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?
Showing posts with label ALRANZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALRANZ. Show all posts
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
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.
The article on this issue is here.
For my last vlog on "Aborting Cows", click here. For previous vlogs, click here.
Friday, 14 May 2010
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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"...
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"...
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
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:
Dame Margaret SparrowSparrow 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:
[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,
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...
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!".
"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
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...
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!".
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Blog Update
I haven't blogged for ages... just about one month since my last post. I've got a project on the go which is taking up a lot of my time, but more on that later. Shortly I'll publish a post about an incident involving the pro-abortion lobby group, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand. Those working for ALRANZ read my blog... hello Alison McCulloch and Margaret Sparrow - I trust you're looking forward to the post I'll be publishing about your pro-baby killing organisation shortly. ALRANZ recently misrepresented me in a column they had published in the Gisborne Herald, to which Family Life International spokesperson Brendan Malone responded, "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 also hope to (finally) publish a poem which I started writing back in December 2009, and have just about finished... we'll see.
I also hope to (finally) publish a poem which I started writing back in December 2009, and have just about finished... we'll see.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
NZ Child Killing Lobby Feeling the Heat
The pro-abortion lobby in New Zealand is coming under pressure from a growing number of people and groups speaking out against the injustice of abortion.
The Herald reported on Friday, 19 Feb:
The new guidelines state that doctors must tell mothers concerned about their pregnancy, that abortion is one of the options. This is the first time this issue has come up in New Zealand, and comes hot on the heels of the recent assault on freedom of conscience in Victoria, Australia which requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves are not willing to recommend that the mother has her pre-born baby killed by abortion.
And Stop Family Planning, supported by many pro-family and pro-life organisations is maintaining the pressure on the Family Planning Association who have applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to kill pre-born babies up to 9weeks. Representatives from StopFPA and Prolife NZ have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and planning is under way for future marches in the Country's major cities.
Right to Life is heading back to the Court of Appeal on May 4-5 following the Abortion Supervisory Committee contesting several findings of Justice Miller. One of his comments was that,
Right to Life is a non-profit organization that seeks to be a voice influencing legislation in New Zealand on behalf of those who have absolutely no chance of themselves altering the law which concerns them. The Crown (The Abortion Supervisory Committee) has virtually unlimited funds with which it can fight the findings of Justice Miller in the High Court in July 2008.
Abortion takes the life of a helpless and innocent pre-born human person, without their consent being asked for, or given. Death by abortion is often painful to the child it is killing, and can cause medical complications and lasting psychological trauma to the mothers of the killed children. The abortion industry in new Zealand has been growing more and more arrogant, with calls from retired abortionist Margaret Sparrow and her little organisation, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand - for abortion to be completely decriminalised as it is in Victoria, Australia. ALRANZ also supports the killing of late-term disabled babies. Now the tide is turning the other way, as New Zealanders acknowledge that our abortion rate (aprox 18,000 every year) is unacceptably high, and that it is outrageous that girls of any age may have their baby killed by abortion without her parents giving consent, or even being given notification.
The Herald reported on Friday, 19 Feb:
"Anti-abortion doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how physicians with personal objections to abortion must deal with patients. One of the doctors is believed to be Mary English, a Wellington GP and wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English..." (continue reading)
The new guidelines state that doctors must tell mothers concerned about their pregnancy, that abortion is one of the options. This is the first time this issue has come up in New Zealand, and comes hot on the heels of the recent assault on freedom of conscience in Victoria, Australia which requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves are not willing to recommend that the mother has her pre-born baby killed by abortion.
And Stop Family Planning, supported by many pro-family and pro-life organisations is maintaining the pressure on the Family Planning Association who have applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to kill pre-born babies up to 9weeks. Representatives from StopFPA and Prolife NZ have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and planning is under way for future marches in the Country's major cities.
Right to Life is heading back to the Court of Appeal on May 4-5 following the Abortion Supervisory Committee contesting several findings of Justice Miller. One of his comments was that,
"there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”
Right to Life is a non-profit organization that seeks to be a voice influencing legislation in New Zealand on behalf of those who have absolutely no chance of themselves altering the law which concerns them. The Crown (The Abortion Supervisory Committee) has virtually unlimited funds with which it can fight the findings of Justice Miller in the High Court in July 2008.
Abortion takes the life of a helpless and innocent pre-born human person, without their consent being asked for, or given. Death by abortion is often painful to the child it is killing, and can cause medical complications and lasting psychological trauma to the mothers of the killed children. The abortion industry in new Zealand has been growing more and more arrogant, with calls from retired abortionist Margaret Sparrow and her little organisation, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand - for abortion to be completely decriminalised as it is in Victoria, Australia. ALRANZ also supports the killing of late-term disabled babies. Now the tide is turning the other way, as New Zealanders acknowledge that our abortion rate (aprox 18,000 every year) is unacceptably high, and that it is outrageous that girls of any age may have their baby killed by abortion without her parents giving consent, or even being given notification.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Family Planning Association Comes Under Fire in Wellington Pro-Life March
On Friday Stop Family Planning held their third march expressing opposition to the Abortion Supervisory Committee granting the Family Planning Association an abortion licence. The march was supported by Family First, Right to Life, Family Life International and Prolife NZ.
Accompanied by two police cars and two policemen on motorbikes the crowd of around 200 marchers made their way slowly from Civic Square to the steps of Parliament. The march was held at lunchtime, with thousands of workers in the CBD walking past the protest on their lunch-breaks. Several passers-by joined in the march and were given one of the many placards we had available. The rain eventually set in, however we pressed on - Simeon and I took turns on our new megaphone, informing observers of the purpose of our march and general information about abortion in New Zealand. We made such statements as,
"New Zealand already has an unacceptably high abortion rate; 18,000 abortions every year, and the Family Planning Association wants to commit even more... is that ok?"
"Did you know, under New Zealand's abortion law, a child has to have a permission slip from their parents for the school nurse to give them a panadol, however that same child can have an abortion without their parents' notification, or consent... is that ok?"
The marchers left no doubt in anyone's minds, with their vocal response, "NO!"
It was great to see such a big turnout, in particular with young people joining in the protest against the FPA's attempts at expanding abortion coverage and availability to young women throughout New Zealand. We are now gearing up for two more marches, details will be available soon on the Stop Family Planning website.
Meantime, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand's spokesperson Dame Margaret Sparrow speaks for her dwindling and ageing membership (of under 200), where she incorrectly states that,
Naturally, we are building on the work STOPP has been involved in in the States, however we are an entirely grassroots-based campaign, with no money or advice coming in from the States at this time.
What's wrong with the FPA getting the license? Women and girls of any age, with or without their parent's knowledge or consent would be able to go into an FPA abortion clinic and receive counselling on their crisis pregnancy. Since the FPA is pro-abortion and has a vested interest in women choosing abortion as they will gain financially, there will be a strong emphasis on the benefits of going ahead with an abortion. (read more)
click here for more photos of the march
Accompanied by two police cars and two policemen on motorbikes the crowd of around 200 marchers made their way slowly from Civic Square to the steps of Parliament. The march was held at lunchtime, with thousands of workers in the CBD walking past the protest on their lunch-breaks. Several passers-by joined in the march and were given one of the many placards we had available. The rain eventually set in, however we pressed on - Simeon and I took turns on our new megaphone, informing observers of the purpose of our march and general information about abortion in New Zealand. We made such statements as,
"New Zealand already has an unacceptably high abortion rate; 18,000 abortions every year, and the Family Planning Association wants to commit even more... is that ok?"
"Did you know, under New Zealand's abortion law, a child has to have a permission slip from their parents for the school nurse to give them a panadol, however that same child can have an abortion without their parents' notification, or consent... is that ok?"
The marchers left no doubt in anyone's minds, with their vocal response, "NO!"
It was great to see such a big turnout, in particular with young people joining in the protest against the FPA's attempts at expanding abortion coverage and availability to young women throughout New Zealand. We are now gearing up for two more marches, details will be available soon on the Stop Family Planning website.
Meantime, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand's spokesperson Dame Margaret Sparrow speaks for her dwindling and ageing membership (of under 200), where she incorrectly states that,
"...many of the ideas (and probably a lot of the money) come from the U.S., where Stop Planned Parenthood looks a lot like Stop Family Planning."
Naturally, we are building on the work STOPP has been involved in in the States, however we are an entirely grassroots-based campaign, with no money or advice coming in from the States at this time.
What's wrong with the FPA getting the license? Women and girls of any age, with or without their parent's knowledge or consent would be able to go into an FPA abortion clinic and receive counselling on their crisis pregnancy. Since the FPA is pro-abortion and has a vested interest in women choosing abortion as they will gain financially, there will be a strong emphasis on the benefits of going ahead with an abortion. (read more)
Saturday, 7 November 2009
NZ Abortion Study Rattles ALRANZ
Research just published (4 Nov 09) by Otago University appears to have left the pro-abortion advocates in New Zealand shaken. President of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ), Margaret Sparrow attempts to discredit the findings by questioning the integrity of the report itself, of its researchers and of the media's reporting on it. Professor David Fergusson, of the department of Psychological Medicine, and his team studied data from women who had been interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been. They found that, "Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems" - NZ Herald.“Pro-abortion lobbyists in New Zealand like to throw the word ‘choice’ around, but how can we honestly claim that women choosing abortion are making a free and informed decision when they haven’t been properly advised about the risks of having an abortion, and the alternatives available to them” said Brendan Malone of Family Life International in their press release.
So having an abortion will increase your risk of suffering from a mental health disorder will increase by up to 80% if you agree for your baby to be killed by an abortionist. It would seem self-evident that any mother who agrees to having their own flesh and blood, their own little child killed is either careless, sadistic, or has not been told that this is in fact what is taking place. If the pre-born child is refered to as "the pregnancy", or "the products of conception" by her doctor and councillers then the mother is unlikely to be fully aware of the state of the child within her. If the mother was instead told that her "problem" was a small human-being, a life distinct from hers yet dependent upon her for its very life (from conception until about the age of five), perhaps she would then be able to see the situation for what it was. Another factor worthy of consideration when thinking about getting an abortion, is the effect that it may have on the mother's own health. Surprise surprise, workers within the government-funded abortion industry in New Zealand value their jobs and subsequently spend precious little time providing women with information on the very real plethora of risks - both physical and psychological, associated with having an abortion. Increased risk of contracting breast cancer, damage to mental health, future premature births or miscarriages, or nightmares about the awful fate of their tiny, helpless, unborn child.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
What the heck, ALRANZ
As usual, ALRANZ (9 Oct) reacts to Right to Life's action on behalf of the legal rights of the silent unborn members of our society. As usual, it is the aging Dame Margaret Sparrow as the sole spokesperson of her small and dwindling group of pro-abortion extremists who attempts to smear Right to Life spokesperson Ken Orr's drawn-out involvement in the case, Right to Life vs. Crown over the matter of the personhood of unborn children, and the legality of the actions of the pro-abortion Abortion Supervisory Committee. As usual, Ms. Sparrow resorts to an awkward compilation of emotive and exaggerated platitudes which is presented in the format of a press release - which we all know are God's truth...
I do not completely disagree with Ms. Sparrows assertions. She states, "mifepristone is many times safer for women than taking Viagra is for men," making a valid point and drawing attention to what may be in some cases an example of alarmism and scare-tactics aimed at expectant mothers, on the part of some anti-abortion groups. It is indeed true that mifepristone has caused the death of some pregnant women, however when compared with other common drugs I understand that the numbers are not outstanding. However Ms. Sparrow also makes the unfounded claim that, "having an early medical abortion is about 10 times safer than giving birth." I presume that she is not talking about the safety of the unborn child here. I presume that she is not talking about the mother either. Having an abortion generally increases a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer by 150% due to excess estrogen present in the body due to the unnatural destruction of the unborn child, so committing an abortion is hardly safe for the woman. So who is she talking about? Who knows.
Ms. Sparrow states, “The Crown has spent well over a quarter of a million dollars defending New Zealand women..." If this isn't a wonderful example of twisting the truth, then I'm a hippie. In reality, the Crown has spent - and continues to spend inordinate quantities of tax-payer dollars to defend itself (the Abortion Supervisory Committe which reports to Parliament). The Crown has an unlimited slush-fund with which to defend its actions against the privately funded efforts of Right to Life to see justice done for the unborn, and for women to be given adequate information to make a truly informed decision in regards to their pregnancy.
Read Right to Life's deconstruction of Ms. Sparrow's claims here. Mr. Tips at the excellent NZ Conservative blog writes on this,
I have previously written on ALRANZ's tactics here, ALRANZ Misleading Public. Mr. Tips mentions the FPA's attempts to get RU486 into pharmacies. This is stupid because women who use RU486 to kill their unborn child often experience complications. As far as the woman is concerned, it is unsafe for her to use this drug outside of the abortion-mill as she may urgently require attention from one of the workers to assist her with complications leading from its use. Anyway, you can already buy abortifacient contraceptives across the counter from pharmacies throughout New Zealand - and hey kids, try this at home. NZ Abortion law states that girls of any age are not required to have parental consent or notification before obtaining an abortion, whether it is chemical or surgical.
I do not completely disagree with Ms. Sparrows assertions. She states, "mifepristone is many times safer for women than taking Viagra is for men," making a valid point and drawing attention to what may be in some cases an example of alarmism and scare-tactics aimed at expectant mothers, on the part of some anti-abortion groups. It is indeed true that mifepristone has caused the death of some pregnant women, however when compared with other common drugs I understand that the numbers are not outstanding. However Ms. Sparrow also makes the unfounded claim that, "having an early medical abortion is about 10 times safer than giving birth." I presume that she is not talking about the safety of the unborn child here. I presume that she is not talking about the mother either. Having an abortion generally increases a woman's chance of contracting breast cancer by 150% due to excess estrogen present in the body due to the unnatural destruction of the unborn child, so committing an abortion is hardly safe for the woman. So who is she talking about? Who knows.
Ms. Sparrow states, “The Crown has spent well over a quarter of a million dollars defending New Zealand women..." If this isn't a wonderful example of twisting the truth, then I'm a hippie. In reality, the Crown has spent - and continues to spend inordinate quantities of tax-payer dollars to defend itself (the Abortion Supervisory Committe which reports to Parliament). The Crown has an unlimited slush-fund with which to defend its actions against the privately funded efforts of Right to Life to see justice done for the unborn, and for women to be given adequate information to make a truly informed decision in regards to their pregnancy.
Read Right to Life's deconstruction of Ms. Sparrow's claims here. Mr. Tips at the excellent NZ Conservative blog writes on this,
Once again, ALRANZ (the personal vehicle for the twisted justification of abortion in Margaret Sparrow's head) is spreading deceit to stem any criticism of its attempts to promote abortion. Ms. Sparrow is worried that Right to Life (RTL) is going to take legal action to prevent Family Planning attempts to get RU486 sold across the pharmacy counter or from your GP, without a certifying consultant certificate. More specifically, Ms. Sparrow has issued a press release to counter the "lies, intimidation and threats" of RTL on this issues. In this, Ms. Sparrow claims RU486 is not a killer and that medical abortion is 10x safer than giving birth... (continue reading)
I have previously written on ALRANZ's tactics here, ALRANZ Misleading Public. Mr. Tips mentions the FPA's attempts to get RU486 into pharmacies. This is stupid because women who use RU486 to kill their unborn child often experience complications. As far as the woman is concerned, it is unsafe for her to use this drug outside of the abortion-mill as she may urgently require attention from one of the workers to assist her with complications leading from its use. Anyway, you can already buy abortifacient contraceptives across the counter from pharmacies throughout New Zealand - and hey kids, try this at home. NZ Abortion law states that girls of any age are not required to have parental consent or notification before obtaining an abortion, whether it is chemical or surgical.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Abortion Law Reform Assn. Misleading Public
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)