Right to Life commends the governments health initiatives to protect the health of our children from second hand smoke in vehicles. However we must ask why the governments is so inconsistent in protecting the health and lives of all our children? How can the government say on one hand that it is a crime to expose a child to smoke in a car and on the other that it is not a crime to kill a child in the womb by tearing off its arms and legs in a violent and painful abortion? In fact in the very words of the Prime Minister this action is simply “a reproductive choice for women.”
Associate Minister of Health Jenny Salesa in recently announcing a campaign to discourage mothers from smoking when they are pregnant stated that “first and foremost” the objective was to protect children.
Our children’s health is important and we know that second hand smoke can damage immature lungs, but Right to Life points out that there is hypocritical inconsistency in such a statement, given the disparity between the treatment of unborn chldren who are wanted and those who are not.
Is it also not ironical that pregnant women who smoke are often sent strong messages portraying them as ‘bad mothers’, who must stop smoking because it is harmful for the baby. What could be more harmful than dismemberment abortion?
The most dangerous place for a New Zealander today is not being exposed to smoke in a car, but rather simply being in its mother’s womb. In 2017 there were 13,285 children killed in their mother’s wombs. All of these deaths were preventable. They were sanctioned and funded by the government and classified as a core health service with unlimited funding. In contrast it is not known if any child has died in New Zealand as a result of being exposed to smoking in a car.
Right to Life requests that the Prime Minister and her Labour led government protect the health and lives of all of our children from when a new human being is created at conception.
Right to Life