family break down

Media Release 7 July 2022

The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on 28 June 2022, dismissed the appeal of Family First for the restoration of its charity status with the Charities Registration Board.

Right to Life fully applauds and supports Family First for its defence of life and the traditional family. Family First is not deterred by this manifestly unjust decision and deserves the support of our whole community for its courageous defence of the family and our human rights.

The appeal was opposed by the Attorney General on behalf of the government which supported the Charities Registration Board, that Family First was advocating traditional marriage of one man and one woman as the foundation of a healthy society. Counsel for the Charities Board submitted that “the Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.”

The government refuses to accept that traditional marriage was instituted by our Creator for the happiness, wellbeing of mankind and for the procreation of the human race.

The government should recognise that the family does not exist for society or the state but society and the state exist for the family. The duty of the State is to protect and promote traditional marriage and not to restrict it or suppress it.

It should be of great concern to all New Zealand families that the government is seeking to suppress the traditional family. Right to Life believes that now that the government has achieved success in the Supreme Court, that we can expect an attack on the charitable status of churches and state integrated schools which teach that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.

The traditional family is one of the 3 pillars of authority outside the state, along with the Church and civic organisations to defend human rights and democracy.

This case exposes and highlights the government’s rejection of the traditional family of exclusively one man and one woman as being of public benefit. The Attorney General argued that:-

“Family First’s contention that its activities benefit all forms of families cannot be sustained on the evidence. He submits that Family First has not established that its principal purpose, advocacy on behalf of the traditional family, is of public benefit or is sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable.”

Counsel for the Charities Board submitted that the, “Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.”

Right to Life requests that the government legislate to implement its commitment made in its election manifesto in 2017, “that Labour will ensure that community and voluntary organisations can engage in advocacy without fear of losing government contracts or their charitable status”.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

The following article is a guest post by Catherine Gillies.

As a post-abortion counsellor having helped facilitate the healing of many suicidal women and desperate men, I think it’s horrendous that this cruel, uncompassionate and poorly researched abortion legislation is being promoted.
For over 35 years I have heard stories of heart-break – many women are incapacitated by PTSD, or other debilitating conditions. Most women felt they had been vulnerable when they discovered their pregnancy and had no other choice but abortion. They certainly never gave informed consent!

I now work with children and grandchildren of post-abortive women. The long-term impact of that vulnerable “unchoice” is intergenerational trauma, as the living children suffer the consequences of the wounded mother’s unresolved grief for their lost children. I’ve seen mothers grieve a five-week foetus as they would a five-year-old child.

Most major international studies, and importantly, New Zealand studies, indicate abortion has detrimental long-term impacts on a woman’s mental and physical health. There is a great deal of evidence that it also impacts men severely.

The stories I hear of medical sloppiness and women being coerced and lied to about needing to make an immediate decision, whether they discover their pregnancy at five or 15 weeks gestation, are frustrating. Many are shocked to learn the legal time limit in New Zealand has been 20 weeks for the past 40 years.

Removing abortion from the Crimes Act will increase the bullying that already happens within our taxpayer-funded abortion services.

Let’s not lose sight that abortion is a multimillion-dollar business in New Zealand. It is not in the interests of the abortion industry to have informed consent, good pre-abortion counselling, or restrictions or safeguards in their businesses. Removing abortion from The Crimes Act is likely to lead to even more bullying and coercion, more heartache, and lives lost and ruined.

Studies all over the world show that women who have a history of neglect or abuse are far more likely to have abortions, as they do not have the emotional strength to listen to their own desires; they are vulnerable to bullying and coercion. The abortion makes an already vulnerable person hugely weaker, physically and psychologically.

There is a significant social cost of abortion. As a taxpayer, I am concerned how our tax dollars are spent. When taking into account the long-term detrimental impact of abortion, it is potentially the most expensive procedure on which the government spends our health budget. It is the tax system that deals with the long-term impacts.

Evidence shows there is a correlation between abortion and:

* Future mental health problems

* Increased physical health problems

* Increased rates of suicide

* Increased risk of death by homicide

* Higher rates of addictions

* Incarceration rates

* Relationship and family break down

As families and communities we can offer better solutions to vulnerable pregnancies than abortion!