Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Abortion Law Reform Assn. Misleading Public

0 comments | 1:25 am | top |
Dr. Margaret Sparrow of The Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) authored a press release yesterday, entitled MPs Must Oppose Anti-Abortion Legal Challenge. It is reproduced below, with my comments.

The Abortion Law Reform Association today called on Members of Parliament to publicly support the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] in its court battle this week against the anti-abortion group Right to Life.

ALRANZ launches into its press release, promoting the misconception that this case is about the ASC vs. Right to Life. On the contrary, it is the ASC appealing the ruling of Justice Miller of the High Court, who ruled that the ASC had misinterpreted its functions. Right to Life will be represented at the court by their Queen's Counsel, Peter McKensie who will be supporting the original ruling.

“The Crown lawyers defending the ASC, and in turn the reproductive rights of New Zealand women, need to be given the full backing of legislators in the face of a case that is aimed at ending access to safe abortions,” Alranz president Margaret Sparrow said today.

Margaret here intentionally misrepresents Right to Life's case, claiming that they are aiming to end access to safe abortions. However, Right to Life is making the case that New Zealand's abortion law should be applied correctly - nothing more.

The case, which began in 2005, will be heard Tuesday and Wednesday at the Court of Appeal in Wellington. At the hearing, the ASC plans to challenge a decision made last year in the High Court in which Justice Miller questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand. Right to Life is cross-appealing, essentially seeking to ban all abortions by arguing that embryos should be given full human rights. The group is also challenging abortion counselling in New Zealand.

Again, a shameless perversion of the nature of Right to Life's case by Margaret Sparrow who is an anti-life extremist. In this case, Right to Life is not seeking to ban all abortions. Rather, they are calling for New Zealand's abortion law to be applied correctly; as it was intended when it was passed in 1977.

The vague reference to Right to Life's challenge of abortion counselling in New Zealand is crafted to paint the organisation in a bad light. However the truth behind this statement is that Justice Miller confirmed Right to Life's concern that the certifying consultants (abortion counsellors) in New Zealand were indeed not carrying out their duty in a satisfactory manner.

“Right to Life has been able to advance this case, at great cost to the government and even greater risk to women, in part because of New Zealand’s inadequate abortion laws,” Dr. Sparrow said.

Incorrect. Right to Life took the ASC to court because they were failing in their responsibilities to women and their unborn babies, by neglecting to ensure that the law was being applied correctly.

“Around 98% of abortions are granted under the mental health ground because New Zealand women do not have full reproductive rights,” Dr. Sparrow said. “It is this kind of legislative hypocrisy that groups like Right to Life continue to exploit through the courts.”

(Rolls eyes) It is not Right to Life who is exploiting the law Dr. Sparrow. As you know, it is the certifying consultants who are exploiting the mental health ground, and allowing so many unlawful abortions to be performed.

Dr. Sparrow said New Zealand should follow the Australian state of Victoria and decriminalise abortion, but until it did, Parliament must defend the status quo. “If not, there will be a return to the trans-Tasman abortion trade that flourished in the 1970s as well as to unsafe providers, do-it-your-selfers and over-the-Internet abortion pills.

I blogged about Victoria's new horrific abortion-on-demand law in September 2008, where I wrote:

In passing this bill into law, Australia joins ranks with the few other countries who allow abortion up till birth. Under their new law, it will be legal to end the life of a little baby just minutes before it would have been naturally born. This is due to the fact that the bill does not specify at what number of weeks abortion may not take place - or, may only take place if the mother's life is at "serious risk".

No thanks. Australia can keep their bloody abortion law - and Dr. Sparrow if they'll take her.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

blog design by equipbiz | this blog is best viewed with Firefox. Remember: Friends don't let friends use Internet Exporer. :)