Because the Newsroom, in accordance with the requirements of the Press Council, in relation to official complaints, have refused to even acknowledge or respond to our formal complaint to them in February this year, concerning the factual inaccuracies and lack of balance presented in an article by Thomas Coughlan of the above title, Right to Life has written to the Press Council.
The following post documents correspondence
29th May 2018
Press Council.
Dear Mary,
Official Complaint- Newsroom
I wish to lodge a formal complaint against the Newsroom for an article written by Thomas Coughlan titled “Labour moves to legalise abortion” that was published on 16 February 2018. My complaint is that the article breached the Council’s Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
A complaint was laid with Newsroom on 21 February. As there was no response received, a further letter was sent on 20 April.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Secretary,
Right to Life
Here is a copy of the original article
Thomas Coughlan
Thomas Coughlan is a Newsroom reporter based in Wellington who writes on policy and economics.
POLITICS SECTION
Labour moves to legalise abortion
Andrew Little today fired the starting gun on reforming New Zealand’s decades-old abortion laws, confirming that he had sent a draft referral to the two other governing parties for their comment. Thomas Coughlan reports on what to expect from the law change.
Andrew Little surprised observers today when he revealed that a draft referral on reforming New Zealand’s abortion law had been circulated to New Zealand First and the Greens. Little said today that he received a letter from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after the coalition was formed directing him to begin the process of reforming the law. Once the two parties give feedback, the referral will be sent to the Law Commission to make a recommendation.
Abortion in New Zealand is a crime under the Crimes Act, although the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act of 1977 allows a woman to have an abortion if she meets certain criteria and proves her need to two physicians.
Critics argue that the current legislation is out of date, inequitable, and the cause of unnecessary distress.
Terry Bellamak, President of the Abortion Law Reform Association, said that she would like to see abortion wiped from the Crimes Act and the restrictive grounds for abortion abolished.
Currently, abortion can be granted on the grounds that the pregnancy is a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother; that there is a substantial risk the child will be seriously handicapped; that the pregnancy is a result of incest; or that the woman is deemed to be “severely subnormal”.
Bellamak said those stipulations must be abolished.
“We trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies,” she said.
Law reform campaigners say New Zealand’s abortion laws are out-dated and do not take into account advances in the provision of abortions.
In 1980, a medication called RU-486 was developed allowing non-invasive medical abortions to take place for the first time. In 1987, France became the first country to legalise medical abortions.
A medical abortion, which is carried out up to nine weeks into the pregnancy, comprises two pills taken days apart that terminate the pregnancy. In many countries, it is common for the second pill to be taken at home.
New Zealand’s law, written three years before RU-486 was developed, stipulates that abortion must take place in a clinic. This provision, intended to prevent dangerous back alley abortions, means that patients must travel to the clinic twice, simply to take a pill. For patients in rural areas, this can be a long and expensive exercise.
Dr Christine Roke, National Medical Advisor to Family Planning, said the added steps were a barrier to best practice.
“It adds time and it adds cost,” said Roke.
New Zealand is an outlier among OECD countries for the time it takes to get an abortion and the way abortions are provided to patients.
In New Zealand, a patient must be referred to two specialists to sign-off on the abortion. If one refuses, the woman may need to find a third specialist. The average time from referral to procedure is 25 days.
In other countries the it can take just a week from referral to procedure. This makes it more likely for New Zealand patients to require a surgical, rather than a medical abortion, as they have passed the nine week mark.
In New Zealand, only 15 percent of abortions are medical abortions. By contrast, 62 percent of abortions in the UK are medical abortions and 45 percent of abortions performed before nine weeks (two-thirds of the total number) in the United States are medical abortions.
One part of the reforms that may be contentious surrounds the right of physicians to object to performing abortions. Currently, a physician is not obliged to refer a patient to another, consenting, physician or even tell patients that their objection is on the grounds of conscience.
“It’s weighted towards doctors at the expense of patients,” said Bellamak.
“A clause they’re talking about talking about putting into the euthanasia bill is better than what they’ve got for abortion,” she said.
Bellamak said she would like New Zealand’s law to be reformed along the lines of Canada.
“Canada has absolutely no abortion laws and no regulations around abortion. They simply trust women,” she said.
Roke said that she wanted abortion taken out of the Crimes Act and handed to the Ministry of Health.
“I would like it to become an integrated component of a comprehensive reproductive and sexual health service”
So far there has been little detail from the Government on what the reformed law would look like or when the legislation would be introduced.
During the election campaign, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern expressed her personal view that should abortion be taken out of the Crimes Act so it is likely that this will form some part of the reform.
On Tuesday, Andrew Little refused to give much detail on what reform might look like, but suggested it might be broader than taking abortion out of the Crimes Act.
“There are more issues than just what’s in the Crimes Act … it’s also the hurdles that have been put in the way of women who are faced with making that decision,” he said.
The vote would be a conscience vote, meaning MPs would be given the ability to vote freely without following a party line. Reform is likely to be supported by the Prime Minister, liberal members of her party and the Green Party.
Here is Right to Life’s formal complaint to the Newsroom
Mr Mark Jennings,
Co-Editor,
Newsroom.
Dear Mr Jennings
Formal Complaint.
I wish to lodge a complaint against the article titled “ Labour moves to legalise abortion” written by Thomas Coughlan and published on 16 February 2018. My complaint is that the article breached the Press Council’s Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
Accuracy
Terry Bellamak, an American lady from Arizona, President of ALRANZ advocates for the removal of all grounds from abortion. She claims that “we trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies.” I believe in fairness it should have been mentioned that this “reform” would remove the prohibition to have an abortion on the grounds that the child was the wrong sex. This usually means that if the child was female it would be killed. This is the ultimate discrimination against women. It would also mean that the restriction on killing the unborn with minor disabilities would be revoked, this would mean increased discrimination against the disabled. It would also mean that more babies with Down syndrome would be killed as is happening in Europe where an estimated 90 per cent are killed before birth. It is estimated that in New Zealand at present 60 per cent are killed.
The article states that doctors objecting to perform abortions may refuse on the grounds of conscience and are not required to advise the patient. This is incorrect, the doctor is obliged to inform the women why he is refusing to be in any way involved with the termination of the life of a child in utero. Section 43 of the CS & A Act 1977 gives conscience protection to all medical practitioners nurses and other hospital personnel from doing anything to facilitate an abortion. This even includes staff employed to prepare surgical equipment to be used in a surgical abortion.
Fairness
The article infers that the abortion laws were established to provide ready and speedy access to abortion on demand. The article gives no recognition to the intention of Parliament in passing the abortion laws. It was the intention of Parliament in 1977 in passing amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 and in passing the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act to provide effective protection for the health of women and the right to life of unborn children.
The long title of the C.S. & A. Act states, “and to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child.” These laws were those recommended by the Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion appointed by the third Labour government of the Right Hon Bill Rowling in 1975. The Commission in its report to Parliament said, upholding the status of the unborn child;
“The unborn child as one of the weakest, the most vulnerable and most defenceless forms of humanity, should receive protection. From a biological point of view there is no argument as to when life begins. Evidence was given to us by eminent scientists from all over the world; none of them suggested that human life begins at any other time than at conception.
They went on to say, “From implantation to birth, changes which take place in the unborn child are of a developmental nature only. There are no changes of a qualitative nature. The three events suggested as being of significance, namely quickening, viability and brain development are no more than stages in that development and are not indicative of any qualitative changes in the developing fetus which would make it non-human at one point of time and human at another.”
In rejecting the argument that some degree of development should be reached before the unborn child be accorded status the Commission said, “If some stage of physical or mental development has to be accepted as indicating whether or not human life is in being, so a stage may be reached at the other end of life where a person who has become senile or has lost consciousness may be disposed of.”
The words of the Commission were prophetic because we now have Parliament considering the “End of Life Choice bill” which if passed, will allow doctors to kill patients or assist in their suicide.
The annual reports of the Abortion Supervisory Committee consistently advise that 99 per cent of requests for abortion are approved and that 98 per cent of abortions are approved on the grounds of mental health. The ASC in 1995 advised the Justice Committee in a review of their performance at Parliament that mental health is the ground that certifying consultants use to provide abortion on demand. In fairness, the article should have stated that we have a regime of unlawful abortions that was alluded to in the ASCs report in 1988 when they reported on, “the present unwieldy system of authorising the termination of potentially normal pregnancies on pseudo-legal grounds.”
Balance
In my view the article lacked balance. Extensive comment was included from the Family Planning Association [NZFPA] and from the Abortion Law Reform Association [ALRANZ]. Both of these organisations are advocates for the removal of laws protecting the life of the unborn child. The FPA is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand and performs medical abortions at its Tauranga clinic. According to Dame Margaret Sparrow, a previous national President, ALRANZ has a national membership estimated at 100 members. In my view because of its very small membership it cannot claim to represent the views of New Zealand women or a mass movement seeking the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand.
It is disappointing that as abortion entails the killing of an innocent unborn child, the weakest member of the human family, that comment was not sought from any pro-life organisation in New Zealand in defence of the child or the mother who is the second victim of abortion.
The article states; “Critics argue that the current legislation is out of date, inequitable and the cause of unnecessary distress.” The article would have had balance if it had also stated that critics argue that the vast majority of abortions authorised in New Zealand are unlawful and that innocent and defenceless unborn New Zealanders are being illegally deprived of their lives, this is a great injustice and a crime against humanity. Abortion is violence against vulnerable women and their unborn. Women complain that the abortion industry which is money driven, fails to provide women with full information about alternatives to abortion and the possible complications both short term and long term, that may result from abortion. Critics argue that as revealed in studies conducted at the Epsom Day clinic and the Waikato Hospital that many women seeking an abortion are subject to physical and sexual violence. Right to Life believes that many of these women are coerced into seeking an abortion that they do not want.
The article also lacked balance as there was no consideration of the fact that an abortion is a violation of human rights, the foundation right being the inalienable right to life. The United Nation Declaration of Human Rights states that our rights are both universal and inalienable, being inalienable they may not be given up nor may they be taken from us.
In conclusion, this article is in my view an article composed with the sole objective of advocating for the killing of the unborn. This is disappointing for a nation that kills its own children is a nation without a future.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Secretary,
Right to Life.
Second request from Right to Life to answer formal complaint (which was ignored)
20 April 2018.
Dear Mr Jennings,
I would be grateful if you would advise me when I might expect a reply to my letter of 21 February 2018.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Because this was ignored we have now forwarded our complaint to the Press Council with the original article by Coughlan attached
20th May 2018
Secretary,
Press Council.
Dear Mary,
Official Complaint- Newsroom
I wish to lodge a formal complaint against the Newsroom for an article written by Thomas Coughlan titled “Labour moves to legalise abortion” that was published on 16 February 2018. My complaint is that the article breached the Council’s Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
A complaint was laid with Newsroom on 21 February. As there was no response received, a further letter was sent on 20 April.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Secretary,
Right to Life.
Response from News Council of 21st May 2018
Good morning Ken,
I acknowledge receipt of this complaint against NewsRoom.
As you know the Council recently advised
The Press Council is concerned that the complainant appears unable or unwilling to accept that reporting the expression of views contrary to its own is not a matter of inaccuracy or that it is neither unfair nor unbalanced to report on occasion at rather greater length on one aspect of a long-running issue. It will continue to scrutinise complaints submitted by Right to Life, but unless Right to Life is able to produce at least some cogent evidence of a breach of Press Council principles, it is likely that there will be a recommendation to withdraw the complaint rather than submitting it for a full Council determination.
In assessing it to see if there are any breached of Principles I note that you have said,
The article states that doctors objecting to perform abortions may refuse on the grounds of conscience and are not required to advise the patient. This is incorrect, the doctor is obliged to inform the women why he is refusing to be in any way involved with the termination of the life of a child in utero.
Could you please send me any reference that supports your point here. (Right to Life bolding last line)
Kind regards,
Mary
Right to Life Response to Press Council with link to High Court Decision 2010
29th May 2018
Secretary,
Media Council.
Dear Mary
Thank you for your communication. I wish to confirm that my Society unreservedly accepts the right of a columnist in writing an opinion article to freely express his or her opinion, this right is protected by the Human Rights Act 1993 and by the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Our understanding of the Press Council Principles relating to opinion articles is that a foundation of fact pertains. Are we correct in assuming that where a statement of fact is made that is demonstrably incorrect that this would be a breach of the Media Councils Principles?
The requirement that registered medical practioners are obliged to advise a woman seeking an abortion that they are not prepared on conscience grounds to authorise or perform an abortion is found in the attached judgment of the High Court in Wellington in the case of Halligan v the Medical Council.
[7] There is a further relevant provision in the Health Practitioners Competence
Assurance Act 2003 (the HPCA Act). Section 174 of that Act provides:
Duty of health practitioners in respect of reproductive health services
(1) This section applies whenever—
(a) a person requests a health practitioner to provide a service
(including, without limitation, advice) with respect to
contraception, sterilisation, or other reproductive health
services; and
(b) the health practitioner objects on the ground of conscience to
providing the service.
(2) When this section applies, the health practitioner must inform the
person who requests the service that he or she can obtain the service
from another health practitioner or from a family planning clinic.
On further reflection I note that Dr Christine Roke Medical Advisor of Family Planning states that if one of the two specialists refuse to authorise an abortion, “the woman may need to find a third specialist. This is incorrect section 33 [3] of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 requires the authorising consultant to refer the application for the abortion to a third consultant, it is certainly not the responsibility of the woman to fulfil this task.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr,
Secretary,
Right to Life.
Supporting link to High Court Decision
CATHERINE MARY HALLAGAN
First Plaintiff
AND NEW ZEALAND HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE
INCORPORATED
Second Plaintiff
AND MEDICAL COUNCIL OF NZ
Defendant
Right to Life will keep the public posted on the response of the Press Council to our latest correspondence
Leave a Reply