Referendum

Euthanasia Referendum- temporary victory for Culture of Death

October 30, 2020 by Philip 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.

Justice Minister refuses to include important Euthanasia Information on Government Referendum Website

September 12, 2020 by Admin 2 Comments

Right to Life is concerned that the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, under the guise of neutrality, refuses to include important information relating to the End of Life Choice Act on the government’s referendum website. We believe this information should be available in order that the public are able to make an informed decision when voting on whether the End of Life Choice Act should come into force. This information concerns the unprecedented effects the Act will have on the administration of the law and medicine in New Zealand.

The Minister advised Right to Life on 1 September, in reply to our letter of 9 July 2020, that he acknowledged our concerns and said that, “they were important arguments to make in the public debate on whether to support or oppose the enactment of the EOLCA.” The Minister claimed that his Ministry, “is directed solely at explaining the content of the legislation in a neutral way. It is not advocating for either side of the debate.”

Right to life believes that he and the government should not be neutral on matters pertaining to life and death. The government has a duty to defend life. It is the governments responsibiiity to ensure Parliament protects the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death and to protect and defend the ethics of the medical profession. The deafening silence of the Minister is indefensible. If this referendum receives majority support it will create two important precedents that will affect a catastrophic change for our parliamentary democracy and the practice of medicine in New Zealand.

The first precedent is that Parliament will now usurp the authority of our Creator by taking to itself the right to decide who may be killed with a lethal injection and who may be assisted to commit suicide.

The second precedent is that doctors and nurses are empowered to kill their patients or assist in their suicide, funded by the State.

The government is not neutral, as we believe that 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. The majority of the Labour caucus misguidedly support the killing of vulnerable patients with a lethal injection or assisting them in suicide as health care.

Right to Life believes that the government’s real objective is to encourage a misinformed electorate to support the government’s agenda of social engineering by voting “yes” at the referendum. The government does not want to say anything that will discourage the electorate from opposing a YES vote at the referendum. Why is the government determined to prevent a debate on these critically important issues that will affect the future of our nation?

At this election we are in the words in Deuteronomy, “offered life or death, chose life that you and your children may live.” Right to Life requests that voters protect the vulnerable in our community by voting no to the referendum on euthanasia.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

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

Abortion Referendum Please

January 15, 2020 by Admin 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.

Simon Bridges would support a binding referendum on euthanasia over the conscience of National MPs

August 11, 2018 by Philip 4 Comments

Media Release 11 August 2018

Simon Bridges would support a binding referendum on euthanasia over the conscience of National MPs

Right to Life is disappointed that Simon Bridges, leader of the National Party has recently declared that a National led government under his leadership would legalise assisted dying if the public wanted it, expressed through a referendum even though the issue was a conscience issue.

Simon Bridges and all MPs have a duty as legislators to uphold the inalienable right to life of every member of the community from conception to natural death. This right to life is given to us by our Creator at conception, it may not be taken from us nor may we give it up.

Every Member of Parliament has been endowed with a conscience which is the voice of God encouraging us to do good and to avoid evil. Every MP has a duty to follow an informed conscience. Every MP when voting on issues concerning the protection of the right to life may take guidance of the views of constituents but must vote to defend life according to an informed conscience. An MP can never abdicate his responsibility to follow his conscience on life issues by deferring to a referendum.

It is always wrong to kill another innocent human being. The approval of the community, even if supported in a referendum, can never make murder acceptable. Such a referendum is an attempt to seduce and implicate the whole community in the murder of the vulnerable. The most fundamental medical ethic of not killing or helping patients kill themselves, must not be reduced to a public opinion poll.

Right to Life earnestly requests that Simon Bridges rejects his support of a binding referendum and reconfirms his support for the right of Parliamentarians to vote in accordance with their conscience and to vote to defeat any resolution seeking to authorise a 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.

Right to Life believes that in the event of a binding referendum on the issue of the End of Life Choice bill that the correct moral position would be to refuse to participate in a referendum that is morally indefensible.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life.