Right to Life New Zealand

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

Parliament Abandons Protecting Women & Unborn Children

by 1 Comment

Last night Parliament shamefully passed the Abortion Legislation Bill by 81 to 39
Parliament believes that the unborn child is not a human being and has no right to life until it is born. That the unborn child is a chattel and is the property of the mother. That it is not a crime to kill an unborn child and that It may be killed as “a reproductive health choice.”


The State has a duty to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. It has a special duty to protect the unborn who are the weakest and most defenceless member of our human family.

Right to Life commends those Members who spoke in the debate and voted in defence of women and the right to life of their unborn and in opposition to this appalling anti-women and anti-life Bill.

This is a sad day for women and their precious unborn who have an absolute right to have the love and protection of the community to do everything possible to protect the life of her child.

Justice Minister Andrew Little objected to the use of graphic pictures by pro-life demonstrators at Parliament yesterday, saying “New Zealanders on average have a low level of tolerance for that sort of extremism. If these people want to go around upsetting the rest of New Zealand, that’s their call.” Right to Life agrees the real life pictures of bloodied and dismembered unborn children is very upsetting. We hope that the Minister is upset. We believe that he is in denial. He needs to understand that abortion is violence against the weakest and most defenceless member of our human family.

Mother and child have had the protection of the Crimes Act section 182, Killing an Unborn Child, since 1856. Parliament has now cruelly withdrawn that protection.

It is a sad commentary on our Parliament that the lives of our unborn children are considered of little value and have little protection while we give absolute protection for eight endangered birds. An offence endangering the lives of these birds could result in two years imprisonment or a fine up to $100,000.

There are fifty endangered species that include the Katipo spider, weasels and beetles.

The Wildlife Act 1953 Section 67A states that it is an offence punishable by up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000 plus $5000 per extra head of wildlife or egg disturbed or destroyed.

Why does the Katipo spider have absolute protection for its life while our own unborn children have absolutely no protection?

The Bill now awaits its third reading.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Right to Life believes Killing and Murder of Unborn acceptable to Andrew Little

by 2 Comments

.

The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little denies the humanity and human rights of New Zealanders in their first nine months of life.

The Minister claims on moral and legal grounds that the unborn child is not a human being endowed with human rights. It is understood that the Minister was raised in the Catholic faith. As a child he would have learnt that God is our Creator Who has conferred on us at conception our dignity as human beings and our inalienable right to life. He would also in preparation for his first Holy Communion learnt that the fifth commandment of God is “Thou shalt not kill.” Our Creator has forbidden the killing of the unborn. It is disappointing that the Minister has forgotten what he learnt as a seven year old. Why is the Minister in denial?

Andrew Little proudly claims in his biography that he “has devoted his whole life advocating for New Zealanders.” Right to Life readily acknowledges this but asks why then have you shamefully refused to advocate for the protection of women and the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family?

Andrew Little, in presenting his draconian Abortion Legislation Bill to Parliament on 8th August 2019, declared,

“We will hear extravagant language about this referring to “killing” and “murder”. I reject these notions. I accept on legal and moral grounds the established jurisprudence in New Zealand that human rights do not accrue until human life is possible and that the widely accepted rights that all understand apply when they are capable of being exercised, which is to say I accept the “born alive “principle.”

Language is of critical importance, there is an understandable and general abhorrence of the killing of another human being. It is understandable that if the Minister wants to legalise and normalise the violent killing of defenceless and innocent unborn, it is first necessary to deny that the unborn are human beings, that they have no rights and that they are the property of their mothers.

Why does the Minister deny that abortion entails killing an unborn child? The Crimes Act clearly recognises and asserts that abortion entails killing a child. Section 159, Killing of a child and section 182, Killing unborn child. Why is the Minister in denial about the Crimes Act which he is responsible for upholding?

Abortion, both Surgical and chemical, is killing; surgical abortion entails the violent dismemberment of a child in the womb with its arms, legs and head torn from the child’s body. Abortion stops the beating heart of the child. This is killing and the murder of a defenceless human being. A five year old would recognise this as killing, why then, is the Minister in denial?

Human life is a continuum from conception to natural death and birth is just a milestone in the life of every human being. The Minister’s statement suggests that before birth there is no human life. This statement is in conflict with established medical science which recognises that human life begins at conception. The child is a separate human being from its mother, with its own separate body, it has its own DNA, its heart has been beating from six weeks and it has its own blood system with its blood probably of a different type to that of its mother. The child is in control of the pregnancy and will generally choose the date of its birth. This is the wondrous world of the child in the womb which should leave us in awe and respect for God’s unique and unrepeatable miracle of creation. Why is the Minister in denial?

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Letter to Andrew Little -Proposed Abortion Law Changes

by Leave a Comment

Hon. Andrew Little,
Minister of Justice,
6th June 2019

Dear Minister,

Proposed Abortion Law Changes

Thank you for your letter of 11 April. You express the view that abortion should be a health service. Health services protect life and promote health. Abortion is not a health service because it results in the violent death of a patient, a defenceless and innocent human being in its first nine months of life.  How can we talk of better health outcomes when a patient has been violently killed?

I share your desire to ensure that women considering terminating the life of their child in the womb are not burdened with the unjustified and cruel burden of believing that they are criminals. The law is explicit in making it clear that women may not be charged under the Crimes Act with a crime. It should be noted that it is only Family Planning and advocates for abortion who continue to inflict this burden on women by constantly claiming falsely that the abortion law makes criminals out of women. The pro-life movement is highly protective of women and their unborn and we will never burden women with this false association with criminality.

There is, however, a stigma associated with the taking of the life of another human being. This stigma is recognised by all cultures throughout human history and one which is vitally necessary for the preservation of the human race. This prohibition of the taking of innocent human life is the foundation of the law, ethics and of medicine. It would be the height of folly to seek to remove this stigma which is protective of our humanity.

Every woman is imbued with a maternal instinct that immediately seeks to nurture and protect the developing child in her womb. Every woman, no matter how distressing the circumstances of her pregnancy, knows that it is wrong to harm her child. A woman seeking an abortion is making a cry for help. A woman does not seek an abortion like a woman seeking a Porche, but like an animal that is prepared to gnaw her leg off to free herself from a trap. We will not genuinely help women by pretending that there is no stigma and guilt associated with the killing of her child. the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family. There is no change that Parliament can make to the law to remove this stigma, because the stigma is written indelibly in our conscience and on our hearts.

In your last paragraph you state that my letter underscores my essential position on abortion when I asked the question, “Do you then believe that women should be permitted to endanger their lives by bringing about their own miscarriage or permitting someone else to do that?” You believed that my reason for posing the question was that I did not trust women to make a decision about abortion.

The issue is not trust but protection for women and the unborn. I do not believe that any person has the right to kill another human being, simply because their existence is a cause of inconvenience. The first duty of the State is to protect the human rights of every member of the community from conception to natural death and not to preside over our destruction. We have a special duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable in our community. The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion stated in its report to Parliament that “the unborn child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family deserved special protection from implantation.”

Abortion is also violence against women. We have a duty to protect women from coercion, domestic violence and the threat of abandonment by the father of the child if the abused woman does not have an abortion. In conclusion, I believe that our women deserve better than abortion and that we do not promote the freedom and equality of women by informing them that the state does not have any interest in protecting them and their unborn children. The changing of our laws to make killing unborn children a ‘health’ issue rather than a crime, would send a strong signal that it is a woman’s right to choose whether her chldren live or die.

Your government’s proposals to devalue innocent human life, will not only corrupt at an individual level but will metastasize to spread through our entire society. Laws have consequences; bad ideas have victims.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr,


Secretary

NZ Family Planning – Peddlers of Death

by 2 Comments

Family Planning have revealed their plans for the decriminalisation of abortion and the killing of the unborn in its latest media release made by Jackie Edmund their CEO. It is important that the community are aware of the anti-feminist and anti-family agenda of Family Planning.

Family Planning in the 1950s was in accord with the true feminist movement that saw abortion as murder of the unborn and part of the war on women. A Family Planning pamphlet at that time had a message similar to this one from American Planned Parenthood which read “Abortion kills life after it has begun… Abortion is dangerous to your life and health”… my how things have changed.

Right to Life readily acknowledges that Family Planning employs many good health professionals who sincerely believe that they are helping women. It is indeed sad that they do not recognise the intrinsic dignity of women as life bearers and the truth that if we care and love women we will love both them and their unborn child.

The infiltration and takeover of Family Planning by the pro-abortion movement was a great loss to the women of New Zealand.

Family Planning believes:

  • That an unborn child is not a human being and does not become a human being until it is born. They warn that we should be careful not to humanise the unborn by calling it a baby or a child.
  • Killing an unborn child should be a “reproductive health choice for women“, not be a crime and that abortion should be taken out of the Crimes Act.
  • That we should have “a common sense, rational and medically informed conversation about abortion law reform”.
  • That we should “put abortion care within a health framework, managed like any other health service which puts the women at  the centre of the decision -making”.

Right to Life believes that Family Planning is not qualified to participate in “a common sense, rational and medically informed conversation about abortion law reform”. We say this because they refuse to recognise that the unborn child from conception is a human being endowed by its Creator with an inalienable right to life.

Family Planning refuses to acknowledge that abortion is violence against women and her unborn child. It refuses to acknowledge that abortion is not health care and that abortion is the only medical procedure that has the specific intention of killing an unborn child, a patient, and the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

Family Planning support Option A, proposed by the Law Commission. Under this option, there would be no statutory test that must be satisfied before an abortion could be performed. The decision whether to have an abortion would be made by the woman concerned in consultation with her health practitioner. This option would provide for abortion up to birth for any reason, as Jacki Edmund has said “any reason is a good reason for an abortion”. If adopted it would be the most radical abortion law in the world.

Right to Life continues to question the government as to why it continues to fund Family Planning, which is not only anti-feminist, anti-family but which is also actively undermining the morals of our children with its sex education programmes.

We must also continue to ask why the media provide an inordinate amount of coverage to Family Planning, as self- appointed spokeswomen for women when they do not represent their best interests.  Family Planning is the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand and is probably responsible for more than 100,000 abortions since 1977. Right to Life believes that it is the intention of Family Planning to turn all of their clinics into abortion mills. We call on the government to stop making all of us complicit in the killing of our children through our funding Family Planning, by payment of income tax.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Why is NZ First Betraying its Supporters?

by 1 Comment

Media Release Wednesday 15th May 2019

Right to Life is appalled that NZ First is deserting its support base by giving critical support to the ant-life and anti- feminist agenda of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little.

Andrew Little has been directed by the Prime Minister to present a government bill to take the killing of the unborn out of the Crimes Act and to make the killing health care and “a reproductive choice for women”. The support of Winston Peters and his caucus for this proposed bill is absolutely critical for without this support the Labour Party would not be able to proceed with the proposed anti -feminist and anti-life bill, it would have the ignominious fate that this bill deserves.

The stunning betrayal by NZ First of the women of New Zealand and our precious unborn is unparalleled in the history of New Zealand. It is a declaration:

  • That the State has no duty to protect the lives of New Zealanders in their first nine months of life 
  • That the killing of an unborn child is not a crime 
  •  that it is a woman’s right to choose to terminate the life of her child for any reason up to 22 weeks, effectively up to birth if a doctor thinks that it is appropriate
  • That sex selection abortions should be legal.

At the 2017 general election NZ First received 186,706 party votes which was 7.2 % of the total party votes. In a Reid Research poll conducted in February 2019, NZ First received 2.9 % support from those polled. On current polling NZ First would be expected to have NO Members of Parliament elected at the 2020 general election.

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.

Right to Life now asks, how is Winston Peters going to convince the electorate that the killing of the unborn child is no longer a crime and is to be “a reproductive choice for women”? Why should the electorate trust Winston Peters to protect women and the unborn when he had stated publicly in 2014 that he was opposed to the decriminalisation of abortion and now in 2019 that he supports the decriminalisation of abortion?

It is still not too late. Right to Life earnestly requests that Winston Peters take the mantle of statesman and stand on the high moral ground by courageously reaffirming his opposition to the decriminalisation of abortion and withdrawing his support for the anti-life agenda of the Labour Party and the proposed evil bill to decriminalise abortion. This could be his finest hour when he becomes the defender of women and our precious unborn.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Newshub’s Jessie Mulligan “Surely not all those who (oppose oppose abortion decriminalisation) are “hard core religious types and weirdos”

by Leave a Comment

Jessie Mulligan

The Manager Media Works,

Dear Sir

Formal complaint.

I wish to lodge a formal complaint on behalf of Right to Life against an item on the decriminalisation of abortion that featured on the Project at 7 PM on 13 March, 2019. Note: Facebook link

My complaint is that the item breached the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s standards Standard 6 Discrimination and Denigration, Standard 8 Balance and Standard 9 Accuracy.

Standard 6 Discrimination. The presenter, Jessie Mulligan, made a statement and asked “surely not all those ‘who were opposed to the decriminalisation of abortion’ were “hard core religious types and weirdos.”

This statement denigrates those who are opposed to the killing of the unborn who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Why is it weird to defend the right to life of the voiceless? Why is it weird to recognise abortion as violence against women? There are many women who have had an abortion and who are now living a life of grief, sorrow and regret and who now seek to protect other women from the violence of abortion. The statement was discriminatory as it seeks to silence and deny the right of those who are opposed to abortion to be heard. Opposition to the violence of abortion is not a religious issue, one does not have to be religious to be opposed to violence against women and their unborn.

I believe that justice demands that Mr Mulligan now makes a public apology on the Project programme to the thousands of viewers who he has offended and insulted.

The most dangerous place for a New Zealander today is in the mother’s womb.The item confirms and perpetuates the ultimate discrimination against the unborn that only those who are wanted have a right to life and those who are classified as “unwanted”, may be killed.  

Standard 8 Balance. The item lacked balance as it was evident that the proposal to decriminalise abortion had the open support of all the presenters. It is contended that the ethics of the journalism profession requires that journalists adopt a neutral stance on contentious social issues.

A female presenter stated that she had terminated the life of her second child because it was unwanted and supported the decriminalisation of abortion. There are many women in our community who have had an abortion who regret it and are opposed to the decriminalisation of abortion. To achieve balance why was such a woman not interviewed?

The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, was interviewed on his plans to present a bill to decriminalise abortion. To achieve balance, why was there no interview of an opposition MP to present a case to oppose decriminalisation?

The CEO of Family Planning, Jacki Edmund, was interviewed for 2 minutes and 14 seconds making claims that the current legislation violated human rights and should be taken out of the Crimes Act. Abortion is in the Crimes Act, Crimes against the person Part VIII. Section 182 Killing unborn child and is a crime to kill an unborn child. To achieve balance, why was there no person from the pro-life movement  interviewed to challenge the false statements made by Edmund? Why too did the presenters fail to ask Edmund to justify her contention that abortion should be taken out of the Crimes Act and for the killing of an unborn child to no longer be a crime? There is no United Nations convention or law in New Zealand that supports abortion as a human right. Why did the presenter fail to challenge Edmund on the accuracy of her statements?

The item lacked balance as the introduction to the item showed a small number of abortion supporters holding placards in support of abortion. To show balance why were there no shots showing the more that 1,200 people, young and old, who joyfully and peacefully marched on Parliament on Saturday 8th December 2018, defending life, supporting women and opposing the decriminalisation of abortion?

Standard 9 Accuracy. The item was misleading in that it promoted the proposition that abortion should not be in the Crimes Act without addressing why abortion is in the Crimes Act. The law recognises that the state has an interest and a duty to protect the lives of its future citizens. It also recognises in sections 182 and 183 that the unborn child has a right to be born. This protection has been there since 1856. The Crimes Act declares that it is a serious crime to kill an unborn child. There was no attempt in this programme to produce evidence to support the claim made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that abortion should not be a crime ie that it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. It should be known that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice when asked recently by Right to Life under the Official Information Act what evidence they had to support their claim that it was not a crime to kill an unborn child replied that they had no evidence and that it was just their opinion. 

The Project team are commended  for producing a quality current affairs programme, it is disappointing that this item did not reach their normal high standard.

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary

ken @righttolife.org.nz    

This is the website of Right to Life NZ Inc.