Right to Life New Zealand

Upholding the sanctity of Human life and Standing Up for the Vulnerable

Abortion violates the right of fathers to protect their children

by 1 Comment

Media Release 1 July 2021

Right to Life supports and encourages men to protect women and their unborn children from the violence of abortion. The Abortion Legislation Act designed by the Prime Minister, violates the human rights of men to protect the life of their child and the welfare of the mother. Human life begins at conception and fatherhood commences at conception. At that moment the unborn child has a mother and a father. It is an intolerable injustice that the law denies the existence of the father, he does not exist, he has no rights. Those who promote the killing of the unborn know that it is necessary to eliminate the father, the natural protector of the mother and his child.

 The Prime Minister, the architect of this extreme anti-life Act claims that the killing of the child is “a reproductive choice for women.” Men also have reproductive rights, this Act discriminates against men. The Act attacks the family by denying that the father is the head of the family, its God appointed protector.

 The government ignores the truth that abortion inflicts on fathers a lifetime of grief,  sorrow and regret that they were unable to protect their child from being violently murdered by the State.

The abortion law gives no recognition to the fact that the unborn child has a father or that the father has rights. The child is not exclusively her child, it is their child.

It is the Creator’s plan for procreation that fathers have the privilege and duty to protect both the mother and the child. How many of the more than 13,000 unborn children killed last year would have been saved if their fathers had been permitted to protect them?

We can vividly imagine their plaintive cries for their father’s protection which were not allowed to be heard, this is an unspeakable crime against humanity.

Fathers have no right to be informed that their child is to be violently killed.

It is an appalling violation of human rights for the government to prevent fathers from protecting the life of their child from being violently murdered.

It is also appalling that fathers are prevented from protecting the mother of their child from the violence of the murder of her child in the safety of her womb. This extreme abortion legislation destroys the trust that should exist between men and women. How can a man trust a women to be the mother of his children when the State gives her the right to have the child killed, effectively up to birth, without his knowledge or consent?

The government is incoherent when it rightly holds the father responsible for providing for the child after birth while denying any right to provide protection for his child before birth.

The Hon Andrew Little in presenting the Abortion Legislation bill at its first reading told Parliament, “that we trust women.” The inference was that we do not trust men who are specifically excluded from this legislation from pleading for the life of their defenceless child destined to a violent killing at the hands of a doctor under the guise that he is providing a government funded health service.

With more than 500,000 unborn children killed since 1978 It is time for the men of New Zealand to rise up and demand an end to the killing of their children, the repeal of  this infamous abortion law and the infliction of violence on the mothers of their children.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Government’s Conspiracy of Silence Descends over Killing of Unborn

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 28 November 2020

The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, the architect of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, has redefined who is human. She determined that the killing of the unborn was to be a “reproductive health issue.”  It is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child because it is not a human being. It becomes a human being with a right to life when it is born. This is a legal fiction used to justify the war against women and the state funded genocide of our children.

This state-funded genocide, as desired by the Prime Minister, is now presided over by the Director General of Health, Dr Bloomfield. He has appointed the Abortion Services Team to organise the genocide under the guise that the killing is a core or essential health service.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee commendably previously produced a 30 page annual report with 11 pages of important statistics concerning abortions in New Zealand, this has now ceased. It is the government’s intention to ensure that Parliament and the community are deprived of as much information as possible to avoid scrutiny and public debate.

To ensure this objective is achieved, the abortionist is required to provide minimal information on the Notification of Abortion form. The following critical information is not required to be divulged:-

•         Many women seek an abortion because of coercion, threats of violence and abandonment, this will not be divulged.

•         The reason why the life of the unborn child was ended, was it done on the pretext to save the mental health of the mother or to prevent serious harm to save the life of the mother. Was it done for sex selection purposes, socioeconomic reasons, or because the child was diagnosed as having Down syndrome, a minor to moderate disability or for some other disability ?

Right to Life believes the government does not want us to know how successful their search and destroy campaign to eliminate children with Down syndrome may be.

•         When a baby is killed post 20 weeks because the abortionist has deemed it appropriate, no information is required from the abortionist  as to why it was appropriate.

•         Whether or not a woman seeks pre-decision or post-abortion counselling.

•         If the pregnancy is the result of rape or sexual violation.

•         Was the abortion carried out in a hospital or was it a medical abortion that was performed at home without medical supervision.

•         In the rare event that a woman dies in an abortion, her death is not required to be reported on the Abortion Notification Form.

Right to Life believes that this Notification of Abortion form fails to recognise the dignity or health of women and their precious unborn children. There is a conspiracy of silence which further victimises women and treats them with contempt. Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. Women with unplanned pregnancies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion. Right to Life has made a substantial submission to the Abortion Services Team on 2nd November requesting that the above questions be included in the Notification of Abortion form. Right to Life is committed to the freedom of information to sustain the ongoing national debate on respect for the sanctity of life and respect for women.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

More lives would be lost, ruined

by 1 Comment

Catherine Gillies

The following article is a guest post by Catherine Gillies.

As a post-abortion counsellor having helped facilitate the healing of many suicidal women and desperate men, I think it’s horrendous that this cruel, uncompassionate and poorly researched abortion legislation is being promoted.
For over 35 years I have heard stories of heart-break – many women are incapacitated by PTSD, or other debilitating conditions. Most women felt they had been vulnerable when they discovered their pregnancy and had no other choice but abortion. They certainly never gave informed consent!

I now work with children and grandchildren of post-abortive women. The long-term impact of that vulnerable “unchoice” is intergenerational trauma, as the living children suffer the consequences of the wounded mother’s unresolved grief for their lost children. I’ve seen mothers grieve a five-week foetus as they would a five-year-old child.

Most major international studies, and importantly, New Zealand studies, indicate abortion has detrimental long-term impacts on a woman’s mental and physical health. There is a great deal of evidence that it also impacts men severely.

The stories I hear of medical sloppiness and women being coerced and lied to about needing to make an immediate decision, whether they discover their pregnancy at five or 15 weeks gestation, are frustrating. Many are shocked to learn the legal time limit in New Zealand has been 20 weeks for the past 40 years.

Removing abortion from the Crimes Act will increase the bullying that already happens within our taxpayer-funded abortion services.

Let’s not lose sight that abortion is a multimillion-dollar business in New Zealand. It is not in the interests of the abortion industry to have informed consent, good pre-abortion counselling, or restrictions or safeguards in their businesses. Removing abortion from The Crimes Act is likely to lead to even more bullying and coercion, more heartache, and lives lost and ruined.

Studies all over the world show that women who have a history of neglect or abuse are far more likely to have abortions, as they do not have the emotional strength to listen to their own desires; they are vulnerable to bullying and coercion. The abortion makes an already vulnerable person hugely weaker, physically and psychologically.

There is a significant social cost of abortion. As a taxpayer, I am concerned how our tax dollars are spent. When taking into account the long-term detrimental impact of abortion, it is potentially the most expensive procedure on which the government spends our health budget. It is the tax system that deals with the long-term impacts.

Evidence shows there is a correlation between abortion and:

* Future mental health problems

* Increased physical health problems

* Increased rates of suicide

* Increased risk of death by homicide

* Higher rates of addictions

* Incarceration rates

* Relationship and family break down

As families and communities we can offer better solutions to vulnerable pregnancies than abortion!

Right to Life Challenges The Spinoff on Abortion Claims

by Leave a Comment

The Editor,

Spinoff.

1st September 2019

Dear Sir,

Formal Complaint

I wish to make a formal complaint against the article “10 common myths about abortion,” published on the 29thAugust 2019. I believe that the article breached Principle 1 of the Press Council, accuracy, fairness and balance.

I fully support the right of free speech which should be used to inform. The media are at the service of the community and I believe have a serious duty when dealing with highly contentious issues of great importance to endeavour to provide the case of both sides of the issue. Regrettably I have not seen any articles that seek to defend the right to life of the unborn and to protect women from coercion, exploitation and violence. The pro-life movement in New Zealand numbers tens of thousands of members and supporters who are passionate about defending women and their unborn. It is ironic that (according to Dame Margaret Sparrow), ALRANZ has an estimated national membership of about 100 members. I question their claim that they represent the views of the majority of New Zealand women.   

Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. Abortion is the only medical procedure that has the specific objective of terminating the life of another innocent and defenceless human being. No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.

Myth One protests that abortion is under the Crimes Act. There is no explanation why abortion is in the Crimes Act. It is actually under Part VIII, Crimes Against the Person. The prohibition of the taking of the life of an innocent human being is the foundation of the law and of medicine. Since 1856 the Crimes Act sections 182, “Killing Unborn Child” and 183,”Misscarriage Defined” have recognised that the killing of an unborn child is a serious crime. These sections state that no woman may be charged with a crime. Abortion is in the Crimes Act also because the state recognises that it has a serious duty to protect the lives of every person from implantation until natural death. The writer is wrong in asserting that the state has no duty to protect the unborn child the most vulnerable member of the human family. 

The article claims that it is not easy to obtain an abortion in New Zealand. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its annual reports consistently advise that 98 per cent of requests for abortion are authorised. Information obtained from the ASC under the Official Information Act reveals that the busiest consultant certifying in the year ending 30 June 2018 received $227,138 in fees for authorising 1452 abortions and declining just four. The second busiest consultant received $159,414 for authorising 1150 abortions and declining just eight. These two consultants were probably abortionists who were paid by the state to perform abortions. We are advised by the Auckland District Health Board that a major reason for women being declined an abortion is that the decision to seek an abortion has been made by the father of the child who coerces the woman with threats of violence and abandonment. 

The article complains that doctors may refuse on conscience grounds to assist in the killing of an unborn child. Doctors are trained to treat the unborn child with great respect as a patient. It is abhorrent for most doctors to be involved with the killing of a patient by referring a pregnant woman to a doctor who is prepared to kill the child.

Myth Two.  The article claims that a major reason for seeking an abortion is that the contraception failed. The ASC reports in its 2018 to Parliament that 8,016 women who had an abortion in 2017 were not using any contraception i.e. 60.3 per cent of the 13,285 women who had an abortion in 2017. The writer makes the claim that “it is wrong to coerce people to do something with their body that they don’t want to do, namely carry a pregnancy.” Woman have an absolute right to not get pregnant, they should exercise that right by abstaining from sexual intercourse. The primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the procreation of the human race and should be confined to marriage. The result of the sexual revolution is women being used, exploited and abandoned. Women deserve better than being left to bring up children as solo mothers living in dire poverty and often with little support. 

Myth Three. The writer claims that anyone with a uterus is capable of experiencing pregnancy. This is an attack on the dignity of women. Only women have been created with a uterus; it is insulting to women to refer to “pregnant people.”

Myth Four. The writer seeks to dehumanise the unborn child by using the medical terms embryo and foetus. The word foetus means little one. Women who are pregnant do not say that they are carrying an embryo or a foetus they are in no doubt that they are pregnant with a baby.

Myth Five. The writer claims that the child in the womb does not feel pain until about the 28th week. Fetal Pain is a reason to end Abortion. Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 14 weeks gestation, maybe even as early as 8 weeks. But perhaps the best source for first-hand experience with fetal pain is an abortionist. As early as 1976, those performing abortions realized that the procedure is painful for the dying fetus. Abortionist John Szenes describes an unborn baby fighting for its life during a saline injection, “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”

Saline solution used in this type of abortion causes intense pain when injected under the skin. This solution is injected into the fetus’s sac, burning the fetus from the outside and poisoning her from the inside. During this slow death, which takes about two hours, the fetus thrashes around inside the womb. Her heart rate more than doubles as a response to the solution, in spite of the fact that her heart is not physically touched by the solution. She dies solely from the pain.

Today’s Methods Are Just As Violent

Saline abortions fell out of use in the 1990s because of the risk to mothers and the frequency of babies being born alive. At the time of Roe v. Wade, saline abortion was the most commonly used form of abortion after 16 weeks. Though the methods have changed, they are no less violent. Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describes 1st trimester dilation and cutterage abortions and 2nd trimester dilation and evacuation abortions, two common practices which tear babies limb from limb, finally crushing the skull to fit it through the cervix. “The abortionist knows he has crushed the skull when a white substance comes out of the cervix. This was the baby’s brains.” Dr. Levatino also describes babies being deprived of shelter and nutrients inside the womb by abortion pills and being poisoned with a digoxen injection piercing the baby’s head or chest.

Myth Six. The writer claims that there is no evidence that abortion results in breast cancer. This is an important issue as 600 women tragically die from breast cancer every year in New Zealand. It is acknowledged by medical science that a woman who has an abortion has more cancer prone cells after an abortion than she had before the abortion. The pro -abortion  medical profession refuse to accept the massive research conducted overseas that reveals that abortion increases the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. What if there was research that showed one action could change your risk of breast cancer by 79%? Would it be worth exploring? What if this action only made it 30% more likely you would develop breast cancer? Would you feel entitled to know more?

These questions are at the centre of Punam Kumar Gill’s new documentary film Hush. Gill, an award winning pro-choice feminist filmmaker dared to ask the question, “Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer?” What she discovered changed her life and revealed that few women are equipped with the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision about their pregnancy.

Gill started her search by looking at the opinions of the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Both categorically stated on their websites that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Case closed.

But is the science actually settled on this question?

Having seen the official story, Gill turned to the published research on the subject to see if it matched what women were hearing from the media and the NCI.

Currently there are more than 108 world-wide studies published on abortion and breast cancer. Fifty-three of them found a strong link between abortion and breast cancer. Twenty-three studies found a small link, and only 29 found no link.

In research jargon, a “link” is properly termed a “positive association” or “increased risk” or “risk factor.” It does not define a cause and effect relationship between the risk factor and getting the disease. It’s important to note that having a risk factor does not mean you will definitely come down with a particular condition, just that you are at an increased risk of developing the disease.

Out of the 108 studies, 79 (nearly 3 in 4) found an increased risk between induced abortion and the later development of breast cancer. When she delved deeper, she discovered that studies from all over the world demonstrated a higher rate of breast cancer among women who have had abortions:

10 out of 10 studies conducted in India

30 out of 37 studies conducted in China

5 out of 6 studies in France

4 out of 4 in Japan

Dr. Joel Brind, professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology, performed a meta-analysis of twenty-three available studies in 1996. He found that there was a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.

Brind told Gill, “This about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.” He went on to explain how his meta-analysis was peer-reviewed and conducted in partnership with pro-choice scientists.

In 2014, a meta-analysis published in the international journal Cancer Causes and Control by Yubei Huang et. al of the Tianjin Medical University provided shockingly similar results. Huang examined 36 studies in China and found a 44% average increased risk of breast cancer among women with abortion histories. This risk increased to 76% for those with two abortions and 79% for three. Women have a right to know of the link between abortion and breast cancer. Women have not forgotten how they were lied to by the medical profession about thalidomide which caused severe birth defects in babies in the 1960s.

Myth Eight. The writer claims that women seeking an abortion are made to feel criminals by people who care about women who assemble outside abortion facilities. There is a group who weekly pray and offer help to women attending the abortion facility at the Hastings Hospital. This group has been responsible for offering help and encouragement to women often alone and abandoned in their hour of need with the pleasing result that in recent years a total of 37 babies have been saved from destruction and their mothers from a lifetime of grief and sorrow. If ALRANZ really care about women why are they not out there offering help to women, they do not offer practical help with baby’s clothes, bassinettes and cots to women who choose life for their child? Members of the pro-life movement offer women all the help that they need to care for their baby.

Myth Nine. The writer claims that one in four “people with uteruses” have had an abortion in New Zealand. This statement is insulting to women. This is challenged as every year the ASC reports that about a third of the abortions performed are repeat abortions In 2018, 1,071 women were having their third abortion, 393 their fourth,148 their fifth, 60 their sixth, 22 their seventh and 12 their seventh or more abortion.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life.

Letter to Winston Peters and NZ First MP’s

by 3 Comments

11 July 2019

Rt. Hon. Winston Peters MP,

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you in defence of our precious unborn and their mothers who are under an unprecedented attack.

The State has a serious duty to protect the lives of all members of the human family. The option preferred by the Minister of Justice would remove this protection.  It is contended that in upholding your commendable policy opposing the decriminalisation of abortion and acting in the best interests of the unborn and their mothers, NZ First should refrain from supporting this bill through cabinet and oppose the bill at its first and any subsequent readings. Any bill that seeks to make the killing of the defenceless unborn “a reproductive health service” represents an unprecedented attack on the sanctity of life.  

Right to Life commends NZ First for its defence of the lives of our precious unborn and their mothers. We are aware that NZ First is the only party in Parliament that has a policy to oppose the decriminalisation of abortion. I recall that at the Family First Conference in Auckland in 2014 when you were interviewed by Bob McCoskrie, you stated that “abortions should be legal, safe and rare”. You were asked if you supported the Green’s policy of decriminalising abortion, you replied “no we don’t”. You then said that you believed that life began at conception and that the child had a right to life.

It is reported in the media that your caucus is committed to supporting a bill through cabinet that would remove the killing of the unborn by abortion from the Crimes Act and make the killing of the unborn “a reproductive choice for women”. It is the wish of the Prime Minister to remove the stigma associated with the killing of the unborn and to make the killing of the child no longer a crime, but a health service.

The sanctity of life of the unborn and its right to life are protected under the Crimes Act section 182 Killing unborn child and section 183 Procuring abortion by any means. It is a serious crime to kill a child in the womb. Every- one who violates these sections is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years. This legal protection has been there since 1856, we change it at our peril. 

The Royal Commission in its report to Parliament in 1977 said, on 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.” 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 unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and needs special legal protection. Every day in New Zealand nearly thirty-five children in the womb are violently destroyed and their mothers the second victim of abortion, are left with a life time of grief and sorrow. Our women deserve better.

A poll of a 1,000 respondents conducted by Curia Market Research on behalf of Family First in December 2017, revealed that 96% of NZ First voters were opposed to sex selection abortions. That 38% were opposed to abortions being performed after 15 weeks and a further 10 % were opposed to abortions being done at all. 73 % were opposed to abortions and wanted them reduced.

If we as a society deny the humanity of the unborn, then logically we will one day deny the humanity of those who are suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s. The denial of the humanity and right to life of the unborn is a threat to the right to life of every citizen.

The decriminalisation of abortion will;

  • Allow for sex selection abortions, which are currently unlawful.
  • Allow for abortion up to birth for babies with a disabiliy including Down Syndrome.
  • Not protect women seeking an abortion because they are subject to violence and coercion.

In conclusion, Right to Life requests that you withdraw support for the decriminalisation of abortion and that you use your influence to have the current unlawful abortion on demand stopped. Please promote adoption as a loving option.

Thank you for all that you are doing to defend life, protecting women from the violence of abortion and promoting the common good.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary.

Is the government really concerned about violence against women?

by Leave a Comment

In the open letter to the Prime Minister on the front page of the NZ Herald on Sunday 16 December, there were calls for the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to prevent and end violence against women and to to allocate adequete resources to, “Ensure that every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand has access to culturally appropriate domestic and sexual violence support and healing services when and where they need it”. 
Right to Life contends that an important first step to this objective is for the government to reject its current proposal to decriminalise abortion and to instead promote adoption, as an appropriate response. For surely, when lethal violence – against a pre-born (female) child – is seen as the default government funded solution to the problem of an unplanned pregnancy, then it is nothing but hypocrisy for the government to be talking about a “comprehensive strategy to prevent and end violence against women.

Right to Life fe is opposed to all violence against at women at all stages of life and fully supports this open letter. Right to Life commends the Prime Minister for opposing violence against born women but must ask why does she not recognise the killing of the unborn as violence against both women and their defenceless unborn?

New Zealand is a violent country. We have some of the worst statistics for sexual violence, domestic violence and violence against women in the OECD.

To our shame, on average thirteen women are murdered each year in New Zealand. Our Police respond to an incident of domestic abuse every five and a half minutes. Eighty per cent of domestic violence goes unreported. Why are we so violent?

Abortion is the ultimate in domestic violence and violence against women. Each and every day  35 women are violated by an abortionist and 35 unborn children are killed. In a surgical abortion, the abortionist violently forces his way into the womb of a woman for the purpose of stopping a beating heart and dismembering her child by tearing off its arms and legs. This preventable violence is sanctioned and funded by the government. The government is currently deceiving women by promoting this killing as a human right, a health service and a “reproductive health choice for women”. How many of these women are victims of male violence and are being coerced by threats of violence and abandonment? These are the men who see women as sexual objects, who are there for their gratification, men who have rejected the Creator’s plan for procreation and demand abortion as a backup for failed contraception.

New Zealand is grieving and mourning the death of Grace Millane cruelly murdered in Auckland. Her violent killing has touched the heart and conscience of the nation. A beautiful young woman with her whole life before her, trusting that she would be safe in our country, has had that trust shattered as she is taken from us on the eve of her twenty-second birthday. This is an appalling tragedy.

But so is the fact that every day in New Zealand an estimated eighteen women are violently killed in their mother’s womb.

Right to Life believes that the fundamental reason for violence against women by men is because women are increasingly sexualised as objects of male gratification. Women have an intrinsic dignity conferred on them by their Creator as the creator of new life. Mothers are the heart of the home for the natural family, comprising exclusively one man and one woman. It is the duty of men to be the protector of women and children. When men lose respect for women and see them as sexual objects, there for their gratification, respect quickly turns to violence and abandonment.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Is Andrew Little in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi?

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 3 December 2018

In an unprecedented attack on the sanctity of life of the unborn the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of Justice propose that the killing of children before birth should not be a crime.

 The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, at the direction of the Prime Minister proposes to amend the Crimes Act to remove women and their unborn from the protection of the Crimes Act. This Act provides legal protection for women and unborn children against the violence of abortion, it also protects the right to life of the unborn, which has been in the Crimes Act since 1856.

 Right to Life believes that the decriminalisation of abortion would be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and requests our submission be referred to the Waitangi Tribunal for a decision on this matter.

 Right to Life wrote to the Minister of Maori Development, the Hon. Nanaia Mahuta, in June 2018, requesting that she refer our submission to the Waitangi Tribunal for a decision, but she refused to do this, stating it would be inappropriate.

The Minister of Justice proposes that there would be no statutory test until 22 weeks of pregnancy. After 22 weeks pregnancy, the health practitioner intending to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the women’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Right to Life believes that this represents a complete withdrawal by the government of protection for women and their unborn from the violence of abortion, including Maori. In the view of Right to Life, this would be a breach of Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Jacinda Ardern proposes that abortion, the killing of the unborn, should be taken out of the Crimes Act and treated as a reproductive issue of choice for women. It is her belief, and that of her government, that the killing of unborn children, those in Te Whare Tamariki, before birth, should not be a crime.

When the Treaty was signed at Waitangi in 1840, the Crown gave an assurance that Maori people would have the Queen’s protection and all the rights and privileges of British subjects.

We believe the protection of the Crown for the Maori people included the protection for the right to life of Maori from the beginning of pregnancy until death, which was provided by the common law of England and in the New Zealand Crimes Act since 1856.

For the government acting as the Crown to withdraw this protection for Maori women and their unborn would, in our view, be a serious violation of the Treaty.

Section 182. “Killing Unborn Child” of The Crimes Act provides protection for the life of the unborn including Maori. It is a serious crime to kill an unborn child and on conviction a person may be imprisoned for a term up to 14 years. Section 183. “Procuring abortion by any means” prohibits unlawful abortion, this is also a serious crime and every one on conviction, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. This section also states that; “the woman or girl shall not be charged as a party to an offence against this section.” It would be a great injustice for the government to remove this protection.

Why do Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little believe that it should not be a crime to kill an innocent and defenceless unborn child, by abortion?

It is the government’s intention to make it no longer a crime to kill an unborn child in an abortion. Those children who are classified as unwanted will be taken out of the Crimes Act in order that they may be killed as a health service as a “reproductive choice for women” These children will lose the protection of the Crown.

The decriminalisation of abortion would be a violation of the human rights of unborn children and an attack on the dignity of all mothers, including Maori mothers.

It would be a declaration from the Crown that we have no interest in protecting the life of your child or protecting you from the violence of abortion, that your child is your property and it is your choice whether your child lives or dies.

The abortion rate for Maori is disturbingly high. In 2017 there were 3,111 abortions on Maori women, 23.4% of the total of 13,285 abortions reported in New Zealand.

Right to Life believes that if abortion is decriminalised, it will result in more pressure and coercion imposed on Maori women to terminate the lives of their child by the father of the child, who may abandon the mother if she does not have an abortion.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.

Abortion Violence is Not a Health Issue Jacinda Ardern

by 2 Comments

The state has a duty to protect women and their unborn from violence. In 1856 the New Zealand Parliament recognised that abortion was violence against both women and the unborn and made abortion unlawful under the Crimes Act, Part VIII Crimes against the Person. Abortion was recognised as a serious crime in the Common Law of England. 

The Labour led government of Jacinda Ardern under the guise of empowering women is proposing to decriminalise abortion and disguise the violence by calling it a “health service” this is not empowerment but slavery. 

Abortion is not health care. The government’s proposal is a shameful abandonment of women and will expose women to increased violence. This cruel deception of women perpetrated by the government is deceiving women into believing that their unborn child has no value and that the state has no interest in protecting her or her defenceless unborn. Their claim is that, when we kill an unborn child, we do no harm as it is not a human being and it therefore has no rights.

Vulnerable women will be exposed to increased coercion, physical and sexual violence from the father of their children who will be empowered to impose pressure on women to terminate the life of their children. This is because for the many women who are facing coercion to abort their child against their will, they will, if abortion is no longer a crime, have even less power to resist the coercion of the father or those pushing them in the direction of killing. Arguments such as “it’s only a health issue”, will be used against the mother. [Read more…]

Formal Complaint Against Newsroom Re Abortion Article Bias

by Leave a Comment

Image result for media biasMr 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. [Read more…]

Where Have All Our Children Gone?

by Leave a Comment

where have all the children goneMedia Release Wednesday 31st January 2018

This week our nation should be in mourning for our missing children who will never go through the school gates. They have been deprived of their lives in the ‘sanctuary’ of their mother’s womb.

”I will never know the tides of time; For I was coming but unloved, and that my only crime. Nameless am I, a grain of sand One of the countless dead, but the deed that make me ashen grey, floats on seas of red.” [Ballad of the Unborn Child]

Nearly 10,000 5 year olds will commence their schooling  this week, happy and laughing, full of the joy of life. A total of 50,000 5 year olds are expected during the four terms of 2018. Sadly around 13,170 who would have been the same age are missing. What would have been there joy and laughter replaced by a deathly silence. This represents nearly 526 empty class rooms. What a loss to our nation. They join the ranks of the 500,000 children who have been murdered in their mother’s womb since 1977. These are the children who were considered of little worth and whose lives were terminated by abortion. These are the nameless and whose only record of existence is a cold statistic in the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s annual report to Parliament of 2014.

[Read more…]

This is the website of Right to Life NZ Inc.
%d bloggers like this: