The court found there was a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights that everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.

The landmark euthanasia case was brought to the court in Strasbourg by Tom Mortier, de Troyer's son. She died in 2012 after she had approached the country's leading euthanasia advocate, who ultimately agreed to euthanise her despite being a cancer specialist.

Before her death by euthanasia at age 64, neither her son nor any family member was consulted.

Read More

Assisted dying became legally available in New Zealand from 7 November 2021.

Of the 11 retirement organisations Right to Life targeted, Ryman Health Care, Heritage Lifecare, Oceania Healthcare and Summerset Retirement Village confirmed they don't allow assisted suicide.

Residents may not have their lives terminated in their care facilities by a doctor with a lethal injection or assisted in suicide, they said.

Three organisations - Real Living, Generous Living and Life Care - declined to respond to the letter.

Right to Life is disappointed that four other retirement village organisations do allow their residents to be legally killed by a doctor in their facilities.

One of these organisations, Arvida, says "We believe that residents can choose assisted dying, provided they initiate it".

The Managing Director of another organisation, BUPA, says for residents who are in care with us, given that this is their home, we will facilitate any assisted dying process to occur if this is what the resident wishes".

Speaking from Metlifecare, the Chief Executive Officer says "Metlifecare would determine on a case by case basis whether it is appropriate for a resident who has been determined pursuant to the Act, to be eligible for assisted dying and wishes to receive assisted dying in their independent living unit or aged care home."

The fourth organisation permitting assisted dying is Ultimate Care. In reply to the letter, it simply advised it would allow assisted dying in their facilities.

New Zealand law permits New Zealanders aged 18 or over who have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months may be able to access assisted dying.

Not everyone with a terminal illness will be eligible.

The Assisted Dying Service is overseen by the Ministry of Health Manatu Hauora and Right to Life is endeavouring to encourage retirement villages to adopt a policy of being euthanasia free.

Source

• Supplied - Right to Life

Visiting Right to Life's media release page on Scoop reveals the independent journalism champion has published just one media release in 2021 and 2022.

Right to Life estimates in this year alone they have sent Scoop twenty news releases.

Scoop's "Submit News" criteria say that not every story can be published and they "reserve the right to refuse any material for publication, and also to remove material at any time without notification.

However, Scoop's guidelines claim it is rare for them to exercise their right to refuse publication and they do not do it very often, and as a financial supporter of Scoop, Right to Life understands that ScoopPro member submissions are given priority consideration.

Right to Life is puzzled by Scoop's approach to them because Scoop proudly claims it will achieve access to public interest news and foster media literacy by "enhancing the ability of a diverse range of citizens to interpret, understand and use this information to inform robust debate, democratic choices and meaningful participation in society and the economy."

The pro-life group recognises the important contribution that Scoop can make to an informed debate.

It is however questioning how all New Zealanders can participate in the democratic process and how society can have an informed debate when Scoop is apparently censoring information it does not agree with.

In its latest media release Right to Life challenges Scoop's coverage of the US Supreme Court leak of Justice Samuel Alito's decision on Roe v Wade.

"The community can't have an informed debate on the leaked opinion if the information is censored," says Right to Life.

If Scoop is repeatedly censoring information to suit a particular worldview, it is contradicting its own statement about its aims of independent journalism.

A look at Scoop's coverage of the Roe v. Wade leak shows a distinctly partial leaning in favour of the pro-abortion lobby.

On 4 May Scoop published a media release from Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ). The pro-choice advocacy group used the opportunity to firmly condemn the Supreme Court opinion.

Scoop's Political Editor, Gordon Campbell, was next to express a view.

On 5 May, his opinion piece condemned the five Justices who signed the draft opinion.

On the 8th and 11th May Right to Life sent media releases to Scoop supporting the draft opinion of the Supreme Court and explaining the legal implications of the opinion.

Both media releases have gone unpublished.

Then on 13 May Scoop published a media release from Auckland Feminist Action. Their press release also condemned the majority of Justices' draft opinion.

Right to Life says it is disappointed that recently Scoop has frustrated an informed public debate.

It is particularly disappointed that Scoop has chosen to stifle Right to Life's contribution to the public debate on the issue of the leaked opinion of the United States Supreme Court and possible overthrow of Roe v Wade.

In response to its silencing, Right to Life says it is considering laying a formal complaint with Scoop for breach of Media Council principles.

The pro-life organisation is also having a second look at its contract with Scoop.

"Scoop's policy on the publication of press releases and associated material is simple. If it's a press release issued in New Zealand, is legible, legal, sane, not hateful and not defamatory we will most probably publish it."

Scoop Media Limited is part of the Scoop Media Cartel.

Source

• Supplied - Right to Life
• Scoop
• Image: Scoop

Right to life organised the petition.

Representatives of the Society's executive presented it to an assembly of invited MP's on the steps of Parliament on Wednesday.

The petition opposes abortion being taken out of the Crimes Act and made "a reproductive choice for women."

"The proposal of the Prime Minister to decriminalise abortion is an unprecedented attack on the sanctity of life of the unborn child," said spokesman for Right to Life Ken Orr.

He said the government has no mandate to declare that the unborn are not human beings and that they have no right to have their lives protected by the State.

The petition has been referred to the Abortion Legislation Select Committee.

This specially appointed Committee was established to consider the Abortion Legislation Bill. There are eight members on this Committee, six of them voted to support the Abortion Bill at its first reading.

In September Right to life employed Curia Marketing Services to conduct a survey.

One question asked when the unborn child became a human being

• 65% said before birth.
• 25 % said at conception,
• 14 % said at implantation
• 26 % said between implantation and birth.

A second question asked when should the human rights of the unborn child be protected by New Zealand law

• 17 % believed at conception,
• 10 % at implantation
• 28 % between implantation and birth.

This shows 55% of New Zealanders believe that the unborn child's right to life should be protected at some stage before birth.

Read the full media release

Sources

• Supplied Ken Orr, Spokesperson, Right to Life
• Photo supplied

Hosted by the Centre for Marriage and Family and the Reverence for Life Group, St Francis of Assisi, Ohariu, more than 71 tickets had to be pre-purchased to enable the screening to go ahead.

In attendance at the screening, as New Zealand debates its Abortion Law Reform bill, was National List MP Paulo Garcia.

Patricia Sison, Director for the Centre of Marriage and Family, said: "This film is a must-see for every person in New Zealand, male and female, to know the reality of abortion and what it involves."

Unplanned is the true story of Abby Johnson, a former director of Planned Parenthood in America, who is the founder of ‘And Then There Were None', a ministry that helps abortion clinic workers exit the industry.

Involved in 22,000 abortions, Abby is one day called to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion at thirteen weeks gestation. What she saw led her to cross over to the Lifeline from being a passionate advocate for abortion to one of the most ardent prolife voices around the world.

Help Save Lives! To find out how to host a screening of the film for your community, visit Fan Force or buy the Unplanned DVD online and share it widely to people in your community.

As Paulo Garcia list MP so aptly put it after watching the film, "Even the smallest of efforts to show love and caring for others are never wasted. Let us do all we can for our most vulnerable…the unborn child and their mothers."

Supplied: Patricia Alfonso-Sison
Centre for Marriage and Family

They are, therefore, to be treated with the same respect as persons whatever their stage of development.

This was was the issue highlighted in an oral submission made on to the abortion legislation select committee of the New Zealand parliament.

The submission was made on Tuesday on behalf of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference and The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre by John Kleinesman from the Nathaniel Centre.

He was accompanied by Julianne Hickey from Caritas.

It was streamed through the Parliamentary Facebook page. Click here to view it.

The presentation begins at 25.30 minutes. It includes a Q and A session.

The submission highlighted two conclusions based on the belief that embryos and fetuses are entitled to a place in the human family.

Every pregnancy involves at least two lives

The unborn child is a unique being which is neither that of the father or the mother

The mother and her unborn child both have human rights.

To hold that the fetus is not a 'legal person' ignores the fact that a genetically unique human life has begun which is neither that of the father or the mother.

We do not serve women well by creating a legal narrative that abortion is only about the rights and choice of women.

Autonomy requires free and informed consent

Looking at abortion as a health issue, one of the factors that distinguish abortion from other medical procedures is the genuine risk of coercion.

Choices are always made in a context and shaped by a context.

In many cases, the context limits the choice.

The influence of a context underscores the importance of free and informed consent.

Without a free and informed consent, it is not possible to exercise real autonomy.

Autonomy relies on sound processes and supportive and honest relationships.

Supplied

Image: alltoptens.com

The New Zealand Catholic bishops have sent a message to church members encouraging them to inform themselves about the issue and to take some action while the revision is under consideration.

Click here to see a comparison between the existing and the proposed legislation and a list of points for anyone who wishes to make a submission to consider.

In their message, the bishops say: " every pregnancy involves at least two lives - the child and the mother. Every abortion takes away an innocent life."

"Protecting and caring for life from conception to natural death stands at the core of our Catholic faith. From the moment an embryo comes into existence, a genetically and spiritually unique human life has begun," the bishops say.

"It is already the human being it will always be. It will only grow in size and complexity and is therefore entitled to be treated with the same respect as other human beings."

The bishops suggest three ways of responding to the present situation.

Political
We are called to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. We have an obligation to advocate for the right to life of the unborn child and the well-being of mothers. We encourage every one of you to exercise your democratic right to make a submission to parliament and to contact your local MP.

Prayerful
Every human life is a gift from God. Just as parents spontaneously pray for their unborn child, so we are called to pray for all the unborn, as well as for their parents and extended families. We also pray for wisdom for our MPs.

Pastoral:
Our belief in the sanctity of life is demonstrated in the way we show love for both unborn children and their mothers. The message others hear from us will be shaped not just by our words, but also by the way in which we speak and act. We need to ask: ‘After this debate is over, will our faith communities be seen as places of love, compassion and care that women facing the challenges of a pregnancy will want to turn to?'

Source

• Supplied: catholic.org.nz
• Image: catholic.org.nz

The bill will be voted on in a conscience vote.

The first reading is likely to be on Thursday.

Salient aspects of the proposed legislation

• Abortion is removed from the crimes act.
• A woman who is not more than 20 weeks pregnant can self-refer to an abortion provider without the need for any statutory test. Last year only 57 of the more than 13,000 abortions performed were for a woman who was more than 20 weeks pregnant.
• A woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant must consult a health practitioner.
• The health professional may approve an abortion after 20 weeks if the practitioner reasonably believes the abortion is appropriate given the pregnant woman's physical and mental health and well-being.
• It ensures health professionals advise women of the availability of counselling services if they are considering an abortion or have had an abortion. Counselling, however, is not mandatory.
• Safe areas around specific abortion facilities may be established by regulation on a case-by-case basis. This was not one of the recommendations of the Law Commission, which suggested it "could not see a strong case" for excluding protesters, but did say the issue warranted further consideration.
• Practitioners who object to providing abortions on the grounds of conscience must inform the pregnant women about their objection and inform the woman that she can obtain the services elsewhere.
• It will still be a criminal offence for unqualified people who attempt to procure an abortion on a pregnant woman or supply the means for obtaining an abortion.
• It will still be a criminal offence to cause the death of a fetus by causing harm to a pregnant woman.

In October last year the Law Commission recommended three options for reform:

a) There is no test - the woman decides with her health practitioner.

b) There is a test - the woman would need to prove the abortion is appropriate.

c) There is a test only for later-term abortions - beyond 22 weeks.

Some commentators say the government has gone with the most conservative of the options.

Voice for Life spokesperson Kate Cormack said the Bill was "radical" and "extremely disturbing".

Reform campaigners, on the other hand, are pleased with the changes, but some feel they have not gone far enough.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: teara.govt.nz

Led by Jacinda Ardern, they include the anti-feminist movement, the Family Planning Association, the Green Party, the radical left of the Labour Party,

All are strident advocates for the killing of our vulnerable, innocent and defenceless unborn.

We can not state more clearly that Jacinda Ardern is the prime driver for the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand.

The Prime Minister does not recognise the humanity of the unborn child, nor its right to life.

It is our view that:

• Ardern believes that the child is the property of the mother.
• She believes that the killing of an unborn child by another human is a human right.
• That it is her wish abortion be taken out of the Crimes Act and treated as a health issue.
• She believes the killing of an unborn child by another human is a "reproductive choice for women".

Responding to an Official Information Act request on 16 March, Justice Minister, Andrew Little, confirmed that the government supported the born alive law contained in Section 159 of the Crimes Act 1961.

The born alive law states that "for the purposes of the Crimes Act", an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born.

However, it was never the intention of Parliament to deny the humanity of the unborn child. This whole section is a legal fiction intended to differentiate between homicide and the killing of an unborn child.

A poll conducted by AC Nielsen in 2004 on behalf of Right to Life found considerable support for recognising the humanity of the unborn child.

The poll of 1000 persons found that,

• 36% believed that the unborn child became a human being at conception,
• 14% at the time of implantation and
• 28 % at a point between implantation and birth.

These statistics show a total of 78% who believed that the unborn child was a human being before birth.

Further, in April 2019, a poll of a 1,000 persons found 47% believed that the human rights of the unborn child should be legally protected from about six weeks once a heartbeat can be detected.

Curia Market Research conducted the poll in April 2019 on behalf of Family First.

Instead then, of following its own agenda, why does the Labour-led government not amend the law to reflect public opinion?

Right to life requests that the Labour-led government conduct a binding referendum.

The question to be asked: "Do you recognise the unborn child from implantation as being a human being endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life?"

It is disappointing that our government has $2.2 million to conduct a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis, an issue that is a threat to the lives and health of New Zealanders.

It is shameful that the government gives priority to legalising the smoking of cannabis but has no interest in promoting the rights of our most vulnerable.

New Zealand cannot be a just society until the New Zealand Bill of Rights protects the human rights of every New Zealander from conception to natural death.

We find it astounding on the 19 January 2018 Jacinda Ardern was jubilant in announcing that "she was pregnant with her first child".

She has felt her baby kick; she has heard its heartbeat and watched in awe at scans showing the wondrous miracle of creation developing in her womb, indeed a beautiful baby and a unique and unrepeatable miracle of nature endowed with a right to life.

How then can she be in denial about the humanity of the unborn child and its right to life?

• Ken Orr is a spokesman for Right to Life
• Image: Supplied

The principle questions asked were:-

• Is it still your policy to retain a restriction on abortions imposed at 20 weeks gestation in the Crimes Act section 187A in your proposed legislation to decriminalise abortion?
• Is it your policy to accept dismemberment abortions that permit an abortionist to tear the arms, legs and head off an unborn child?

The new coalition government has specifically made a commitment to "strengthen New Zealand's democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information".

The questions were asked on 15 January 2019.

Right to Life believes that the Prime Minister has a duty to lead by example.

The Crimes Act stipulates that the cut - off point for abortions is 20 weeks and the cut-off point in the legislation being drafted by the Minister of Justice is 22 weeks.

Mike Munroe, Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister's Office advised on 24 January that he was referring our Official Information Request to the Minister of Justice, as he was responsible for "alternative approaches on abortion law."

Prior to the election on the Newstalk ZB's Leader's Breakfast, Jacinda Ardern made the following statement:

"Yes I think abortion should come out of the Crimes Act.

"That does not mean for a moment that I am proposing what has been claimed, that you should be able to have on-demand abortion to birth.

"No that is absolutely not what I am saying.

"We of course must regulate...

"We have time periods already set out in the law and I am not proposing changes to that.

"I am proposing it comes out of the Crimes Act."

This is an important public policy statement concerning abortion.

The public have an absolute right to ask the Prime Minister, who believes that killing an unborn child should not be a crime, is relentlessly driving a change in the abortion law to remove abortion from the Crimes Act and to make abortion a "reproductive choice for women".

Will she support retaining the 20 week cut off as she has publicly stated?

The minister of Justice at the direction of the Prime Minister is to bring a bill to Parliament to adopt the Law Commission's Model C.

Under this Model, there would be no statutory test until 22 weeks of a pregnancy.

After 22 weeks, the health practitioner who intends to perform an abortion would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman's physical and mental health and well-being.

Everyone knows what this means; effectively abortion on demand up to birth.

In January, 2018, Curia Market Research, an independent pollster released results of a poll of 1,013 persons.

• Just 9% support the current legal limit for an abortion of 20 weeks.
• Only 4% believe it should be later than 20 weeks, including up to birth.
• 50% think the time limit should be shorter than the current 20 weeks, and a further 36% were unsure.
• The median choice of those who did choose a time limit was 15 weeks.
• 56% of women think the time limit should be less than the current 20 weeks.
• 53% of those who generally support abortion think the time
limit should be less than the current 20 weeks.
• 29% of abortion supporters say 10 weeks or less.

There is increasing opposition in the United States to the violence and suffering imposed on defenceless unborn children by dismemberment abortions.

There are now ten states that have outlawed this horrific violence on the defenceless.

The public have a right to know if the Prime Minister supports protecting the unborn from this dismemberment violence.

• Ken Orr is spokesperson for Right to Life.

"ALRANZ is joined by five individual complainants whose experiences illustrate how New Zealand's current abortion laws discriminate against women and pregnant people, resulting in hurt feelings, loss of dignity and cruel, degrading and disproportionately severe treatment," said ALRANZ national president Terry Bellamak.

A Human Rights Commission spokesperson says it cannot comment on the case.

"It is not possible for us to speculate on the timing of a case that is currently before a judicial body but the indications are that it could be quite a while before the matter is heard by the Tribunal."

However, the spokesperson pointed out that the United Nations has repeatedly called for states to remove abortion from their criminal laws, remove regulatory and administrative barriers that impede women's access to safe abortion services, and provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services to women.

"Going before the Tribunal could mean each of the six women may have to give evidence," Bellamak says.

"It will be a couple of years before the case is heard at this point, so we've got a bit of time to see how law reform works in practice and whether it addresses the fundamental breaches of which we complain."

Reforming conscientious objection is problematic, she says. "That's going to be tough because it's hard for a government to force doctors to make referrals for abortion care."

Source

• newsroom.co.nz
• voxy.co.nzstories
• scoop.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• Image: tvnz.co.nz

McCorvey, also known as "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, saw Benham's group as "vicious, mean-spirited, fire-breathing, sanctimonious, self-righteous, bigoted hypocrites," she would later write.

Benham, a minister, told the New York Times that he was setting up shop "at the gates of hell."

Those "hypocrites" had already driven an abortion doctor out of Dallas and shut down another clinic in the city. And what Benham called the "gates of hell" was the employer of the woman better known by the pseudonym she used in the Supreme Court case that made abortion legal.

Almost no one expected McCorvey and Benham to stay neighbors long.

Absolutely no one expected that before 1995 was over, they would call each other friends.

Nor that their meeting would lead McCorvey to spend the rest of her life — which ended Saturday — as an opponent of the movement she once symbolized.

A high school dropout whose Supreme Court victory came too late for her to have the abortion she wanted, McCorvey was working as a marketing director at A Choice for Women in north Dallas that spring.

After years of semi-anonymity, she had just released a book called "I Am Roe," and was somewhat awkwardly assuming the role of a public figure.

Like most in Dallas's antiabortion circles, she knew Benham and his group, Operation Rescue, by infamy. Operation Rescue had protested a nearby clinic every day for six years — until the clinic shut down.

The group relocated its headquarters to the suite beside A Choice for Women, in March 1995. "The Lord has given us this place right next door where they're killing little boys and girls," Benham told the Dallas Morning News on move-in day.

McCorvey phoned police twice before noon. Continue reading

Sources

• The Washington Post, article by Avi Selk, a general assignment reporter.
• Image: US Weekly

In letter to the secretary of Right to Life written in December last year Little said, "Labour's position is to support the cross-party select committee inquiry".

"Euthanasia is a conscience issue, not a party political issue, and it is not one of Labour's priorities.

"This is why no Labour MP is introducing a bill on euthanasia to Parliament".

In his letter Little went on to say "The select committee process allows members of the public to submit ideas for what any change in the law could look like."

"Louisa Wall was making use of this process as an individual, as is her democratic right."

"It does not reflect Labour's view and Labour will not be introducing a private member's bill on euthanasia."

Orr said the Labour Party has a long and illustrious history of defending life.

"Andrew Little's stand is in the tradition of its great leaders who defended life; Michael Savage, Peter Frazer, Walter Nash, Arnold Nordmeyer, Bill Rowling, David Lange and Mike Moore."

"This is a welcome assurance, that should Labour be elected to govern at the general election on Saturday 23rd September 2017, a Labour government would not present a bill promoting Euthanasia," said Orr

" It is also reassuring that should a private members bill on Euthanasia be drawn from the ballot, Labour members would have a conscience vote, " he said.

Source

• Supplied

The correspondence was seeking information on important life issues and clarification of the Party's policies on parental notification, euthanasia, the decriminalisation of abortion, the "Inside Out" sexuality education programme and the Party's proposal to restrict freedom of speech and assembly outside the Thames Hospital.

Right to life spokesman Ken Orr asks why the Green Party is not upholding its own policy on providing important information on the Party's policy? Continue reading

However, it say the government should proceed with caution and only if strict safeguards are in place.

The Commission recommends an opt out clause for medical staff and pharmacists who do not want to take part in the process should assisted suicide become legal

In its oral submission to parliament's Health Select committee the Human Rights Commission's chief legal adviser Janet Anderson-Bidois the stressed that the commission's position was neither a "green light" or a "red light".

"It's very much an orange light. It's a 'proceed with caution if you can safely do so'."

The Commission's view is that:

• Any law change should apply only to the terminally ill
• Euthanasia should not come at the expense of palliative care
• There is a minimum age limit
• There is a prognosis that a person will die within 12 months

Right to Life has written to the Human Rights Commissioner expressing its "deep disappointment and grave concern" at the position taken by the commission.

"As our rights are both universal and inalienable, they may not be taken away from us, nor may we give them up. It is our belief that our human rights are conferred on us at conception by our Creator."

"Right to Life believes that the submission of the Commission is predicated on the belief that our right to life is not inalienable and that Parliament has a right to amend the Crimes Act to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide."

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• righttolife.org.nz
• Image: bioedge.org

Right to Life is a "whole of life" pro-life organisation, meaning we seek to uphold the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights upholds our right to life as being universal and inalienable. It is the foundation of our human rights, being inalienable it may not be taken from us nor may we give it up.

In New Zealand two Death with Dignity bills were defeated at their first reading in 1995 and 2003. ACT MP David Seymour has a private member's bill, "End of Life Choice" in the ballot.

And the Parliamentary Health Select Committee is considering an estimated 20,000 submissions on a petition concerning assisted suicide, from former MP Maryan Street.

In Holland the Dutch Euthanasia Society is currently lobbying Parliament to change the law to allow providing every 70 year old with a lethal suicide pill.

Street and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society are proposing that the Crimes Act be changed to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

Assisting in suicide or engaging in homicide are serious crimes which may be punished with a term of imprisonment.

The World Medical Association that represents medical associations in 102 countries is totally opposed to euthanasia.

The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) that represents more than 5500 registered medical practitioners is also opposed as are palliative care specialists and Hospice New Zealand.

The medical profession is absolutely clear that euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients.

Dr Paul Ockelford, the then chairman of the NZMA, at a public meeting discussing euthanasia in Dunedin in 2012, asked if the NZMA condoned doctors taking a life, would we teach it at medical school? "Would we have a course that teaches students to kill?" Continue reading

Source and Image

• Article by Ken Orr, spokesman for pro-life organisation Right to Life in Stuff

He is surprised and appalled at the disingenuous tactics being employed by assisted suicide supporters, saying they are a smoke screen, a distraction based on an elitist view of what counts as legitimate political discourse. Read full press release

"Some people will express that view in a sentence, others in a few pages. Since when did a person's view depend on their level of education or ability to be articulate?" Kleinsman asked.

"To think otherwise is to imply that some New Zealander's views count more than others."

"I believe most New Zealanders, whatever their personal position on this issue, will see such claims for what they are - as an assault on our principles of inclusion and fairness."

"The idea that some people's views count more than others is a very small step away from the very dangerous view that some lives matter more than others - something that disabled people encounter all the time."

Both Matt Vickers and Act MP David Seymour have in recent days described the unprecedented number of submissions to the Health Select Committee and the overwhelming 78% opposition to a law change as nothing more than the result of formulaic submissions collected in bulk by mostly religious institutions or as religious bullying from the pulpit by pastors.

Can a Catholic chair the inquiry?

Those who favour assisted suicide are also questioning the suitability of MP Simon O'Connor to chair the inquiry, because he "spent almost a decade studying for the priesthood with the Society of Mary before deciding he couldn't be a politico and a cleric."

They are asking how someone publicly opposed to euthanasia can chair an inquiry into it.

However Vickers says O'Connor has a job to do and the expectation is that he'll be "capable of wearing two hats".

Religion not the only basis for opposition to assisted suicide

Kleinsman also challenged the assumption that that the only possible basis for opposition to assisted suicide is a religious one.

"Just read the many evidence-based submissions by professional groups and others" he said.

"It is actually impossible to know the precise numbers of submitters whose views on assisted suicide may be influenced by their faith."

"One analysis of the submissions shows that approximately 17% of opponents and 4% of supporters of a law change drew on religious concepts," said Kleinsman.

Source

• Supplied
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: prolife.org.nz

In the Australian states of Tasmania and Victoria, filming, intimidation and protests are banned within 150m of abortion centres.

In New South Wales, a bill to provide a 150m "safe access zone" has just been introduced by a Green MP on the grounds of ensuring the right to medical privacy.

Logie and Catherine Delahunty recently attended a meeting in Thames organised by people concerned about pro-life protesters who protest outside the Thames Hospital abortion clinic on Fridays.

Logie said the Green Party had no plans for a member's bill on the issue but another speaker had raised the Australian example.

There were different views expressed on it and she believed a broader discussion was needed.

"I do think there's is a genuine issue around the impact of those protests directly targeting women and making their lives worse."

Secretary of the Hauraki branch of Voice for Life Lynn Hopkins said they started the protests outside Thames Hospital about five years ago to try to end abortion. She would not support legislation that bans their protests.

"I would think it was rather unfair against the idea of free speech."

Hopkins protests with a placard that reads "women deserve better".

"They deserve better care than being pushed towards having an abortion."

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: stream.org

Jackie Edmond, CEO of the Family Planning Association thinks abortion should be considered as a health issue.

She is calling on the government remove the legislation about abortion from the crimes act.

"To the quiet majority, abortion is a health care service like any other and should be accessed and regulated as such."

"In 2016, our abortion laws are a relic of the past. Abortion laws should protect and promote human rights, women's health and autonomy," she said.

Orr says The FPA is confused when it claims "1960s law unacceptable for 21st century women of New Zealand".

"Right to Life asks if they have read the law which was passed not in the 1960s but in December 1977."

NZ rejects CEDAW's calls for law change

Orr says the FPA call is in response to the demands of the United Nations Committee for the Convention for the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

In its 2012 report CEDAW noted that "abortion remains criminalised in the State party, which leads women to seek illegal abortions, which are often unsafe.

CEDAW urged the Government to:

1. Review the abortion law and practice with a view to simplifying it and to ensure women's autonomy to choose
2. Prevent women from having to resort to unsafe abortions and remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo an abortion

In the Final Draft for Consultation of the Eighth Periodic Report by the Government of New Zealand March 2012 - March 2016, submitted in June, the New Zealand Government responded to the CEDAW Report by stating:

• "Abortion is legal in New Zealand for women of any age, if two certifying consultants agree that the pregnancy will seriously harm a woman's physical or mental health."
• "The Government has no plans to review the law on abortion."

Source

• www.stuff.co.nz
• women.govt.nz
• righttolife.org.nz
• Image: catholicleader.com.au

For example, medical science and biology can help us defend the lives of unborn children and argue persuasively for an end to abortion.

An unborn child is alive.

An unborn child is demonstrably human.

An unborn child is a unique human life with DNA that is distinct from each parent.

These are scientific facts. The unborn child does not have the potential to be a human life, the unborn child is already a human life. Fact.

Even if one argues that this life in the womb is not yet a person, one need not resort to religion to oppose this claim. After all, a lack of certainty about personhood should not lead to a callous sentence of death, but rather to the urgent preservation of the life.

We have too sordid a history of the powerful declaring the innocent weak as something less than human.

Proclaiming the Good News
At other times, what is needed is precisely the proclamation of the Gospel and trust in the Holy Spirit to convert heart and minds.

Consider this passage from Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World:

"The root reason for human dignity lies in man's call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. For man would not exist were he not created by God's love and constantly preserved by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator" (GS 19.1 ). Continue reading

• Deacon Michael Bickerstaff is the Editor in chief and co-founder of the The Integrated Catholic Life.