Catholic.

Dear Gavin

People have a right to know that IVF clinics in New Zealand are not required to report to the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology of the disposal of human embryos that have been frozen and stored and are now “surplus to requirements. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act [HART] requires that human embryos may be frozen and stored for a maximum of 10 years unless the Ethics Committee has granted permission for an extension. Right to Life recently wrote to the Minister of Health and requested under the Official Information Act information on the number of human embryos that had been destroyed after 10 years since the passing of the HART Act. The Minister replied that there is no public record of the number destroyed and does not believe that this information is held by another agency.

This as an appalling situation and a violation of human rights. Human life begins at conception and the human embryo is endowed by its Creator with human rights among which is an inalienable right to life. >From conception the human being should be accorded the respect that is given to the human person. The Catholic Church opposes IVF because it entails the creation by doctors of human embryos in a petri dish, a violation of God’s plan for pro creation. The Church also opposes the storage, freezing and disposal of human embryos as it is a violation of their human rights.

Human embryos are our brothers and sisters they are the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family. We have a duty to speak up in their defence as they cannot speak in defence of themselves. The IVF industry is promoted as being part of a culture of life; it is not, it is in fact part of a culture of death. Many of the doctors involved with IVF are also involved in the abortion industry. The IVF industry is mostly funded by the state, it is deeply disconcerting that the government has no interest in knowing or recording the destruction of these tiny children of God deemed to be of such little value that their destruction is not worthy of being recorded. May God have mercy on our nation that allows the killing of God’s precious infants.

Yours faithfully

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

4 June 2008

The Chief Executive Officer,

Office of Film and Literature Classification,

PO Box 1999,

Wellington.

Dear Sir

I wish to lay a complaint on behalf of Right to Life New Zealand Inc, under the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993 [the Act] against two videos, the first is named “Doing it with Betty”, the second is titled, “The Single Shot”.

These two videos are being shown on the web site of Exit International which is hosted in New Zealand. It is understood that these two videos do not have a classification issued by your office. Information on the above web site states that these two instructional films on suicide are the first of 16 instructional videos to be exhibited on the Exit International web site.

Complaint

It is the opinion of this Society that the videos are objectionable in terms of section 3 of the Act. The video, “Doing it with Betty” provides instruction on how to commit suicide with the aid of a plastic bag. The second video, “the Single Shot” gives a demonstration of how to produce the drug Nembutal to be used to commit suicide.

Government Suicide Prevention Action Plan

The government in March this year launched its five year Suicide Prevention Action Plan with the objective of saving lives and reducing New Zealand’s disturbingly high suicide rate.

There are approximately 500 suicides (self murders) reported each year in New Zealand. It is believed that there are many suicides that are not reported. Maori men and those living in deprived communities are most at risk. In 2006, 5400 people were treated at hospitals after intentionally harming themselves. If these people had the opportunity of viewing the videos it may be assumed that many of them would have successfully committed suicide. It is incongruous for the government to have introduced a plan to reduce suicide in our community while at the same time these videos advocating suicide are available on the internet in New Zealand. Our Society believes that the OFLC should support the government’s Action Plan by banning the videos.

Human Rights Issue

This is an important human rights issue. Right to Life New Zealand is a national incorporated Society with an estimated 4,500 members. We are a Society that believes that it is self evident that all human beings are endowed at conception by their Creator with inalienable human rights. The foundation of our human rights is our right to life. We are opposed to any attack on our right to life. We are therefore opposed to suicide, self murder which is an attack on our dignity as human persons and on our right to life. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in the preamble;

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

It is important to note that the United Nations Declaration recognises that our human rights including our right to life are inalienable, being inalienable they may not be taken away from us, nor may we give them up. There is no human right for a person to kill themselves. Our lives are not our own but belong to our Creator. We are therefore but stewards of our life and have no right to destroy it.

It is mentioned that the web site for Exit International states;

“Dr Philip Nitschke is a tireless fighter for human rights. He uses his intelligence combined with his resourcefulness to continue to fight for the right to choose”

It is imperative that we recognise that Nr Nitschke is not promoting human rights but a culture of death under the guise of human rights. This is a serious threat to the lives of every citizen and to future generations. It would be the greatest folly for the OFLCO to provide encouragement to Dr Nitschke by permitting him to continue displaying these videos.

Duty to Protect Life

It is the first duty of the State to protect the lives of its citizens from conception to natural death, especially the weak and vulnerable in society. The state recognises that suicide is a violation of human rights and is harmful not only to the individual whose life is destroyed but also to the common good. Parliament has expressed its opposition to suicide by enacting legislation in the Crimes Act section 179 to make it a serious crime to counsel, aid or abet in a suicide. Suicide is a terrible tragedy for the individual, the family and society. In a civilised society it is recognised that we all have a duty to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death. Suicide is an attack on a culture of life and promotes a culture of death. The suicide of a member of society wounds the social fabric and undermines the collective commitment to life that a healthy and viable society should have. It is contended that the OFLC, a Crown entity, as an agency of the legislature has a serious duty to promote a culture of life and oppose a culture of death.

NZ Bill of Rights – Freedom of Expression

Right to Life supports the Bill of Rights 1990. The Act states that everyone has “the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” It also states under section 5 of the Act, this freedom is subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Free speech is an important human right. As with all rights there are responsibilities. We may not use free speech in a manner that will harm another person.

. For this reason the freedom of speech is seen as being grossly and blatantly misused in these videos.

Our society shares the concern of the NZ Police. The Senior Police Legal Advisor, Inspector Alistair Murray, stated in a submission on the original edition of “The Peaceful Pill” that the Police believe that the publication of the book in certain circumstances would be a potential breach of the criminal law, in particular, section 179 of the Crimes Act 1961, which makes a person liable to 14 years imprisonment if that person “incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide.”

In the light of the Police Department’s submission, we believe that their concerns would also apply to the two videos in question.

Our Society also supports the submission of the Ministry of Health made in respect to the original edition of “The Peaceful Pill” which stated, “That it should be classified as objectionable under section 3 of the FVPC Act because if the book was made accessible to the community, it would be of interest to and read by people at risk of suicide as well as those contemplating euthanasia.” The Department noted that the term suicide was used throughout the book confusing those two subjects.

In the light of the serious concerns of the Ministry of Health and the Police, the videos should be banned.

Age Concern Canterbury

It is important to draw your attention to the statements made by Mr Andrew Dickerson, Canterbury’s Aged Concern chief executive and member of the Canterbury District Health Board. They appeared in an article in the Christchurch Press, 12 May 2008, featuring the classification of the book “The Peaceful Pill”. Mr Dickenson said that he was horrified that the book would soon be available. Despite being rated for sale to those aged over 18, he predicted depressed vulnerable young people would get their hands on it with fatal results. “My aspirations for older people are also considerably higher than a book which promotes ways to kill themselves,” These comments could well be applied to the videos in question.

Youth – Suicide

New Zealand has the highest male rate of youth suicide [15 – 24] and second highest female youth suicide rate compared to other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries. Youth [15 – 24] have a much higher rate of hospitalisation for intentional self-harm in 2002 [186] cases per 100,000] than the total population [85.5 cases]. The New Zealand Health Strategy has identified reducing suicide and suicide attempts across all ages as a priority health objective.

Research has revealed that youth suicide is associated with depression. Our Society is deeply concerned that young vulnerable persons who are suffering from deep depression will be at increased risk of committing suicide if they have the opportunity of viewing these videos.

Meaning of Objectionable

Section 3 [1] For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it… deals with matters such as violence. It is contended that the videos encourage the ultimate violence against oneself that of self destruction or self murder.

It also inflicts intense emotional violence against the deceased’s family and friends. It is the view of this Society that the videos are likely to be injurious to the public good and should, be classified as objectionable and banned

Section 2 [f] It is contended that the videos violate this section by promoting extreme violence against oneself.

Section 3 [a] [i] It is contended that the videos violate this section by dealing with serious harm.

Section 3 [3] [d] The video “The Single Shot” clearly is encouraging unlawful criminal acts. Nembutal is a Class C prohibited drug. It is unlawful to possess it or to manufacture it unless you are a veterinary surgeon.

Under section 3[4], the classification Office must consider the following matters:

Section 3[4] [a] The dominant effect of the publication of the publication as a whole.

The dominant effect of the videos is to instruct in the manner of committing suicide.

Euthanasia and suicide are being promoted by Dr Philip Nitschke as the right of those who are terminally ill. It is contended that his real agenda is to promote euthanasia and suicide as being a human right for persons of any age who are not terminally ill but have decided that life is not worth living.

I wish to refer you to an article entitled “Outrage as Healthy Woman Helped to Die” which appeared in the Sunday Star Times on Sunday 3 February 2008. A New Zealand woman who was not terminally ill killed herself with lethal Nembutal that she had smuggled home from Mexico after seeking advice from Dr Philip Nitschke. A friend of the woman had said that the 68 year old woman who had committed suicide was active but suffered severe depression. Dr Nitschke was interviewed for the article and was unrepentant over his role in the woman’s death, saying it was “arrogant and paternalistic” to review someone else’s decision about when to die. You are not in her shoes. She obviously made an assessment and decided her life was not worth living any more. You can not simply look at the medical records”.

It is contended that the real agenda of the euthanasia movement is to promote euthanasia as a right to choose for any person of any age who believes that there life is not worth living. The website of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society New Zealand states on its home page;

“The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand has as its object a change to the law to allow terminally ill patients or those whose quality of life has diminished to an unacceptable extent, the right to a peaceful death with dignity at a time of their choosing.” [Emphasis added]

.

Section 3[4] [c] The character of the publication, including any merit, value or importance it has in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific or other matters.

We contend that the videos are totally without merit, value or importance.

We believe that it is morally reprehensible to be offering the terminally ill and the elderly the option of suicide as an acceptable end of life choice. A caring and compassionate society will provide appropriate palliative care which successfully provides effective pain relief. New Zealand is very fortunate in having excellent palliative care facilities. Members of the medical profession involved in providing this service are totally opposed to suicide as a choice. The NZ Medical Council has vehemently opposed the release of Dr Nischke’s book “The Peaceful Pill” for sale and has strongly criticised the Exit International seminars he has held in NZ – teaching people how to unlawfully bring banned drugs into NZ and commit suicide.

Section 3 [4] [e] The purpose for which the publication is intended to be used.

It is contended that the videos promote an unlawful activity. One of the videos promotes the use of the drug Nembutal as the preferred means for committing suicide. Nembutal is a Class C prohibited drug, it is an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, the import and possession of which is an offence under section 6 of the Act. As the video clearly promotes the possession and use of this lethal drug, it is in fact encouraging a criminal act. Dr Nitschke has acknowledged that he has taken an estimated 200 ‘terminally ill “persons from Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand to Mexico to purchase the drug Nembutal. It is expected that this video will encourage more persons to contact Dr Nitschke for advice on purchasing the drug in Mexico. These actions are unlawful and may only be discouraged by the banning of the video in New Zealand

.Suicide, self murder, is not a crime in New Zealand. However, the Crimes Act, section 179 makes it abundantly clear that aiding and abetting suicide is a crime against the person. There have been two Death with Dignity Bills brought to Parliament in recent years. The first was the Private Members Bill of Michael Laws of 1995 that was defeated by 61 to 29 at its first reading. The second Private Members Bill was brought to Parliament in 2003 and was defeated at its first reading 60 to 57. It is clear from these two vigorous Parliamentary debates that there is majority opposition to having Parliament even consider legislation to legalise assisted suicide and the killing of patients by their doctors.

Suicide is a tragedy for the person who kills themselves, a great tragedy for the family of the deceased and a tragedy for the community. Our society, our human family has a social contract that we respect our own life and the lives of others in the community. Suicide is a violation of that important social contract.

It is contended that the videos also promote and supports violence. Self murder is the ultimate in violence against oneself. It also inflicts intense emotional violence against the deceased’s family and friends. It is the view of this Society that the videos are likely to be injurious to the public good and should, be classified as objectionable and banned

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

3 June 2008

The Secretary,

ACART,

PO Box 5013,

Wellington.

Dear Sir

Re Human Embryo – Disposal

Our Society has been advised that a copy of our letter to the Minister of dated; 20 March 2008 on the issue of the disposal of human embryos was referred to your Committee for it to consider as part of the Committee’s wider monitoring responsibilities under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, [HART Act].

Our Society believes that the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is accorded to the human person. Human embryonic persons are endowed with human rights and should not be treated as surplus to requirements and disposed of. Right to life is opposed to the creation of human in a Petri dish by doctors, their storage and disposal.

Every human being has a right to be conceived in the sanctuary of its mother’s womb and has a right to be born. IVF contravenes the Creator’s plan for pro- creation.

It is understood that the Committee has the authority to grant to IVF clinics permission to retain human embryos after 10 years. I would be grateful if you would advise our Society if such permission has been granted and the number of human embryos involved.

In conclusion I would be grateful if you would advise us what action the Committee will take in respect to our request for information on the number of human embryos destroyed through disposal?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

23 May 2008

Ms Sue Moroney MP,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Moroney

Re Professor David Fergusson – Study

Thank you for your letter of 13 May 2008. The Christchurch Health and Development Study “Abortion in Young Women and subsequent Mental Health” headed by Professor David Fergusson did not consider women who had an “unwanted pregnancy” as a separate group for the purposes of this study. There were three groups, those never pregnant, those who were pregnant and had a life birth and those who were pregnant and who had an abortion.

The study was published in the Journal of Child Psychology &Psychiatry, 2006; 47[1]:16-24. The study indicates that abortion harms the psychological health of teenagers. The study the largest of its type and most detailed long-term study ever undertaken has attracted international attention. The research was conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development Study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine. The research was led by Professor David Fergusson, Ph.D. who is a psychologist and epidemiologist; He said that his research team had followed the progress of 1265 children born in Christchurch in the mid 1970s, from infancy to adulthood. Nearly 500 women in the study became pregnant by the age of 25 and 90 women had an abortion.

His research found 41 per cent of the women studied had become pregnant by age 25, and that 14.6 percent had had an abortion. By the age of 25, the study found that 42 per cent who had undergone an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years. In total, 90 pregnancies ended with the deliberate termination of the life of the child, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born. Those who had endured an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared with 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.

Professor Fergusson describes himself as “pro choice”. He commenced this study with the conviction that abortion did not cause mental ill health; he was surprised with the results which he claims can not be challenged as they were statistically strong. He has been extensively interviewed by the international media. He has said that there was little evidence to suggest that abortion improved the mental health of women. “This study suggests possibly the opposite. Abortion is by far the most common surgical procedure that young women receive. In our study cohort one out of seven women had had an abortion by the age of 25.” A much more difficulty issue in New Zealand is that abortion grounds are medical grounds, and the majority of women who seek abortions do so on mental health grounds. This research shows it might not do too much to encourage mental health.” He stated that he had experienced difficulty in having the research published as three American medical journals had refused to publish the results. The research was ultimately published in the British Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry.

Professor Fergusson said on Australian radio that the results could undermine the legal basis to abortions, including NSW, where an abortion is legal only if continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman’s physical or mental health.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee in a media statement stated that the connection between abortion and mental ill health was “a grey area and that the results of the study were inconclusive”

This society supports the Professor’s statement that this research could undermine the legal basis for access to abortion when an abortion is legal when the pregnancy would threaten the woman’s physical or mental health. This society requested in writing that the Minister of Health at that time, Hon Pete Hodgson, urgently instigate a national study into the relationship of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol abuse. The Minister replied that there were no plans to conduct such a study. This society also requested in writing that the Abortion Supervisory Committee which is responsible for abortion counselling, take immediate steps to ensure that the results of this study be given to all women considering an abortion. The Committee replied that they did not believe that there was a connection between abortion and mental ill health. They also refused to have the results of this study given to women who were considering an abortion. Professor Fergusson has stated that it is his intention to conduct further study on these important health issues in the following year.

Our Society believes that women considering an abortion are entitled to be given information from this study that having an abortion could result in mental ill health. Our Society would be grateful to you if you were able to promote the right of woman seeking an abortion to be fully informed. I have enclosed a copy of this important study for your information.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

23 May 2008

The Secretary,

Abortion Supervisory Committee,

Private Bag 32001,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Foote

Re Professor David Fergusson – Study

You would be aware of the 2004 study “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health” conducted by The Christchurch Health and Development Study headed by Professor David Fergusson.

Researchers found that at age 25, 42 per cent of women in the study group who had experienced an abortion also experienced major depression at some time during the previous four years. This was nearly double the rate of those women who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, social behaviours and substance use disorders.

Professor David Fergusson, the leader of the research team who declares that he is “pro choice” and that he commenced this study with the firm conviction that an abortion did not cause mental ill and was surprised with the results which he claims can not be challenged as they are statistically strong. “ Our study is strongly suggestive of a link between abortion and developing mental illness.” He stated that the results could not be argued away by assuming the women involved had mental health problems or “a pre-disposition.” Right to Life concurs with the Professor in asserting that every woman considering an abortion should be advised of the results of this important study to ensure that they are properly informed of the potential consequences of an abortion.

Our Society wrote to your Committee on 10 December 2005 to present the following questions. The Committee responded on 15 February 2006. In view of the appointment of new members to the Committee on 14 June 2007, our Society would be grateful if you would respond to these important questions:

  1. Do you agree with Professor Fergusson that this study strongly suggests a link between abortion and developing mental illness?
  1. Do you agree with the statement of Professor Fergusson that the results of this study should be given to every woman considering an abortion?
  1. If so what action will the Committee be taking to ensure that all women considering an abortion will be provided by abortion counsellors with the results of this study?
  1. Will the Committee be taking action to encourage further extensive research into the link between abortion and mental health problems?

Thank you for your assistance with this enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary.

28 April 2008

Hon Winston Peters,

Minister of Foreign affairs,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Mr Peters

Re United Nations Human Rights Committee

I wish to express our Society’s concern at the actions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last week. The government of Poland was pressed on the issue of abortion and sexual orientation by the above Committee during the Universal Periodic Review [UPR], a process mandated by the UN General Assembly.

At the meeting on April 14th, the Polish delegation was questioned by various members of the committee about Poland’s human rights record. Norway said that Poland should “facilitate access to abortion for women who qualify for this under Polish law.”

Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Sweden pushed for sexual orientation to be one of the grounds for non-discrimination in the new equality law being debated in the Polish parliament. Slovenia recommended that Poland stop legislation “punishing anyone who promotes homosexuality…in education…”. Canada said that “those who campaign for equality and against discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, (should be) allowed to carry out their work in a secure environment…”

The Polish government responded that Poland does not hamper women’s access to legal abortion, pointing out that clinics which refuse to perform abortions must subcontract with services that do. The head of the Polish delegation underlined that while the Polish Penal Code does not include discrimination based on sexual discrimination as a separate offense, Poland cooperates with European Union (EU) authorities on matters concerning sexual orientation.

The current Polish government receives EU grants specifically designed for cooperation with homosexual groups. Poland has commissioned research on the situation of homosexuals, and instituted a working group on discrimination based on sexual orientation with a right to transmit policy recommendations to the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy.

Pawel Wosicki, a president of the Polish Confederation of Pro-Life Movements, and one of the NGO delegates to the review, said that “while the pro-abortion lobby has not succeeded in using the UPR process to promote abortion in Poland, the evident pressure on Poland in matters of sexual orientation is a serious development.

The Universal Periodic Review was established by the United Nations’ General Assembly in March 2005. The resolution calls on the UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) to “undertake a universal periodic review…of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments…” The HRC started the review process in April 2008 and plans to finish reviewing 192 UN member states by 2011. Each country prepares a report based on general guidelines established by the HRC, which is then reviewed by three national delegations appointed by the HRC. Other delegations are allowed to ask questions and suggest recommendations.

Right to Life supports the right of the Polish Parliament to provide legislation to protect the lives of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. It is outrageous that the delegates of other nations should use UPR to seek to coerce the Polish government to weaken its protection of the human rights of unborn children under the guise of promoting human rights. Our Society would be grateful if you would advise if our country’s delegation supports the right of the Polish government and indeed other governments to exercise their duty to protect the lives of its citizens from conception to natural death?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

For executive