Right to Life New Zealand

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

Government imposes veil of secrecy over abortion “safe areas”

by Leave a Comment

I am a child of GodMedia Release 16 September 2022

Right to Life believes that applications for safe areas around killing centres are being supported by an orchestrated litany of lies. It is a travesty of justice for the government not to  allow the community to be heard in defence of free speech, assembly and communication threatened by abortion safe areas. The only ones to be heard are abortion providers and those complaining of alleged harassment and intimidation of women and staff at abortion facilities. This is a violation of human rights.

Right to Life is disappointed that the Ministry of Health has declined to provide information under the Official Information Act concerning applications from abortion providers for “safe areas” around their facilities.

The Ministry replied on 13th September to our request of 13th August that, “Any decisions on future Safe Areas around abortion facilities are part of an active legislative process, where decisions are still to be made. Once any Safe Area is granted this information will be publicly available”.

Right to Life challenges the decision of the Ministry of Health and has lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman and the Minister of Health.

Right to Life asked the Ministry of Health under the Official Information Act for;–

  • The names of the abortion providers who have made application for a “safe area” around their abortion facilities.
  • The names of the abortion facilities subject to an application for a “safe area” designation.
  • A copy of the grounds and alleged violations of harassment and intimidation supporting the above applications for a “safe area”.

Right to Life challenges this decision that it is in the public interest to maintain secrecy. We believe that the Safe Areas Act was passed on the pretext that women and staff were being harassed and intimidated at abortion facilities. We reject these claims. It is contended that there was an orchestrated litany of lies presented to demonise peaceful law abiding citizens who gathered to pray peacefully outside abortion facilities.

The select committee dealing with this controversial bill received more than 19,000 submissions. A total of 91.6% of the submissions were opposed to the bill, with only 7% in support. The government dominated select committee chose to ignore these submissions.

Prior to the passing of the bill, Right to Life lodged an Official Information Act request with 20 District Health Boards asking them if they had a record of written or oral complaints of women and staff being harassed or intimidated during the previous two years. The response from all DHBs was that there was no record of any complaints. The select committee dealing with the bill saw fit to ignore this information.

The provision of “safe areas” is being driven not by abortion providers but by the government and the pro-abortion movement. The real purpose of “safe areas” is to distract from the real violence against women and their unborn which is inflicted on them in the abortion facility, not out in the street. It also violates the right of women coerced into having an abortion from seeking help and advice from those praying outside the abortion facility.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

Andrew Little refuses to answer OIA Request – Complaint to Ombudsman

by Leave a Comment

16 October 2020

Ombudsman,

Office of the Ombudsman,

Dear Sir,

I wish to lay a complaint against the Minister of Justice, Hon. Andrew Little for declining to provide the following information under the Official Information Act:-

  • What statistical evidence do you have to support your claim that there is no such thing as a full-term abortion?
  • What evidence do you have to support your claim that abortions after 20 weeks are performed to protect the women’s life or health from serious risk?

The Minister has not disclosed under the Official Information Act what provisions he is declining my request. I submit that the Minister has no grounds for declining my request as he has access to the abortion statistics recorded by Statistics NZ and by the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee {PMMRC].

Statistics available from the PMMRC reveal that the vast majority of late term abortions are performed on the grounds of alleged foetal disability including Down syndrome.

I question the Minister’s claim that it is my duty to produce evidence about the performance of full term abortions, this is an absurd distraction that seeks to avoid answering my request.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr,

Secretary.

Why Does the Prime Minister Refuse to be Accountable?

by 1 Comment

Media Release Monday 1st June 2020

The Prime Minister made a commitment after the 2017 election that New Zealand would have the most accountable and transparent government we have ever seen.

However this Labour led government has proven to be one of the most unaccountable and nontransparent governments we have ever seen.

Right to Life has written to the Prime Minister on four separate occasions to ask her to answer our questions on key life issues. We have either received no response or unsatisfactory one line answers.

Right to Life believes that we must protect our Parliamentary democracy, lest we lose it.  When the Prime Minister or any Member of Parliament exercises their right to speak or vote in our Parliament on legislation, they are performing a public duty. It is recorded in Hansard for all to see, indeed for posterity and its a matter of public record.

We believe that the public have an absolute right to ask the Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament (and receive answers regarding their reasons) as to their reasons for voting for or  against legislation brought to Parliament. Those who govern, do so with the permission of the electorate. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to be transparent and accountable, why is she expecting us to give her permission to govern us for a further term?

On 10 March 2020, Jacinda Ardern voted against the eight pro-life amendments to the Abortion Legislation Act that would provide increased protection to women and their unborn. One amendment, that of Simon O’Connor, would have provided appropriate medical care to a child born alive in a late term abortion. Another amendment, that of Agnes Loheni, would have given pain relief prior to an abortion to a child of post 20 weeks to avoid its suffering pain while being violently dismembered in the womb. We asked her on 13th March 2020 if she would please advise us why she voted against these compassionate amendments; there was no reply.

Right to Life also wrote twice to the other 68 MPs who voted for the Bill, comprising 36 Labour, 20 National, two NZ First, eight Greens, one ACT and one Independent. They were asked why they voted against the pro-life amendments; None replied except Louisa Wall.

Right to Life also asked Jacinda Ardern for the following important information:-
On 6th January 2020, if she would support our Society’s campaign for women’s equality by supporting the right of women to be born; there was no reply.

On 14 February 2020, under the Official Information Act, we asked the Prime Minister “if she had a policy to support a replacement birth rate of 2.1 (necessary to demographically maintain a natural population), or better and are you committed to implementing policies that will achieve a replacement birth rate of 2.1.” Her Chief of Staff advised that, “the Prime Minister had no such policies.”

Right to Life asked Jacinda Ardern on 21st April 2020, under the Official Information Act, “What medical or biological evidence do you have that the unborn child is not a human being with a right to life until it is born?” She refused to answer and referred our request to the Ministry of Justice.

Why then is it, that Jacinda Ardern has consistently refused respectful requests from Right to Life for information on her policies and actions.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Right to Life Seeks Answers on Abortion Legislation Act from Minister of Health

by Leave a Comment

Hon. David Clark. MP, Minister of Health,

Dear Minister,

Official Information Act – Request

The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 came into force on Tuesday 24 March. The Law Commission  in its report to the Minister of Justice, “Alternative Approaches to Abortion Law” made a number of recommendations.

I wish to request under the Official Information Act your policy on the following questions arising from this report:-

1.Do you intend to review the wording of the schedule to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Restricted Activities) Order 2005 to ensure that all types of surgical abortions are restricted activities?

2.Do you intend to permit a woman seeking an abortion to be referred to an abortion provider by, in addition to a GP, a nurse, midwife or counsellor? 

3.Do you intend to remove the requirement in sections 32 and 33A of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 for abortions to be performed by a doctor?

Abortions could be performed or administered by a health practitioner, eg a registered nurse or midwife with appropriate qualifications and experience, as determined by the scopes of practice issued by health profession regulatory bodies. The qualifications and experience required may differ depending on the method of abortion

4.The Ministry of Health is to be responsible for collecting statistics on abortion. Do you intend to produce an annual report to Parliament that will include all the important statistical information that was previously provided by the Abortion Supervisory Committee?

5.Do you intend to require that when an abortion is performed on a child under the age of 16 on the grounds of rape or incest that the abortion provider has a duty to provide on the notification of abortion to your Ministry that these crimes have been reported to the Police?

6.In the event that the Family Planning Association provides medical abortions from their clinics, will you require that this abortion provider provide counselling services at each clinic?

7.Will you be setting service standards for abortion counsellors that will require counsellors to provide information on alternatives to abortion, parenting and adoption, information concerning the development of the child in the womb and the potential complications that might result from having an abortion?

Yours sincerely

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life

Minister of Justice – A continuing Threat to human rights of New Zealanders

by 1 Comment

Media Release Friday 8th November 2011

Right to Life is concerned that the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, at the instigation of the Prime Minister is a clear and present threat to the human rights of New Zealanders. Right to Life believes that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to ensure that there is no place in the medical profession for doctors who are not prepared to facilitate the killing of the unborn and to ban any person from offering support and help outside the killing centres to women wanting to choose life for their unborn baby.

The Minister who is a member of the Jacinda led Labour government which is committed to transparency and accountability is now seeking to distract the community from the violence of the killing centres by  withholding vital information that the community are entitled to see.

The Abortion Bill provides for safe zones of 150 meters around abortion facilities, to restrict “protestors,” the penalty, a fine on conviction, of up to $10,000.  Right to Life believes that this is a violation of the right of free speech and assembly. The Minister claims that he has correspondence confirming harassment by protestors. It is appalling that the Minister is creating public policy on evidence which is being withheld from public scrutiny. Right to Life requested under the Official Information Act copies of these alleged complaints. The Minister on 29 October refused to provide this information on the grounds that it would be a breach of privacy. Right to Life believes that the Minister could very easily release this information but withhold the names of the complainants and their contact details. Because of his refusal Right to Life has now laid a complaint with the Ombudsman.

It is noteworthy that the Law Commission received 3,419 submissions in its recent review of the abortion laws requested by the Minister at the direction of the Prime Minister. The Law Commission reported that they had insufficient evidence of harassment to conclude that reform is necessary.

Surely the Minister is aware of his glaring hypocrisy. On one hand there is no evidence of any person who has been associated with any Pro-life organisation being arrested and charged for threatening or violent behaviour. On the other real violence is being inllicted on unborn children as they are murdered and their mothers violated inside the killing centres which are the subject of lawful and peaceful assembley.

Citizens have an inalienable right to assemble outside killing centres to pray, to protest at the imposition of the death penalty on innocent unborn children, to be a guard of honour for those children being murdered and to offer compassion and help to women requesting assistance to choose life for their precious child. Parliament must protect the human rights of women, the unborn, doctors and nurses and the community, by defeating this anti-life bill at its second reading.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Why is the Prime Minister avoiding responding to the Official Information Act?

by Leave a Comment

child of 20 weeks

Abortion by Dismemberment up to two weeks past this stage of child development is what the government proposes.

Right to Life is concerned that the Prime Minister,Jacinda Ardern has declined to answer important questions on public policy sent to her by our Society on 15 January 2019.

The principle questions asked were:-

  • Is it still your policy to retain a restriction on abortions imposed at 20 weeks gestation in the Crimes Act section 187A in your proposed legislation to decriminalise abortion?
  • Is it your policy to accept dismemberment abortions that permit an abortionist to tear the arms, legs and head off an unborn child?

The new coalition government has specifically made a commitment to “strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information”. Right to Life believes that the Prime Minister has a duty to lead by example.

The Crimes Act stipulates that the cut – off point for abortions is 20 weeks, The cut-off point in the legislation being drafted by the Minister of Justice is 22 weeks. Mike Munroe, Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister’s Office advised on 24 January that he was referring our Official Information Request to the Minister of Justice, as he was responsible for “alternative approaches on abortion law.”

At the Newstalk ZB’s Leader’s Breakfast just prior to the election Jacinda Ardern made the following statement:-

“Yes I think abortion should come out of the Crimes Act. That does not mean for a moment that I am proposing what has been claimed, that you should be able to have on-demand abortion to birth. No that is absolutely not what I am saying. We of course must regulate… We have time periods already set out in the law and I am not proposing changes to that. I am proposing it comes out of the Crimes Act.”

This is an important public policy statement concerning abortion. The public have an absolute right to ask the Prime Minister, who believes that killing an unborn child should not be a crime, is relentlessly driving a change in the abortion law to remove abortion from the Crimes Act and to make abortion a “reproductive choice for women”. Will she support retaining the 20 week cut off as she has publicly stated?

The minister of Justice at the direction of the Prime Minister is to bring a bill to Parliament to adopt the Law Commission’s Model C. Under this Model, there would be no statutory test until 22 weeks of a pregnancy.  After 22 weeks, the health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. Everyone knows what this means, – effectively abortion on demand up to birth.

Curia Market Research an independent pollster released in January 2018, polling of 1,013 persons. Just 9% support the current legal limit for an abortion of 20 weeks. Only 4% believe it should be later than 20 weeks, including up to birth. 50% think the time limit should be shorter than the current 20 weeks, and a further 36% were unsure.

The median choice of those who did choose a time limit was 15 weeks.
Significantly, 56% of women think the time limit should be less than the current 20 weeks. Incredibly, 53% of those who generally support abortion think the time
limit should be less than the current 20 weeks – 29% of abortion supporters say 10 weeks or less.There is increasing opposition in the United States to the violence and suffering imposed on defenceless unborn children by dismemberment abortions. There are now ten states that have outlawed this horrific violence on the defenceless.

The public have a right to know if the Prime Minister who is herself a loving mother of a young child supports protecting the unborn from this dismemberment violence.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

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