Right to Life New Zealand

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

What Right to Life has achieved with your support in 2020/21

by Leave a Comment

Right to Life has been active over the last two years. There have been many challenges as our country has faced a tidal wave of legislation hostile to innocent human life and to our traditional values. We have fought the battle to be a preservative in the war on our foundational values. While we have not often been successful Right to Life continues to hold the line and fight for those who can not fight for themselves. This is our own founding principle. We will continue to do so and we will not be cowered by the flood of liberalism. We will not be silenced.

Some of the work we have done in the last two years included…

  • Made 79 Media Releases during the 2021 year and around a similar number in 2020 which were published on our website and on Social Media.

  • Wrote hundreds of letters to MP’s, DHB’s, MOH, individuals and other organisations.

  • Made a substantial written submission to the Abortion Law Select Committee opposing the Abortion Legislation bill.

  • Made an oral submission to the Abortion Law Committee in Christchurch opposing the Abortion Legislation bill.

  • Lobbied all MPs in writing asking them to vote against the Abortion bill at its third reading. It was passed  68 to 51.

  • Promoted Canterbury March for Life in September 2020 and funded it with $14,000.

  • Supported Remembrance  Day for Unborn  Hagley Park in 2020 and on 19th June 2021.

  • Lodged more than 25 Official Information Act requests in 2020 and 60 in 2021.

  • Made eight complaints to Ombudsman due to refusal of information requested in Official Information Act requests.

  • Complaints made to Newshub and other media organisations for biased news report on abortion.

  • Made substantial written submission to Health Select Committee opposing Safe Area Amendment bill of Louisa Wall Labour MP.

  • Made oral submission to Health Select Committee in Wellington opposing Safe Area bill.

  • Conducting campaign to seek repeal of End of Life Choice Act and Abortion Legislation Act.

  • Conducting campaign with members and supporters to lobby all MPs to vote against safe area bill.  

  • Conducting campaign to seek the repeal of section 159, Killing unborn child and legislation to recognise the unborn child as a human being endowed with an inalienable right to life.

  • Presented petition to Parliament on the Safe Areas Amendment to the Abortion Legislation Act

  • Counducted an advertising campaign in opposition to the End of Life Choice Bill in which around one hundred thousand dollars was invested.

Unethical Vaccines -We may not do evil to achieve good

by 1 Comment

Media Release 9 February 2021

It is immoral to murder the innocent and defenceless unborn in order to develop a vaccine to combat Coronavirus. 

Our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern entreats us to be kind. It is of great concern that the Labour government has seen fit to contract for the purchase of vaccines to protect our community from Coronavirus that have utilised cell lines from healthy babies that have been killed before birth. By purchasing these vaccines Right to Life believes that the government is giving consent to the killing of these defenceless children. 

The babies chosen were of 12 or more weeks gestation. The babies were delivered by caesarean section as the researches required the babies in good condition and undamaged. The babies would probably be alive and experiencing excruciating pain. The researchers would immediately remove the kidney from the living child without anaesthetic to avoid damaging the kidney. This was a planned assault on the defenceless baby by mother, doctors, nurses and the vaccine development team who had given consent to the diabolical  killing of the child for the purpose of developing a cell line for the development of a vaccine to combat Covid 19.

This is a violation of the inalienable right to life of hundreds of babies who were selected to participate in experiments to produce suitable cell lines for the development and testing of vaccines.

The government has agreements to purchase four vaccines. The vaccines purchased from Pfizer & BioNTech and Novarax have been produced ethically without the use of cell lines from aborted babies. There has however, been some testing using the cell lines of aborted babies.  Vaccines purchased from Astra Zeneca and Jannsen Pharmacutica have been developed and tested with cell lines of aborted babies. There is no necessity for the government to purchase vaccines that have been developed from cell lines created from the killing of innocent unborn children.

Is the government aware of the violation of human rights and the appalling atrocities perpetrated in the killing of the defenceless unborn to produce these unethical cell lines?  If the government is aware, why has it not concluded that these vaccines are unethically produced and are totally unacceptable?

Right to Life wrote to the Minister of Health in March, 2017 and again in May, 2020 submitting that the government should only purchase vaccines that did not involve cell lines from aborted babies. Vaccines can be developed successfully with cell lines that are not derived from aborted babies.

The murder of unborn children is intrinsically evil, it is always a grave offence to the Creator and a crime against the unborn child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

Right to Life requests that the government take the following action:-

  • Cancel the purchase of unethical vaccines from Jannsen Pharmacutica and from Astra Zeneca.
  • Request Pfizer & BioNTech and Novabax to provide vaccines that are not tested using cell lines from aborted babies.
  • Purchase only vaccines that have been ethically developed and tested without the use of cell lines from aborted babies.

Every person has a duty to protect their health, the health of their family and that of the community. Every person also has the right to act in accordance with their informed conscience to accept or reject vaccination. The government has a duty to the community to provide only ethically produced and tested vaccines, there is no necessity for the government to purchase vaccines that are irrevocably tainted with the blood of the innocent unborn, the weakest and most defenceless member of our human family.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

 

2020 End of Life Choice Act Referendum Radio Ad Campaign

by Leave a Comment

Radio Advertising Campaign

Right to Life has produced and had recordings made for over a thousand 30 seconds in seven radio stations New Zealand wide. These include Radio Rhema, Life FM, Radio Tarana (Indian Radio Station), Pasifika stations Niu FM and Radio 531 PI, Wateea 530 AM the biggest Maori Radio channel, and Chinese Voice. We have targeted Christian radio as although we expected nearly all Christians would be against Euthanasia our research showed that many Christians shockingly belived that it was acceptable. Ethnic radio was also heavily targeted because this was deemed to be an unreached audience by other Pro-Life groups.

The following ads have been broadcast

Radio Rhema and Life FM

Rhema Ad 1

Rhema Ad 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radio Tarana

Tarana Ad 1 (Hindi)

Tarana Ad 2

Tarana Ad 3

Niu FM and 531 PI (Pacific Radios)

Pacifica Ad 1

Pacifica Ad 2

 

Wateea

Wateea Ad 1

Wateea Ad 2

Wateea Ad 3

 

Chinese Voice

Chinese Voice Ad

Defunding threat hangs over hospices that refuse to allow Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide

by Leave a Comment

Media Release Sunday 20th September 2020

Right to Life believes that the Labour led government supports defunding hospices that refuse to allow doctors to give a lethal injection to their patients, or assist in their suicide. Funding of New Zealand hospices is an important election issue and the public has a right to know the government’s policy.

Right to Life is concerned that The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, refused to advise our Society of government policy concerning the future government funding of hospices. In our letter dated 30th June, we asked:-

In the event of the euthanasia referendum receiving majority support, would you if re-elected give an assurance that your government would not withdraw funding for palliative care to hospices if they refuse to allow euthanasia in their hospice?

The Prime Minister, as is her custom referred our letter to the Minister of Health. the Hon Chris Hipkins. The Minister also refused to answer our question and stated, “The Act does not replace palliative care or health care services more generally. There is no government position for or against the Act. “

The Prime Minister claims that we have the most accountable and transparent government we have ever seen. Why then does she refuse to disclose to our nation this life threatening policy.  

Right to Life questions this claim of neutrality, the End of Life Choice Act was a private members bill, however it had overwhelming government support.

Right to Life has every justification to believe that it is government policy to withdraw government funding from hospices that refuse to allow euthanasia and the killing of patients within hospices.

Right to Life believes that 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 was clearly indicated in the defeat of the Supplementary Order Paper 295 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 defeated by 68 to 52. This important amendment was opposed by the Prime Minister and 33 Labour MPs,  nine NZ First MPs, eight Green MPs and 15 National MPs, Jami-Lee Ross and Act’s David Seymour.

Hospice NZ had sought an urgent hearing in May in the High Court in Wellington to ask three questions. One was 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, however there was 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] that 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”.

Euthanasia is not health care, it is about terminating the life of a vulnerable patient. It is diametrically opposed to the objective of palliative care, to neither hasten nor postpone death.There are 33 hospices in New Zealand providing palliative care for those seriously ill or in a terminal condition. Government funding accounts for 60 percent of the funding required to maintain hospices.

Right to Life’s requests that citizens vote no to the euthanasia referendum to protect the vulnerable in our community and to protect our hospices who are providing world class palliative care.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

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

Stuff Concurs with Right to Life that the Government’s Euthanasia Referendum Website has a Serious Misleading Statement

by Leave a Comment

Right to Life Media Release 23rd August 2020

Right to Life commends the Deputy Editor of Stuff, (see Stuff letter of 20th August to Right to Life), for contacting the Ministry of Justice to request that the government’s euthanasia referendum website be updated to accurately reflect the full criteria of eligibility in the Act to receive a lethal injection or to be assisted in a suicide by a doctor. Stuff has advised us that they have also taken action to amend their story and other articles on their website. This action is in response to our letter of complaint to The Press of the 13th August  about misleading information contained in an article  “A choice of Life and Death published in The Press on 30th July 2020.

The relevant misleading statement was that patients are eligible for a lethal injection from their doctor if they “experience unbearable suffering that cannot be eased.” That is untrue, there is nothing in the End of Life Choice Act 2019 [EOLCA] that requires a patient to seek palliative care or any other treatment to relieve suffering. The inference is that there is nothing that can ease the unbearable suffering of the patient and that the patient is left with no other choice but to accept a lethal injection or to be assisted to commit suicide.

This is a very important issue, a person doesn’t need to try treatment first, “even if those options would likely help to cure their illness or treat their symptoms. Under this Act, assisted dying doesn’t have to be a last resort.” The End of Life Choice Act does not require euthanasia to be only a last resort. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states that, “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.” Even treatments that “would likely help to cure their illness or treat their symptoms”.

One of the Act’s eligibility criteria is to “experience unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable”. This is a glaringly and we think insurmountable problem with the EOLC Act.

The government’s Referendum website information misrepresents this clause. The Act does not state only, “suffering that cannot be relieved”.  The phrase, “in a manner that the person considers tolerable”, means that a treatment may exist that would relieve the person’s suffering, but that the person may refuse it because they don’t consider it “tolerable”. A person may be on a dialysis machine successfully maintaining the patient’s health but consider it intolerable and thus qualify for a lethal injection or assisted suicide.

Right to Life is concerned that this misinformation concerning eligibility is also contained in the pamphlet, “What Am I Voting On” produced by the government which was posted to every enrolled elector. Right to Life wrote to Andrew Kibblewhite, the Secretary for Justice and the  Chief Electoral Officer on the 11 August complaining of this misinformation in the pamphlet and asking that he urgently clarify this important information. To date there has been no reply.

Right to Life wrote to the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little on the 8th August to express concern about the misinformation on the government’s euthanasia referendum website. To date there has been no reply.

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 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.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

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

 

Ombudsman Complaint Against MOH Refusal to Provide Abortion Information

by 4 Comments

15 September 2020

Ombudsman,

Office of the Ombudsman,

Dear Sir,

 Official Information Act request –Complaint

I wish to lay a complaint against the Ministry of Health for declining to provide information requested in my Official Information Act request of 4 August 2020.

The information was withheld under section 9[2][a] of the Act, to protect the privacy of individuals. It is alleged that the release of this information may indirectly identify the people that it relates to due to the specific nature of these questions.

My complaint relates specifically to the following questions:-

  1. The number of abortions that were performed by Women’s Clinics in Masterton, Palmerston North and Invercargill?
  1. The number of abortions that were performed by registered midwives?
  1. The number of abortions that were performed in Family Planning clinics?

The Director General of Health has a statutory duty under the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 to provide Parliament with regular statistics on abortion. It is noted that the Abortion Supervisory Committee since 1978 also had a statutory duty to provide Parliament  with an annual report on the performance of abortion in New Zealand. This report was substantial and comprised more than forty pages. It was readily available to the community. This report included a list of all the registered abortion facilities and the number of abortions that had been performed in the facility in the year of reporting..

The women’s clinics  in Masterton, Palmerston North and Invercargill are clinics owned by the Magma Health Care Ltd  a private company that has contracts with a number of District Health Boards to kill unwanted children before birth. We share the Ministry’s concern about protecting privacy. I would note that with the experience of forty-seven years involvement in the pro-life movement I know of no instance where the listing of abortion facilities has resulted in a breach of privacy. I believe that the public have a right to know the number of abortions funded by the taxpayer that are performed by a private company for profit.

According to the Midwifery Council in New Zealand there were 3,171 registered midwives in New Zealand in 2019. Prior to the passing of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 abortions could be lawfully performed only by registered medical practitioners. The new law came into operation on 24th March and now permits midwives to perform medical abortions. I believe that Parliament and the public have a right to know how many abortions are performed by midwives. I do not believe that release of this information will impact on the privacy of midwives or of their patients.

The Family Planning Association with thirty clinics are the major abortion referral agency in New Zealand. I am aware that the Association has a policy to turn all of its clinics into abortion clinics. I consider it appalling that the Ministry intends to keep  secret the number of abortions that are being performed by Family Planning.

It is inconceivable that the government wish to treat the killing of the defenceless unborn as a routine health service and “a reproductive health choice for women” while at the same time withholding important information from Parliament and the public.

It is my belief that it is the intention of the Ministry to discourage a continuing public debate on the killing of our innocent unborn and the health and welfare of their mothers, the second victim of abortion.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr,

Secretary

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

by 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

Pro-Life Champion Nina Barry Martin 4 October 1926 – 23 May 2020

by Leave a Comment

It is with great sorrow that the executive of Right to Life joins with the pro-life movement in New Zealand to mourn the passing of Nina Barry- Martin.

Nina was one of the founders of Pregnancy Counselling Services in New Zealand. Nina founded Pregnancy Counselling Services after becoming disillusioned with Youth Lines nondirective counselling and Pregnancy Help, which focused on helping women facing an unplanned pregnancy by supporting women in the decision that they made, which included abortion. Nina commendably was dedicated to saving babies and women from the violence of abortion. Nina said, “because we save two people with every pregnancy: mother and baby.”

Nina launched her new service by placing one advertisement in a newspaper, which was all she could afford. This advert was instrumental in saving the life of a baby and a mother from a lifetime of grief and sorrow. The child saved went on to become a PCS counsellor, to become a lawyer and to marry and have five children. There will be many other people who are alive today because of the loving support and counselling provided by Nina and her colleagues.

Nina, with her friends and supporters, expanded the counselling service to cover 24 hours a day, for seven days a week, with a trained counsellor always available to offer compassionate help to distressed pregnant women . PCS at its peak had 23 branches.

Nina’s love for women and their precious unborn was not confined to New Zealand. Nina was invited to present  an address to a pro-life conference at the Vatican. Nina also went to Hong Kong, India and the Philippines to help establish a pregnancy and post abortion service.

Nina was born in Palmerston North in 1926, the only child of Lebanese parents Marie and Basil Coury. Nina had a beautiful voice and after winning a singing competition on the Manawatu radio at the age of 12 went on to sing on national radio to present a programme about her favourite composer, Johann Strauss.

Nina served on the board of PCS for 40 years and retired in 2011. Nina enjoyed the loving lifelong support of her husband Peter who shared her passionate love for mothers distressed with their pregnancy and for their precious unborn. Peter was a distinguished past national President of the National Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child.

Right to Life was privileged to have Nina as a patron. Those of us who were privileged to know Nina were greatly encouraged by her love, dedication, passion and commitment to the wellbeing of mothers and the unborn.

We can contemplate with awe the grand reception from choirs of aborted unborn children that awaited Nina after a lifetime of service to women and the unborn as she commenced her eternal life.

Ken Orr

On behald of Right to Life Executive

 

 

 

Response to Official Information Request to MOH on Abortion Figures Unacceptable

by Leave a Comment

Right to Life made an Official Information Request related to Abortion Statistics during the Covid Lockdown to the Ministry of Health. We deem their response, which was received on 1st September, shown below, to be unacceptable.

We intend to lay a complaint with the Ombudsman in relation to their refusal to answer questions 7,8,and 9 of our inquiry. These questions related to inquiring into the number of abortions performed by the private Magma abortion clinics; how many abortions were performed by midwives, and how many were performed at Family Planning clinics.

The Ministry refusal was on the grounds of preserving annonymity of the individual women involved. Such a claim we believe is totally groundless as there is no possible way any individual could be identified by the Ministry providing this information. We believe this information should be available to the public and that the Ministry is deliberately holding back information that is in the public’s best interest to be aware of.

Ken Orr
By email: ken@righttolife.org.nz
Ref: H202005805
Dear Ken Orr
Response to your request for official information
Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) to the Ministry of
Health (the Ministry) on 4 August 2020 for:

“1. The number of abortions that have been reported to the Ministry of Health since the 24
March 2020?2. The number of abortions that were on pregnancies of 20 weeks or more gestation?
3. The number of abortions post 20 weeks that were performed for the reason of
potentially disabled child?
4. The number of abortions that were 24 weeks or more gestation?
5. The number of medical abortions?
6. The number of medical abortions where the abortion drugs were couriered to the
woman to allow her to perform the abortion in her own home?
7. The number of abortions that were performed by Women’s Clinics in Masterton,
Palmerston North and Invercargill?
8. The number of abortions that were performed by registered midwives?
9. The number of abortions that were performed in Family Planning clinics?”
Data regarding abortions performed after 30 April 2020 is not yet available. Similar to other
collections administered by the Ministry, we expect there to be a 3 to 4 month lag between a
procedure occurring and the data becoming available for release. This allows for submission by
the provider and collation, analysis, and review by the Ministry.
The Ministry can provide the number and details of abortions performed since 24 March 2020 to
30 April 2020 as detailed below. The number of and details of abortions performed after 30 April
2020 is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as this information is not held by the Ministry or
any other agency subject to the Act.

My responses to your questions are as follows:
“1. The number of abortions that have been reported to the Ministry of Health since the 24
March 2020?”
There were 307 abortions reported in the period 24 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 and 1,097
abortions reported for April 2020. This is a total of 1,404.

“2. The number of abortions that were on pregnancies of 20 weeks or more gestation?”
Seven abortions were reported in the period 24 March 2020 to 30 April 2020 for pregnancies
where the estimated duration was 20 weeks or more.

“3. The number of abortions post 20 weeks that were performed for the reason of potentially
disabled child?”
The Ministry does not collect this data and there are no grounds to believe this information is
held by another agency subject to the Act. As such, this part of your request is refused under
section 18(g) of the Act.

4. The number of abortions that were 24 weeks or more gestation?
One abortion was reported in the period 24 March 2020 to 30 April 2020 for pregnancies where
the estimated duration was 24 weeks or more.

“5. The number of medical abortions?”
There were 689 medical abortions reported in the period 24 March 2020 to 30 April 2020.

6. The number of medical abortions where the abortion drugs were couriered to the woman to
allow her to perform the abortion in her own home?

The Ministry does not collect this data and there are no grounds to believe this information is
held by another agency subject to the Act. As such, this part of your request is refused under
section 18(g) of the Act.

“7. The number of abortions that were performed by Women’s Clinics in Masterton, Palmerston
North and Invercargill?”
“8. The number of abortions that were performed by registered midwives?”
“9. The number of abortions that were performed in Family Planning clinics?”

Information in response to parts 7, 8 and 9 of your request is withheld under section 9(2)(a) of
the Act, to protect the privacy of individuals. Releasing this information may indirectly identify
the people that it relates to due to the specific nature of these questions.

I trust that this information fulfils your request. Under section 28(3) of the Act you have the right
to ask the Ombudsman to review any decisions made under this request.
Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the
Ministry website.

Yours sincerely

Clare Perry

Acting Deputy Director-General

Health System Improvement and Innovation

Cantabrians March to Defend the Right to Life

by 5 Comments

Media Release 15 August 2020

MARCH FOR LIFE CHRISTCHURCH

Right to Life commends the more than 1,000 Cantabrian men, women and children who peacefully and joyfully marched from Cathedral Square to Victoria Square in Christchurch today,  to express their support for a culture of life with love for mothers and their precious unborn.

Marchers were there to express opposition to the culture of death that threatens the lives of our unborn children and the welfare of women, the second victim of the violence of abortion. We remember the more than 500,000 innocent and defenceless New Zealand unborn children who have been killed since 1978. This same culture now also threatens the vulnerable in our community with euthanasia.

The marchers gave witness to our community to the sanctity of life of every human being from conception to natural death. They also gave a strong message to Parliament and government that we reject the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 that rejects the humanity of the unborn child and its right to life until it is born.

We will not rest until it is repealed. The marchers also reject the End of Life Choice Act and encouraged the community to vote No at the referendum. Voters were also encouraged to vote only for candidates who are committed to protecting life.

May our Parliament be attentive to the message we respectfully present, that we are absolutely opposed to the culture of death that our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has inflicted on our country by removing abortion from the Crimes Act. Under the Abortion Legislation Act it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child up to birth. In Jacinda Ardern’s own words killing an unborn child is now “a reproductive choice for women.” Ardern has also been a strong advocate for the End of Life Choice Act that would empower doctors to give a lethal injection to their patients or assist in their suicide.

The march began at the Cathedral Square and the marchers, in compliance with the level two restrictions walked in groups of 100 in warm sunny conditions through the streets of central Christchurch to Victoria Square where they were addressed by Pro-Life and Pro-family advocates who spoke passionately about the need to continue to speak out against the government’s war on women and unborn children.

Those who marched, want New Zealand to be a nation where the beauty and dignity of every human life is valued and protected from conception.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

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

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