Hon Tony Ryall,
Minister of Health,
Dear Mr Ryall
Termination of Pregnancy Services – A Health Service
I wish to express our Society’s concern at the terminology used to convey abortions in New Zealand. It is the practice of abortion providers to refer to the provision of abortions as a Termination of Pregnancy Service, it is also a core health service. This terminology is misleading and the classification of the killing of pre-born children as a core health service is offensive to many in the community.
The dictionary states that a service is an act of help or assistance. It also states that this is something needed by the public and to which they are entitled.
Right to Life is opposed to the terminology used to promote abortion for the following reasons:
- The term Termination of Pregnancy Service is not found in the Crimes Act 1961 or in the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. It is a term that has no basis in law and has been devised presumably by the Ministry of Health.
- Abortion is not a service, it is violence against vulnerable women and violence against a defenceless pre-born child. It entails the violent dismemberment of an innocent child. To refer to the violent killing of a pre-born child as the termination of a pregnancy is to obscure the reality of the act. To refer to this calculated violence as a service is to convey to distressed and vulnerable women that abortion is a service being provided by the state for their benefit.
- Abortions do not cure any known pathology nor do they promote the physical and mental health of women. The Abortion Supervisory Committee has reported to Parliament every year since 1978 that 99 per cent of abortions are authorised on the grounds of mental health. It is widely acknowledged that these abortions are being authorised for socio-economic reasons masqerading as psychiatric. Abortions authorised for socio-economic reasons are unlawful.
- We believe that it would be a service to women if the term Termination of Pregnancy Service was discontinued and replaced with the term Abortion Facility or some similar term. Many women would be discouraged from having their child killed if they were confronted with the term Abortion Facility.
It is abhorrent that the killing of pre-born children should be classified as an urgent and essential health service with unlimited health funding. Abortions are not a health service. It is also abhorrent that the taxpayer should be implicated in the killing of the innocent by being required to fund abortions. The Abortion Supervisory Committee reports that 99 per cent of abortions are authorised for mental health grounds and not to save the life of the mother or to prevent serious permanent injury to the health of the mother. They also report that a third of abortions are repeat abortions with 224 women in 2011 having four or more abortions.
- Why is the taxpayer asked to pay for elective abortions?
- Why too is the taxpayer required to pay for repeat abortions?