Right to Life New Zealand

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

Gore Health leads way in rejecting euthanasia by lethal injection for patients

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 7 November 2020

Right to Life requests that the twenty District Health Boards in New Zealand follow the commendable example of the Gore Health Community Trust to protect the vulnerable by publicly refusing to have anything to do with providing their patients with euthanasia by lethal injection or assisting in their suicide.

There is no place for the euthanasia or assisted suicide of patients in our hospitals and hospices. Killing or assisting patients to die by suicide is not health care.

Right to Life also requests that the government does not direct DHBs to provide lethal injections and assisted suicide to patients in accordance with the End of Life Choice Act. The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern stated after the election that “she wants to govern on behalf of all” . Hopefully this includes protecting the vulnerable in our community, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill from being killed by a doctor as normal health care and an “end of life choice”.

Right to Life commends the Gore Health Community Trust for affirming the sanctity of life and its commitment to providing quality palliative care for its patients.

Gore Health chief executive Karl Metzler, (Stuff – 6 November) states the vast majority of physicians are opposed to the End of Life Choice Act.

“None of them got into medicine to end lives,” he said.

Euthanasia is not a core health service and District Health Boards are not obliged to provide euthanasia. According to the Oregon experience, for the state to set up a national euthanasia system would be very expensive and would benefit only a small group of elite white people.

All of our District Health Boards are cash-strapped and are struggling to provide the services which they are required to provide in mental health, cancer treatment and in other areas of care.

It would be an intolerable burden on the community to impose this expensive and unnecessary euthanasia system for the termination of the lives of vulnerable patients.

Our palliative care services are world class, but they are underfunded. Currently only 1 in 3 New Zealanders who need palliative care in one of our 33 hospices has access to a hospice.

The state should concentrate on providing increased funding for palliative care and refrain from funding euthanasia. Our health funds should be used exclusively to promote a culture of life and not a culture of death.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

Repeal of Euthanasia Act –a Moral imperative

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 31 October 2020

Right to Life believes that the End of Life Choice Act 2019 is an unjust law that fails to protect life, violates the common good, lacks legitimacy, should not be obeyed and must be repealed.

An unjust law is a human law that is not founded on eternal law and natural law. We have a duty to obey human made laws but when they disobey God’s law they must be disobeyed and repealed.

The EOLC Act violates the moral law because it violates God’s fifth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Parliament has no authority to violate God’s law.

It violates Article three of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”The preamble of the Declaration advises that our right to life is inalienable and universal, being inalienable we may not have it taken from us nor may we give it up.

It violates the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1993, Article 8, “Right not to be deprived of life.”

The Euthanasia referendum also undermines the EOLC Act’s legitimacy for the following reasons:-

  • The “yes” vote for the referendum was 65.2 per cent. It is believed that only one in five who voted yes had actually read the Act.
  • Right to Life believes that many of those who voted yes were grossly misinformed. The government MPs, who were overwhelmingly in support of the new law, claimed to be neutral, but conducted a campaign of misinformation about the referendum.

A poll conducted in New Zealand between 31 October and 6 November, 2019, by Curia Marketing on behalf of Euthanasia Free New Zealand revealed the following disturbing findings on what the End of Life Choice Bill would deal with or allow to be legalised:

•         74% thought that it included turning off life support

•         70% thought it included ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests

•         62% thought it included the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.

Why did the government refuse to address this widespread misunderstanding of the referendum?

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about, nor does it make legal the action of turning off life support, to make a ‘do not resuscitate request (no CPR) or to stop medical treatment. All of these end of life choices are already legal, are not euthanasia and this new law does not change these actions.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about pain relief. It is already legal for a doctor to give a person enough medication to address their pain and make them comfortable, even if this may hasten their death as a side effect, as the doctor seeks to neither hasten or cause the death of his patient.

Right to Life invites all in the community who wish to protect the right to life of the most vulnerable to join with us in working for the repeal of the EOLC Act.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

Euthanasia Referendum- temporary victory for Culture of Death

by 1 Comment

Media Release 30 October 2020

The support of 65.2 per cent who voted yes to the euthanasia referendum marks a sad day of infamy in our nation’s history. New Zealand now has the notoriety of being the first country in the world that has approved with a national referendum to allow the killing of its most vulnerable. New Zealand now becomes not only the most dangerous place in the world to be an unborn child but the most  dangerous place if you are elderly, seriously ill or disabled.

The architect of this legislation David Seymour and the Labour government who wanted an overwhelming “yes” vote  will be delighted their campaign of misinformation has produced the planned result.

This is the day that New Zealand accepted the implementation of the End of Life Choice Act that empowers doctors to administer a lethal injection to their patients or assist in their suicide as some sort of “health care”.

This Act is a threat to the lives of every person in our community. It is not the end of change in these laws,  but merely the first step in implementing the agenda of the international euthanasia movement, who ultimately desire assisted killing for anyone who is tired of life, or who believes that they may be a burden on their family or society so cannot justify their continuing existence.

This is the legislation that provides cover for the perfect crime, the victim is killed and disposed of, there are no witnesses and their death certificate is falsified to conceal the truth that the patient was actually killed by their doctor. No doctor will be tried for manslaughter or homicide, because they will always be acting “in good faith”.

This law may corrupt the medical profession and drive out some members who refuse to participate in mercy killing or assisted suicide. The trust between patients and their doctors will be eroded unless safer alternatives to euthanasia continue to be readily available and adequate funding is provided for palliative care. The safeguards which should protect the vulnerable are not specificed in this law – no independent witnesses are required, and no consultation with family or whanau is required under this law.

The duty of Parliament to protect the lives of every citizen, especially our weakest and most defenceless members has been changed forever. Parliament now has assumed the authority of our Creator. It now arrogantly believes that it has the decision making authority about who may live and who may be killed. It also believes that it has the authority to empower and direct doctors to ignore medical ethics to kill and not to care.

This tyrannical referendum posing as democracy is not the end, but the beginning of our battle against euthanasia. The pro-life movement will not abandon the vulnerable in our community, but re-commits ourselves  to fight unceasingly for the repeal of this obnoxious End of Life Choice Act.

Parliament has shamefully abdicated its responsibility to present a truthful and accurate campaign to educate voters on this critical issue, has ignored the wishes of the majority of the submissions against this dangerous law, and has failed to protect the vulnerable who may be coerced into an early death.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z Inc.

Re-elected Labour government increasing threat to human rights and traditional family.

by 1 Comment

Media Release 17 October 2020

Right to Life is disappointed that the electorate has re-elected Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Labour government for a further term of government. Right to Life believes that only those who are committed to protecting the lives of every person in the community from conception to natural death are worthy of sitting in our Parliament or of governing us. Right to Life believes that the Labour government of Jacinda Ardern has forfeited its right to govern us because of their failure to protect women and their precious unborn from the violence of abortion which is now promoted as no longer a crime but health care. They have also failed to protect the vulnerable in our community from euthanasia and assisted suicide with their overwhelming support for the End of Life Choice Act.

Right to Life warns the community that Western civilisation and its values are under attack by neoliberalism and post modernism. Following the government’s violation of human rights during its first term, we need to be alert to the re-energised  agenda that will be pursued by the government this term, which will increasingly threaten the sanctity of life and the traditional family, the foundation of our nation.

This government, during its first term, presided over the government funded killing of more than 30,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children.  It also passed the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 which denied the humanity of the unborn child and declared that it was no longer a crime to kill a defenceless unborn child. There were more than 25,000 written submissions to the Abortion Legislation select committee, with 90 per cent of these opposed to decriminalising abortion, the government ignored these submissions.

This government caucus also gave overwhelming support to the End of Life Choice Act, which would empower doctors to administer a lethal injection or assist in the suicide of vulnerable patients, as “health care”.

This government threatens free speech, with its promise to introduce legislation to prohibit hate speech. This could be used to prohibit churches from teaching that killing unborn children in abortion or killing the vulnerable in euthanasia is a violation of human rights and an offence to God.

The government fully supports the Private Members Bill of Louisa Wall M.P., to restrict the right of free speech and assembly within 150 metres of an abortion facility.  This law would deny women seeking an abortion, their right to obtain help from those present.

This election is a sad day for our parliamentary democracy, as the Labour government now has an overwhelming majority that will allow it to legislate as it wishes. Will the news media serve our community by being an effective watchdog?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Risky Law Euthanasia Campaign to Oppose the End of Life Act now underway

by 1 Comment

Risky Law an organisation comprising  22 New Zealand professionals covering a range of disciplines have come together to oppose this Act have made the following media release which is shared with permission.

End of Life Choice Act is a risk not worth taking says action group.
Two thirds of New Zealanders are unaware there is a referendum on euthanasia at this year’s election. Yet the risky and badly constructed End of Life Choice Act will become law with a simple majority on the 17th October.

Getting people to consider what is in the Act and the implications of making it law is the aim of Vote No to the End of Life Act, a group of medical, law and ethics professionals who have recently
launched their campaign heading into October’s election.

“We are 22 professionals covering a range of disciplines that have come together to oppose this Act,”says Peter Thirkell, Chair of Vote No to the End of Life Act. “Put simply, the Act is flawed. It will putvulnerable people at risk and will have too many unintended, negative consequences. We areencouraging New Zealanders to Vote No to stop this badly conceived Act.”

The group’s campaign focuses on 6 reasons for people to Vote No. Of these, the primary reasons are that the Act is bad law, the focus needs to be on providing compassionate care, and the
overwhelming opposition of New Zealand doctors with more than 1,500 signing an open letter to
oppose the Act as part of the ‘Doctors Say No’ campaign, and the New Zealand Medical Association also being opposed. There is also the unprecedented aspect of this being the first time an Act has gone to a binding referendum in New Zealand.

“Whatever your views of death and dying, this Act is poor legislation because it does not fully protect people from a wrongful death,” says Peter. “Any New Zealander with a terminal illness of six months or less is at risk of an early death through a wrong diagnosis, a wrong judgement about how long they have to live, and pressure from uncaring or abusive family members. The fact that 98% of palliative care professionals and most doctors are opposed reinforces how risky and flawed the Act is. We’ve never had a fully drafted Act go to referendum in New Zealand before and few are aware of the implications of this.”

The group is encouraging people to visit the website www.riskylaw.nz and follow their social media channels on Facebook and Instagram so they can make an informed decision ahead of the
referendum. There are a number of experts in this area that are available to speak at community
events and people can request a speaker through the website.

“New Zealanders need to take the time to look at what is exactly in this Act. Only 1 in 5 people know what is in it. There is the very real prospect that most New Zealanders will wake up on the morning after the referendum and not realise what they have voted to become law. There’s no going back and we implore New Zealanders to do their research.”

For further enquiries, please contact:
Risky Law NZ
+6421 090 58128

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

Letter to Act Leader David Seymour on Euthanasia Referendum Information Omissions

by Leave a Comment

David Seymour MP

8th August 2020

Dear Mr Seymour,

While we fully support your desire for an informed debate on the referendum on euthanasia we believe that there is still considerable misunderstanding of the administration of the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA).

We believe that it would be in the public interest if you were to make a public statement clarifying for the public that the EOLCA does not provide for turning off life support, does not include CPR requests and does not provide for stopping medical treatment which are already acceptable and legal. We also request that you ask the Minister of Justice to include this important information on the government referendum web site. I would be grateful if you would kindly advise me of your response to my request.

A poll conducted in New Zealand between 31 October and 6 November 2019 by Curia Marketing on behalf of Euthanasia Free New Zealand revealed the following disturbing findings on what the End of Life Choice Bill would provide.

  • 74% thought that it included turning off life support.
  • 70% thought it includes ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests.

In a Curia poll conducted for Euthanasia Free in 2017 it found that;

67% thought “assisted dying” includes the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries. 

 The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about, nor does it make legal the action of turning off life support, nor making a ‘do not resuscitate request (no CPR) nor to stop taking medical treatment. All of these end of life choice are already legal, are not euthanasia and this new law, if passed will not change these actions.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about pain relief. It’s already legal for a doctor to give a person enough medication to address their pain and make them comfortable, even if this may hasten their death as a side effect. In these situations the doctor seeks to neither hasten or cause the death of his patient.

The above polls clearly demonstrate that the public is not yet aware of the content meaning or implications of the End of Life Choice Act. We believe that in order to have a fully informed public referendum on this critical issue of allowing doctors to give patients a lethal injection or to assist in their suicide it is essential that the above information be included on the government Referendum website.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life

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

Right to Life Seeks Informed Debate on Euthanasia Referendum

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 25 July 2020

Right to Life commends David Seymour, the architect and sponsor of the End of Life Choice Act for insisting that the public be given accurate information on the purpose of his legislation. He stated on TVNZ One News on Tuesday 21st July, his concern that there was a danger that what he wrongly considered inaccurate  important questions in a recent poll by Horizon could misinform the electorate.

  Right to Life supports David Seymour in his desire to ensure that voters are fully informed on the legislation that will empower doctors to give a lethal injection to their patients or assist in their suicide.

  Right to Life believes that David Seymour would be greatly distressed to learn that a poll conducted by Curia marketing in 2017 found that the majority of respondents thought that the End of Life Choice Bill would provide options that were already legal.

•       85% thought that it included turning off life support

•       79% thought it includes ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests

•       67% thought it includes the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.

Similar results were found in polls conducted in 2015 and 2019.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about, nor does it make legal the action of turning off life support, to make a ‘do not resuscitate request (no CPR) or to stop medical treatment. All of these end of life choices are already legal, are not euthanasia and this new law, if passed, will not change these actions.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about pain relief. It’s already legal for a doctor to give a person enough medication to address their pain and make them comfortable, even if this may hasten their death as a side effect as the doctor seeks to neither  hasten or cause the death of his patient.

This poll demonstrates that the public is not yet aware of the content and meaning of the End of Life Choice Act. We believe that in order to have a fully informed public referendum on this critical issue of allowing doctors to give patients a lethal injection or to assist in their suicide it is essential that the above information be widely publicised by the media and shown on the government referendum web site.

Right to Life believes that David Seymour, who is a passionate advocate for choice has a serious duty to the community to make a public statement to the media confirming that the EOLCA does not provide any of the above options. We believe that David Seymour would be greatly distressed if voters voted Yes for the euthanasia referendum in the mistaken belief that the legislation provided for the above options which are already ethical, legal and have been available for many years.

Right to Life requests that the media,which are at the service of the community seek from David Seymour his confirmation that the above options are not provided for in the End of Life Choice Act.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

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

Government Supports Yes Vote for Euthanasia Referendum with Campaign of Misinformation

by 9 Comments

Media Release 12 July 2020

Right to Life believes that the government is withholding important information from the community concerning the End of Life Choice Act. The Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little has set up a government website allegedly to provide information on the Act to assist the electorate to make an informed choice, in voting at the referendum. Right to Life believes that the real objective is to encourage a misinformed electorate to support the government’s agenda of social engineering by voting yes at the referendum.

Right to Life believes that it is inappropriate for the government to be involved in providing information on the referendum. The government is not neutral as 72% of its Labour members pressured by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern  voted in support of the Act to empower doctors to kill their patients with a lethal injection or to assist in their suicide.

Right to Life asks the government to explain why it is withholding important information from the community?

It is important that those voting understand that under the Crimes Act 1961 that homicide and assisted suicide are serious crimes. There is a total prohibition of the taking of the life of another innocent human being. The End of Life Choice Act will establish two radical principles that will change not only the law but also medicine.

  • The first, that Parliament has the right to legislate for who may be killed.
  • The second that doctors and nurse practitioners are empowered to kill  patients or assist in their suicide as health care.

Right to Life believes that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding in the community about what the End of Life Choice Act provides.

A poll conducted in New Zealand in 2019 by Curia Marketing on behalf of Euthanasia Free New Zealand revealed the following disturbing findings on what the End of Life Choice Bill would provide.

  • 85% thought that it included turning off life support.
  • 79% thought it includes ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests.
  • 67% thought it includes the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about, nor does it make legal the action of turning off life support, to make a ‘do not resuscitate request (no CPR) or to stop medical treatment. All of these end of life choice are already legal, are not euthanasia and this new law, if passed will not change these actions.

The End of Life Choice Act is NOT about pain relief. It’s already legal for a doctor to give a person enough medication to address their pain and make them comfortable, even if this may hasten their death as a side effect as the doctor seeks to neither  hasten or cause the death of his patient.

“This poll demonstrates that the public is not yet aware of the content and meaning of the End of Life Choice Act. We believe that in order to have a fully informed public referendum on this critical issue of allowing doctors to give patients a lethal injection or to assist in their suicide it is essential that the above information be included on the government Referendum website.

The opposition of the world Medical Association which represents the medical association in 122 member nations with a membership of 10 million doctors, the NZMA, the NZ College of General Practitioners, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine and the Palliative Care Nurses of NZ ARE ALL OPPOSED TO THE LEGALISING OF EUTHANASIA. This important information should also be shown on the government website. Why is it not there?

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

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

Euthanasia Referendum Threat to Hospice Movement

by 1 Comment

Media Release Monday 29th June 2020

Right to Life believes that if the euthanasia referendum results in the ‘End of Life Choice’ Act coming into force, which would happen if more than 50% of people vote for it, there is a danger that the  the government could withholding funding for palliative care for hospices in New Zealand. The objective would be to compel hospices against their conscience to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide within their hospices.

The 16th June 2020 High Court judgement of Justice J, Mallon in the case of Hospice NZ V the Attorney General highlights the threat to world class palliative care provided by Hospice NZ.

Hospice NZ had sought an urgent hearing in May in the High Court in Wellington to ask three questions. One was on whether New Zealand’s proposed euthanasia law, the subject of a referendum would have the effect of defeating the conscience right of hospices to protect their patients by prohibiting the killing of patients under the End of Life Choice Bill.

Justice Mallon in his judgement supported the right of hospices to prohibit euthanasia, but stated in his decision that there was however nothing to prevent the government authority from withholding health care funding if a hospice refused to allow euthanasia.

The Attorney General submitted to the court, [131] Further, if a DHB determined the most efficient way to fund assisted dying services in its area was to fund a provider who is willing to provide both palliative care and assisted dying services, it must be entitled to do so. Such a decision would not be to discriminate against those holding a conscientious objection. Rather, it would be one of effective allocation of funding to service providers in accordance with the statutory requirement on a DHB that it “seek the optimum arrangement for the most effective and efficient delivery of health services in order to meet local, regional and national needs”.  

So if we consider the judgement we would have to conclude that under it, if a DHB seeking the most optimum arrangement or determined the most efficient way to fund assisted dying services… it must be entitled to do so. The words most efficient way are chilling and do nothing to negate our concerns expressed in the first paragraph of our post.

As it reads there is nothing in the above judgement that would cause any alleviation of our fears.

Let’s be clear, Euthanasia is about doctors killing patients or assisting in their suicide and it is diametrically opposed to the objective of palliative care, to neither hasten nor postpone death.

Euthanasia represents a culture of death. It is incompatible with palliative care which is compatible with a culture of life.  Right to Life believes that the culture of death will not compromise, and will  demand complete subservience. The End of Life Choice would grease the slippery slope and a right to die would ultimately become a duty to die.

There are 33 hospices in New Zealand providing palliative care for those seriously ill, or in a terminal condition. Government funding accounts for 60 per cent of the funding required to maintain hospices.

Right to Life believes that it is the intention of the government to compel Hospices to accept that doctors could kill patients with a lethal dose or assist them to commit suicide. This was clearly indicated in the defeat of the Supplementary Order Paper 295 to the End of Life Choice Bill, moved by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. This SOP sought to amend the End of Life Choice Bill by upholding the right of hospices to “conscientiously object to including euthanasia”, It was shamefully defeated by 68 to 52. (See Sections 58-62 of Hospice-New-Zealand-v-Attorney-General)

This important amendment was opposed by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern and 33 Labour MPs, supported by nine NZ First MPs, eight Green MPs  and 15 National MPs.

Right to Life is firmly of the conviction that if they succeed with the referendum, that it is the government’s intention to incorporate euthanasia as a ‘health service’ in our hospices.

We call on all those who value the lives of our unwell and elderly to vote NO at the coming referendum. The lives of the vulnerable have never been at greater risk.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

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

Abortion Referendum Please

by 1 Comment

The following article is a guest post from the Average Thief Blog

New Zealand should have three referenda later this year, not two.  There will be referenda on the “conscience issues” of euthanasia (End of Life Choice Bill) and the legalisation of cannabis.  There should also be a referendum for the most difficult conscience issue of all – widely increased access to abortion (Abortion Legislation Bill).

The Government wants New Zealanders to pretend that abortion is not a conscience issue: the effect of the Abortion Legislation Bill is to rebrand abortion as a “health issue”.  According to this view, the pregnant woman is the only person involved: the embryo/foetus is just a mass; the woman suffers from a condition (pregnancy) that is resolved by removing the mass.

It is not necessary here to describe how ludicrous and repulsive this view is; it is enough to point out that it is highly contentious – probably the most contentious moral issue most of us have ever encountered.  Many New Zealanders consider the embryo/foetus to be either a human being or, in terms of its potential, “human enough” to require serious recognition and protection.

The pretence that this morally highly contentious issue is not a conscience issue at all is nothing short of dishonest – and should be rejected out of hand, not only in the interests of reason and common sense but also as a protest against that dishonesty.

This dishonesty was reinforced by the decision to exclude men (so far as possible) from membership of the Select Committee and by the Select Committee’s decision that submitters who oppose the Bill altogether (seeing no way to tweak it into decent shape) would not be permitted to appear before the Committee.  Only those who support increased access to abortion were granted the privilege of a hearing.  To use the machinery of our democracy to reduce public access to democratic processes is profoundly wrong.

As the Bill is not yet law, it remains for Parliament to decide whether abortion is a conscience issue or a health issue.  For that reason, Parliament might (or might not) decide that the decision whether or not to pass the Bill is indeed a “conscience issue” and allow MPs a “personal vote” rather than a “party vote”.  However, Parliament could also make a far better decision – put the matter to a referendum, along with euthanasia and cannabis.

There are compelling reasons why the issue should be resolved by referendum:

1)      It is completely ridiculous to have a referendum on euthanasia, which allows a person to take their own life or to agree to be killed, and not to have a referendum on abortion which, according to many of us, allows a human being to be killed without their consent.  Our law-making processes should not be ridiculous.

2)      A referendum involves voting by secret ballot.  However, when MPs cast a “personal vote”, they do so visibly, without the protection of secrecy.  There may have been times when an MP’s conscience was safe from scrutiny and condemnation – he or she could express a conscientious objection with impunity.  Certainly, this is not the case now.  We see all around us that the ideologies of wokeness govern not only the law but also morality, and are equally dogmatic, condemning and unforgiving in both settings.  We see that a conscientious objection to any woke dictate is “wrong” and is punished severely – for example, by crippling the objector’s career.  MPs are no exception, they are ring-barked by wokeness in general and by hardline feminism in particular.  They are not free, as perhaps they once were, to vote according to their conscience.  We citizen voters are not as yet under siege to the same extent; and, anyhow, we have the security of a secret ballot.  So, the issue should be left to us.

Abortion on demand is a conscience issue that should be addressed by those who are still free to vote with their conscience – the electorate, in a referendum.

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