John Key Supports “Speeding the process of death” for terminally Ill

Media Release 5 July 2014

Right to life is disappointed at the Prime Minister’s declaration that he would support allowing “speeding up of the process” of death for a terminally ill patient. This chilling statement should fill our hearts with trepidation and fear. It is written in the hearts of man by our Creator, thou shalt not kill. The Prime Minister should be aware that the World Medical Association, the New Zealand Medical Association and Hospice New Zealand are all implacably opposed to doctors being allowed to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

The murder of a patient by a doctor or assisting in their suicide is prohibited by legislation.  Euthanasia is about doctors killing or assisting in the suicide of their patients. Both are serious crimes, found in the Crimes Act 1961, Part V III, Crimes Against the Person; the former under section 160 Culpable homicide.  The latter under section 179. [Read more...]

7 Questions for the Greens on Their Abortion Policy

Jan Logie

Jan Logie NZ Green Party

Right to Life has asked the following seven questions of Jan Logie Spokesperson for the NZ Green Party, on among other things, Women and Rainbow issues. From the Green’s website this is what Jan Logie has to say about herself: ” I am passionate about reducing inequality, eliminating violence and promoting participation in society, locally and globally.”

Pity that generosity of spirit does not seem to extend to the right to life of the unborn child.

Here are our questions to her: We will keep you posted as to what response we get from her.

1 Why are the Greens seeking to establish 20 weeks as a cut off point. What happens at 20 weeks in the development of the child that requires this limit?

2 Are you planning a restrictive bubble around abortion clinics where no one may enter to pray, protest or to offer women seeking an abortion assistance?

3 What action will the law require when doctors refuse to refer a woman seeking an abortion to another doctor who will perform the abortion? [Read more...]

The Forgotten Fathers: What About Abortion’s Negative Impact on Men?

The following post is by Lauren Enriquez and is a re-post  from LiveActionNews website.

Washington, DC (LiveActionNews) — With the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 came the legalization of the ultimate usurper of fatherhood: abortion. Forty years later, America faces the unpleasant reality that, thanks to abortion and the sexual revolution, the role of fatherhood has rapidly made an about-face. Fatherhood has gone from being an unquestioned ingredient in family life to a variable that occurs in the family dynamic only when circumstances are aligned just right.

Fifty-five million aborted babies later, it seems many men are realizing the Supreme Court got it wrong.  Fatherhood doesn’t start with birth. It starts when we opt to sleep with a woman.

It is this dilemma that prompted Online for Life President Brian Fisher, in anticipation of Father’s Day, to release a FoxNews column about the impact of abortion on men. Fisher begins by acknowledging that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 was a welcome liberation from perceived shackles of fatherhood. However, as the years have dragged on, more tragic and dark realities have emerged as true consequences of abortion’s mitigation of fatherly rights and responsibilities. Says Fisher:

[Read more...]

Why was Parliament Deceived into Re-defining Marriage?

Media Release June 28th  2014

On the 17th April 2013, our Parliament in a night of insanity passed the Marriage [Definition of Marriage] Amendment bill; 77 to 44, it is a day that will go down in the history of our Parliament as a day of shame.

Parliament has a duty to uphold the common good.  Marriage, consisting of one man and one woman, is the foundation stone of the common good. Parliament and the government have a duty, in fact an obligation,  in justice to uphold and defend marriage as instituted by God, from those who wish to redefine it. Parliament, to their everlasting shame failed the community. The media which has a duty to uphold the common good also supported the bill and they failed the community that they claim to serve.

We were told by the homosexual lobby, that they longed for marriage equality, that Civil Unions were not going to satisfy their cry for justice and that it was a great injustice to be denied their “human right“ to marriage equality. The statistics compiled by Statistics NZ reveal a very interesting picture. The Civil Union Act came into force on 26th April, 2005. The number of same sex Civil Unions registered up to 31 March 2014, totalled 3,554 comprising, 1,454 female couples and 2,100 male couples.

[Read more...]

Why did the left betray its first principles & embrace abortion?

ABORTION CLINIC CLOSING PROTESTThis post by Brendan Malone at the Leading Edge is a re-post from that website. It provides key insights into the current dogma of the parties on the left side of the political spectrum with regards to important life issues and examines the departure of those parties from their founding principles.  reads..

Last week the New Zealand Green party announced that it was going to be making the introduction of extreme abortion law in this country one of its key policies for the upcoming general election.

In embracing abortion, they have embraced an ideology and act that is so totally contrary to the core tenants of left wing politics that it’s hard to view this as anything other than a total betrayal of the very principles that leftist politics are built on.

Sadly this isn’t an isolated betrayal of first principles. Many other left wing parties and politicians all around the globe have already sold their soul for their thirty pieces of abortion silver. [Read more...]

Right to Life asks Green’s Russell Norman for His Personal Stance on Street’s “End of Life Choice” Bill

Right to Life advises that a similar letter has been posted to every Green and Labour MP

Mr Russell Norman MP,

Parliament Building,


25th June 2014

Dear Mr Norman

Euthanasia – Conscience Issue

We are aware that it is the intention of Maryan Street to return her bill, “End of Life Choice” bill to the ballot following the general election. This contentious bill may or may not be drawn during the term of the next Parliament.

Euthanasia is about doctors killing or assisting in the suicide of their patients. Both are serious crimes, found in the Crimes Act 1961, Part V III, Crimes Against the Person. The former under section 160 Culpable Homicide.  The latter under section 179.

(1) Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.

(2) Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person—

(a) by an unlawful act; or

(b) by an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty; or

(c) by both combined; or

(d)by causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his or her death; or

(e)by wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.

(3)Except as provided in section 168, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter.

(4)Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

Section 179: Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who;

(a) Incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof; or
(b) Aids or abets any person in the commission of suicide .

These laws are there to protect the vulnerable in society. Euthanasia is a conscience issue. Should the bill of Maryan Street be introduced to the Parliament, I would be grateful if you would assist us by advising where your conscience stands, by responding to the following questions.

  • Do you support in principle the Crimes Act being amended to allow for euthanasia?
  • Would you personally vote for the “End of Life Choices” bill to be passed into law?

Thank you for seeking the common good for the citizens of our nation.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr


Christchurch, 8061.

Dear Clinton, don’t say ‘evolved’: Evolutionary science refutes gay ‘marriage’

Featured Image

Scientists recognize the problem that evolution poses to their support of homosexual behavior and have labored mightily to construct a plausible excuse to endorse the lifestyle.

The following is by Ben Johnson, the US Bureau Chief at on 23rd June 2014  and is a re-post from that website.

The Left has waged a war of no quarter against the unborn, the institution of marriage, freedom of conscience, and the standards of civilization and tradition. With the talk of politicians “evolving” to support same-sex “marriage,” it is now waging a war against science and language, as well.

In a testy exchange with NPR‘s Terry Grossu last week, Hillary Clinton said that she now supports gay “marriage,” because she and her fellow Americans had “evolved” on the issue.

The use of that word, “evolved” in the public debate of homosexuality has become ubiquitous. President Obama started the trend in by hinting that his views on marriage redefinition might “evolve” just before the 2010 elections. Since then numerous public figures including Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge have said they have “evolved.” Secular progressives use that syntax as a subtle form of self-congratulation, designed to contrast themselves with the Bible-thumping hayseeds hesitant to redefine an institution that predates written history. [Read more...]

Why NZ Should Never Decriminalise Euthanasia

Labour MP Maryan Street -Wants Euthanasia here

Those who support euthanasia often try to debunk the slippery slope argument, claiming that adequate safeguards can always be put into place. However what they fail to realise is the simple moral failings of humans and the mechanisms by which practices which may be totally be unacceptable today may seem perfectly logical tomorrow.

As a case in point on 21st June 2014, it was reported that Miroslav Mitloehner, a senior university lecturer and government advisor in Czechoslovakia, has been forced to resign for proposing the legalisation of euthanasia for children born with birth defects.  He came under fire after he argued in a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Law and Bioethics that  “it makes no sense to prolong the life of a baby born as a monster.”  The New Zealand Herald yesterday reported Mitloehner as saying  “doctors should be allowed to terminate babies’ lives without parents’ consent, adding that their disabilities led to the question “whether such a freak is a human being at all.”  Mitloehner said society should have the courage to agree to “legally end their life in the course of pregnancy or immediately after the birth.”

While we may be rightly shocked by such statements – and perhaps his apparent complete lack of tact in expressing his views – he is not alone in making this type of proclamation. It was not long ago that two prominent researchers  also bioethicists proposed that human children should be able to be killed after birth. This was not some fly by night piece of research. It was published in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics, who presumably vet their contributors ideas before publication.  This sort of moral depraved thinking is not however confined to the realm of those self appointed bastions of moral virtue –bioethicists. Over time ideas such as this surely and steadily make their way from being just ‘ideas’ but into actual laws and ‘health’  policy practices of sovereign nations.  For example, on  February 14th, 2014, the Belgium Parliament passed a law allowing for the killing of children who were sick.  The practice is effectively also legal in the Netherlands.

Whether Labour MP,  Maryan Street truly recognises the dangers inherent in decriminalising euthanasia in New Zealand is a moot point.  What is clear is that she has made it quite clear that she intends to plough ahead and re-introduce her “End of Life Choice Bill” to the ballot box after the 2014 election.  Ms Street has been quoted as saying  “I’ll put it back in the ballot like a shot. That will be one of my first actions.” (Street removed the bill from the Ballot Box in 2013 out of concern that the bill would be drawn in election year and become too much of a political football).

Michael Cook, the editor of the website Bioedge commented recently that he has learned an important lesson from the (Mitloehner) imbroglio. He said that “language matters in discussing infanticide. If babies are called “freaks”, you will lose your job. If you speak respectfully about killing them, you will (like Peter Singer) get awards from your government.

Right to Life contends that if Euthanasia were ever decriminalised in New Zealand, we would rapidly move from a nation where voluntary euthanasia was tolerated to one in which involuntary euthanasia was practiced. Why should we expect this outcome not to occur?  Because we would be simply following the outcomes already evident in other nations who are walking this dangerous path.

Chris O’Brien

For Right to Life New Zealand

Abortion Statistics – 2013 New Zealand Rejecting a Culture of Death

Media Release  18 June 2014

Right to Life is encouraged that the number of abortions in 2013 announced by Statistics NZ, reveals a  further  continuing reduction in the number of unborn children killed before birth. There were 14,073 abortions in 2013. This is the lowest number of abortions since 1995 [13,652]. Right to Life believes that there is a an increasing awareness that abortion is the murder of the innocent and violence against women. There is also an increasing awareness that abortion damages women’s health with an increased risk of breast cancer, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, grief, anger,regret and increased depression. Right to Life commends those brave and courageous women who when faced with an unplanned pregnancy chose life for their child. These are truly heroic women who deserve our admiration and support. Right to Life also commends the majority of the medical profession who faithful to the Declaration of Geneva have sworn to maintain the greatest respect for human life.

The total number of abortions reported in 2013 was 14,073, 672 less than the 14,745 reported in 2012. The number reported for 2013 is the lowest since 1995 (13,652).

There is a notable decrease in the abortion rate for women aged 15-19 years –down from 27 per 1,000 in 2007 to 14  per 1000 in 2013.

[Read more...]

Why are the Greens Promoting Crimes against Humanity?


Media Release 17th June 2014

At the Nuremberg War Crimes in 1946, the Tribunal declared that the decriminalisation of abortion, with the killing of unborn children, was a crime against humanity.

In the Goering and Greifelt  cases, ten Nazi officials were found guilty by the War Crimes Tribunal, of crimes against humanity and received heavy prison sentences. The charges included the crime of removing legal protection for the right to life of unborn children and decriminalising abortion in Poland and other occupied territories. Their defence to these charges was “ we were only following orders”. The Greens have declared their intention of introducing legislation to decriminalise abortion in New Zealand. The Greens also like the Nazis, want to ensure that our doctors follow orders by making it mandatory that doctors are not permitted to follow their conscience. Doctors would be compelled to cooperate in facilitating the killing of a child. The proposed legislation has another link to the Nazis. It is promoted by the Greens with the slogan “freedom of choice”  (“Auswahlfeiheit”). This slogan  was invented by a Nazi SS propagandist to encourage Polish women to abort their child. Hitler wanted to limit and reduce all non-Aryan populations.

The Greens policy on children has the following  principle. “We are the guardians of the earth for our children. They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life”.

The Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court in an explanatory memorandum, states that “crimes against humanity are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or a grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings”. The murder of the unborn is a crime against humanity even if it is condoned as lawful by the government.

The odious policy of the Greens, which was written by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) and fully supported by Family Planning, entails the withdrawal of the state, from protecting the human rights of the unborn, a whole class of persons. This is in contravention of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Right to Life believes that the Greens like their compatriots in Australia are also passionate about introducing or supporting legislation to attack the right to life of the disabled and the elderly, with so called “death with dignity” legislation. This would entail withdrawing the protection of the law from the disabled and the elderly.  In view of the increasing elder abuse statistics we are seeing in New Zealand, this is particularly disturbing.

The Greens policy on children has the following  principle. “We are the guardians of the earth for our children. They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life”. Would not the best possible start to life be to allow children to be born? It is extremely disappointing that the Green’s policy on the unborn does not reflect the values promoted in its policy on animal welfare. This policy states… “Animals should be treated with compassion and respect. Humans have a responsibility to ensure animals live in ways that allow them to display natural forms of behaviour and do not cause them to suffer.”

Right to Life believes that the Greens in promoting a culture of death and the war on women, are a very serious threat to the right to life of all New Zealanders. Are we going to continue down the path of increasing disrespect for the sanctity of life and an increasingly violent society with increasing child abuse and domestic violence?

Citizens who are concerned about protecting the lives of our most vulnerable in our community, those in their first nine months of life in the womb and those at the end of their lives, are encouraged not only to withhold their vote from the Greens but to make as many people possible aware of the plans this party has in store for those who are the most vulnerable.