Right to Life New Zealand

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

Has NZ First Cruelly Betrayed Women and Our Unborn?

by 1 Comment

Media Release 4th August 2019

The policy of NZ First on abortion was made abundantly clear by the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters at the Family First Conference in Auckland in 2014 . When interviewed by Bob McCoskrie he stated that “abortions should be legal, safe and rare”. He was asked if he supported the Green’s policy of decriminalising abortion. He replied “no we don’t” He said that he believed that life began at conception and that the child had a right to life.

Why the current turn around?

It is reported in the media that Martin is working with the Minister of Justice to have the government’s bill to decriminalise abortion reconciled with NZ First party policy. The Hon. Tracey Martin stated recently during a Radio New Zealand interview that it was the party’s overriding principle to keep abortion “safe legal and rare.” If NZ First’s policy is to oppose the decriminalisation of abortion, why then are they negotiating to support a bill that will decriminalise abortion, take abortion out of the Crimes Act, make it a simply health matter and make it no longer a crime to kill a child before it is born?

Right to Life asks the Minister of Children, the Hon. Tracey Martin, if the party has negotiated a secret deal with the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to give the support of NZ First for a government bill to decriminalise abortion.

Right to Life believes that many people voted for NZ First at the 2017 general election because they sincerely believed that if they were elected to Parliament they would vigorously oppose the anti- life agenda of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Why are they not doing that? Her agenda is to decriminalise the killing of the unborn, make it no longer a crime to kill a child before birth and make the killing of the unborn “a reproductive choice for women.”

Right to Life asks the Hon. Tracey Martin; If you do a deal with the Prime Minister do you expect to receive their support at the election in 2020?

Right to Life freely acknowledges that Tracey Martin sincerely desires to do what is best for women and our precious unborn, but we must ask her if she realises that the Prime Minister seeks to dehumanise the unborn, declare that they are not human beings endowed with a right to life, seeks to make it no longer a crime to kill them, to make them property of the mother and give any mother the ‘right’ to kill her own children before birth for any reason?

Surely it is absolutely inconceivable that NZ First would now be secretly negotiating with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to betray the women of New Zealand and our precious unborn.

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 under the protection of the Crimes Act sections 182 and 183, allowing the killing of the child as a ‘health service’, we will have crossed a very dangerous line and 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. Will you be next?

In the interest of women and future generations Right to Life urges Tracey Martin to use her 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 the continued protection of the Crimes Act.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Important Questions Asked to Andrew Little and Tracey Martin

by Leave a Comment

24th July 2019

Hon Andrew Little MP,

Minister of Justice,

Dear Minister,

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.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life.

23rd July 2019

Hon, Tracey Martin MP,

Minister for Children,

Dear Minister,

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.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life

Letter to Winston Peters and NZ First MP’s

by 3 Comments

11 July 2019

Rt. Hon. Winston Peters MP,

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you in defence of our precious unborn and their mothers who are under an unprecedented attack.

The State has a serious duty to protect the lives of all members of the human family. The option preferred by the Minister of Justice would remove this protection.  It is contended that in upholding your commendable policy opposing the decriminalisation of abortion and acting in the best interests of the unborn and their mothers, NZ First should refrain from supporting this bill through cabinet and oppose the bill at its first and any subsequent readings. Any bill that seeks to make the killing of the defenceless unborn “a reproductive health service” represents an unprecedented attack on the sanctity of life.  

Right to Life commends NZ First for its defence of the lives of our precious unborn and their mothers. We are aware that NZ First is the only party in Parliament that has a policy to oppose the decriminalisation of abortion. I recall that at the Family First Conference in Auckland in 2014 when you were interviewed by Bob McCoskrie, you stated that “abortions should be legal, safe and rare”. You were asked if you supported the Green’s policy of decriminalising abortion, you replied “no we don’t”. You then said that you believed that life began at conception and that the child had a right to life.

It is reported in the media that your caucus is committed to supporting a bill through cabinet that would remove the killing of the unborn by abortion from the Crimes Act and make the killing of the unborn “a reproductive choice for women”. It is the wish of the Prime Minister to remove the stigma associated with the killing of the unborn and to make the killing of the child no longer a crime, but a health service.

The sanctity of life of the unborn and its right to life are protected under the Crimes Act section 182 Killing unborn child and section 183 Procuring abortion by any means. It is a serious crime to kill a child in the womb. Every- one who violates these sections is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years. This legal protection has been there since 1856, we change it at our peril. 

The Royal Commission in its report to Parliament in 1977 said, on upholding the status of the unborn child. “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.” 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 unborn child is the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and needs special legal protection. Every day in New Zealand nearly thirty-five children in the womb are violently destroyed and their mothers the second victim of abortion, are left with a life time of grief and sorrow. Our women deserve better.

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.

If we as a society deny the humanity of the unborn, then logically we will one day deny the humanity of those who are suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s. The denial of the humanity and right to life of the unborn is a threat to the right to life of every citizen.

The decriminalisation of abortion will;

  • Allow for sex selection abortions, which are currently unlawful.
  • Allow for abortion up to birth for babies with a disabiliy including Down Syndrome.
  • Not protect women seeking an abortion because they are subject to violence and coercion.

In conclusion, Right to Life requests that you withdraw support for the decriminalisation of abortion and that you use your influence to have the current unlawful abortion on demand stopped. Please promote adoption as a loving option.

Thank you for all that you are doing to defend life, protecting women from the violence of abortion and promoting the common good.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary.

Euthanasia – Binding Referendum is Not Democracy

by 4 Comments

Media Release 30th April 2019

Right to Life is opposed to the proposal that Parliament should authorise a binding referendum should the Contentious End of Life Choice Bill be passed at its second reading. It has been proposed that Parliament should authorise a binding referendum before the third reading of the bill. The most fundamental medical ethic is to care for patients, not kill them or help them commit suicide. This is an issue that must not be reduced to a popularity contest.

Right to Life is disappointed that the nine members of the caucus of NZ First voted to support the first reading of the bill on the condition that the author of the bill, David Seymour, would support a binding referendum. NZ First had a duty to protect life by voting against this evil bill and not by voting for it and increasing the prospects of this bill becoming law. Will NZ First now act to protect our community by voting against this insidious bill at its second reading on 22nd May?

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 is an attempt to seduce and implicate the whole community in the murder of the vulnerable.

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. The community has a collective duty to protect the invioable right to life of every member of the community from conception to natural death.

A binding referendum that resulted in support for the Seymour bill would impose an intolerable burden on the conscience of Parliamentarians who are opposed to the murder of the vulnerable.

Parliament has a sacred duty to protect the lives of every member of the community, it has no authority to preside over our destruction. Parliament has a serious duty to protect the community, especially our most vulnerable members, from the serious threat to life presented by this evil bill. Parliament has the duty to protect the community by voting decisively to defeat this bill at its second reading.  It would be a serious dereliction of duty to pass the second reading and a further dereliction to then vote to support a binding referendum. Parliament’s MP must not shamefully shirk their responsibility to protect the lives of the community by cowardly washing their hands and imposing what is their responsibility onto the community.

Right to Life earnestly requests that Parliamentarians vote to defeat any resolution seeking to authorise any binding referendum that seeks to implicate the whole community in the murder of its most vulnerable members. Its advocates claim falsely that it would be democratic to allow every citizen to vote on this life and death issue.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

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