A lot has changed in a very short time. The government is determined to make major changes to the laws of our land relating to abortion. Jacinda Ardern is driving the decriminalisation of abortion and the first reading of the bill to take abortion out of the Crimes Act has already passed its first reading in Parliament. A select committee has been formed and there are only five weeks left for the public to be heard on Ardern’s proposal to make abortion a health issue, taking away all protection for the unborn child’s right to life. Our country is moving in a direction that is becoming more and more hostile to human life. Will you act now? To make a submission follow this link Everything you need to do this is here. It need only take you a few minutes but it is vital that you do.
The following post is a guest post by Pro-life writer Lydia Mead. Lydia sets and example to all of us by writing one of the first submissions to the Special Select Committee now set up to consider the government’s Abortion Legislation Act. The government has decided that public submissions to this act will only be for another month. This in itself is a major cause for concern given the seriousness implications of this Act, which effectively provides for abortion up to birth. Let us follow her example in speaking out in defence of our innocent unborn by making a submission as soon as possible.
Here’s the link to make your submission: https://www.parliament.nz/…/52SCA…/abortion-legislation-bill
Your submission matters. The numbers matter. Make your submission even if it’s just two sentences. Now is your time to take a stand. Lydia’s post reads…
To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose decriminalisation of abortion, for the following reasons.
1) The Bill of Rights 1961 and The Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act 1977 protects the life of the unborn child. I disagree that either of these legislations are archaic and need to be updated to reflect current malpractice. The Bill of Rights and the CSA Act protect the unborn child and recognise it for what it is – a human being, and a particularly vulnerable human being with no one to speak for or defend it except for the law. When these acts were codified, the information from science and from ultrasound imaging made the fact of the unborn child being human and very much alive an incontravertible truth. In 2019, there is much more information regarding who the unborn child is – they are simply who we all have been, passing through a stage we all must go through. 3D and 4D imaging of the unborn child, and the breakthroughs in life-saving treatment in hospitals to care for babies as young as 22 weeks+ who now have a strong chance of surviving – these are developments that should cause us to reflect on what it is we are doing if we take away every single protection of the unborn child.
2) That this law would allow a baby to be aborted up to birth. I have read the information on the government website regarding this law and I understand that: Any of the 3 models as laid out in the draft abortion bill (as of 08/08/2019) is unthinkable because the unborn child is not recognised as a party that will be impacted by the decision of the mother and/or physician. Any of these 3 models will allow for abortion up to birth for any reason – the only possible provision being, that a physician may be required to first consider the mother’s physical and mental health and general wellbeing. This consideration is highly vague and gives the physician no strong legal mandate to prevent a woman procuring an abortion.
2)a The argument might be made, that only a small percentage of abortions are performed after the 22 week of pregnancy, and so there would be no increase in the occurrence of late term abortions. However, when the government takes the provision of abortion out of the Crimes Act it promotes within society the feeling that there is nothing else to be considered except how the woman feels about the pregnancy and her wellbeing. Concurrently, the Government intends to make us all feel better about abortion. If the Government says abortion is not a crime and it’s just healthcare, then increasingly we’ll adapt our thinking to match this brave new world. The reason that abortion was dealt with in the criminal code in 1961 and 1977 was because it was rightly understood that there was more than one party in an abortion, and that the abortion would end the life of the child. To treat abortion as a healthcare issue denies the existence of the unborn child as an affected party. Abortion even in early stages used to be considered unthinkable to the greater population. The more abortion is procured in the decades following these acts, and the more our friends and family have abortions, the more that we regard abortion as an unfortunate necessity.
3) Abortion always stops a beating human heart. Scientifically this is incontravertible. We now know that a medical abortion always kills a child.
4) The bill has ignored the involvement of another legitimate party in the abortion: the father. In the current bill, the unborn child has been abandoned by everyone: its mother, its father, and the law. It has absolutely no legal protection, and its father has no legal recognition as such. It is unthinkable that the father of a child can do absolutely nothing to stop his child being killed.
5) The bill seeks to discriminate against potential medical employees. If you are qualified and applying for a medical position but disagree with abortion, an employer may reject your application on the basis of your conscientious objection if they think that your objection will cause disruption to their activities.
6) The bill discriminates against anyone else with a conscientious objection to abortion who seeks to give help to women going to an abortion clinic within a 150 metre zone of the abortion facility. The unborn child is then even more abandoned – by its mother, father, legal protection and finally a last possible saviour in the form of a caring sidewalk counselor. People who gather around an abortion facility do not do so to threaten or intimidate women. They care about women, and they care about unborn children, and they extend support to women going through a difficult time. The reason the come to the abortion facilities is because they love the women and do not want them not to go through with something that will hurt them and destroy their children.
Please reconsider that our abortion law needs to be reformed to meet current practice. If abortion provision is removed from the Crimes Act and transferred to the medical world, it will strip the unborn child of every legal protection and allow for our future new kiwis to be killed up to birth. Please consider that it is vital for the unborn child to have legal recognition, in the exact same way as it is vital for every New Zealander to have legal recognition and protection. For this to continue, abortion MUST be regulated by the crimes act.
Hello Friends of Life,
URGENT URGENT URGENT
Many of us have been shocked by the release of the details of the Labour Government’s Abortion Law Bill. This radical and extreme bill if passed would make it one of the most liberal in the world. This bill is going to go up for it’s first reading this coming Thursday 8th August – That’s tomorrow.
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE EITHER BY EMAIL OR SOCIAL MEDIA
It is imperative that if this bill is to be stopped and our innocent unborn are to retain any protection, that as many people as possible contact their MP’s right now. There is no time to wait. None.
We humbly ask that you take a few minutes of your time and contact as may MP’s as possible especially your own MP. Their email addresses are given below. All you have to do is click on the name and the link will open in your email programme. Please tell them in your own words tell them how you feel and ask them to vote against this bill on Thursday.
Here below is some information which may help you. (Thanks to Bob McCoskrie and Family First). Personal stories will have greater impact.
Contacting New Zealand First MP’s is the most critical as it has just been reported that Family First support for this legislation may be dependent on this legislation being subject to a National referendum at the next election.
THE MESSAGE (use your own wording and message):
* vote NO to decriminalising abortion
* human rights begin in the womb
* ending a child’s life is not healthcare
* these proposals will give the unborn child the same status as an appendix, tonsils or gall bladder
* the proposed law would make late-term abortions considerably more accessible, rather than for exceptional circumstances as currently required under the Crimes Act
* the proposed bill focuses entirely on women having a right to an abortion, but completely ignores both the status of the unborn child, and the wellbeing of the mother
* polling shows strong support for the unborn child having human rights and being legally protected once a heartbeat is detected, and only a small minority thinking that life doesn’t begin until the child is born
* only 4% of New Zealanders want more liberal time limits for abortion. The vast majority of New Zealanders also show strong support for a restrictive legal framework for accessing abortions
* no provisions are proposed to protect women from being coerced into an abortion. No provisions are proposed for requiring that women have the mental-health support they need before and after abortion, or that women are made fully aware of the risks of abortion, and of all of their options. There’s no proposal to prevent schools from taking young women for an abortion without parental knowledge, or to prevent sex-selective abortion
Use your own wording – and please (despite our anger and distress) be polite and respectful in your communication. Contact as many MPs as you have time for. (Individual emails are the most effective – especially if they’re your local MP). We’ve provided the email addresses both as individuals, but also to email all MPs in a particular party. SEE BOTTOM. AGAIN PLEASE SEND YOUR EMAILS NOW INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL MPs:
Amy Adams, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Maggie Barry, Andrew Bayly, David Bennett, Paula Bennett, Dan Bidois, Chris Bishop, Simon Bridges, Simeon Brown, Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, Judith Collins, Jacqui Dean, Matt Doocey, Sarah Dowie, Andrew Falloon, Paulo Garcia, Paul Goldsmith, Nathan Guy, Joanne Hayes, Harete Hipango, Brett Hudson, Nikki Kaye, Matt King, Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako, Barbara Kuriger, Denise Lee, Melissa Lee, Agnes Loheni, Tim Macindoe, Todd McClay, Ian McKelvie, Mark Mitchell, Todd Muller, Alfred Ngaro, Simon O’Connor, Parmjeet Parmar, Christopher Penk, Maureen Pugh, Shane Reti, Scott Simpson, Nick Smith, Stuart Smith, Erica Stanford, Anne Tolley, Louise Upston, Tim van de Molen, Nicky Wagner, Hamish Walker, Nicola Willis, Michael Woodhouse, Jian Yang, Lawrence Yule,
INDIVIDUAL LABOUR MPs:
Kiri Allan, Ginny Andersen, Jacinda Ardern, David Clark, Tamati Coffey, Liz Craig, Clare Curran, Kelvin Davis, Ruth Dyson, Paul Eagle, Kris Faafoi, Peeni Henare, Chris Hipkins, Raymond Huo, Willie Jackson, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, Iain Lees-Galloway, Andrew Little, Marja Lubeck, Jo Luxton, Kieran McAnulty, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard, Stuart Nash, Damien O’Connor, Greg O’Connor, David Parker, Willow-Jean Prime, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Grant Robertson, Adrian Rurawhe, Deborah Russell, Jenny Salesa, Carmel Sepuloni,Aupito William Sio, Jamie Strange, Jan Tinetti, Rino Tirikatene, Phil Twyford, Louisa Wall, Angie Warren-Clark, Duncan Webb, Meka Whaitiri, Poto Williams, Michael Wood, Megan Woods
INDIVIDUAL NZ FIRST MPs:
Darroch Ball, Shane Jones, Jenny Marcroft, Ron Mark, Tracey Martin, Clayton Mitchell, Mark Patterson, Winston Peters, Fletcher Tabuteau
INDIVIDUAL GREEN MPs:
Marama Davidson, Julie Anne Genter, Golriz Ghahraman, Gareth Hughes, Jan Logie, Eugenie Sage, James Shaw, Chloe Swarbrick
President Right to Life NZ Inc.
The following video is one in a series of historical videos concerning abortion that were produced by Right to Life and orginally screened on primetime TVNZ . They are particularly relevant given the current government’s agenda to remove the protection that the Crimes Act still affords the unborn child. Please don’t be silent. Speak out now as it may be the last chance to retain the protection of the Crimes Act for our unborn given Jacinda Ardern’s personal agenda to make abortion a ‘health matter’.
Media Release July 27th 2019
Right to Life requests that the Labour led government conduct a binding referendum, the question being:- “Do you recognise the unborn child from implantation as being a human being endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life?” This is the justice issue of our era.
Right to Life requests that our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern as a woman and as a mother lead by example, to give legal recognition to the unborn child as a human being from implantation endowed with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life.
The Minister of Justice in a response of the 16th March to an Official Information Act request from Right to Life confirmed that the government supported the born alive law contained in Section 159 of the Crimes Act 1961, that an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born. The section states that the born alive law was “for the purposes of the Crimes Act”. It was never the intention of Parliament to deny the humanity of the unborn child. This whole section is a legal fiction intended to differentiate between homicide and the killing of an unborn child.
A poll conducted by AC Nielsen in 2004 on behalf of Right to Life found considerable support for recognising the humanity of the unborn child, The poll of 1000 persons found that 36% believed that the unborn child became a human being at conception, 14% at the time of implantation and 28 % at a point between implantation and birth. There were therefore a total of 78% who believed that the unborn child was a human being before birth. And a poll of a 1,000 persons conducted by Curia Market Research in April 2019 on behalf of Family First found 47 % believed that the human rights of the unborn child should be legally protected from about six weeks once a heartbeat can be detected. Instead of following it’s own agenda, why does the government not amend the law to reflect public opinion?
There are a small number of well organised persons, headed by Jacinda Ardern, that are resisting the legal recognition of the unborn child’s right to life. Leading the charge are the anti-feminist movement led by, the Family Planning Association, the Green Party, and the radical left of the Labour Party, all of whom are strident advocates for the killing of our innocent and defenceless unborn.
It is disappointing that our government has $2.2 million to conduct a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis, an issue that is a threat to the lives and health of New Zealanders. It is shameful that the government gives priority to legalising the smoking of cannabis but has no interest in promoting the right to life of our unborn. New Zealand cannot be considered a just society until the New Zealand bill of Rights protects the human rights of every New Zealander from conception to natural death.
We can not state more clearly that Jacinda Ardern is the prime driver for the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand. The Prime Minister, does not recognise the humanity of the unborn child, nor its right to life. Right to Life believes that it is her belief that the child is the property of the mother. It is her wish that abortion be taken out of the Crimes Act and treated as a health issue. She believes that the killing of an unborn child should not be a crime, but a human right. She believes the killing of an unborn child should be treated as a “reproductive choice for women”.
This is astounding as the Prime Minister on the 19 January 2018 was jubilant in announcing that “she was pregnant with her first child”. She has felt her baby kick, she has heard its heart beat and watched in awe at scans showing the wondrous miracle of creation developing in her womb, truly a beautiful baby and a unique and unrepeatable miracle of creation endowed with a right to life. How then can she be in denial about the humanity of the unborn child and its right to life?
Right to Life
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
The National President of ALRANZ, Terry Bellamak (pictured), an American woman from Arizona in the United States, today issued a media release on behalf of ALRANZ. The Association has an estimated national membership of about 100 members. Some students at Victoria University were planning a march and demonstration at Parliament on Tuesday 23 July, demanding abortion law “reform.”
Right to Life considers it hypocritical of ALRANZ to be demanding law reform when they actively encourage women on their web site to break the law and to smuggle dangerous and prohibited drugs into the country unlawfully in order to have an illegal chemical abortion which threaten’s the life and health of women.
Right to Life agrees with Ms Bellamak when she says that “everyone deserves the freedom to decide for themselves whether and when to become a parent.” That freedom is exercised before engaging in sexual intercourse. After conception they are parents. Human life begins at conception and every unborn child is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of creation that deserves to be treated with respect and protection.
From the moment of conception the mother of the child is a mother and she has the privilege and duty to protect her unborn child.
It is a cause for great sadness to see a group of young women demonstrating for the “right ” to kill their children.
Tara O’Sulivan, co-president of the Victoria University Feminist Organisation claims that “abortion laws in New Zealand are currently a disgrace” because they don’t allow people to decide their own fate. Ms O’Sullivan believes that she is defending the rights of women. Right to Life asks why she does not defend the rights of women in the womb who are being denied their right to life and the right to be born.
Tamatha Paul president of the Victoria University Women’s Association claims that the “New Zealand law does not respect the bodily autonomy of pregnant people.” She is confused there are no pregnant people, only women have a uterus and only women can be pregnant. It is important to respect the bodily autonomy of women, it is also equally important to respect the rights of the child who has its own body that is independent of the mother.
Since the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977 (CS & A Act), there have been over 500,000 children violently killed in the womb. Nearly 250,000 of these children were female. The authentic feminist movement should be marching and demonstrating and demanding protection for these children many of whom would be attending University with you if they had been allowed to live.
Right to Life
23 July 2019.
Minister of Justice,
The Labour Party of Michael Joseph Savage has an admirable record of defending the weakest and most defenceless members of our community. I am writing to you in defence of the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family, our precious unborn who are victims of a relentless and violent genocide. Today the most dangerous place for a New Zealander is in the mother’s womb.
As the Minister of Justice you have the profound privilege and authority to extend justice to our precious unborn. I earnestly request that you give consideration to amending the Crimes Act to recognise that the unborn child from implantation is a human being endowed by its Creator with an inalienable right to life.
You have previously acknowledged that the Crimes Act section 159 states that an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born. This of course is a legal fiction that is accepted for the purposes of this Act to differentiate between homicide and the killing of an unborn child.
It is contended that it was never the intention of Parliament to deny that the unborn child was a human being and the bearer of human rights.
It is accepted by medical science that human life begins at conception. This is the moment when the ovum of the mother is fertilised by the sperm of the father. Today with ultra sound scans, the wonderful miracle of the development of the child in the womb is made visible Each child is indeed a wonderful unique miracle of God’s loving creation that deserves our respect and protection.
There is a scientific consensus that the human embryo is a genetically human, discrete and alive, organically single and individual, with a self-contained power to organise his or her own growth, multiplication and differentiation in a way that ordinarily leads to a human adult. The child has its own unique DNA, its own heart and blood supply and is in control of its pregnancy that is focused on birth.
I believe that there is considerable support in the community for my proposed law change. A poll conducted by AC Nielsen in 2004 on behalf of Right to Life found considerable support for recognising the humanity of the unborn child, The poll of 1000 persons found that 36% believed that the unborn child became a human being at conception, 14% at the time of implantation and 28 % at a point between implantation and birth. There were therefore a total of 78% who believed that the unborn child was a human being before birth. A poll of a 1,000 persons conducted by Curia Market Research in April, 2019 on behalf of Family First found 47 % believed that the human rights of the unborn child should be legally protected from about six weeks once a heartbeat can be detected.
The United Nations declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 3 begins the articulation of the human values to be defended in terms of human rights. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” It is contended that everyone includes children waiting to be born. Thus, the right to life is held to be both inviolable and inalienable. It is noteworthy that the order of the rights articulated – life first, then freedom [liberty], and then security of person. Unless the State can guarantee the right to life, then there are no meaningful rights to freedom or to security of person. The right to life is logically prior to considerations of the quality of the individual’s life.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the pre-eminent international treaty on children’s rights, leaves no room for ambiguity in its preamble. “The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,” it states.
Other international treaties unequivocally reference the right to life of the unborn, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this treaty, the death penalty is prohibited for pregnant women to “save the life of an innocent unborn child.”
In conclusion, I believe that adoption of my proposal would be pro –women and would enhance the dignity of women as the bearers of new life. As such it would have considerable support with women in New Zealand.
Thank you for all that you are doing to promote the common good.
Right to Life applauds the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern for her leadership in upholding the right of Parliament to make laws rather than abdicating that responsibility to the public in a referendum. The issues surrounding euthanasia and in particular the ill-conceived and life threatening End of Life Choice bill, (ELOCB), are still very poorly understood by a great many people.
The Prime Minister rightly disagrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who is demanding that a binding referendum be held as a condition of continuing support from NZ First for this bill, which has the full support of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying, “My view is that a referendum isn’t required to ensure that the voice of New Zealanders has been heard and to reflect the will of Parliament and the people they represent,” she said.
“I will be voting for the bill to continue as it stands.”
Right to Life urges Parliament to support the Prime Minister in opposing an amendment expected to be proposed by David Seymour, or Winston Peters to make the EOLCB subject to a binding referendum.
Euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide, it is intrinsically evil, no referendum can legitimise that which is evil. The prohibition against taking the life of another human being is the foundation of the law and medicine. It is always wrong to kill another innocent human being. The approval of the community, even in a referendum, can never make murder acceptable. A referendum in this regard, is an attempt to seduce and implicate the whole community in the murder of the vulnerable. The most fundamental medical ethic of not killing or helping patients kill themselves must not be reduced to an opinion poll.
Right to Life is implacably opposed to a referendum because it is based on the false and dangerous premise that the community has a right to decide who shall be allowed to be killed. This presumption is a violation of the inalienable right to life of every member of the community.
A binding referendum that resulted in support for the Seymour bill would also impose an intolerable burden on the conscience of parliamentarians who are opposed to the murder of the vulnerable. It would be a serious dereliction of duty for Parliament to support a binding referendum. Parliament must not shamefully shirk its responsibility to protect the lives of the community by cowardly washing its hands and imposing that responsibility onto the community.
Right to Life earnestly requests that our parliamentarians vote to defeat any resolution seeking to impose a binding referendum that would implicate the whole community in the murder of vulnerable people.
Right to Life
Media Release Wednesday 26th June 2019
Right to Life is disappointed that Parliament has embraced a culture of death by passing the End of Life Choice bill [EOLCB] which if passed at its third reading will allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. This is a violation of the sanctity of life ethic and of the prohibition of the taking of the life of an innocent human being, the foundation of the law and of medicine, We change it our our peril.
This is a tragic moment and a day of shame in the history of our Parliament. This is the day Parliament in a conscience vote passed the EOLCB at its second reading by 70 votes to 50. Parliament has now decreed that there are some lives not worthy of life. It has placed in jeopardy the lives of our most vulnerable, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill. Right to Life congratulates those Members who bravely defended the God given right to life of every member of our community and voted against this bill.
Parliament in passing this bill has abandoned its commitment to upholding a culture of life and its sacred duty to legislate for the protection of the lives of every human being from conception to natural death and not to preside over our destruction. It is not the role of Parliament to decide who shall live and who may be killed.
Parliament in passing this bill has ignored the overwhelming rejection of euthanasia and this bill by 91.8 per cent of the 39,159 written submissions received by the Justice Select Committee. The bill was also rejected by 85 per cent of the 3,600 oral submissions heard by the Select Committee. The chairman of the Committee in reporting the bill back to Parliament advised that the Committee was unable to agree that the bill should be passed. The bill was strongly opposed by the New Zealand Medical Association, by disability groups and Aged Concern.
Right to Life now earnestly requests that Parliament defeats this bill at its third reading and ensures that every New Zealander has access to death with dignity through our world class palliative care. We must ensure that palliative care is fully funded and accessible. Parliament should also commit itself to implementing the government’s Suicide Prevention Strategy with the objective of reducing our appalling suicide rate.
Right to Life