Goodbye Blogger, Hello Wordpress

I've moved my blog from Google's Blogger platform, to Wordpress. You can view the new blog at StarStuddedSuperStep.com. All posts and comments have been transferred across. Will be leaving this (old) blog online for the time being, however commenting has been turned off.

Referendum File 3: Kiwis Might Fly

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.

The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,

Yes, it has been a while since you heard from me [Larry Baldock] and the Camapaign4Democracy. Winter is over and the weather much more conducive to signature collecting. Many thanks to those who have faithfully been sending in a few signed petition sheets over the last few months... Please send in any completed forms to P.O Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga 3142 and I will be able to give an update on totals in the next update."

It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.

The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?

Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.

Vlog 9: Abortion is a Woman's Choice like Rape is a Man's Choice

Does choice have anything to do with the morality of an action (abortion for instance)? In this video I discuss a common misconception about abortion; that it is justified for simply being a choice... It's complicated stuff, but hang on with me!

This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"

In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:

Pro-Abortion vs. Pro-Choice: Which is the correct term to use?

Abortion and Rape

Democrats: Minimum Wage is "Basic Fairness"

Mitch Stewart, Director of the Democrats' "grassroots" campaign arm, Organizing for America just sent out an email update. As usual, he warns us of the evil "corporations and special interests".

"Republican candidates for Congress are now saying they want to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal minimum wage," he complains. "They're talking about ending a law that protects American workers from unreasonably low wages. It's a basic fairness that some of the people who want to control Congress simply don't understand -- Republicans like Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska.

Minimum wage is far from being a "basic fairness that some Republicans simply don't understand". Condemning "disbelievers" on grounds that they "simply don't understand it" is laughable. The minimum wage exists for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth - something that has become one of the Democrats' most dearly loved principles. Below is a summary of the policy's problems:

• Two people wishing to make a contract are prohibited from doing so. For instance, if someone is searching for a job, and is willing to work for $5/hr, and a business owner is willing to pay him this, the contract cannot proceed because the minimum wage is $12.75/hr (here in New Zealand).
• Young people - historically preferable for low-skilled jobs will find it harder to gain employment. Because with the abolition of the youth wage, employers can hire more experienced workers for the same hourly rate.
• Minimum wage prevents employers from rewarding outstanding employees, because it is designed to cut down the "tall poppies". It achieves this by promoting mediocrity. No longer can employers simply pay staff based on their skills or work ethic. Instead they are forced to pay lower-quality employees at a higher rate than their market value. And the result of this is that the higher-quality employees are paid less than their market value.
• Following on from this: hard-working employees will find it harder to gain a pay-rise as a reward for their effort, as they were either a) started off at their job at an hourly rate above their market value, or b) their employer cannot afford to give a pay rise as he is paying other staff at a rate above their market value.
• Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing business expenses for employers, thus causing them to find ways of hiring fewer staff to make up for the fact that they are paying above market value for a number of their employees.
• Minimum wage distorts the balance in the market, as it causes the value of resources (i.e. man-hours) to be artificially raised or lowered.

The minimum wage should be abolished, giving individuals freedom to enter into any form of employment contract that they wish. This policy is unpopular, even in Conservative circles, however it is a sound "small government" liberal policy, while the alternative is out and out Socialism.

Hey Potplant

So if you are the potter and i am the clay,
you don't gotta answer why you made me this way
but evenso, my mind remains curious,
though others look down, cite me as spurious.
a distressed looking potplant catches my eye,
most of the others are dead and dry.
this growth retains the spark of life,
though all around, surrounded by strife
and plenty within - I daresay it's true,
kicked when it's down, now growing askew.
just want to reach down to show it i care,
but i'd kill it with kindness, i'd interfere.
next to it a multi-tiered collection of dirt,
does it represent nothing, or a picture of hurt?
crowding round, last gasps for life spent,
twisted, wretched branches, hollow and bent.
yet close by in a white box of styrofoam,
many pretty light blue flowers made their home,
plain and yet pleasant, the one lasting truth
all else around, callous, uncouth.
the distressed looking potplant, fighting uphill
i'm lying, admiring, its perseverance and will.
some leaves are yellowed, i don't think there's hope,
yet you strive for the light, with your future - elope.
her roots hang on though the ground is unsteady,
the others gave up, she says, "i'm not ready".
she inspires me with wonder, a reason to fight,
but can i pull through when i'm flying that kite?
you can't safely land if you're not in the air,
oh well, whatever, i don't think i care.

so this one's for God - He is not airy-fairy.
His hand's in Creation, I can see it so clearly.
He knows of this potplant, struggling and striving.
He knows every leaf on that little dumb tree,
so how much more then, does He care for me.

Hatred & Water-Balloon-Condoms Thrown at March For Lifers in Berlin

Bryan Kemper writes on his blog of his experience at the March for Life in Berlin on September 18. Unless you read this post, you're really not going to be able to comprehend the nature of the pro-abortion lobby in Germany, and the kind of thing we're going to be up against here in New Zealand if we continue to attempt to "take away women's reproductive rights"...

Bryan writes,

Besides the 1,800 pro-lifers in attendance; there were hundreds of riot police to protect us from the over 500 pro-abortion protesters who came to interrupt and attempt to attack us.

Our team went early to the site of the march to witness to the pro-abortion protestors and share the Gospel with them. We stood right in the middle of their gathering and just began talking to many of the young people there who seemed to hate us so much.

As the time for the march came closer we made our way to the stage to get prepared for Michel and me to give our talks. I was getting so excited as I was meeting young people from all over the world gathered there to jump start a youth pro-life revolution in Europe.

I was so impressed by the resolve of the pro-lifers as the pro-abortion protesters started to mix into our crowd and begin screaming vulgarities at us. Two lesbians walked to the front of the stage and began to make out in an attempt to shock us; they were just ignored as we kept on with the program.

Police hold the counter-protesters at bay

When I got up to speak the pro-abortion protesters were enraged as they announced an American coming up to speak. When they saw that I looked more like them then the rest of the pro-lifers I think it made them angrier. I shared my testimony about coming to Christ and then an encouraging pro-life message. I fired up the young people, challenging them to make sure that we always have the courage to stand up for Christ and for life.

As the organizers began to pass out white crosses to the pro-life marchers, many on the other side began to steal crosses so they could hold them upside down. As we took formation in the street, the pro-aborts were lining up beside us screaming the most foul and sexual things at the pro-lifers. They were holding the crosses upside down, waving rubber sexual organs and throwing condoms filled with water at us...

Read the full article here.

Vlog 8: Aborting New Zealand

New Zealand's over-65 population is spiraling out of control. By 2026 the number of over-65s will have doubled, leaving the Government and the economy struggling to care for them. But the Government - and New Zealand itself have brought this upon themselves with abortion which has killed 400,000 pre-born Kiwis since 1974.

NZ Herald Article: "Urgent plan needed for over-65s - report", 8 Sept, 2010

The Kiwi Party and Abortion

The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.

I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.

It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.

Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.

Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).

Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.

In their political strategy document, they write:

Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.

This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?

I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.

Republicans to Campaign on Federal Abortion Funding?

Just heard from the Manhattan Declaration project that,

So many of you emailed the Republican House leader's office last week urging the party not to backtrack on its commitment to life, liberty and marriage that you brought the email servers down. We have just been informed that the Republican leadership WILL now include references to marriage and federal funding of abortion in their election agenda.

This is excellent news. However it will remain to be seen if the Grand Old Party will run with a decent pro-life platform, or if they'll make either promises they intend not to keep, or make promises that offer no genuine improvement to the problem of abortion in the United States.

Vlog 6 - Christchurch Earthquake 4 Sept. 2010

My day in Christchurch on the day of the second biggest earthquake of our country which shook up the whole city, leaving many homeless, including a cat who seemed quite content to find a seat in some rubble. This video includes previously unseen footage and photos and is a first-hand account of the catastrophic event.

My follow up video to this vlog is entitled "Christchurch Earthquake: Thank God Nobody was Killed...?", and is a quick look at the deeper side to the 4/9/10 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. More photos are here.

Previous vlogs here.

Vlog 7 - Christchurch Earthquake: Thank God Nobody was Killed...?

Why do Christians say "Thank God nobody was killed in the earthquake"? What do they mean... or do they even know what they mean? This video is a quick look at the deeper side to the 4/9/10 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. This video is a follow-up to my last vlog entitled Christchurch Earthquake 4 Sept. 2010 in which I discussed my day in Christchurch on the day of the second biggest earthquake of our country.

Previous vlogs here.

Vlog 5 - It's a Silent Issue

The sponsor of New Zealand's latest "Abortion on Demand" bill, Steve Chadwick believes that there aren't enough abortions in New Zealand. What's going on behind the scenes here?

Vlog 4 - "If You Don't Like Abortion, Don't Have One"

"If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one!" This is a statement which is made frequently by those in the pro-abortion movement. In this video I discuss what an absolute pathetic excuse for an argument that it is.

Vlog 3 - "Men Shouldn't Force Their Opinion About Abortion on Women"

Some in the pro-abortion movement make the statement - "what right do men think they have to force their views about abortion on women?" In this video I discuss the two major reasons why men are justified in speaking against abortion.

Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic

Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.

On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.

Fairey sums up her talk as follows:

1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.

Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.

She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.

"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."

And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.

The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...

Continue Reading

Vlog 2: Ultrasound and the Abortion Industry

In Wairarapa, New Zealand, mothers seeking an abortion must be offered to see the ultrasound scan of their pre-born baby. But 98% are saying "no thanks" - what's going on here?

The article on this issue is here.

For my last vlog on "Aborting Cows", click here. For previous vlogs, click here.

Vlog 1: Aborting Cows

In New Zealand approximately 200,000 calves are aborted every year - so that calving happens all at the same time. But where's the outrage about the 18,000 human babies who are aborted every year?

This is my first shot at vlogging - we'll see how it goes.

House Minority Leader John Boehner at NRLC

Republican Minority House Leader John Boehner speaking at NRLC.

"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.

...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."

During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.

However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.

2,000 Pages of Really Bad Stuff

General Session on Day 3, "2,000 Pages Plus of Really Bad Stuff” of the National Right to Life Convention featuring Douglas Johnson speaking on abortion coverage and Burke Balch, J.D. speaking on rationing in the Health Care Act.

Douglas Johnson is speaking on abortion coverage in the Health Care Act.

One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.

In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."

The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".

Burke Balch, J.D. is speaking on rationing in the new Health Care Act. Federal law now limits what individuals are allowed to spend out of their own funds for their health care insurance. "We should not have a two tier health care system." Do you even things out by helping those who can't afford adequate health care by limiting the health care available to those who can afford it? "This is what the Act does."

Rationing Procedure:

1. Independent Payment Advisory Commission. It's aim is to push private healthcare spending down, so that it does not keep up with the rate of medical inflation. Recommednations every two years. Department of Health and Human Services is going to impose "quality and efficiency" standards... "under what circumstances is it efficient/appropriate for someone to receive a kidney transplant?". HC providers must comply with these guidelines (caps on private spending on healthcare), or else they will lose insurance contracts. This limits and micro-manages the healthcare you can get.
2. Medicare Limits - $529 cut from Medicare. Will the govt. allow senior citizens to make up the difference from their own private funds? Currently older Americans are allowed to add their own money if they choose, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration - these are known as Medicare Private Advantage Plans. However under the Obama health law, HHS given standardless discretion to reject any Medicare advantage plan.
3. Exchange Limits on What People Can Pay for Insurance. First state-based insurance exchanges. Govt. officials will exclude health insurers whose plans inside or outside the exchange allow private citizens to spend whatever govt. officials think is "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care insurance.
4. Shared Decisionmaking. Funding to non govt. groups to develop "patient decision-making aids" to help patients, caregivers or authorised representatives to decided with their health care provider, what plans are best for them. They're going to "establish regional shared decision making resource centers to provide technical assistance to providers to develop and disseminate best practices". In other words, re-education...

Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation

Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."

Live-Blogging from the National Right to Life Convention

Alex and I at the Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire session

Currently in Communications 201: "Putting Communication Skills Into Action Through Events and Advertising" with Derrick Jones and Cheryl Ciamarra. Picking up on many tips and tricks for handling media and public relations - will be useful to take back to New Zealand to benefit Prolife NZ. Caught up with Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com today which was great. Hoping to catch up with some more pro-lifers tonight in town.

Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome

Eileen Haupt is speaking on "Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome" at the 2010 National Right to Life Convention.

Chances of conceiving a DS baby increases with maternal age. All chromosomes are normal.  DS was named after John Langdon Down who in 1866 gave a name to the characteristics associated with DS people. 1930s, researches suspected DS might be caused by a chormosomal abnormality. 1959, the "extra chromosome" discovered by Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a French geneticist. This opened up a whole new field known as cytogenics. Modern treatment of DS: institutions, involuntary sterilisations, disabled were rounded up, experimented on and killed during Nazi Germany. In 60s and 70s in America, DS began to be raised at home. Routine use of amniocentesis for the purpose of aborting them. We have a schizophrenic treatment of people who are DS. Lejeune's discovery was meant for good, but now it is used to seek and destroy pre-born DS babies. He was ostrasised from the medical community for his pro-life views.

Mothers are put under incredible pressure to abort their preborn babies with DS.

Prenatal testing: Screening tests (show the "risk" of baby having DS) and Diagnostic tests (can tell you definitively if baby has DS).

Ramifications of "Improved" Testing: this will result in more mothers choosing abortion. Accurate and non-invasive tests; it's much easier now to discover DS much earlier in the pregnancy... "before they've even felt their baby kick".

"A simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year." - a comment on the new DS testing. They're happy because with the old kind of testing there was a risk of the pre-born baby dying from amniocentesis - no consideration is given to the pre-born babies who are diagnosed as DS and subsequently killed by abortion.

Where do the DS Advocates stand? Sadly, the National Down Syndrome Society and National Down Syndrome Congress take a neutral stand on the abortiong of DS babies. They also partner with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others. However parents with DS children, shocked at the figure that approx. 90% of DS diagnosed babies are aborted, start blogs and are active in their communities. The International Down Syndrome (IDS for Life) and Keep Infants with Down Syndrome (KIDS) were established.

Methods used to abort DS babies. Because DS cannot be definitively diagnosed til 2nd Trimester, they are aborted in 2nd trimester, usually between 16 - 20wks.

In Italy a mother had a selective abortion to abort the twin that was diagnosed with DS. However the babies switched positions and the non DS baby was aborted - the mother then went back to have her DS baby aborted as well. A U.S. case, a doctor lost his license for accidently aborting the wrong twin baby - the non DS baby.

The missing factor in this prenatal testing is love. "The one thing that prenatal testing can't tell you, is how much joy your special child will bring" - Eileen Haupt

Why the heck are Down Syndrome babies being aborted? There is a waiting list to adopt children with DS.

The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking on "The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire Through Mega-Clinics and Chemical Abortion".

How Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning Association Make More Money on Chemical Abortions
Mifepristone pills cost $90 each. Initially, abortion mills committing chemical abortions would give the woman three misoprostol pills and then give them one Misoprostol pill (prostaglandin @ $1 each) afterwards to expel the dead child. This made the cost approximately $270. However to raise their profit margin, Planned Parenthood gave women just one Mifepristone pill, and two Misoprostol pills afterwards which achieved essentially the same result - it would kill the child and cause it to be expelled from its mothers uterus - but making Planned Parenthood a higher profit margin.

Planned Parenthood says "It's not about abortion"
Cecile Richards has stated that 97% of PP's activities are focused on reducing pregnancies.
In 1990: 129,155 out of 1608,600 (8%)
In 2007: 305,310 out of 1206200 (25.3%)

Planned Parenthood has many profits connected to abortion - add-on expenses.

Abortion sales contributes over a third of Planned Parenthood's income.

Standard prices:
pregnancy test: $10 - $20
packet of pills: $15 - $25
abortion: $413

Break-down of PP's patients:
abortions: 305,310
prenatal patients: 10,914
infertility clients: 318
adoption referrals: 4,912

Planned Parenthood is very politically active...
There's two Planned Parenthoods: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Cecile Richards heads up both of these organisations. She has no medical background. In 2006 she said,

"Planned Parenthood has 860 health centers around the country in 50 states. We have more members, more employees and staff, than the 50 state Democratic parties combined. We have the potential to swing the vote in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and that’s a lot of power. So the question is what are we going to do with it? The answer is: We’re gonna use it. We’re gonna marry our current reality as the largest reproductive health-care provider in this country with our opportunity to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in this country.

We’re gonna channel our strength, our outreach, our power; work with our pro-choice allies to help progressive voices win in America. We’re revving up online; we’re putting volunteers on the phone and on the doors. We’re taking on the opponents of choice in the states and the districts where they live. Planned Parenthood has gotta become more political so that health care can become less politicized."

Questions & Comments from the Audience...
"Birth control pills are Planned Parenthood's bread and butter. Even on the days they don't do abortions, they're still selling the pills."

"How is it that Planned Parenthood that receives 330 million from the Govt. each year, then allowed to lobby?"... "Truth is, it's because they're Planned Parenthood." They're just playing the books carefully.

This was another darned good session. Very useful information for us Kiwis as the Family Planning Association is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood.

Gearing Up for the Mid-Terms

Karen Cross, political director for NRLC, David N. O'Steen Ph.D., executive director of NRLC and Daria St. Martin, assistant executive director of NRLC are speaking in a session on "Preparing for the Next Round - 2010", the midterm elections in the U.S.

4.5% voted for McCain and 0.5% voted for Obama on the issue of abortion in the 2008 election. 10% voted Republican on economy compared with 24% who voted Democrat for economy.

In 2006, 22% said Iraq was the most important consideration in voting, compared with 3% for abortion.

2008 Election polling:
Those who had pro-life beliefs: 53%
Those for whom abortion was the "most important" issue and they voted for candidates who oppose abortion: 4.5%

58% would like to repeal the Health Care Act as opposed to 35% who do not.

O'Steen says, If you see three children drowning, and they're in three separate directions and you can only save one, you jump in the water and swim as fast as you can to the closest one. This same principle should be applied to where we direct our efforts in fighting abortion. Do we wait until we can save all babies from abortion at one go, or do we save them as we go?

Planned Parenthood’s War Against Children

Angela Franks, Ph.D. is speaking on “Planned Parenthood’s War Against Children”.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believed that children oppressed women - she called this "sex servitude" - women are oppressed by their fertility. She said, "The most far-reaching social development of modern times is the revolt of woman against sex-servitude." She believed that women have a eugenic duty: "Within her is wrapped up the future of the race - it is hers to make or mar."

Sanger had a naive belief in the promiscuous lifestyle - everyone will be more happy if they have more sex. This would result in a need to reduce population. New York City Planned Parenthood ran a fundraiser entitled "Summer, Sex and Spirits" at which free pole-dancing lessons were given out.

"For Planned Parenthood, pregnancy is the ultimate sexually transmitted disease

"Planned Parenthood thinks that by teaching young girls to use birth control pills, they will become 33-year old women who will reliably take the pills on a regular basis... We know that this is not a good job to be giving young girls - especially when their parents are not even aware this is going on."

The United States' Largest Abortion Chain: In 1991, Planned Parenthood had 99 clinics compared with 911 other clinics. By 2009, Planned Parenthood had 817 clinics, compared with 304 other clinics. This was largely due to PP's introduction of chemical abortions.

RU486 (Chemical) Abortion: Faking the Body Out

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking

The process of an RU486 abortion is:

• Anti-progestin or anti progesterone is taken
• Shuts down baby's life support system
• Baby shovels and dies
• Menstrual process initiated
• Prostaglandin (PG) forces baby out

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol states that the woman must be no more than 49 days since her last menstrual period, as effectiveness drops at this point. However Planned Parenthood commits chemical abortions up to 63 days (9 weeks). PP's NZ affiliate, the Family Planning Association is currently seeking a license from the pro-abortion Abortion Supervisory Committee to commit these abortions. RU486 abortions are already being committed in a handful of abortion mills in New Zealand.

Still a baby, still an abortion:

• 3wks - 5wks: nervous system forming, heart beginning first beats
• 5wks - 7wks: baby's face, arms and legs are distinguishable
• 7wks - 9wks: child's ears, fingers, toes formed; nearly an inch tall

"Downsides" of RU486 abortions:

• bloodier and more painful than advertised - "you lose more blood from a RU486 abortion than from a surgical abortion". Chemical abortion wounds are larger than those of surgical abortions, and they stay open for longer.
• takes longer than a surgical abortion
• short window of time within which to kill the child

O'Bannon is reading through the specific details of the deaths of a large number of young women who underwent a RU486 abortion.

Mothers who have had RU486 abortions have reported seeing tiny fists, eyes, aborted babies lying in toilets or on the floor of the shower - this is because mothers are given the misopristol at the abortion mill, and then go home and wait for the drugs to kill their pre-born child. Once this has taken place, the prostaglandin pill is taken (this costs about $1), which brings about the expulsion.

RU486 was approved for use in the U.S. in September 2000. Guttmacher states that chemical abortions were at 6% of all abortions in 2000, 70,500 in 2001 and 161,100 in 2005. O'Bannon states that the numbers will be much higher now in 2010, however we are unsure as to a close estimate. Back in New Zealand, ALRANZ is bemoaning the lack of chemical abortions, and are strongly backing the FPA's bid to become a Chemical abortion provider.

Below is an account of an RU486 abortion written by an abortive mother on 29/4/2001:

I am 23 years old and I would say, very careless about protection. I am the mother of three children although I've been pregnant more times than that. I would be a hypocrite to deny that I've been pro-choice. I thought the "abortion pill" was a more humane way to terminate and so I used that method. I remember going over paper work that told me that because the pregnancy was very early, there wouldn't be a visible embryo and it would "seem" like a normal period. That information was then confirmed by the ultrasound technician as well as the counselor. The pregnancy was in the seventh week.
After receiving the drink of methotrexate, I left for home with a prescription for pain medication and a packet of misoprostol tablets. Five days later as instructed, I inserted the tablets and waited. A few hours later severe cramping began as well as a gush of "pregnancy tissue" . While cleaning myself up, I noticed something silvery attached to the tissue. I looked closer only to realize that I was staring at my aborted child. I could see the protrusion on it's chest where just six days ago, a heart had beat. The eyes were beginning to form already. No one told me that this might happen, in fact, I was guaranteed that it wouldn't . I'll never be the same again.

p.s. this is an actual photo, taken by me.

This was a great session on a disgusting and disturbing subject.

Pro-Life Conversion - On Love and Incrementalism

J. David Franks, Ph.D is a Catholic theologian who is speaking on "Pro-Life Conversion: Cultivating Serious and Intelligent Solidarity with the Most Powerless".

Part 1: Love and our Duty

Franks states that libertarianism cares only about "my choice" and puts it above everything else. This is patently incorrect, as libertarianism limits the choice of the individual with the freedom and choices of every other individual. He states, "Libertarianism is a pro-choice ideology," and then speaking about love, "We resent love because it means we can't remain in our libertarian cocoon." Libertarians for Life would disagree with this claim.

"The weaker the person, the greater their claim on us"

This is a very good point, and a brilliant principle to help us prioritise our campaigns for social justice. Perhaps his quote could be rephrased, "The weaker the person, and the greater the crime being committed against them, the greater their claim on us." Abortion fits this definition perfectly.

"Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are intrinsically evil and are linked by the same objective - the killing of an innocent person. Whereas the death penalty, war and climate change are issues which it is acceptable to disagree on."


"We can't outlaw every crime. We don't outlaw a crime if it would create greater social disorder... but we can't apply this to abortion."

This is a confusing and unprincipled approach to the reasoning for legislation on abortion. Abortion should be outlawed because it takes away the life of an innocent and helpless human-being - let alone the fact that this takes place without their consent.

Franks stated that if given the choice of voting for one of two pro-abortion candidates, an individual should vote for the one which will be either best for the pro-life side, or most detrimental for the pro-abortion side. In choosing between a pro-life and a pro-abortion candidate, he stated that it is only very rarely that it would be acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate - for instance if such a vote would give a more pro-life party the majority in parliament.

Franks holds that refraining to vote is not an acceptable option, stating that citizens have a duty to vote for the best of the options presented to them. He backs this up with the idea that man is a social creature, and that it is therefore his responsibility to participate in society. I disagree, because if society is unappealing to an individual, they should not be under any obligation to participate in it - let alone express their support for something they do not believe in.

Part 2: Pro-Life Incrementalism

Pro-life purists refuse to support any law or politician that seeks to reduce the number of abortions taking place, and will only support a policy that will ban 100% of abortions. Pro-life incrimentalists on the other hand are prepared to support a great number of small advances in the cause of defending the pre-born. Pro-life incrementalists are achieving results:

• Parental involvement laws correlated with a 16% decline in the minor abortion rate.
• Partial-birth abortion ban
• Legislating against abortions in which foetuses feel pain. Pro-abortion advocates may think that we want for foetueses to be anesthetised before they are aborted... In Arkansas, Kansas, a foetal pain awareness act was passed requiring that women seeking an abortion on a foetus at 20 weeks and over should be asked if they wished for their child to be injected with pain killers. In the year following the passing of this act, 600 women were offered the pain relief for the murder of their pre-born children. Upon hearing of this option, 300 of the women decided not to go ahead with their abortion.

We're putting abortion "in the course of ultimate extinction". However the American Life League for instance, claims that incrementalist groups such as National Right to Life or Prolife NZ are for regulating child-killing because we don't really want it to stop. Franks stated that ALL and the pro-life purists have rebranded themselves as the Personhood Movement, but has retained much of its revolutionary fervour - something by which young people are easily deceived.

To get the votes we need to protect the unborn will require a seismic shift in public sentiment. This can be achieved through ongoing incrementalist legislation which keeps the debate alive and grants increasing rights to pre-born people.

"I want to use as many bridges as I can"

National Right to Life Convention 2010

I am at the 2010 National Right to Life Convention from today through to Saturday. I will be live blogging and live tweeting from within the sessions. Looking forward to hearing Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and House Republican Leader, John Boehner. Good also to catch up with Kelsey Hazard of Secular Prolife.

Time to Ban Sex-Selective Abortion

Steven Mosher is speaking in the general session this morning on sex-selective abortion.

India: In India as many as half a million unborn baby girls are aborted each year because of their gender. This works out as a sex ratio at birth to 130 boys to 100 girls - the normal ratio is 106 boys to 100 girls - by adulthood, this will have usually dropped down to 100:100. In some areas, 7/10 pre-born girls are killed before birth.

China: In China, there are 117 boys born for every 100 girls. "As soon as the one-child policy began, it began to have a devastating effect on little girls - reports started to come in of little girls dying mysteriously." "midwives reported that they were receiving instructions that girls born where a first child had already been born, the girl was to be killed." Sex-selective abortion goes on all throughout Asia. A recent UNFPA report says that at last 60 million girls are "missing" because of sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect. In China, only-sons are known as "little emperors".

The Chinese Communist Party claims that, "Sex-selective abortion is an offshoot of "feudal ideas" that modernization will soon extinguish" However the reality is that in China, sons provide support for their parents in their old age. The ultrasound technology is fueling the historical preference for sons.

Mosher shows the audience photos of a young Chinese woman taken by force and given an injection into her uterus, an abortifacient drug - once her dead child was expelled, it was returned to her in a garbage bag - she was given the job of cremating it as she had conceived it illegally.

The practice of aborting baby girls is a testimony to the low value placed on female life. Each sex selective abortion degrades women. While a narrow view of economics would say that fewer women means that women are more highly valued, in fact, sex-trafficking is on the rise in Asia. Prostitution and homosexuality are on the rise in China also. Single men are contributing to a rise in gang activity and violent crime.

Back to the United States: In the 1990s, advertisements for sex-selective abortions were found in the New York Times. "It is legal to abort a child in the United States for any and all reasons." 86% of Americans believe that an abortion should not be done for reasons of sex-selection.

A simple bill is required to "ban abortions for the purpose of sex-selection", however this is being halted by people such as Nancy Pelosi.

"The pro-abortion lobby is attempting to defend the indefensible."

Sex-selective abortions; "One of the bitterest icons of our post-feminist age."

Why Men Shouldn't Write Advice Columns

3 Million "Moses" Babies Every Year in China

"Pharaoh, king of Egypt commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.” ...but when Moses' mother saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months. But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank..." - Exodus 1:22 - 2:4

Moses was born in Egypt circa 1520 BC at a time when infanticide for male infants was mandatory, and where agents of the State would enter homes to ensure that the bloody task had been carried out. Today in China, the State is enforcing a very similar law, known as the one-child-policy, with the innocuous official title of the Family Planning Policy. The Chinese government themselves have admitted that "some 24 million Chinese men of marrying age will be unable to find a bride by the end of this decade because of the country's one-child policy". However encouraging news just in on Chinese parents who are bravely breaking the law...

As many as three million Chinese babies are hidden by their parents every year in order to get around the country's one-child policy, a researcher has discovered. Since 1978, China's government has limited each couple to one child, carrying out forced abortions and sterilizations, and monitoring women's intra uterine devices to control the population. For parents violating the policy, the penalties can be harsh. Large fines are levied, houses are often demolished and offenders are sometimes jailed. In millions of cases, families are prepared to take the risk, according to research by Liang Zhongtang, a demographer and former member of the expert committee of China's National Population and Family Planning Commission... (continue reading)

Interesting how history insists on repeating itself eh...

Planned Parenthood and ACLU Gang Up on Pro-Lifers in Nevada

When did "women's choice" become repression of the First Amendment protected freedom of speech in the United States?

"A ballot initiative by human rights group Personhood Nevada has been thwarted by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and local Judge James Russell. On Friday, January 8, Judge Russell ruled that the fourteen word amendment did not encompass a single subject, although it is comprised of merely a handful of words and one of the most succinct ever to be filed in that State.

The proposed amendment reads, “In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.” The Judge’s decision declares that the people of Nevada are not entitled to vote on this matter, and that the State’s very own policies and procedures to amend the Constitution through ballot initiatives should not be applied to this specific civil rights amendment.

Judge Russell was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they're voting on. There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative."

Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia-Jones was disturbed by the Judge’s comments. "Judge Russell is being disingenuous," he remarked. “There is a very simple way for the voter to understand the effect of the initiative, namely, read the 200 word description that immediately follows the 14 word ballot text. That 200 word description includes: ‘This amendment codifies the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.’ Judge Russell is abusing his power and jumping the gun by prejudging the effect of the law."

The good news though, is that Planned Parenthood and their Labour union ally, the American Civl Liberties Union will fail, because in 2008...

"Planned Parenthood sued to prevent the Colorado ballot initiative from moving forward, claiming that it was not a single subject issue, and lost the lawsuit. The initiative, although longer than the Nevada initiative, was found to be a single subject and allowed to proceed."

Olaf Vancura, President of Personhood Nevada commented, "We are determined that no matter how long it takes, we will not be silenced. The personhood petition will be approved, and we will protect all human life in the state of Nevada.”

And back in New Zealand...
I am now getting used to the underhanded tactics of pro-abortion advocates. Instead of debating the issue of abortion, they so often either attack pro-lifers (with the ad hominem fallacy), or attack pro-lifer's freedom to speak. An example of the latter is currently unfolding on the campus at the University of Auckland, where the feminists and pro-abortion advocates on campus are joining forces to shut down the pro-life group that has recently been founded there. A Facebook group entitled
Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland has been set up. The group includes members such as ALRANZ spokesperson Alison McCulloch and AUSA Women's Rights Officer, Soraiya Daud. This group has made the following defamatory and untrue statement about Prolife Auckland:

"They are a hate group who accuse people who have obtained abortions or have helped people obtain abortions as murderers. University should be a safe place. It will not be if they affiliate."

Pro-life leader Brendan Malone has covered this at his blog here and here. While Prolife Auckland has now successfully affiliated with the Students' Association, the pro-abortion activists on and off campus continue to fight - not their message, but their right to exist on Campus.

Small-Minded Glenn Beck Disses Soccer

I like a lot of what Glenn Beck has to say about the left in the U.S., and the economy... but he should keep his mouth shut about sports because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Listen to his arrogance below... if you can bear it.

Fisking ALRANZ

Fisking: A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story.

On 3 May 2010, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) published their monthly newsletter, with their leading article being entitled "ALRANZ wins website sabotage case". The article was presumably written as a collaboration by former baby-killer and president of the organisation, Margaret Sparrow with Communication Officer, Alison McCulloch. It was designed to bring the dwindling membership of the pro-abortion lobby group up to date with the news about the website that I set up recently, exposing the group. I have already discussed the issue here - read the article if you haven't already, for background to the incident. Below I will go through the article featured in ALRANZ's May Newsletter, point by point.

On 5 November 2009 Andy Moore, National Director of ProLife NZ, a youth oriented anti-abortion group also involved in the stopfamilyplanning consortium, gained rights to the domain name alranz.org.nz. and set up a website there using the US based Web hosting company GoDaddy. The terms of service which clients agree to when setting up a website include: no activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander of harass third parties; no activities that are obscene or otherwise objectionable; no activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party. But as it turns out this means absolutely nothing unless you are a powerful corporation with a team of lawyers. Even when there is obvious violation and a complaint is laid GoDaddy accepts no responsibility and refers the complainant to local enforcement agencies.

I understand that these requirements are standard of web-hosting companies, and are designed to protect them from legal action against themselves. I hadn't read these terms of service, but it is fairly clear that I am breaking them. GoDaddy doesn't care what activities are carried out on their servers so long as they are not breaking any laws; the terms of service are laid out to provide them with immunity from prosecution.

When purchasing the domain name Andy was less than honest. He did not use his own name but hid behind the appellation “mybook.” He did not use his own address but hid behind PO Box 8979 Christchurch which turns out to be the address for the Grace Baptist Church of Christchurch of which he is a member. A letter of complaint to the church elders was not even acknowledged.

When I set up my domain hosting account with Discount Domains, I used the name of a company that I was looking at starting named MyBook. It is acceptable practice to list a domain under its company's name. Long before I purchased the domain name alranz.org.nz, I purchased another domain name which was for a holiday club which my Church was running. Therefore I used the Church's PO Box number, not wanting to put my own home address online for anyone in the World to ascertain. It was an oversight on my part to register the controversial alranz.org.nz in the same account to which the holiday program's URL was registered.

ALRANZ found out about the rogue website in February when a supporter wishing to look up something on our website typed in by mistake alranz.org.nz instead of alranz.org. The viewer was appalled when her screen filled with an offensive picture of what appeared to be a bloodied late-term dead fetus. This is an image that Andy had previously used on his blog starstuddedsuperstep in an article on “What is abortion?” with the caption “abortion at 24 weeks.” He used the same image on his Facebook page boasting about how it may have deterred a young woman from having an abortion. Unlike GoDaddy, Facebook took exception to the image and disabled his account citing an offence against section 3.7 which states: you will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

I am surprised at ALRANZ's description of the photo of the dead child. (view an archived version of the website here) It is a photo of a 24wk old American baby girl who has been brutally murdered in an abortion. The photo is declared to be offensive and appalling. On 8 February, Sparrow stated that the photo was "pornographic". In 2007, the Abortion Supervisory Committee reported that 105 babies aged 20wks and over were killed by abortion. That is foetuses of a similar age and viability to the foetus pictured in the photo. 19wks is the age of the most premature foetus which has been born and survived. Furthermore, ALRANZ supports total decriminalisation of abortion - no matter what the age of the pre-born child. Therefore I am confounded at their apparent disgust at the photo. Surely it's nothing more than a photo of a terminated pregnancy, or the products of conception?

The account of the Facebook incident is correct, and you can read about that here.

Apart from the overwhelming image the page was set out as if it was the real website with the three female symbols with the words KEEP ABORTION SAFE and the text “Welcome to ALRANZ (Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand). We are a pro-choice organisation founded in February 1971 to support reforms which allow a woman to choose whether or not to continue an unplanned pregnancy or to seek an abortion.” Then right at the bottom was the message to CLICK HERE to visit the real ALRANZ website. In February he added text “We support late-term abortions for disabled babies” which clearly misrepresents our standpoint.

A cursory glance at the website will be enough to see that it is clearly not operated by ALRANZ, but has instead been set up by someone who opposes their objectives. I designed the website, drawing on elements from the real ALRANZ site, to create a stronger link - and sarcastically placed the three images, "keep abortion safe" in the bottom-right of the page. I think the point made is pretty clear; how can abortion ever be safe? The CLICK HERE text at the bottom of the page was clearly visible and designed to allow visitors to click through to the real ALRANZ website.

Once again ALRANZ lies about me, stating that I have misrepresented their standpoint on late-term abortions for disabled babies. The text from their February 2007 newsletter reads:

"ALRANZ has for many years protested at the anomaly of our legislation that the grounds for abortions after 20 weeks do not include fetal abnormality. This significant anomaly could be easily rectified by Parliament but politicians seem unaware of the distress caused to parents. It is difficult enough deciding whether or not to abort without worrying whether or not it is a crime."

From this and other documents it is clear that ALRANZ does in fact support decriminalising abortion in the case of foetal anomaly. Anomaly is a nice cute word for disability, and is just another example of the pro-child killing lobby distorting language to try and make their case seem a little more reasonable.

When ALRANZ requested that the site be closed down Andy replied “As an active member of the pro-life movement in New Zealand, I currently have no intention of taking the website down.” GoDaddy and the Grace Baptist Church both failed to intervene. Lawyers we consulted advised making a complaint to the Domain Name Commission (DNC) which handles complaints relating to websites with the suffix .nz via a dispute resolution service.

You can read the entire complaint here. While my original website was arguably unlawful, subsequent to ALRANZ's complaint, I altered the content of the website so that it was no longer a spoof site, but instead an expose site. Among these alterations, I changed the name of the site from "Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand" to "Exposing the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand".

On 24 February ALRANZ lodged a formal complaint with the DNC (1) that we had rights to the acronym ALRANZ and (2) that the offending website was an unfair registration. The remedy that we sought was to have the domain name transferred to ALRANZ. To establish the first claim we provided a compendium of articles, pamphlets, and other printed matter demonstrating the widespread acceptance and use of the acronym ALRANZ. Establishing the second claim was more complex. While free speech and vigorous advocacy must be allowed we had to demonstrate that this was not only part of a wider campaign against ALRANZ, but was designed to mislead and deceive internet users and would have been particularly confusing to any young woman seeking information about abortion.

It is categorically untrue that my intention for the website was for it to mislead and deceive internet users. My sole purpose in setting up the website was to expose the organisation for what it clearly is: a proponent of legalised child killing.

Andy received a copy of our complaint and the 42 supporting documents. Ordinarily the respondent will contest the claim and must reply within 15 working days. Then the matter is referred for mediation provided free by the DNC. Andy failed to respond so this course of action was not possible. The next option was for ALRANZ to have the complaint sent to an independent expert at a cost of $1800 + GST. ALRANZ chose to do this and on 29 March an expert lawyer was appointed by the DNC.

I chose not to contest my right to the domain name, due partly to having been very busy with many other pro-life activities such as the successful 2010 South Island March for Life, and also being quite happy with allowing ALRANZ to foot the fairly substantial legal fees. ALRANZ spent $2025, the fee for having an independent expert hired by the Domain Name Commission to decide on the case. As far as I'm concerned, that's 2 grand less for them to be able to spend to promote killing kids.

On 19 April ALRANZ received the 13 page expert opinion with the good news that the complaint was resolved in our favour and that the website would be transferred to ALRANZ on 3 May unless Andy chose to appeal which was unlikely at a cost of $6,000. Even though strictly speaking we do not have a legal right to the acronym ALRANZ (in the sense of a business having a trademark) we had cited an Animal Welfare case similar to ours where a lobby organisation had been deemed to have the right to use a name. Our claim that this was an unfair registration was accepted and Andy’s failure to respond did not help his case. His only communication with the DNC was an email: “Dear John, Have a great week. Andy.”

It is incorrect that this was my only communication with the DNC. In fact I wrote, "Thanks for your email John - have a great week. Regards, Andy".

ALRANZ has purchased six other common suffixes to make it more difficult for imposters to sabotage our website. It is a price we are prepared to pay to discourage malicious or unethical behaviour.

This cost them at least $136.35. With a total of 6 extra domain names that they previously did not need, this is going to cost ALRANZ an extra $136 per year, as domain names incur an annual fee. I spent a mere $31.45 purchasing the domain name alranz.org.nz, however it has cost ALRANZ at least $2161 in initial outlay, not including their lawyer's fees. This is two grand less per year that the pro-child killing lobby in New Zealand has at their disposal, for the purpose of promoting their lowly, despicable cause. And I really couldn't care less about ALRANZ getting the alranz.org.nz domain name, because I'm now involved with a new project,

At the Exposing ALRANZ website, we're shining the spotlight on the activities and agenda of this organisation and the entire pro-abortion lobby in New Zealand, as well as profiling the people within it. ALRANZ is a pro-abortion extremist group which promotes a strongly anti-life vision for New Zealand. The blood of 400,000 babies killed by abortion before they were born, is crying out and it's time for all those in New Zealand who value life to stand up against ALRANZ and the other pro-abortion groups in New Zealand which are a very vocal minority, pushing for an awful pro-death culture in New Zealand, "our free land"...

No More Free Milk at School - Now it's Free Abortions

Back in the post-war years, up until my parents were at school, children were given a glass, or bottle of milk at school in an effort to increase the healthiness of Kiwi kids. That stopped in 1967. And in 1977 New Zealand got it's "Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act" - a relatively pro-life act which declared that abortions would only be legal if the mother's life or health were in serious, life-threatening danger. Since then, the law has become farcaical, and New Zealand now has child-killing on demand. Below is an account I was sent, of an abortion committed against a sixteen-year-old Kiwi girl, and her pre-born baby that took place in Wellington, New Zealand just recently.

"I have been extremely saddened and quite shocked this week to learn that a friend of my daughter had an abortion last year when she had just turned 16. I know the parents fairly well and they are fabulous parents who have given the world to their kids and they have been very involved in their lives, supporting them at sports and after school activities over the years. The most shocking part of this story for me is that unfortunately this girl has gotten pregnant, gone to the school councilor instead of her parents and, without consulting the parents, the school councilor has taken her to Wellington for an abortion (after taking her to the KYS first).

That was last year and the girl has still not told her parents. I am sure you are all with me on this in terms of feeling horrified that this has been allowed to happen but I really want to know what legislation is in force that allows a school councilor to take this responsibility? I don’t believe there is any! I know those parents and they have had their rights taken away from them and the girl was definitely not mature enough to realize that the love and support she could have received from her parents was what she needed then – whatever outcome they chose together. She just knew she had been “naughty” and didn’t want to get into trouble."

Unfortunately, this legislation is in force, in the form of an amendment to the Care of Children Act. The Care of Children Act establishes that children under the age of 16 are not permitted to undergo medical procedures without their parent's consent. However it makes one exception...

Section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004: Consent to abortion
1. If given by a female child (of whatever age), the following have the same effect as if she were of full age:
(a) a consent to the carrying out on her of any medical or surgical procedure for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy by a person professionally qualified to carry it out; and
(b) a refusal to consent to the carrying out on her of any procedure of that kind.

2. This section overrides section 36.

Section 36 had declared that children under 16 could not undergo any medical procedures without parental consent, however Section 38 comes along and removes this. Abortion is one of the most dangerous and life-changing experiences that any young girl could go through, and this aspect of our abortion law is therefore unprincipled on an unprecedented level. Gianna Jessen's mother was 17 when she chose to have an abortion. The abortionist used the saline-abortion method which both poisons and burns the child in-utero, until it dies - almost always a long and painful death. The saline solution (salt-water) is injected into the womb via a very large syringe. Gianna was burned alive for approximately 18 hours in the womb, in the saline solution. However she was delivered alive, and is today a beautiful and corageous voice for life, speaking internationally about her experience, and about the awful reality of abortion which is hidden behind the glossy brochures and deceptive platitudes from the pro-child killing lobby. As Gianna says - "if abortion is about women's rights, then where were mine?" Abortion is not a choice, it is painful, disgusting, and degrades women. It is shameful that our Government not only funds killing approximately 18,000 pre-born babies every year, but that it also funds the public-schools which promote abortion as an acceptable option - more desirable than adoption, - and further, arrange for young school-girls to have the foetus growing inside them, to be murdered.

Objection from a Former Sailor

To the Editor:
I object and take exception to everyone saying that Obama and Congress are spending money like a drunken sailor. As a former drunken sailor, I quite when I ran out of money.
Bruce L. Hargraves
USN Retired
Worland

Exposing the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ

On 5 November 2009, I purchased the domain name, www.alranz.org.nz, and made a simple spoof website which you can view here (note, graphic image). On 8 February 2010, President of the organization, Dame Margaret Sparrow emailed me, claiming that the website was unethical and unacceptable, and requesting that the site be taken down, stating:

"I object to the pornographic photo posted on the website alranz.org.nz making a link to our website alranz.org It is clear that someone has maliciously purchased the website alranz.org.nz as an attack on our website alranz.org."

Dame Margaret Sparrow

Sparrow claimed that the photo I had used as the background for the website was "pornographic". However the definition of pornography is that it is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the sole purpose of sexual excitement. Does Sparrow find the photo of this murdered baby sexually exciting? Because I sure as hell don't.

In my response, I stated, "As an active member of the pro-life movement in New Zealand, I currently have no intention of taking the website down, as it serves to expose ALRANZ for its awful agenda of decriminalising abortion in New Zealand." ALRANZ and its lawyer subsequently drafted up a nine-page document and a dossier of archived documents relating to ALRANZ and pages printed from the web, presenting a case against me, claiming that my registration of alranz.org.nz was an unfair registration.Speaking of my "history of opposition" to ALRANZ, the document stated the following:

"Mr. Moore is well-known as an active opponent of our Association through various groups including, but not limited to, ProLife NZ (www.prolife.org.nz) and Stop Family Planning (www.stopfamilyplanning.org.nz) and via a blog at http://www.starstuddedsuperstep.com. He frequently attacks the Association, in particular its president, Dame Margaret Sparrow. For example:

[1] Labelling Dame Margaret "an anti-life extremist"
[2] Highlighting the following comment on his blog: "Margaret Sparrow should be hung, drawn and quartered"

[1] I absolutely stand by my statement that Sparrow is an anti-life extremist. She has murdered countless innocent pre-born babies with her own hands during her time as an abortionist, and now, in her retirement years, works tirelessly to further liberalise NZ's abortion laws, to allow for greater access to abortions, for a wider range of reasons, and later into the pregnancy. [2] However the claim that I highlighted the quoted comment is a gross misrepresentation, taking the quote out of context. I did not highlight that comment; rather I highlighted an account from a woman who had had an abortion, from which the above sentence was taken; the strong implication being that I personally endorse this comment. Pro-life stalwart, Brendan Malone has written an article on another instance of this statement on my blog being contorted and made to seem like something that it never was, by this pro-abortion group, ALRANZ. Brendan summed up the article, stating,

"This is simply another classic example of the pro-abortion tactic of using misinformation to slur those who refuse to support the notion that killing unborn human beings is morally, socially and medically acceptable."

I chose not to contest my right to the domain name, due partly to having been very busy with many other pro-life activities such as the successful 2010 South Island March for Life, and also being quite happy with allowing ALRANZ to foot the fairly substantial legal fees. ALRANZ spent $2025, the fee for having an independent expert hired by the Domain Name Commission to decide on the case. They also spent at least $136.35 purchasing similar domain names on 25 February 2010 (3 NZ domain names at $31.45 each and 3 international domain names at $14 each). With a total of 6 extra domain names that they previously did not need, this is going to cost ALRANZ an extra $136 per year, as domains incur an annual fee. I spent a mere $31.45 purchasing the domain name alranz.org.nz, however it has cost ALRANZ at least $2161 in initial outlay, not including their lawyer's fees. This is two grand less per year that the pro-child killing lobby in New Zealand has at their disposal, for the purpose of promoting their lowly, despicable cause. And I really couldn't care less about ALRANZ getting the alranz.org.nz domain name, because I've just set up...

www.ExposingALRANZ.org.nz

At the Exposing ALRANZ website, the spotlight will be shone upon the activities and agenda of this organisation, as well as profiling the people within it, and the radically pro-abortion, anti-woman policies which they are lobbying for. I am not opposed to abortion law reform, in fact I believe that NZ's abortion law (and application of the law) needs to be reformed to reflect the majority opinion that killing pre-born children is not a core health-service, and to protect the right to life of our Country's pre-born children. As long as ALRANZ pursuses pro-child killing abortion law reform, I will oppose ALRANZ. I will not go away, and I will not shut up about this, because as a former foetus, I have a duty to speak up for them, because they sure as heck cannot speak for themselves, and ALRANZ is taking advantage of this; their platform is built on the knowledge that the people they are advocating to be killed cannot yell out "don't kill me, I'm alive!".