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.

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.

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

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.