SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission says in its media release dated 1 June 2011:
A split decision from the Court of Appeal for a case by Right to Life Inc which was challenging the lawfulness of many abortions approved by certifying consultants shows that the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is redundant and it is now time for the law to be changed to ensure women are fully informed.
Media Release – Right to Life NZ Inc. – 3 June 2011
Unborn children do not have a right to life according to a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Judges were Justice Chambers, Stevens and Arnold. Our counsel presented to the Court a detailed submission in support of the recognition of the humanity and right to life of unborn children. The Court in its judgment did not address the substance of this submission holding this to be not necessary. This decision in this respect has upheld the decision of Justice Miller made in the High Court in 2008. The judgment upholds section 159 of the Crimes Act 1961, which decrees that an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born. [Read more…]
By KARL DU FRESNE – The Dominion Post 20/07/2010
OPINION: It went unnoticed by the media, but Justice Minister Simon Power recently issued a press statement announcing that Rosemary Fenwicke had decided not to seek reappointment to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. There’s a story behind this. Dr Fenwicke, a member of the three-person committee since 2007, is an abortion certifying consultant who earns fees by approving the termination of pregnancies. She is also a former medical director of the Family Planning Association, a major abortion referral agency. She was nominated for the committee in 2007 by the Labour government of Helen Clark, whose pro-abortion sympathies are well known.
The appointment seemed not only an unconscionable conflict of interest, but a calculated insult to the many New Zealanders who regard abortion as deeply repugnant. Were they really expected to believe the government couldn’t find someone who didn’t have a material stake in the abortion business? (Certifying consultants were paid $5 million in 2008, and even pro-abortionists acknowledge it’s a lucrative business.) The very nature of her professional activity suggested Dr Fenwicke was not neutral on this divisive issue, yet Parliament rejected an attempt by MP Gordon Copeland, a staunch opponent of abortion, to overturn her nomination. (It was supposedly a conscience vote but Labour MPs were instructed to support Dr Fenwicke, meaning her appointment was assured.)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3935262/A-reminder-that-the-administration-of-the-abortion-law-is-a-travesty
[Note: Article link sourced from Family First – a well respected charity registered with the Charities Commission.See www.familyfirst.org.nz and www.charities.govt.nz ].
Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska signed a law on Tuesday banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain. The law, which appears nearly certain to set off legal and scientific debates, is the first in the nation to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain. Abortion opponents praised the law and said it was justified by medical evidence gained since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Abortion rights advocates said that the measure was unconstitutional, and that the motive behind it was to set off a challenge to legalized abortion before the United States Supreme Court.
For rest of story go to New York Times Report by Monica Davey dated April 13, 2010
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html
Media Release 19 June 2009
The Abortion Law Reform Association, [ALRANZ] on 16 June issued a media release in response to the release by Statistics New Zealand of the abortion statistics for 2008. Dr Margaret Sparrow, President of ALRANZ stated:
“We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”
Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.
The government has a grave responsibility to protect the lives of its future citizens who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. What action is the government taking to ensure that the lives of unborn children receive the full protection of the law?
Abortion, the violent dismemberment of a child in the womb is the ultimate in child abuse. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world. The government is sadly opposed to the national referendum on smacking, holding that it is a criminal offence to allow a light smack on a child as part of good parenting. The message the government is giving is that it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb but unlawful to smack the child after it is born. The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards challenges the Prime Minister, John Key to tell the community what action his government is going to take to stop the unlawful violence and child abuse imposed on our unborn children in our public hospitals, sanctioned by his government and funded by the taxpayer?