24th July 2019
Hon Andrew Little MP,
Minister of Justice,
I am very concerned about the health and welfare of women. I therefore wish to bring to your attention information concerning the encouragement of the unlawful importation of prescription drugs in contravention of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 and the Crimes Act 1961.
The prescription only drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol are used in New Zealand for chemical abortions. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 requires that these drugs be only prescribed by “operating surgeons” following the authorisation of an abortion in accordance with the Crimes Act section 187A. These drugs are required to be administered only in facilities licenced for abortions.
It us unlawful for any person to import them into New Zealand across the border without authority. It is also unlawful to use these drugs to perform an unlawful abortion.
The Abortion Law Reform Association Inc has a web site that encourages persons to visit another site for the purpose of unlawfully importing these prohibited drugs. It minimises the risk of being discovered and makes no mention of the very real threat to the health and lives of women who use these drugs in their own home without medical supervision. For your information I have included the link to the ALRANZ site.
I would be grateful if you would kindly advise me what action you take in this important issue.
Right to Life.
23rd July 2019
Hon, Tracey Martin MP,
Minister for Children,
I am writing in defence of women and our precious unborn children. Today the most dangerous place for a child is in its mother’s womb. It is reported in the media that you are working with the Minister of Justice to have the government bill to decriminalise abortion reconciled with your Party’s policy.
You stated that it was your overriding principle to keep abortion “safe legal and rare.”
Abortion is never safe for the child who is violently dismembered in its mother’s womb, nor is it legal as the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] has reported to Parliament that the law is not been interpreted as intended by Parliament. In 1988 the Committee reported that we had at “present an unwieldly system of authorising the termination of potentially normal pregnancies on pseudo-legal grounds.” Since 1978 more than 98 per cent of abortions are authorised on the grounds of mental health which the ASC advised in 1995 at the initial Select Committee hearing in Parliament was the grounds used by certifying consultants to “provide abortion on demand.” The ASC advise in its 2018 report that in 2017 there were 181 abortions for every 1,000 known pregnancies. With nearly one in five pregnancies ending with the killing of the child, abortion in New Zealand is not rare.
It is my contention that the fundamental issue is not abortion but the status of the unborn child. If Parliament denies the humanity of the unborn child and moves the child from the protection of the Crimes Act sections 182 and 183 and allows the killing of the child as a health service, we will be setting a very important precedent. A future Parliament could decide that those with dementia and Alzheimer’s are no longer human beings and may be killed as a health service.
The Minister of Justice is not serving the best interests of women and the unborn by ignoring the learned findings of the Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion which made the following conclusions in its report to Parliament in 1977:-
• “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”
• “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.”
• 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 Commission rejected abortion at the request of the mother as it would then accord to the unborn child only that status which the individual woman herself chose to give it.
The State has a compelling interest and duty to protect the lives of its future citizens, it would be an intolerable injustice for the State to declare that it has no duty to protect the lives of New Zealanders in the first nine months of life. To deny the humanity of the unborn child is a serious threat to the right to life of every New Zealander.
In the interest of women and future generations I urge you to please use your influence to maintain the status of the unborn child as the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family deserving of our respect and with the continued protection of the Crimes Act.
Thank you for all that you are doing to promote the common good.
Right to Life