Right to Life requests that the government conduct a referendum on the taxpayer funding of the abortion industry at the 2020 general election. The government promotes the false “right of women to choose an abortion”, yet denies the right of the taxpayer the choice to refuse to fund abortions. As taxpayers we are compelled to fund abortion, a refusal to pay taxes could result in a heavy fine or imprisonment.
Since 1977 the government has decreed without consultation and the consent of the taxpayer, that the killing of the unborn in New Zealand is a core health service to be funded by the taxpayer with unlimited funding.
This is an intolerable injustice:-
- It makes all taxpayers complicit in the murder of the innocent and defenceless unborn children.
- It soils our hands with the blood of the innocent, placing an intolerable burden on the conscience of the nation.
- It implicates all taxpayers in the damage inflicted on women’s health through abortion.
Right to Life also again asks why, with the full knowledge that abortion is the murder of a human being, are the churches silent in protesting this appalling injustice?
The community has been coerced by this pure evil as it is promoted in the beguiling words of the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little as “a reproductive health service of choice for women”, it is not!
Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. The unborn child is a patient that needs special care and protection. Abortion is the only “health service” that has the specific objective of killing the patient.
In 1988 the Abortion Supervisory Committee in its report to Parliament noted that we had an “unwieldly system of authorisations of abortions for potentially normal pregnancies on pseudo legal grounds.” Right to life believes that the Committee was alluding to the 97 per cent of abortions that are authorised on socio economic grounds masquerading as mental health. Dr Christine Forster, a former chairman of the Committee is on record as stating, (these) “are the grounds used by certifying consultants to provide abortion on demand”.
Right to Life believes that the majority of taxpayers are opposed to their taxes being used to fund abortion. Marist polls conducted in the United States reveal that 68 percent of those polled are opposed to their taxes funding abortion. In the United States Federal funding of abortion is mostly prohibited. Polls in the United States also reveal that the absence of taxpayer funding for abortion encourages 18 to 35 per cent of women to choose life for their baby and continue with their pregnancy.
There were 13,285 abortions reported in 2017. Why should the taxpayer be required to pay for these abortions authorised for social reasons masquerading as mental health? Abortions in public hospitals cost on average $1100.00. That is a total cost in excess of $14 million and this excludes the more than $4 million in fees paid to certifying consultants in 2017 for authorising abortions. This money should and could be used for funding genuine medical procedures, such as hip and knee operations.
Right to Life believes that the government should in the interest of the lives of unborn children; our future citizens, the health of women and justice for the taxpayer provide a referendum on taxpayer abortion funding at the 2020 general election.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life
I. Tried to vote NO but the option box is not responding
Hi Gloria, Thanks for that. This was actually not a poll. The picture was simply a graphic. However thank you, we need as many people to speak out about this as possible.
NZ tax payers should not fund abortions . It is murder in the first degree.
Hi Magdalene,
We totally agree
No we the tax payer shouldn’t have to pay for the murder of the unborn New Zealanders, as a Christian woman this goes against everything I believe in. Abortion should still be illegal
Thanks Rowan,
Please speak out on this issue. We need to raise awareness, especially now that Jacinda Ardern has the bit between her teeth to decriminalise aboriton.
No. We shouldn’t fund abortion.
Thanks Steve,
Please spread the word.
That is a personal choice to have an abortion. It is not a health risk to be pregnant. There should be personal responsibility and the individual should pay for it not the tax payer. I oppose this funding of tax payer money for an individual’s choice.
Thank you
Thanks Ingrid
No, Abortion is not in the best interest of the baby – it takes its life and in a brutal way.
Abortion is not in the best interest of the baby’s mother – it places the mother’s life in jeopardy; allows for the possibility that her uterus may be punctured; increases her risk of miscarriage; increases her risk of breast cancer; increases her risk of premature delivery of future babies…should she be able to have any more, and increases the risk of mental illness or depression or alcoholism or drug addiction or self-harm. Is this ‘Women’s Health’?
Thank you for your comments.
Please help spread the truth about abortion.
The only problem that I have with this is that the radical libertarians will jump onboard the pro-abortion side and expell venom in the general direction of solo mums who were brave enough not to listen to the abortion industry and not abort their precious unborn children- particularly those pressured to do so if the foetus was subject to prenatal ultrasound ‘search and destroy’ and was found to be disabled. As Melinda Tankard Reist, the Australian pro-life feminist, says, the latter women give ‘defiant birth.’
Added to which, look at the United States before the Casey decision in the early nineties. If publically funded abortion access is cut off for poor and working class women, it won;t be an obstacle for middle-class women who will abort their unborn cjhildren in privately run abortion clinics like AMAC in Auckland instead. There will be no real reduction in the number of unborn children aborted, which is not want we should be aiming for. Well intentioned, but we need to make more altruistic and compassionate arguments for the right to life.
I tried to make an earlier comment, but here’s some critical feedback. The problem with use of this particular incremental pro-life strategy was that while taxpayer funded abortions were knocked out under the Hyde Amendment, so the unborn children of lower income women weren’t aborted, middle-class women went to privately run abortion clinics instead, and consequently, there was no real reduction in the total number of abortions in the United States until the Casey decision in 1993 heralded the arrival of more effective incremental restructions on abortion access. In other words, little real inroad was made into the deaths of US unborn children and the traumatisation of women through post-abortion syndrome.
The other problem is that New Zealand is more in the western mainstream than the United States and has a functioning comprehensive welfare state. I grieve that taxpayer funds are paid toward the death of unborn children too, but the problem with this strategy is that about half of the New Zealand public is unsympathetic toward further government spending cuts and welfare restrictions. The pro-abortionists will seize on this and package it as exactly that, and slam us for being ‘right wing’ ‘service cutters.” We could end up alienating Labour supporters who haven’t thought about the abortion issue, but who oppose welfare cutbacks. Moreover, some radical libertarian pro-abortionist is going to make a cost-benefit analysis and point out (sickeningly) that removing government funding from ‘underclass’ pregnancy, birth and child government income support will “save more money” than not engaging in taxpayer funded abortions… and do pro-lifers really want to go down that road?
What I’d prefer is what Democrats for Life did while the Obama administration was in power instead, arguing for greater funding of prenatal and birth care, as well as ongoing welfate support for pregnant women and their families. That will win over uncommitted left-wing voters who haven’t fully formed their ideas about abortion.
Finaly, the disabled community are also users of government welfare services and many of them will be antagonised by this perspective too- particularly given the brutal cuts in benefits to disabled people in the United Kingdom, and to elderly peoples services in the Netherlands.
We care for the unborn child, her mother and families. Please, let’s step away from this questionable strategy and concentrate on policies that will rea;lly reduce the abortion toll