21 February 2014
Hon Tony Ryall,
Minister of Health,
Dear Mr Ryall
Family Planning Sexuality Education Booklet Q & A
I am writing to you to express the concerns that our Society has with the contents of the booklet used in primary schools for year 6, 10 year olds. The booklet has been funded by your department and produced by the New Zealand Family Planning Association. We request that in the interest of the children of New Zealand that this booklet be immediately withdrawn and replaced with a booklet that is approved by parents, the first educators of our children.
We consider that the booklet misrepresents our sexuality and fails to acknowledge that there are other factors that influence the development of the child. We believe these include the religious beliefs, cultural influences and the value system of the individual family. The booklet completely separates sexual intercourse from love, commitment and childbearing. It teaches that sex is for fun and that it is up to each child to decide when they are ready to have sexual intercourse. It does not promote true respect for one’s own body or that of the opposite sex.
On page 25, it encourages masturbation as being normal and to be enjoyed. That statement is challenged masturbation is immoral and a misuse of our sexuality. The booklet does not promote chastity, nor does it acknowledge a moral code and that mankind is endowed with a conscience.
On page 28, It asks how old do you have to be to have to be to have a baby?
The answer in the booklet is that everyone should decide when it is right for them. There is no suggestion that a child should be conceived within marriage and that the child has a right to be loved and nurtured by its biological father and mother. It states on page 29 that there is no “right” age to have sex. The age someone chooses to have sex is different for everyone. There is nothing to encourage chastity and the ideal that sexual intercourse should be confined to marriage in a lifelong loving relationship to the exclusion of all others. On page 30 a description is given of the condom and the contraceptive pill. Why would the Ministry of Health want to encourage young girls to fill their bodies with a Class 1 carcinogenic agent that increases the rate of breast cancer and cervical cancer?
Information is provided that any person or child of any age can obtain contraception. There is no information about failure rates of contraceptives or of the potential emotional damage done to young people who engage in sexual activity. Nor is there any information about sexually transmitted diseases which endanger health and may cause sterility. There is nothing stated about the emotional damage done to those who are promiscuous and the great difficulties they may have later in life, in being faithful to their spouse in marriage.
This book is a threat to the health and safety of children and encourages promiscuity. It destroys the innocence of our children and seduces them into accepting a hedonistic and narcissistic view of human sexuality. The fruit of the ideology of Family Planning is unplanned pregnancies, ex nuptial births, abortions, STIs and spiritually and emotionally disturbed children and teenagers. Economically the results of this sort of ideology will be to place an increasing burden on the taxpayer.
The booklet is faithful in promoting the agenda of Family Planning. Family Planning is a business and its business is promoting sex. Its objective is to encourage as many people as possible to be sexually active. It seeks to do this by gaining access to our children in schools through comprehensive sex education programmes; these children are its future clientele. It is opposed to teaching children abstinence and the promotion of the virtue of chastity. As a backup for failed contraceptives the Family Planning Association is planning on offering abortions at its thirty clinics. We are aware that Family Planning is opposed to parents having the right to protect their children by withdrawing their children from objectionable sex education. Family Planning is also opposed to schools having the right to reject objectionable sex education programmes. The Family Planning Association in its recent written submission to the United Nations Committee, reviewing the human rights record of New Zealand, accused the New Zealand government of a breach of human rights because of the failure of the government to decriminalise abortion. The Association’s submission is an affront to the government and to the people of New Zealand.
Family Planning is a valued and loyal affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF]. The agenda of Family Planning is that of the International Planned Parenthood Federation which aggressively promotes contraception, sterilisation and abortion worldwide. It exerts considerable influence within the United Nations where they seek to have abortion recognised as a human right and the right of children to be sexually active and have access to contraception and abortion.
Family Planning supports the one child family policy of China with forced abortions, sterilisations and punishment for those who offend this policy. The Chinese Family Planning Association that is responsible for implementing these crimes against humanity is an affiliate of the IPPF. These are violations of fundamental human rights and crimes against humanity. The values held by Family Planning and the IPPF are deplored.
It is disappointing that the Ministry of Health allows Family Planning to implement its destructive ideologies on our families. We wish to ask:
- Does the Ministry oppose the human rights abuses that are supported by Family Planning and if so, why does it continue to lend support to the Association by funding its agenda which is a threat to New Zealand families?
- What consultation did the Ministry have with parents groups in the preparation of the agenda for the booklet?
- What consultation did the Ministry have with parents groups to gain approval of the booklet before publication?
- Why does the Ministry continue to engage and fund Family Planning in the production of objectionable and damaging publications?