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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small-Minded Glenn Beck Disses Soccer

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

Fisking ALRANZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. This section overrides section 36.

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

Objection from a Former Sailor

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

Exposing the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ

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

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

Dame Margaret Sparrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.ExposingALRANZ.org.nz

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

Are Tea Partiers Principled?

The former Govenor of New Mexico, and Honorary Chairman of the OUR America Initiative writes, warning of misplaced enthusiasm in supporting politicians who claim to stand with the Tea Party movement on issues such as small government and lower tax. Below is an excerpt from his article...

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.

Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality.

While someone may have a good personality, a personality that seems conservative, down-to-earth, and middle-American; while a politician on stage might say everything you agree with and believe deep down in your heart; while that person may strongly affirm all of your principles… he or she might not really believe in them.

Is it so hard to think that a politician might capitalize on the tea party movement by telling us what we want to hear?... (Continue Reading)

Here's a video introducing Our America...

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 Lol'd

An elderly British gentleman of 83 arrived in Paris by plane.
At the French customs desk, the man took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry-on bag. 
You have been to France before, Monsieur?' the customs officer asked, sarcastically. 
The elderly gentleman admitted he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.' The elderly gentleman said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 
'Impossible' said the customs officer, 'The British always have to show their passports on arrival in France!' 
The Man gave the Frenchman a long hard look. 
Then he quietly explained;
'Well, when I came ashore on the Beach on D-Day in 1944, I couldn't find any flippin' Frenchmen to show it to!!!

Four Years

Star Studded Super Step has been online for four years. My first post on 16 March, 2006 was on a blog named "TBC" which stood for "To Be Confirmed". A month or two later I decided on a title, choosing the name of Poor Old Lu's 1995 album, Star Studded Super Step. It had been a toss up between that and a couple of their other songs, A Snowfallen Desert and For the Love of My Country. I guess I chose the name for its originality - the line is only used once, in the song Sometimes Cry:

...sometimes we need to hide, sometimes cry
run away, far away - to Yahweh, He's my hideaway
star-studded-super-step, yeah, you've turned around again...

And I'm not really sure what it means, but it sounds good. Over the years I've written about the mysterious Mr. Raxworthy and an unfinished, four-part story entitled Coffee - Lydie and Jono also helped with this. I've explored some slightly bizarre, analogous, exaggerated autobiographical raves which I still look back on with bemusement - John's stories were my inspiration to try this style. I've done a series of posts on Timeless Cinematic Moments, which have been fun. I've written three (no, there's no other way to say it), three romantic poems, and another nice one too, entitled "Most Tranquil". I'm still working on the third you know poem, it's not quite right yet.

There's a very serious side to my blog too. I have been writing a lot recently about abortion and the arguments for and against it. I've written in the past in particular about social engineering particularly as it relates to public education. I'm also increasingly focusing on the state of the fight for freedom; at the front of the line, in the United States - with the vast majority of my readers being from that fair country. Philosophical discourse has been, and will continue to be a feature of the blog. I've discussed some theological concepts and explained the Gospel of Jesus Christ in my own words a couple of times too. I'm not going to shut up about what I believe: There's nothing you can do to shut me up when I'm speaking the truth.

Right, so what's with the picture of the guy with the t-shirt on his head? It's a scene from the movie Gerry, directed by Gus van Sant, about two friends - both named Gerry, starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. And cheers to Siminy for the sweet-as background photo, I think it's here to stay. I'm hoping to pick up the slack and post more frequently on issues that you and I care about.

To the days.

I lol'd

Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next".

They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.

Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice.

When someone tells me that they are pro-choice, I always think - well heck, I'm pro-choice too. Proponents of "abortion as a woman's choice" will tell you that they think that women should have the right to choose. Choice is placed on a pedestal; it is high up, and we must not question it. Discourse over the nature of the choice is discouraged, instead emotive and often frenzied campaigns are run calling for the right for women to choose to be upheld.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of expression; of freedom in general. However one person's freedom ends where another's freedom begins. I do not have the freedom to take your life against your will; that is contrary to the meaning of freedom. Pre-born babies are not asked for their opinion before the suction tube is inserted into their mother. As saline-abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has said, "if abortion is about women's rights, then where were mine?"

It is clear that every non-coerced action we make is a choice. That a given action was a choice has no bearing on its morality. Rape is a choice. Men have a choice whether they rape a woman or not, however it would be outrageous for me to suggest that somehow, because this is a choice, that it makes rape an acceptable activity. The fact that it's a choice has nothing to do with its morality, therefore I would be stupid to bring up "choice" as an argument in favour of decriminalising rape. There is only one correct choice, and that is the choice not to commit rape.

The two questions we must ask, - and answer before we make a decision about abortion are: 1) Whose choice are we taking into consideration, and 2) Which choice is the correct one?

1) The decision whether to abort a foetus or not affects two people: the mother and her pre-born child. Therefore, as with all contracts, both parties must have their choice respected. If one of the parties' choice is ignored, then the decision will be unjust. We cannot know what the baby's choice will be, as we are currently unable to communicate with pre-born children to ask them whether they wish for their life to be terminated or not. If a foetus gave consent to its destruction, I would support abortion in this instance. Realistically speaking however, a foetus not only lacks the rational capacity to make such a decision, but we would be unable to ascertain its decision even if it were able to make one. Therefore, as with all contracts, we have an obligation to err on the side of caution, and postpone killing the pre-born child until such time as it is able to consent to its death. This may all sound fairly cold and heartless, but consider: how many people do you know who would agree to your proposition of killing them? None.

If a mother, or a relative, friend or doctor of the mother wishes to kill the pre-born child, this wish is superceded by the natural rights held by the foetus - to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2) Which choice is the correct one? I absolutely support a woman's right to choose - given that she makes a moral choice. Nobody has the right to choose to harm another person without their consent. The correct choice is life for the baby.

The pro-life group that I work with in New Zealand has a popular t-shirt that reads "Unborn babies are pro-choice too". This statement is not only untrue, but it is also unverifiable. As far as I can tell, pre-born babies are not yet of a rational capacity to even contemplate whether they wish to die or live. Their natural bodily functions are all crying out "live", however they have not yet grasped the concept of the desirability of living within their own minds. Therefore they do not have the ability to choose one way or the other. In saying this, pre-born babies do have other thoughts, such as recognising the sound of their mother's voice... The statement is unverifiable because we cannot be 100% sure that all babies would advocate for choice - were they able. It is possible that there may be some pre-born babies - who, if asked, (were the technology available) - if they supported upholding choice on the issue of abortion, who would respond that they do not. All that aside, with our t-shirts we've made a well-educated guess that were pre-born babies able to respond, that they would support choice. It follows that the vast majority of babies would support the non-abortion choice, as very few humans - when asked, will volunteer to have their lives ended.

In summary: Choice has nothing to do with morality, therefore choice does not impact on the acceptability of abortion. A choice is only permissible if it does not take away the choice of another person.

ACT Conference 2010

Will be attending the ACT 2010 conference in Wellington Friday to Saturday. ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and is the most liberal party in Government, with 5 MPs. I will be livetweeting the conference, #actnz.

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.

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.

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)

Pro-Abortion Van-dalism Backfires

The highly active Kapiti branch of Voice for Life recently purchased a van and had it painted bright green and sign-written with various pro-life messages. The van is available for use by pro-life groups and youth-groups throughout New Zealand. On Monday, 8 Feb the van was vandalised by someone who wrote with a vivid marker, "This Vam [sic] is abusive" and further writing on the van claiming that the actual size of the pictured ultrasound scan of an aprox 20week foetus was about the size of a 10 cent coin; clearly uninformed.

"Find your own van to scribble on," Simeon Brown said to the Kapiti Observer who ran an article on the incident. The abortion debate is not going to be won by either side in this manner. I am strongly supportive of people on either side of the issue to thoroughly consider the others' points, and to approach the issue without preconceptions or slanted worldviews.

Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

In Referendum File 1 we looked at the claims and the logic found in a letter which was sent by Larry Baldock to his supporters. In Referendum File 2 we are going to take a look at the petition itself and ask the question, "Can we trust the Campaign for Democracy with the personal information they are collecting from people around New Zealand?"

The petition is a vast improvement on Larry Baldock and the Kiwi Party's last petition sheet which had two petition forms on one A4 sheet, one asking for a referendum on the legality of corporal punishment, the other asking for a referendum calling for a Royal Inquiry into the wider causes of domestic violence. On 17 December, 2009 the phrasing and format of the new petition which asks,

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

was approved by the clerk of Parliament. It is clear to see that the petition layout has borrowed a lot from the UNITE Union's current petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum which was launched on 11 June 2009, seeking to have the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour. (The $15/hr minimum wage is also a policy of the Kiwi Party). Instead of squashing 20 signatures onto each page as was the case with Baldock's last petitions, the new petition has space for ten signatories. "If they can't read it, they won't count it!" is written in bold capitals at the top of the sheet - something left off the last petitions, and which Baldock subsequently requested petitioners to say to people as they signed. Illegible signatures were a real problem when collecting, causing between 2 - 5% of the collected signatures to be disqualified by the Clerk. A freephone 0800 number, website address, and logo of the organising group have been added at the bottom of the sheet - all similarities with the UNITE petition which preceeded it.

bottom, right-hand-corner of petition form

The most notable difference between the last petition sheet and the new one is the Optional Contact Info section on the right-hand-side of the form. This again, is a direct adaptation from UNITE's petition which has the same thing, with almost identical wording. In the bottom right-hand-corner, the following claim is made,

"This information is to keep you informed about our campaigns. We won't give your details to anyone else."

The UNITE petition makes the same promise to signatories. And while Baldock's last two petitions did not bear this reassuring privacy information, Baldock instructed petitioners (myself included) to inform people signing, that their details would not be passed on to a third party, and that the only people seeing their signatures would be the Clerk and those assistants who would help count the signatures. I draw your attention to this claim made by the Campaign 4 Democracy, because, quite frankly, I struggle to believe it. Because in the lead-up to the 2008 general election, the Kiwi Party cast aside the assurance it had given to signatories, and breached their trust by emailing out photocopied petition forms to Kiwi Party supporters, asking them to post Kiwi Party promotional material to the signatories in an effort to increase their Party Vote. Below is my summary of this incident which I wrote shortly before the 08 election at the ChristianVote website.

Letter to be sent to 300,000+ who signed petition. In a staggering breach of trust, The Kiwi Party have announced that they intend to send an individual letter (click here to read the letter) to every single person who signed the petition calling for the wider causes of child abuse and family violence to be addressed (click here to read the email they sent out). I and many others have personally assured many hundreds of people signing the petition that under no circumstances will they receive any mail, and that the address is purely for the purpose of establishing that they are who they say they are. And now The Kiwi Party is sending out PDF documents (click to view an example) containing between 200 and 1,000 home addresses to its members, so that they can then send out letters calling for donations and a party vote for the Kiwi Party. "You can help guarantee the referendum is binding by giving your Party Vote to the Kiwi Party." the letter erroneously claims. The Privacy Act states that "An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose".

Pro-family advocacy group Family First which had backed the petitions the whole way promptly responded to the actions of the Kiwi Party with a press release in which they stated,

"Family First NZ is distancing itself from attempts by the Kiwi Party to write to the more than 300,000 people who signed the anti-smacking petition, encouraging them to vote for the Kiwi Party at the upcoming Election... Family First... is concerned that NZ’ers who signed the petition may not want to be personally contacted by a political party and did not provide their information for this purpose. But then again, they’re not the only political party using private addresses to push their case.”

Baldock of the Kiwi Party then responded in an email to supporters, denying any wrongdoing:

“What I [have] in my possession are the petition forms in my name which asked the question, “Should the Government give urgent priority to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ?” Unfortunately although we collected just over 300,000 signatures, the Clerk deemed there were insufficient to trigger a referendum and the forms were returned to me, their legal owner. In keeping with sound legal advice, I will ensure these addresses are not used for any purpose other than the original intent, namely to repeal the ‘Anti-smacking’ law and address the real causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse. Most of the signatures on this second petition were also signatories on the first and are interested in both objectives.
...I believe most will look at our final objectives and accept our sincere motives.

Baldock's line of reasoning is unsound, pragmatic and highly reprehensible. In his original email to supporters in which he asked them to volunteer to receive photocopied petition forms and then send Kiwi Party promotional material out, Balock wrote excitedly, "We have over 300,000 names and addresses of the people who signed the petition and our goal is to write to every one of these concerned Kiwis..." I don't know about you, but I find his attitude towards the full names, signatures, residential addresses and date of births of 300,000 New Zealanders to be unacceptable.

Even Baldock himself stated that he told signatories that the peition would not be used to send them mail. Below is an excerpt from a rebuttal written by Baldock, in response to my report on the Kiwi Party's actions (download here):

Whenever I told people that they did not have to worry about the petition being used to send them mail said it there was usually in the context of someone concerned about the Government getting access to the names of who signed the anti-smacking petition. That is what people were concerned about. A few were concerned about the possibility of receiving junk mail as a result which does happen. The letter we are sending could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition.

Again, here is the pragmatism coming through strongly again. Baldock first acknowledges that he told people that their details would not be used to send them mail, then he attempts to justify the decision to send them mail by saying that it "could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition". The Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the vote at the 2008 general election. I believe that if they had have been considered a more major player, gaining say, 5%+ of the vote, that the media would have held the spotlight to the Kiwi Party, and exposed these dubious activities.

It must be made quite clear that the group that is running the Campaign for Democracy is the same group that organised the last two petitions. When the Campaign was first launched it was named the "Kiwi Campaign for Democracy". The word "Kiwi" was dropped from the campaign name several months into preparations for the campaign launch. In the first few months of the build up to the campaign launch, a large proportion of the material on the Campaing for Democracy website was simply cross-posted from the Kiwi Party website. And incidentally, you'll notice that the colour-schemes for both the Kiwi Party and the Campaign for Democracy are essentially identical.

In summary, we come back to the initial question: "Can the organisers of the petition be trusted with the information they are gathering?" I would love to think that we can trust them. However, I don't know. What I do know is that I will not be signing the petition.

I Lol'd

I haven't laughed for a while, and it's been too long since you read some high quality humour, so here's an email that's been circulating about Security Levels...

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Americans meanwhile and as usual are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies, just in case.

And in the southern hemisphere...

New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defense cutbacks (the airforce being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us".

Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!', "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

SEIU: In 2006 they wanted 2m, Now they want 8m Illegal Immigrants to become Voters

SEIU Vice President, Eliseo Medina, 2009

The SEIU is one of the largest unions in the states, claiming 2.2m members. On June 2, 2009 the Vice President of the SEIU addressed the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. For almost a year the video languished in the SEIU's Youtube channel, until Kiwi blogger Trevor Loudon, following a lead, came across the video and reposted a segment of it on Youtube. In the incriminating video which is now going viral, Medina states,

"Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we'll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future... When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.
Number two: We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about ...... and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."

Medina's support for immigration reform is shamelessly and blatantly based largely upon his desire for the illegal (mainly Latino) immigrants to become progressive (Democrat) voters. Prima Facie he has claimed that these people need a voice so that their rights will be upheld, and that does even sound somewhat admirable. But when in the next breath he estimates that 8 million of the 12 million new citizens will become progressive voters, his agenda just sickens you. Trevor has blogged on Obama's socialist advisers pushing for immigration reform, and their motivation behind it in his ObamaFile 95.

SEIU Vice President, Eliseo Medina, 2006

This is nothing new. In 2006 Medina addressed the Social Economic Justice Forum where he made the following statement,

"To build the power to win, we need to massively increase civic participation and voter education. Imagine... Imagine the kind of difference we could make in 2008 if we had 2 million voters go to the polls with us. Imagine... if we had 2 million new and current citizens who not only will register to vote in 2008 but actually turn out on election day.

It's the same message - three years ago, before the 2008 election in which the Democrats narrowly took power. And three years ago the SEIU's goal was 2 million illegal immigrants becoming Democrat voters. But now, in 2010 as we approach the mid-term elections and the 2012 general elections, here's one of the largest unions in the States seeking to gain not 2 million but 8 million additional progressive voters. Do they have no shame?

When you consider that SEIU President, Andy Stern topped the list of Whitehouse visitors with 22 visits to the President's home between Jan. and July 2009, and then bring to mind Medina's comments on behalf of the union, you have to ask yourself what is going on.

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy

Larry Baldock of The Kiwi Party

The StarStuddedSuperStep blog will be following the progress of the Campaign for Democracy, bringing updates to our readers and visitors. Background to the campaign, details on those behind it, and further information will be presented in future Referendum Files. Our readers from New Zealand will be aware of the apparantly unsuccessful citizens initiated referendum to overturn the Anti-Smacking Law. The man behind the petition for that referendum, Larry Baldock has responded to the outcome of that referendum, with a new petition for a citizens initiated referendum on the question,

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

The implications of this question will be discussed in later posts, but there's a quick summary.

On 28 Jan 2009, an ally of the Campaign for Democracy, Better Democracy NZ published an article in which they reproduced a letter from Larry Baldock to his supporters. An excerpt from the letter follows,

The results were very encouraging with 500 signing the petition in 3 hrs on their way in to the BBB event. Considering there has been very little publicity as yet about the new petition we found that approx 7-8 out of ten were prepared to sign...

The letter states that 7-8 out of ten people were prepared to sign. I can't challenge this figure as I have no first-hand knowledge of what took place, however I can say that, having collected approximately 10,000 signatures myself on the last petition, that 75% is a very high ratio. Whether this figure relates to the number of people who made contact with the campaigners, and subsequently signed, or the number of people walking past who came over and signed, it is still an unusually high ratio - particularly given the lack of publicity, as Baldock commented.

...The conversation generally went like this.

Campaigner: "Will you sign our petition Sir/Maam?"
Passer by: "What's it about?"
Campaigner: "Making referenda binding upon parliament. Do you remember the anti-smacking referendum last year when 87% said no and Parliament has ignored it?"
Passer by: "Sure do. It was ridiculous. What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!"
Campaigner: "Exactly, that's why we must now collect signatures for another one to make Parliament listen."
Passer by: "Sure I agree with that, where do I sign?"

The example of the typical conversation outlined in the letter is astounding. The passer by asks, "What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!", to which the campaigner agrees and then encourages them to go ahead and take part in the referendum anyway. There is no progression of logic here, simply a desire to rectify the government's shameful rejection of the results of the last non-binding referendum - by having another non-binding referendum.