Right to Life New Zealand

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

Ombudsman Complaint Against MOH Refusal to Provide Abortion Information

by 4 Comments

15 September 2020

Ombudsman,

Office of the Ombudsman,

Dear Sir,

 Official Information Act request –Complaint

I wish to lay a complaint against the Ministry of Health for declining to provide information requested in my Official Information Act request of 4 August 2020.

The information was withheld under section 9[2][a] of the Act, to protect the privacy of individuals. It is alleged that the release of this information may indirectly identify the people that it relates to due to the specific nature of these questions.

My complaint relates specifically to the following questions:-

  1. The number of abortions that were performed by Women’s Clinics in Masterton, Palmerston North and Invercargill?
  1. The number of abortions that were performed by registered midwives?
  1. The number of abortions that were performed in Family Planning clinics?

The Director General of Health has a statutory duty under the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 to provide Parliament with regular statistics on abortion. It is noted that the Abortion Supervisory Committee since 1978 also had a statutory duty to provide Parliament  with an annual report on the performance of abortion in New Zealand. This report was substantial and comprised more than forty pages. It was readily available to the community. This report included a list of all the registered abortion facilities and the number of abortions that had been performed in the facility in the year of reporting..

The women’s clinics  in Masterton, Palmerston North and Invercargill are clinics owned by the Magma Health Care Ltd  a private company that has contracts with a number of District Health Boards to kill unwanted children before birth. We share the Ministry’s concern about protecting privacy. I would note that with the experience of forty-seven years involvement in the pro-life movement I know of no instance where the listing of abortion facilities has resulted in a breach of privacy. I believe that the public have a right to know the number of abortions funded by the taxpayer that are performed by a private company for profit.

According to the Midwifery Council in New Zealand there were 3,171 registered midwives in New Zealand in 2019. Prior to the passing of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 abortions could be lawfully performed only by registered medical practitioners. The new law came into operation on 24th March and now permits midwives to perform medical abortions. I believe that Parliament and the public have a right to know how many abortions are performed by midwives. I do not believe that release of this information will impact on the privacy of midwives or of their patients.

The Family Planning Association with thirty clinics are the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand. I am aware that the Association has a policy to turn all of its clinics into abortion clinics. I consider it appalling that the Ministry intends to keep  secret the number of abortions that are being performed by Family Planning.

It is inconceivable that the government wish to treat the killing of the defenceless unborn as a routine health service and “a reproductive health choice for women” while at the same time withholding important information from Parliament and the public.

It is my belief that it is the intention of the Ministry to discourage a continuing public debate on the killing of our innocent unborn and the health and welfare of their mothers, the second victim of abortion.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr,

Secretary

Why has the Prime Minister Redefined who is Human?

by 4 Comments

Media Release 9 August 2020

Why has the Prime Minister Redefined who is Human?

The Ministry of Health; “The term unborn child is not a scientific term and does not have a commonly accepted definition.”

The Prime Minister said in September 2018, “If you ask me why I’m in politics, my answer will be simple: children.”

Right to Life respectfully questions this assertion.

The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is the first Prime Minister in the history New Zealand who has sought to usurp the authority of the Creator to redefine who is human and the bearer of human rights. In doing so she has sought to usurp the authority of the Creator. Our humanity is a gift from God. Human life begins at conception at which moment we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. Our rights being inalienable they cannot be taken from us, nor may we give them up.

Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, as the architect of the anti-life and anti-feminist Abortion Legislation Act 2020 which has redefined the unborn child as a non- human being. Right to Life has to ask why is the child now the property of the mother?  Why does It become a human being endowed with a right to life endowed with an inalienable right to life only when it is born? This is a legal fiction that is an affront to the Creator, an offence to women, a violation of the human rights of the child and a crime against humanity. It allows the government to sanction and fund the killing of nearly 13,000 defenceless unborn children each year.

Right to Life submitted to the Prime Minister an Official Information Act request on the 21 April 2020. The request was:

“What medical or biological evidence do you have to prove that the unborn child is not a human being with a right to life until it is born?”

The Prime Minister has refused to answer this important question. The Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister’s office replied on 22 May. “I believe that the information requested is more closely connected with the functions of the Ministry of Justice. Accordingly I have decided under section 14[b] [ii} of the Act transfer the request to the Ministry of Justice.” The Ombudsman has advised Right to Life that this is a legal ploy used by Ministers who wish to avoid being accountable.

The Ministry of Justice replied on 10 June. ” Information to which your request relates is not held by us but is more closely connected with the functions of the Ministry of Health,” your request has been referred to the Ministry of Health. The Acting Deputy Director General of Health, Clare Perry replied on 3rd July.

“The Royal Commission you refer to is now 50 years old.” The Law Commission’s report to the Minister of Justice on taking abortion out of the Crimes Act and making abortion a health issue,”only uses the term unborn child when referring to existing legislative provisions that include it, as it is not a scientific term and does not have a commonly accepted definition. The term unborn child is not used in recently amended Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 (CS & A Act). The information you are seeking is not held by the Ministry and would need to be created in order to respond to your request.”

These disturbing responses are the fruits of a culture of death. A prime Minister who refuses to answer a fundamental question on the humanity of the unborn child. The Minister of Justice who has removed reference to the unborn child and its human rights from legislation specifically drafted for the killing of the child and lastly the Ministry of Health that declares that there is no commonly accepted definition of an unborn child. Only the triumph of a culture of life based on truth and justice that recognises the dignity of women, the humanity and right to life of our precious unborn can save our nation from this increasing and violent war on women.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Authorised by Paul Ives, 22C McBrattneys Rd, Dallington, Christchurch 8061

Right to Life Appeals to Government to Use Only Ethical Cell Lines for Vaccine Research

by Leave a Comment

9th May 2020

Hon Dr David Clark

Minister of Health,

Dear Minister,

I believe that the government has a moral obligation to refuse to fund research or purchase morally contentious vaccines to fight Coronavirus and other threats to life and health that have been derived from cell lines of children who have been killed in abortion.

There are many in our community who are deeply opposed to the use of cell lines that have been developed from the tissue of babies who have been murdered in abortion. The government has a duty to offer to the community vaccines that will not violate the conscience of those who are opposed to the killing of the innocent. We should not have to accept vaccines from aborted cell lines when other more morally acceptable alternatives exist.

Vaccines derived from cell lines of aborted babies contain the complete DNA of the aborted baby that has not given consent for the use of its tissue for unethical research.

Right to Life notes for moral guidance that the Congregation for the Faith in Rome issued an instruction, Dignitas Personae in 2008. “The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the centre of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world.”

Vaccines are developed on the cultures of human tissue of babies killed before birth, precisely because they are human. It would be hypocritical of the government to purchase these vaccines when it has just recently rushed through Parliament the anti-life Abortion Legislation Act on the pretext that the unborn child is not a human being. Is the government now prepared to concede that the unborn child is a human being and that its tissue can be used to develop vaccines?

There are two main aborted cell lines developed in 1964 and 1970 from healthy aborted children killed in the second trimester that are used to produce vaccines. There were hundreds of unborn babies killed before these cell lines were perfected. New cell lines continue to be developed from the human remains of babies killed before birth.

French pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur is hoping to have a morally acceptable vaccine ready for human testing later this year. Two American companies, Johnson & Johnson and Maderna expect to commence human testing, the former in July and the latter in September 2020. Both of these companies are using unethical aborted cell lines. The government should not purchase unethically produced vaccines from these companies.

“Governments should seek to fund research on, and purchase, morally uncontentious vaccines, both to reward morally uncontentious research and to provide more citizens with vaccines they can in conscience accept, with full background information. Internationally, there are many vaccines that have been developed using aborted baby cell lines, it is very much to be hoped that morally uncontentious vaccines will be made widely available to all peoples of the world, both to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and to combat other threats to life and health,

I understand that the Malaghan Institute in Dunedin has sought government funding to produce a vaccine to fight Coronavirus. I believe that they will be using a cell line to produce this vaccine, however, it has not been possible to ascertain if it will be using an unethical cell line to develop the vaccine.

I would be grateful if you would advise me, whether the government has provided any funding to the Malaghan Institute or any other pharmaceutical company to research a vaccine to combat Coronavirus.

Are you committed to opposing firstly, funding research and secondly purchasing vaccine that uses unethically obtained aborted human tissue?

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life

Is the Government really Serious about protecting Women’s Health?

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 7th May 2020

The New Zealand government now clearly intends to treat the murder of our unborn children as a health issue. It was a crime and should remain a crime. However abortion, previously administered by the Justice Department now comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

Right to Life has received from the Ministry of Health under the Official Information Act a copy of the notification form to be used by abortionists to report an abortion to the Ministry. It is disappointing that the notification form requires very little information (see end of hyperlinked document), and that important information that Right to Life believes is absolutely critical for the health and welfare of women, is not sought.

We reluctantly conclude that the Ministry does not want to collect information that would require the Ministry to be actively involved in protecting the health and welfare of women. We believe that they wish to withhold contentious information on the treatment of women from the scrutiny of Parliament and the public.

Right to Life does not apologise for speaking up in defence of women. We ask the Ministry why the following information is not sought, collated and acted upon. Previously the now disbanded Abortion Supervisory Committee required the woman’s name on the abortion notification. Now the woman is dehumanised, her name is not required, she like her unborn child has become a victim of abortion and simply a statistic.

We make the following observations/and raise questions regarding the serious shortfalls that we believe are inherent in the administration of the provisions of the new Act:

  • The reason for an abortion is now not required. We know that previously 98% of all abortions were done for socio-economic reasons masquerading under the guise of mental health, the grounds used by abortionists to provide abortion on demand. Now that doctors do not feel obliged to lie, why cannot they disclose the reason for killing the child? This is especially important for post 20 week abortions.
  • Was the woman seeking an abortion because she was a victim of rape or incest? If the girl was under the age of 16 years, sexual intercourse with this girl would be statutory rape.  Why is there no requirement in the form for the abortionist to report the alleged crime to the Ministry of Health and the Police?
  • Why is there no requirement in the form for recording if a woman received pre- decision or post abortion counselling and evidence that she declined it?
  • Why is there no requirement for an abortionist to report the reasons for declining to terminate the life of an unborn child on the form. Is the Ministry is assuming that no requests will be declined?
  • While there is a continuing requirement that complications arising from the abortion and detected prior to discharge after an abortion must be reported, we believe that complications that arise after discharge should also be required to be reported. If a woman ends up in A & E at hospital with a complication following an abortion, the complication and possible admittance to hospital should need to be reported.  The fact that complications following abortion have never been recorded, add to the myth that abortion is safe and in fact safer than giving birth. This is simply incorrect.
  • Why is there no provision for reporting whether a woman is being coerced into having an abortion and/or has been threatened with violence and abandonment? Overseas studies in the United States reveal that 40% of women are coerced into having an abortion. This is a serious health issue for women. In the United States homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women.
  • The Abortion Supervisory Committee required that the abortionist encouraged any girl under the age of 16 to consult and seek support from her parents or guardian. There is no reason for the Ministry to discontinue collecting this information. In removing this requirement the Ministry is revealing a shocking lack of regard for the well being of both the girl, her child and her parents.

Right to Life believes that the abortion industry is now being given freedom to operate behind closed doors, beyond the scrutiny of Parliament and the public.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Government must reject Covid 19 Vaccines that use aborted baby cell lines

by 2 Comments

Media Release May 2nd 2020

The government has a moral obligation to refuse to fund research or purchase morally contentious vaccines to fight Coronavirus and other threats to life and health, that have been derived from cell lines of children who have been killed in abortion.

It is abhorrent that vaccines developed from aborted cell lines contain the DNA of the children who were aborted.

Right to Life is writing to the Minister of Health requesting that the government purchase only ethically produced vaccines to combat the coronavirus.

The government has a duty to offer to the community vaccines that will not violate the conscience of those who are opposed to the killing of the innocent. We should not have to accept vaccines from aborted cell lines when other more morally acceptable alternatives exist.

The Congregation for the Faith in Rome issued an instruction, Dignitas Personae in 2008. The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the centre of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world.

Vaccines are developed on the cultures of human tissue of babies killed before birth, precisely because they are human. It would be hypocritical of the government to purchase these vaccines when it has just recently rushed the anti-life Abortion Legislation Act through parliament on the pretext that the unborn child is not a human being. Is the government now prepared to concede that the unborn child is a human being?

There are two main aborted cell lines developed in 1964 and 1970 from healthy aborted children killed in the second trimester that are used to produce vaccines. There were hundreds of unborn babies killed before these cell lines were perfected. New cell lines continue to be developed from the human remains of babies killed before birth.

French pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur is hoping to have a morally acceptable vaccine ready for human testing later this year. Two American companies, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna expect to commence human testing, the former in July and the latter in September 2020. Both of these companies are using unethical aborted cell lines. The government should not purchase unethically produced vaccines from these companies.

Governments should seek to fund research on, and purchase, morally uncontentious vaccines, both to reward morally uncontentious research and to provide more citizens with vaccines they can in conscience accept. Internationally, there are many vaccines that have been developed using aborted baby cell lines. it is very much to be hoped that morally un-contentious vaccines will be made widely available to all peoples of the world, both to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and to combat other threats to life and health.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

“Interim Standards for Abortion Services in New Zealand” – Right to Life Suggests Amendments

by 2 Comments

Dr Ashley Bloomfield,
Director General of Health,
24th April 2020Dear Dr Bloomfield,

I wish to request that consideration be given to the following suggestions for amending the “Interim Standards for Abortion Services in New Zealand”.

Information for Women

Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy

This statement is untrue. The abortion is not safe for the unborn child. Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. Pregnancy is a normal condition that with care from health professionals who provide care for both mother and child terminates with a live birth.  Abortion is the only medical procedure that has the specific intention of killing a patient, an unborn child. Abortion is neither safe for the mother who may be left with a lifetime of regret and sorrow, nor for the unborn child who is violently killed. It is abhorrent that the Ministry should be seen as promoting the destruction by abortion of innocent and defenceless unborn children by making this statement. I request that consideration be given to replacing that statement with the following statement, Human life begins at conception and that abortion entails the destruction of a unique and unrepeatable miracle of the Creator.

Long term complications from abortion

There is no mention of long term complications arising from abortion, Infertility, miscarriages, pre-maturity in future pregnancies and psychological damage to women’s health.

The findings of a study by Professor David Fergusson conducted in 2009 indicated that abortion damages the psychological health of teenagers. The study, the largest of its type and most detailed long-term study ever undertaken, attracted international attention. The research was conducted by the Canterbury Health and Development Study, at the Christchurch School of Medicine. The research was led by Professor David Fergusson, Ph.D. who is a psychologist and epidemiologist; He said that his research team had followed the progress of 1265 children born in Christchurch in the mid 1970s, from infancy to adulthood. Nearly 500 women in the study became pregnant by the age of 25 and 90 women had an abortion. 90 pregnancies ended with the deliberate termination of the life of the child.

His research found 41 per cent of the women studied had become pregnant by age 25, and that 14.6 percent had had an abortion. By the age of 25, the study found that 42 per cent who had undergone an abortion had also suffered major depression during the previous four years. In total, this was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had allowed their baby to be born. Those who had endured an abortion were also twice as likely to drink alcohol to dangerous levels compared with those who had a live birth, and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. Those who had an abortion also suffered elevated rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviours.

Abortion Breast Cancer Link

It is recommended that women should be informed that international studies reveal that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The study, titled “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females” was published in 2014 in Cancer Causes and Control, a peer-reviewed international cancer journal. The study reveals that after one abortion the risk of breast cancer increases by 44%, after two abortions,76% and after three abortions 89%.

The research was conducted by Yubei Huang et al. from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital.

The Chinese research follows on the heels of two similar studies. One study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May 2013 found a 6-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of induced abortion when compared to the women with no such history. A similar study from Bangladesh published in the Journal of the Dhaka Medical College in April 2013 found that women with a history of induced abortion had a 20-fold increase in likelihood of developing breast cancer when compared to women with no such history.


Pain Relief for Unborn Child

It is requested that women seeking a surgical abortion be advised that the unborn child from 12 weeks gestation can feel pain. Women should be asked if they wish to have pain relief given to their child before it undergoes violent dismemberment in her womb.
In a recent article in the influential journal Medical Ethics, two researchers, including a pro-abortion British pain expert who used to believe that there was no possibility  that unborn babies could feel pain before 24 weeks, say that there is now “good evidence” that the brain and nervous system, which start developing at 12 weeks gestation are sufficiently developed to feel pain.

Printed information

It is suggested that the Ministry produce an information pamphlet to be given to women considering an abortion. This would ensure that there is uniformity of information provided by abortion providers.

Before the abortion- The abortion decision

Foetal development [which may include showing pictures of foetal development.]
It is contended that for informed consent factual pictures of an unborn child should  be shown.

It is recommended that the misleading and dehumanising term products of conception should be replaced with the correct term, human remains.

It is recommended that the suggestion that all women be given the opportunity to be seen on their own to address the issues of coercion and to facilitate honest and open discussion be amended to must be seen on their own. Coercion, domestic violence and threats of violence cannot be addressed if the person exercising coercion is not excluded from honest and open discussion.

Medical abortion reversal – Informed Consent

It is requested that information about medical abortion reversal be included in the information pamphlet. Ten years ago Dr David Delgado of the United States developed a therapy using Progesterone that was administered to women who have changed their minds about proceeding with an abortion after taking the drug Mifepristone. Progesterone is administered within 72 hours of taking Mifepristone. Since its inception more than 600 babies have been saved from destruction. There is no record of any complications occurring, nor has any woman died as a consequence of the therapy. There are internationally 400 medical practitioners who are trained to use this therapy.

Waiting Times In Abortion Services

It is recommended that women should not be offered assessment, counselling and procedure on the same day. Women should be required to be given sufficient time to reflect after assessment and counselling before the destruction of their child. It is recommended that the procedure not take place for three days after assessment.

It is recommended that the abortion provider must make every reasonable effort to contact the regular General Practitioner of the patient before making a decision to proceed with an abortion procedure. This would provide the patient and the doctor with more relevant information and reduce the risk of a complication.

It is recommended that after assessment the abortion provider communicate with the women’s own medical practitioner to advise the practitioner of the proposed abortion to enable the practitioner to deal with any complications that might arise from the abortion.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr
Secretary,
Right to Life

Right to Life Seeks Answers on Abortion Legislation Act from Minister of Health

by Leave a Comment

Hon. David Clark. MP, Minister of Health,

Dear Minister,

Official Information Act – Request

The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 came into force on Tuesday 24 March. The Law Commission  in its report to the Minister of Justice, “Alternative Approaches to Abortion Law” made a number of recommendations.

I wish to request under the Official Information Act your policy on the following questions arising from this report:-

1.Do you intend to review the wording of the schedule to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Restricted Activities) Order 2005 to ensure that all types of surgical abortions are restricted activities?

2.Do you intend to permit a woman seeking an abortion to be referred to an abortion provider by, in addition to a GP, a nurse, midwife or counsellor? 

3.Do you intend to remove the requirement in sections 32 and 33A of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 for abortions to be performed by a doctor?

Abortions could be performed or administered by a health practitioner, eg a registered nurse or midwife with appropriate qualifications and experience, as determined by the scopes of practice issued by health profession regulatory bodies. The qualifications and experience required may differ depending on the method of abortion

4.The Ministry of Health is to be responsible for collecting statistics on abortion. Do you intend to produce an annual report to Parliament that will include all the important statistical information that was previously provided by the Abortion Supervisory Committee?

5.Do you intend to require that when an abortion is performed on a child under the age of 16 on the grounds of rape or incest that the abortion provider has a duty to provide on the notification of abortion to your Ministry that these crimes have been reported to the Police?

6.In the event that the Family Planning Association provides medical abortions from their clinics, will you require that this abortion provider provide counselling services at each clinic?

7.Will you be setting service standards for abortion counsellors that will require counsellors to provide information on alternatives to abortion, parenting and adoption, information concerning the development of the child in the womb and the potential complications that might result from having an abortion?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life

Killing Unborn Children -both a Tragedy and a Holocaust

by 3 Comments

silentholocaust NZ

Media Release Thursday 30th May 2019

Alfred Ngaro MP is applauded for his integrity and courage in daring to say the unspeakable, that “abortion is a holocaust in our nation”.  Right to Life encourages other MPs to confront this abomination and to speak up in defence of our nation’s voiceless unborn and their victimised and wounded mothers. Our women and their unborn deserve better than this abortion holocaust. Right to Life also applauds new National MP Paulo Garcia, for standing up for our unborn children in his inaugral speech in Parliament yesterday.

The dictionary declares that a holocaust is, a “huge slaughter or destruction of life”. If the violent dismembering and slaughter of more than 500,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children in New Zealand since 1978, is not a holocaust, then what is? The blood of those killed in this holocaust cries out to their Creator for justice.

It is a tragedy that the compelling objective of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is to make permanent the abortion holocaust by removing the unborn from the protection of the Crimes Act and to make the killing of the innocent child in the womb “a reproductive choice for women”. It would then be no longer a crime to kill the child in the womb but a health service and a human right for women for any reason, effectively up to birth. The child would in the words of Family Planning be, “the contents of the uterus and the products of conception”.

What compounds this holocaust is that it is authorised and funded by the state with the silent acquiescence of the community. Our Labour led government in its Wellbeing budget for 2019, has continued to make special provision to provide funding for this holocaust which is disguised as a core and essential health service with unlimited funding. The government has no difficulty in castigating District Health Boards for over spending in the provision of vital health services, but would never criticise them for money spent on funding this abortion holocaust.

This holocaust is destroying our nation. What future does a nation have that destroys its own children? The New Zealand abortion holocaust is part of the international abortion holocaust that destroys more than 56 million unborn children every year.

The Alabama State Senate in passing a bill recently to ban abortion and protect the lives of its children before birth,  explicitly and rightly compares, in the text of the bill,  abortion to the holocaust, executions carried out under Stalin, and the Khmer Rouge regime. In fact the abortion holocaust exceeds by greater than an order of magnitude all these combined.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Ministry Of Health Submission Dehumanises Our Unborn Children

by 1 Comment

Hon, Dr David Clark…

19 July 2018.

Dear Minister,

Ministry of Health submission on Abortion law review.

Right to Life is disappointed that the Ministry of Health in its submission to the Law Commission on its review of the abortion laws, supports the government’s proposal “that abortion be a reproductive health choice for women”. The Ministry claims; “Legal termination of pregnancy is much safer for women than giving birth.”  This is simply untrue and ignores the fact that in every abortion an innocent and defenceless unborn child is violently killed.

The submission signed by Ashley Bloomfield, CEO of the Ministry of Health, sadly supports a culture of death in place of a culture of life, which should pervade health services in New Zealand. The submission presents a sad reflection on an increasing culture of death which pervades the Ministry. Since 1977, the Ministry has classified the killing of children before birth as a core health service; it has established killing centres in 20 Public Hospitals where more than 500,000 unborn children have been violently killed since 1978.

The Ministry, in its submission, refuses to acknowledge that the unborn child is a patient who is entitled to special care and protection. The Ministry refuses to acknowledge that when they are caring for a woman with child, they have the privilege and duty to care for two patients, the mother and the child.

The Ministry  seeks to dehumanise the unborn child, it states that the child should be called a fetus and never a child and it denies that the unborn child has right to life. The Ministry insists that we do not use the term abortion and instead use the term termination of pregnancy service. The submission advises that staff at District Health Boards have been instructed to use these terms. Right to Life believes that this is to hide the reality that abortion kills an innocent human being and to attempt to remove the stigma which is associated with killing children in the womb.

The Ministry claims that complications are very rare and that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, international research debunks these assertions. It is accepted by the medical profession that following an abortion, a woman has more cancer prone cells in her breasts than she had before her abortion.

Right to Life is very concerned that the Ministry is opposed to health professionals having a legal right to exercise their conscience in refusing to facilitate or participate in the killing of an unborn patient. The Ministry calls this exercise of conscience, “gender based discrimination.” Conscience rights are at the heart of the right to freedom of speech and the practice of ethical medicine and we remove them at our peril.

Right to Life fully supports the continued legal protection of the conscience rights of doctors and nurses, anything less means we are moving towards tyranny. Right to Life believes that the removal of conscience rights would ultimately result in doctors and nurses refusing to be involved with the killing of unborn patients being driven from their professions. We would then have a medical profession that was under the control of the state.

Right to Life asks:

  • Are the proposals made by the Ministry of Health in accordance with government policy?
  • Do you support the removal of conscience rights provided by section 46 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, which allow health professionals to refuse to authorise, participate in an abortion or refer the woman to another doctor who will perform the abortion ?
  • Do you support the Ministry seeking to dehumanise the unborn child by changing the language to hide the fact that the unborn child is a human being endowed with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life?
  • Do you support the Ministry’s denying that abortion entails the killing of another human being, is not a crime, should be removed from the Crimes Act and its killing made “a reproductive choice for women”?

In conclusion, Right to Life requests that you, take urgent steps to ensure that our unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family receive the utmost respect and protection. We seek this action to ensure that our health services have the utmost respect for our health professionals and the right to life of all patients, both born and unborn.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr,

Secretary.

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