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:

"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.

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,

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.

Abortion Case Goes Back to Court of Appeal

Prolife NZ has responded to the news that Right to Life and the anti-life Abortion Supervisory Committee are set to head back to the Court of Appeal early next year.

"Prolife NZ is today welcoming the news that Right to Life will again be representing the unborn in the Court of Appeal. On 20 August 2009 The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against Justice Miller’s 9 June 2008 judgement. Right to Life will once again cross-appeal on behalf of the unborn children in New Zealand who are unable to speak for themselves.

In his 9 June 2008 judgement, Justice Miller stated that ‘There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants,’ and ‘The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.’

“Why is the ASC so desperate to reject the Justice’s judgement in a bid to retain what is essentially abortion on demand? The ASC was established by Parliament to ensure that New Zealand’s abortion law is carried out as it was originally intended.”

Click here to continue reading the media release. The ASC is intent on ignoring Justice Miller's damning June 2008 judgement of their poor record at ensuring the proper application of abortion law. Not only are they concerned at the implications of the Justice's findings, but they are upset that Right to Life is set to be awarded costs (aprox $40,000) for the case so far. Right to Life on the other hand is welcoming this second Court of Appeal hearing as "an opportunity to represent their case for the legal recognition of the unborn child from conception as a human being".

Justice Miller's Judgement on the Right to Life vs. Crown Case

I have read through Justice Miller's judgement which was released on 3 August 2009. I have made comments throughout the judgement either on things Justice Miller has said, or in places where it's a bit hard to understand what is being said.

Click here for a 7-page PDF document of the judgement with my comments.

Related Posts:
NZ Anti-Life Lobby Running Scared
ALRANZ & Pro-Life Groups In Agreement
Abortion Supervisory Committee Appeals High Court Ruling
Abortion Law Reform Assn. Misleading Public
Abortion Case Gets Green Light for High Court Hearing

Abortion Case Gets Green Light for High Court Hearing

The Right to Life NZ blog reports,

The High Court in Wellington has advised that a hearing has been set down for Monday, 20 July 2009 before Justice Miller. Right to Life will seek at this hearing to have Justice Miller issue clear declarations to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] setting out the statutory powers and duties of the ASC. These declaratory orders have the effect of declaring the law and the way in which it should be applied as set out in the fuller reasons given by Justice Miller in his judgment.

The declaratory orders should have been given in the June 2008 High Court Case. However with this technicality out of the way, the ASC will be able to again appeal against Justice Miller's 2008 ruling at the Court of Appeal. Justice Miller's ruling in 2008 contained the following statements which threw the ASC - and indeed the entire anti-life lobby in New Zealand, into such a panic...

“There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed, the [Abortion Supervisory] Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended...

...The [Abortion Supervisory Committee] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law, reasoning incorrectly that Wall v Livingston means it may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.”

Right to Life will also make an cross-appeal at the Court of Appeal hearing, "challenging Justice Miller’s findings in his judgment that there was no basis in law for declaring that unborn children were legal persons with human rights under the law". Right to Life's cross-appeal is important, yet an unrelated and secondary issue to the crux of the case, which is Justice Miller's ruling that the ASC has indeed been allowing many illegal abortions to take place in New Zealand.

Spotlight on NZ Abortion Law

I had an article published in the 18/May edition of CANTA, the magazine of the University of Canterbury Students' Association. It was entitled NZ Abortion Law Under the Spotlight, and not surprisingly has received some interest from other students.

On 15 December 1977, the National Government passed the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Bill into law. The long title of the Act mentions that it was enacted “to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child.” 

This was designed to ban abortions in all but the most extreme cases. It established the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC), and laid out the grounds on which an abortion could legally be performed. The ASC selects a number of certifying consultants who assess women seeking to have an abortion. Two of these certifying consultants must then establish that the woman’s life or her physical or mental health is in serious danger before an abortion may proceed.

In 2007, 98.7% of the 18,382 certified abortions performed in New Zealand were approved on the grounds of the mental health of the mother being at risk. The vast majority of this figure actually represents “convenience-abortions”, since the mother’s health was not sufficiently endangered as to warrant an abortion under the law.

Indeed the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, Section 37 (2) states that an abortion is only justified if it “is immediately necessary to save the life of the patient or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health”. The Crimes Act 1961, Section 182 (2) also states that the only exception where an abortion is justified is if it is “in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother”.

In New Zealand, the number of pregnancies presenting a serious threat to the mother is under 1%. With approximately 78,000 known pregnancies in 2007, you would expect the number of abortions to have been around 780. Why then, were there over 18,000 abortions performed?

Click here to read the rest of the article. Because the outcome of the Court of Appeal case was so unexpected, the article had to be altered at the last minute, however the version that made it into CANTA was not the most recent one, and requires the following correction:

However in an unexpected turn of events, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case on Tuesday, determining that the original case should be re-heard in the High Court, saying the case was outside its jurisdiction. This will probably take place some time next year.

should be...

However in an unexpected turn of events, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the ASC on Tuesday, saying the case was outside its jurisdiction. Right to Life and the ASC will return to the High Court at an early date, where they will seek to clarify the declaratory orders of Justice Miller. The original ruling by Justice Miller still stands, and the case will not need to be re-heard.

NZ Anti-Life Lobby Running Scared

The Women's National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC) is the latest of several other anti-life groups in New Zealand to join in the smear-campaign against Right to Life NZ. In their 10 May press release, they write,

The anti-abortion group Right to Life has spent at least $86,000 harassing the women of New Zealand – much of it on a court case that resumes in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday – and the Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign has a simple question: Where’s all that money coming from?

Without missing a beat, the Society For Promotion Of Community Standards responds,

Most will see this for what it is - a last minute desperate smear campaign directed at a properly constituted Incorporated Society that publicly discloses its audited financial accounts every year via the Companies website, as well as its objectives.

Towards the bottom of their press release, WONAAC's Alison McCulloch accuses Right to Life of having an hidden agenda,

“It’s not just about abortion. It never is,” Ms. McCulloch said. “It’s about a minority morals agenda that opposes sex education, contraception, civil unions and gay marriage. Embryos have human rights, gays and women don’t.”

Observe the ruthless fervour of this anti-life lobby-group. They resort to grossly misrepresenting Right to Life, by claiming that Right to Life belives that gays and women do not have human rights.

McCulloch has the disconcerting habit of constantly refering to the unborn child simply as a "fertilized egg". Ultimately, all of us - including McCulloch, are fertilized eggs. However it is a bizarre way in which to refer to an unborn child, who at just 5 weeks old has a steady heart-beat and a separate set of DNA from its mother.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZ Abortion Law Under Question: Anti-Life Lobby Panics

My latest post on JillStanek.com

A monumental case is brewing in New Zealand, the biggest development since abortion was legalized in 1977.

Justice Forrest Miller, High Court judge in the June 2008 case of Right to Life NZ v. The Abortion Supervisory Committee, made a statement which put panic into the complacent members of the anti-life lobby in NZ, while pro-life groups rallied at the official recognition of what they had been saying for so long:

There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed, the [Abortion Supervisory] Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended... ...The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law, reasoning incorrectly that Wall v Livingston means it may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.

98.7% of the 18k+ abortions performed in 2007 were justified on the grounds of the mental health of the mother being at risk. It is patently obvious that 98.7% of pregnant women in NZ are not mentally unfit to give birth to their unborn children. The vast majority of this figure actually represents "convenience abortions."

Click here to continue reading the article

Health Commissioner: Women Must Be Offered to View Ultrasound

The Health Commissioner has recently made an important and historic decision that women considering an abortion when undergoing an ultra sound scan have a right to be offered the opportunity to view a scan of their baby in the womb...

...It is known from studies conducted in the United States that inviting women to view a scan results in many women after seeing their baby to decide against an abortion and choose life for her baby." - Right to Life Press Release 2/05/09

Background: In November 2008, Right to Life NZ contacted the various district health boards throughout New Zealand, asking them what their policy was on pregnant women being offered to see an ultrasound picture of their unborn baby. The Waikato DHB had the audacity to state that "to offer a woman an opportunity to view her scan would be an infringement of a patient’s rights." Following this, Right to Life contacted the Health Commissioner Ron Paterson, to alert him to the Waikato DHB's actions.

Late in April, the Health Commissioner advised Right to Life that he had acted upon the information they had provided, writing...

“I have carefully considered the issue you have raised. Clearly, a woman undergoing an ultrasound scan has the right to view her scan. As you have recognised, she also has the right to decide not to view the scan. In order to exercise this choice, a woman will know that she is able to view the scan. I have written to Waikato DHB reminding them of Right 6 of the Code, which states that consumers have the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that consumer’s circumstances, would expect to receive. In my view, this would generally include the information that the woman may view the scan should she wish.” - RTL

In New Zealand, the law states that women have the right to view the ultrasound scan of their unborn baby if they desire. However many sonographers have the screen facing away from the woman, and refrain from telling their client that they may view the screen if they wish. It is imperative for us to understand that the Health Commissioner is not saying that women must be shown the screen, rather that the women must be offered to view the screen if they wish. The recent action taken by the Health Commissioner is ground-breaking, as it means that the woman's right to be offered to view the ultrasound image of their unborn baby will be properly enforced.

The sonographer moves the transducer over the mother's abdomen

"Ultrasound is the use of sound waves to obtain an image or picture of various organs and tissues in the body. During Ultrasound, a transducer is used to transmit harmless, high frequency sound waves through your body. The transducer picks up the echoes of these waves and converts them into an image on a TV monitor." - www.radconlr.com

Missing Data from 2007 Abortion Report

On 17 June 2008, the Abortion Supervisory Committee reported to Parliament with the abortion statistics for New Zealand for 2007.  However Right to Life was concerned at the lack of various tables and figures in this report, and so requested that the information be released.

Below are some of the disturbing and previously unreleased statistics (all for 2007):

• 4,380 women had their second abortion.
• 1,485 women were having their third abortion.

• Only TEN abortions were performed because the mother's life was at risk.
• 18,138 (98.7%) or abortions were performed on the grounds of "Danger to Mental Health [of the mother]"

For every three live births in New Zealand, there is approximately one abortion. 66,110 live births, 18,380 abortions recorded in 2007. 98.7% of these abortions are justified on the grounds that the mother's mental health would be at risk if the pregnancy was taken to completion. However, a vast majoity of these abortions are illegal, because New Zealand's law states that an abortion is only justified if it "is immediately necessary to save the life of the patient or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health." - Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, Section 37 (2) 1977. The Crimes Act also, states that the only exception where an abortion is justified is if it is, "in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother" - Crimes Act 1961, Section 82 (2) - Killing unborn child.

The law allows for an abortion only if it is for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother, or for preventing serious permanent injury. If the law was being carried out faithfully, then the number of abortions would be closer to 10, than to the horrific figure of 18,380.

Click here to download the missing tables in PDF format.

Did you know? New Zealand law states that a child is not a "human being" until it is outside of its mother. That is absolutely arbitrary, and complete bollocks. Where you are has nothing to do with what you are.

Australia: Murder to be Mandatory

I have just read the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 currently before the Parliament of Victoria, Australia. In simple language, it succinctly outlines its brutal purpose. Pictured on the right is the unfortunate face of the Minister for Early Childhood Development, Maxine Morand MP. The Victoria Government has given her the duty of "ensur[ing] that all Victorian children have the opportunity to get the very best possible start in life." - source. It seems impossible then that Morand could have tabled the bill calling for abortion on demand in her state. Below are the two most attrocious aims of the bill, with comments from Right to Life Australia in italics.

Section 5: Termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioner after 24 weeks
(1) A registered medical practitioner may perform an abortion on a woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant only if the medical practitioner—
(a) reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances; and
(b) has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who also reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.
(2) In considering whether the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances, a registered medical practitioner must have regard to—
(a) all relevant medical circumstances; and
(b) the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances.

Section 5 of the Bill allows abortion after 24 weeks up until birth if two doctors believe the “abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.” The appropriateness of the abortion will be judged on “the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances”. This, in effect, represents abortion on demand up to birth. We know that doctors are already willing to perform these late term abortions for psychological and social reasons, and women seeking an abortion will have no trouble finding two such doctors.

Section 8(3)&(4): Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner [or a registered nurse] is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.

Section 8 of the Bill requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves conscientiously object to abortion. This section does not provide for conscientious objection at all because it mandates that all doctors participate in the abortion process. Section 8 also mandates that pro-life doctors and nurses must participate in abortions if there is an ‘emergency threatening the life of the woman’. How will that be defined? On current interpretations this section could be read as a broad obligation to perform abortions.

---

This is a terrible downwards step for Australia to be taking. In passing this bill into law, they join 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".

Sick.

Majority of Canterbury Women Not Counselled Before Abortion

Troubling news from Right to Life. Over 70% of women considering abortion in Canterbury have not received counselling prior to the abortion taking place. Two questions I have to raise before I continue with an excerpt from the press release. Firstly, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, then why is it restricted at all, and secondly, if it is simply a matter of surgical removal of worthless tissue, then why is counselling so important.

"More than two thirds of the women who had an abortion at Lyndhurst and Christchurch Women’s Hospitals in 2006/2007 did not receive counselling at the hospitals before having an abortion.

The Canterbury District Health Board recently provided Right to Life with statistics under the Official Information Act, 1982. The Board advised that 2504 women had an abortion at their licensed facilities in the year ending 30 June 2007. Of this total, only 705 women considering an abortion received counselling at their facilities. This is deplorable; these statistics reveal a human tragedy for vulnerable women and their unborn children. Women are the second victims of abortion; they are entitled to be fully informed of alternatives to abortion, the development of their unborn child and the potential physical and psychiatric complications that might result from having an abortion...

...Right to Life believes that the Code of Health Rights may have been breached by the consultants or by other responsible health care personnel involved in the process of providing an abortion at Lyndhurst and Christchurch Hospitals." - RTLNZ

First it's the Abortion Supervisory Committee who are entrusted to overseeing the application of New Zealand's abortion laws. They came under fire when the High Court found that “There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” (read more here). And now it's the CDHB (Canterbury District Health Board) letting down Canterbury women and babies by allowing so many women (70% plus) to bypass the crucial pre-abortion counselling.

Abortion Supervisory Committee's Stance Predictable

News that the Abortion Supervisory Committee is not complying with the High Court's judgment comes as no surprise.

"The Abortion Supervisory Committee is blatantly ignoring a High Court judgment that put the Committee on notice for failing to fulfil its statutory duties." - Press Release, Right to Life NZ

When we recall that the Abortion Supervisory Committee members itself are strong believers in abortion.

"The ease with which women can obtain an abortion in New Zealand can be compared to the ease of a mass murderer (eg. an Al Qaeda terrorist) crossing a US border control with only one out of 100 border control operators awake on the job at their individual check points. In fact its easier because all three of the Abortion Supervisory Committee members, who have a statutory duty to oversee 'the border control' (ensure that certifying consultants are complying with the law etc.) are strongly in favour, like Fitzpatrick, of making the mas murder of babies more accessible. One is even a practising baby killer (abortionist) - herself." - Press Release, Society For Promotion of Community Standards

Huh.  A practicing abortionist on the Abortion Supervisory Committee.  That's not right.  What I'd like to see, is the unborn babies represented in the committee.

Abortion Supervisory Committee Appeals High Court Ruling

The Abortion Supervisory Committee ASC) is a Government department, entrusted with keeping the abortion law (Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977) in New Zealand under review.  Pro-life group Right to Life NZ appealed to the High Court for a review to be done on the ASC, and in mid-June 2008, the High Court's ruling came back,

"The judgment found that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended” Justice Miller stated that ; “In my opinion , the statistics and the Committee’s comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request.” The Court held that the Committee does in fact have the power to review and scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and to require them to keep records and question them on the use of the mental health ground to authorise 98% of the abortions in New Zealand."

The relevant piece of law is Section 32 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, which refers to Section 187A of the Crimes Act 1961, which in turn states,

Part (1) For the purposes of sections 183 and 186 of this Act, any act specified in either of those sections is done unlawfully unless, in the case of a pregnancy of not more than 20 weeks' gestation, the person doing the act believes- (a) That the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl"

I am providing some background here, to clarify the significance of the ASC's recent appeal to the High Court, over their ruling on the ASC's application of the abortion law in New Zealand.  The ASC is claiming that the Judge's two key findings (1) “There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”, and (2) “The approval rate [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under section 187A the consultants must form the good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health.” are groundless.

However, it is obvious that the lawfulness of many abortions to date is doubtful, when you consider that 98% of abortions in New Zealand are authorised on mental health grounds.  And so Right to Life is confident that the High Court will uphold its previous finding,

"Right to Life is confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold the judgment in respect to these important issues. It is the intention of Right to Life to cross appeal and re present our case denied in the High Court for the legal recognition of the status of the unborn child as a human being and a person endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life. Secondly there will be the opportunity to put before the Court of Appeal the issue which the Royal Commission considered important, whether abortion counsellors should be independent from abortion providers."

I await the High Court's response with interest.  The short video below offers a succinct overview of the initial response of the High Court back in mid-June.

---

(hat tip, Big News)

Related posts: Complaint Laid Over Offensive YouTube Attack, The Link Between Abortion and Child Abuse, Abortion Shellshock