Right to Life has been advised that the Abortion Supervisory Committee on the 20th August filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against several important findings of the judgment of the High Court. In effect it has renewed the appeal that was brought earlier and which the Court of Appeal did not allow to proceed at that stage. The hearing in the Court of Appeal is likely to be in the first half of 2010 unless court time was available later this year. Justice Miller had found that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”
He has declined to issue declaratory orders concluding they are unnecessary as the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) should now be fully aware of its statutory duties.
Some of his points were:
IN THE MATTER OF Part 1 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Rule 623 of the High Court Rules
IN THE MATTER OF The Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977
BETWEEN RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC Applicant
AND THE ABORTION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE Respondent
Justice Miller delivered his judgment on 3rd of August in the High Court in Wellington. He has declined to issue declaratory orders concluding that they are unnecessary, as the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] should now be fully aware of its statutory duties. He stated, “There is no reason to suppose that the Committee will refuse to act now that its functions have been clarified. It remains the case that the Committee can be expected to administer the law as Parliament intended.” The Committee is accountable to Parliament and it is expected that the appropriate Parliamentary Select Committee will ensure that the ASC holds certifying consultants accountable for the abortions that they authorise. Right to Life is confident that the Committee will now comply with its statutory duty to hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions that they authorise. This will hopefully herald in a new era in the care and protection of women and for the right to life of unborn children in New Zealand.
Re: Dr Philip Nitschke [Dr Death] – Booking Ferndale House.
Right to Life is a national pro – life organisation that has members in Auckland. Our Society supports the right to life of every person from conception to natural death.
It is disappointing that your management allowed the notorious Dr Nitschke [Dr Death] to use Ferndale House in July to conduct a public workshop promoting suicide. It is presumed that you were not aware that it was his intention to launch a controversial drug testing kit for the lethal barbiturate drug Nembutal.
The pro – abortion society, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, [ALRANZ] is engaged in a campaign of misinformation. That society has a national membership of about 200 members. It does not represent the best interests of women and has minimal support in the community. The National President of ALRANZ, Dr Margaret Sparrow stated in a recent media release that abortion was not a crime and that the Government should stop the current Judicial Review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee by decriminalising abortion. In the interest of mothers and their unborn this statement is challenged.
Prolife UC presents a talk by Dr. Glenn Peoples, PhD…
ABORTION, MORALITY and LAW
Friday 31st July 7.30pm
A3 lecture theatre, University of Canterbury
Is abortion immoral, and should it be legal? The abortion controversy is a persistent one in New Zealand that has seen revived interest lately. Dr Glenn Peoples provides reasons for deeming abortion immoral and for its legal restriction. He also considers some arguments for abortion rights and explains how to address these, showing that they overlook the fundamental moral issues involved.
It is disappointing that Melrose House has allowed the notorious Dr Nitschke [Dr Death] to use their facilities to conduct a public workshop promoting suicide. It was the intention of Dr Nitschke to launch a controversial drug testing kit for the lethal barbiturate drug Nembutal. This drug is a Class C prohibited drug. It is unlawful for any person, to purchase, import or have in ones possession this drug. Dr Nitschke continues to encourage persons to commit a crime by travelling to Mexico to purchase the drug and then unlawfully smuggle it through Customs into New Zealand. Section 179 of the Crimes Act states that it is a criminal offence to incite, counsel or assist in suicide. It is contended that Dr Nitschke who is promoting a culture of death, is also in violation of this law. Melrose House in the interest of the community it serves should promote a culture of life.
Prolife NZ is today setting the record straight on the Right to Life vs. the Crown court case, following a misleading press release from Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRANZ).
In their 19 July press release Dr. Margaret Sparrow cites the cost incurred by the Crown in the high-profile case. The Abortion Supervisory Council (ASC) reports that the cost of the case to date is $280,000.
“While ALRANZ is accusing Right to Life of causing this huge bill to the tax-payer, the reverse is true,” said Prolife NZ National Director Andy Moore. “Justice Miller has made it clear that a large number of abortions performed in New Zealand may be unlawful – therefore it is the Crown that must be held accountable.”
In the High Court in Wellington, on 20 July, Justice Miller will hear arguments from counsel for Right to Life and the Crown on the important issue of declaratory orders.
Right to Life in seeking justice and legal protection for the human rights of our unborn children will seek at this hearing to have Justice Miller issue precise declarations to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] requesting that they fulfil their statutory duty to hold certifying consultants accountable for the exercise of their duty of certifying the performance of abortions and this way restrain the unlawful de facto abortion on demand prevailing at present in New Zealand, under the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act. These declarations have the effect of declaring the law and the way in which it should be applied as set out in the fuller reasons given by Justice Miller in his judgment.