Media Release 13 August 2022
Christopher Luxon is asking our community to trust him to lead the next government as our Prime Minister. Right to Life believes that he has forfeited his right to aspire to this office and because of his failure to defend life is unelectable. Those who cannot be trusted to protect the unborn should not be trusted to protect the lives of the born.
Those who govern do so with the permission of the governed. The first duty of government is to protect the lives of every member of our community from conception to natural death. The community should be aware that regrettably, Christopher Luxon who claims to be pro-life, has stated that he is not prepared to fulfil that duty.
Right to Life was advised by his office on 9th August, “New Zealand’s abortion laws were settled under the last Parliament and Christopher has been clear that they will not be changing under a government he leads. This is also his response regarding euthanasia.” On 27th June on RNZ he said; “These laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government, and these health services will remain fully funded”.
Does he really believe that he is going to capture the female vote by funding the killing of 13,000 unborn children every year as a “fully funded” health service?
Will National now only select candidates for the next election who are prepared to ignore their conscience and remain silent in opposing the violence of abortion against women and defending the right to life of the unborn?
Our laws are not settled ,they are constantly subject to amendment and repeal. If our laws were settled, women would have been denied the right to vote. The only fixed laws are God’s commandments. Why is Christopher Luxon not committed to upholding the fifth commandment, Thou shalt not kill?
Right to Life asks Christopher Luxon, who claims to be a passionate feminist, why he supports the war on women and opposes the right of women to be born. Abortion is violence against women and their unborn. Right to Life makes no apology for speaking up in defence of women, the lives of our precious unborn children and our vulnerable elderly threatened with being killed by their doctor. We will not be silenced and are pledged to vote only for Members of Parliament who will defend life!
We all have a duty to defend life. The unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family that deserves our respect and protection. Our unborn children are the most persecuted members of our community with one in five being poisoned, sucked out of their mother’s wombs or being violently dismembered before birth. It is a tragedy that Christopher Luxon refuses to hear the silent scream of the unborn as their limbs are violently ripped from their bodies.
Christopher Luxon also accepts as settled law that the End of Life Choice Act 2019 empowers doctors to give a lethal injection to kill our vulnerable patients in a terminal condition or to assist in their suicide. It is appalling that he has now pledged that a National government under his direction will not amend or repeal this evil law.
Right to Life requests that Christopher Luxon adopt the mantle of a statesman who is concerned for the next generation and not the mantle of a politician who is only concerned with winning the next election.
Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life NZ Inc.
What about the other arm of the pro-life cause, namely our opposition to the deathmongering euthanasia juggernaut? I notice that no-one has asked Mr Luxon about whether he will dispose of the End of Life Choices Act either. Of course, that would cause an upset with National’s likely coalition partner, ACT, which looks set to have a disproportionate influence on our country if the right wins the next election. What worries me (and, I’m certain, you as well, my dear friends), is that ACT will exploit any such role to broaden and liberalise our monstrous euthanasia legislation still further, abolishing the disability “barrier” to consent to euthanasia and expanding the criteria for terminal illness to encompass a liberalised longer interval, perhaps even giving ‘competent’ adolescents the ‘right’ to end their own life against the wishes of their parents or caregivers. Frankly, I don’t trust ACT not to do so if it had the chance, do you?
We will certainly be doing all we can to stop Act’s certain drive to expand the culture of death.