Right or duty to die?

On April 30, 2012, in Blog, by Alisdair
 Right or duty to die?

Labour MP Maryan Street.

Cross posted from Stuff.co.nz

Nathaniel Centre director and euthanasia opponent John Kleinsman has hit back at Maryan Street’s euthanasia bill during a debate tonight.

Both were among speakers at an open forum at the Dunedin Public Hospital tonight titled euthanasia and assisted suicide: A discussion we need to have.

Labour MP Street delivered details of a private member’s bill to legalise end of life options she was supporting on behalf of a Nelson group. She said she thrashed the issues out with a couple of Nelson preachers before deciding to sponsor the bill on behalf of a Nelson group of euthanasia advocates, because the debate shoud be religious as well as secular.

The bill aimed to provide end-of-life choices for people with terminal illness and irrecoverable conditions which make life impossible, Street said. She emphasised the inclusion of protections within the proposed legislations for those wanting to die and those involved in the process.

The patient had to be of sound mind when making the choice and protected from coercion. This would be attested by doctors. There was also protection against the decision being overturned if the person was later unable to express their view.

“Similarly there must be protection against criminal liability-protection for family members who are asked, like Sean (Davidson) to do the unthinkable.”

People who had lived autonomous lives should also be allowed to be autonomous during the end of their lives, she said.

“It’s a matter of human rights.”

Wellington-based Kleinsman, director of his organisation’s Nathaniel Centre, slammed Street’s ideas for protections.

“I don’t think there is any law that can adequately protect against the risks. In fact the law would remove the most protective barrier,” he told a full house at the hospital’s Colquhoun Lecture Theatre.

He launched a scathing attack on the Government’s inadequate funding of palliative care,  saying it was driving people to assisted suicide.

If people could be assured of death without agony the voluntary euthanasia debate would be redundant, he said.

“Until every New Zealander has access to high quality palliative care I think it’s unethical to introduce euthanasia. Choosing to die can never be fully voluntary in a society that doesn’t provide palliative care options.”

Kleinsman also criticised rest home care, saying rest homes needed to “lift their game”.

Other considerations in the debate included societal changes such as the increase in elder abuse, and families living long distances from elderly or disabled relatives who believed they were a burden which encouraged life-ending decisions.

The proposed legislation also presented a message that people who were ill or disabled were somehow worthy of less respect.

“The message is subtle but powerful.

“Relaxing the law is fraught with possibilities for abuse. The right to die would very quickly become a duty to die.”

The forum was held on the eve of the departure from New Zealand of Professor Sean Davidson, the Dunedin man last year convicted for the assisted suicide of his mother Patricia. Relased from home detention this week, Davidson is heading back to his family in South Africa.

He outlined his experience at the forum, as well as his support for assisted suicide, to resounding applause.

Last week, human rights expert Steven Mosher toured New Zealand for the ProLife NZ Tour 2012. Steven Mosher was the first American social scientist to be invited by the Chinese government to mainland China, and he told of his experiences with China’s One Child Policy to audiences in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. He also talked at length on the issue of population control and its intersection with the abortion issue. Over the next series of posts we will be republishing a thorough introduction to the population control debate from The New Atlantis journal of technology and society that will give our readers further insight into the issue beyond what Steven Mosher covered during the tour. 


population bomb abortion Overpopulation and Abortion   Part One: The Population Bomb

This full-page newspaper ad from a prominent US population control group warns that Third World people are a threat to peace. (Click to enlarge)

There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland.

While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the US government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received US foreign aid.

Courtesy Princeton University LibraryUntil the mid-1960s, American population control programs, both in the US and internationally, were largely funded and implemented by private organizations such as the Population Council and Planned Parenthood — groups with deep roots in the eugenics movement. While disposing of millions of dollars provided to them by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Milbank Foundations, among others, the resources available to support their work were meager in comparison with their vast ambitions. This situation changed radically in the mid-1960s, when the U.S. Congress, responding to the agitation of overpopulation ideologues, finally appropriated federal funds to underwrite first domestic and then foreign population control programs. Suddenly, instead of mere millions, there were hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars available to fund global campaigns of mass abortion and forced sterilization. The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwide scale.

Among the first to be targeted were the United State’s own Third World population at home — the native American Indians. Starting in 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall began to make use of newly available Medicaid money to set up sterilization programs at federally funded Indian Health Services (IHS) hospitals. As reported by Angela Franks in her 2005 book Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy:

These sterilizations were frequently performed without adequate informed consent….  Native American physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated that up to one-quarter of Indian women of childbearing age had been sterilized by 1977; in one hospital in Oklahoma, one-fourth of the women admitted (for any reason) left sterilized…. She also gathered evidence that all the pureblood women of the Kaw tribe in Oklahoma were sterilized in the 1970s….

Programs of a comparable character were also set up in clinics funded by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity in low-income (predominantly black) neighborhoods in the United States. Meanwhile, on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, a mass sterilization program was instigated by the Draper Fund/Population Crisis Committee and implemented with federal funds from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare through the island’s major hospitals as well as a host of smaller clinics. According to the report of a medical fact-finding mission conducted in 1975, the effort was successful in sterilizing close to one-third of Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age.

Check back to our blog next week for part two.

The abortion count

On April 25, 2012, in Blog, by Fleur

world deaths abortion The abortion count

Just how far-reaching is the impact of abortion on our population and on the world? Yes, you may have read the statistics. You may have read the estimates. But that one big number is hard to break down into something tangible, something you can really grasp.

Do you really want to understand the impact of abortion on a day-by-day, minute-by-minute level?

I came across an eye-opening website on the world’s population. It’s a clock. The clock tracks many things, one of which is death. It breaks death down into multiple groups. The noncommunicable diseases – cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and respiratory diseases – take many lives. Also reported are death by injury and death by communicable diseases. You can watch the death count rise for each of the categories listed.

But there in the lower right-hand corner is the count for abortions. I found myself staring at this number, watching the number rise right before my very eyes. Watching the count increase one number at a time and thinking that each number represents an individual child was sobering.

You can view the rise of the estimated amount of abortions for the year, for the month, for the week, or for the day. Or you can zero everything out and watch all the statistics start from zero. The first death added to the display will be in the abortion category.

The clock doesn’t include the count of abortions when reporting the total number of deaths in the world. At the time of writing this, the estimated number of deaths in the world to date for 2012 was 8,898,646. The total number of abortions (not included in the previous number) was 6,298.662. Add these two numbers together for a total of 15,197,308. This means that abortion accounts for approximately 41% of deaths worldwide according to the statistics used by World Clock.

The clock also has a pause button. It’s nice to hit pause. But it just stops the count on your computer; it doesn’t stop what is happening out in the world. We need to find a way to not only use the pause button on abortion in our world – we also need to use the stop button.

I would encourage you to check out the clock below. In the left-hand column, select “death” as the information to be displayed. Then sit there and watch. Realize that each number added within the display represents an individual person who died. Maybe someone died of malaria, maybe diabetes, maybe from a traffic accident, or maybe they died from an abortion.




Irish pro-abortion bill defeated

On April 23, 2012, in Blog, by Miriam

 Irish pro abortion bill defeated

Irish pro-life groups have welcomed the defeat of the Bill brought before the Irish parliament which sought to legalise abortion in Ireland.

“The record shows that Ireland best serves mothers and babies when we ban abortion and offer life-affirming options instead,” said Niamh Ui Bhriain of the Life Institute.

“Last week, we gathered with hundreds of Irish women to say that we rejected this proposal and that this current push for abortion was not being made in our name, nor in the name of the majority of the Irish people,” said the pro-life spokeswoman.

Pro-life groups Youth Defence and the Life Institute organised letter writing and phone call campaigns to alert politicians to the widespread public opposition to the Bill, and Ms Ui Bhriain said that the view of the pro-life majority had been heard.

But she warned that the pro-abortion Coalition partner, the Labour Party, was still leaning on the government to bring forward its own legislation on abortion, and that pro-life groups needed to remain on high alert.

“We’ll be working with Youth Defence, Precious Life and other pro-life groups on a series of high-profile nationwide campaigns to make sure that the pro-life majority is alerted and that abortion is not legalised in Ireland,” she said.

Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence said that Fine Gael given a public commitment during that it would not legalise abortion in Ireland. “The party had been given a mandate to oppose the introduction of abortion, and attempts to break that pro-life promise would cause justifiable anger amongst the public,” she said.

“The government has appointed an ‘expert group’ to look at the European Court ruling in the ABC case (a case sponsored by International Planned Parenthood) and we have serious concerns about the composition of that ‘expert group’,” she said.

“We’re seeing the most strident and sustained push in 20 years to smash Ireland’s pro-life laws, but we uniting the people to say ‘not in our country and not in our name’.” said Ms Roughneen. The Bill was defeated by 111 votes to 20. See details here.

Cross posted from Irish pro-life organisation Youth Defence.

Tagged with:

Prolife Women Protest nz Women say abortion proposals not made in our name

Hundreds of women and children from throughout Ireland  have joined pro-life groups Youth Defence, Life Institute and Precious Life at the Dáil to tell Irish TDs and Senators that proposals to legalise abortion are “not made in our name”, and that the evidence shows Irish women are safer without abortion.

At a colourful protest, featuring pink banners and music, women from all around Ireland handed in letters to every TD and Senator calling on them to reject legislation that would introduce abortion.

Senator Jim Walsh and Deputy Terence Flanagan came to collect letters from constituents at the event.

“We’re here to send an important message from the majority of Irish women to Enda Kenny and to every TD and Senator,” said spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute. “We’re mothers and daughters and sisters and grandmothers, and we know that women and children deserve better than abortion. Furthermore the record shows we are safer without abortion, so why are this group of politicians trying to introduce abortion in our name? It’s unacceptable to misrepresent Irish women in this way.”

Ms Uí Bhriain said that the letters pointed out that the evidence of the past 20 years had shown that the lives of Irish women were protected without recourse to abortion and that, according to the UN, Ireland was, in fact, the safest place in the world for a mother to have a baby.

The pro-life event took place ahead of a debate scheduled for the Dáil on a Private Members Bill proposed by Clare Daly and Mick Wallace which seeks to legalise abortion.

Ms Uí Bhriain said that the Bill was based on a “fundamentally dishonest claim that abortion is needed to protect women’s lives. This claim amounts to the worst type of scaremongering, and polls show that it is rejected by the majority of Irish women,” she said.”Clare Daly and her cohorts were elected on an anti-austerity platform and they have no mandate to try and foist abortion on the Irish people,” she added.
 Women say abortion proposals not made in our name

Amongst those attending today were women who were treated for life-threatening conditions while pregnant, and who had learnt at first hand that abortion was not required to save their lives. In recent weeks, the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet published findings which showed that, contrary to what had been practised in other jurisdictions, abortion was not required to treat women who had breast cancer while pregnant.

Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence said that the absolute lack of regard shown by abortion campaigners for the lives of unborn children was “totally at odds with how most Irish women view the child in the womb.”

The pro-life spokeswoman said that it was important for the Irish government to realise that they were obliged to honour the pro-life promise they had given before Election 2011, and the majority of Irish women were sick and tired of being misrepresented by small groupings of pro-abortion campaigners.

Cross posted from Irish pro-life group Youth Defence.

Tagged with:

 Science shows unborn children benefit their mothers

When I was expecting our second baby, I felt great. Minimal morning sickness, lots of energy, and so much joie de vivre it was positively annoying. Compared to the first time around it was a doddle, but, even more than that, I felt as if I was positively benefiting from carrying this little person about, kicks and aches and all.

One day my husband remarked that he had seen an article online which said that women did in fact receive ‘something’ from their unborn babies which might benefit their health. “It’s why you live longer then us men apparently,” he added. I looked up the article in the New Scientist which reported that a team at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston showed that fetal cells were transferred from the unborn baby which seemed to help to heal skin wounds in the mother, both during and after pregnancy. It was pretty amazing stuff.

Now, as reported last week on LifeSiteNews, these and many other amazing findings have been explored by science writer Jena Pinctott who draws on studies in biology, reproductive genetics and epigenetics and concludes that a baby’s fetal cells “repair and rejuvenate moms.”

She gathers the evidence in her book “Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy”, and what has been revealed is simply astounding.

Eminent experts say that the fetal cells given by the baby, through the placenta, to the mother are a like a gift that can protect and help her for the rest of her life, especially if she becomes critically ill.

For example, some of the fetal cells that are passed along to the mother are stem cells – and they can then become liver cells, or brain cells or thyroid cells when they are needed to help the mother battle illness. And there seems to be no downside: this is a thank you gift, from baby to mother.

Isn’t that a breathtaking revelation? Doesn’t it make the wonder of life seem even more miraculous?

The synergy and incredible beauty of the exchange left me in awe.

There will of course be a tiny minority of people – mostly screechy pro-aborts – who will try to reject this good news, They are the type of people that are still droning on with lame descriptions of a baby as a parasite and a burden.

They won’t want to welcome any news that shows that not only is a child a gift – the child also gives a gift, and a precious one at that.

But most people will find what science has now uncovered to be absolutely mind-blowing : so let’s celebrate this good news, and appreciate our babies for giving us a health boost as well as an opportunity to experience unconditional love.

Let me just add that I was sick as a dog during my subsequent pregnancies, so clearly the easy ride with the second baby was just a lucky break. But now I’ve got all those fetal cells to help me with problems that arise in the future. So, thanks kids.

Cross posted from Niamh Ui Bhriain at the Life Institute with additional reporting from ProLife NZ.

The propaganda changes, the coercion remains

On April 16, 2012, in Blog, by Fleur

china abortion propaganda The propaganda changes, the coercion remains

Last month the Guardian newspaper reported that the Chinese Government is trying to “soften” its public message about its one-child policy. You know the one, that’s helping to cause a huge shortage of female children, involves forced abortion and is not averse to killing the mother in the process.

Unfortunately, the slogans used by the Government to promote this policy often conveyed “coldness, constraint and even threats. They easily caused resentment in people and led to social tension” according to the People’s Daily newspaper. (So they were entirely accurate and appropriate for the policy then?) One typical example of these older public slogans is:

“If sterilisation or abortion demands are rejected, houses will be toppled, cows confiscated”

Instead of threatened demolition of houses and forced confiscation of property, the newer slogans tend to promote the benefits of having fewer children and advocate for gender equality:

“Lower fertility, better quality; boys and girls are all treasures”

“Mistreatment and abandonment of baby girls is strictly prohibited”

According to the People’s Daily, the aim is to “make family planning work keep pace with the times and go deep among the masses”.

It seems that the Chinese Government has decided that an iron fist is more easily accepted if it is clothed in a velvet glove.  I’m sure that the next woman who dies on the operating after a forced abortion, or the next family which is denied the chance to have a family of more than one child, will be comforted that the Government thinks that “boys and girls are all treasures” – just not the one who comes second into the womb.

Cross posted from MercatorNet.

The ProLife NZ Tour 2012 kicks off next week with Steven Mosher, the first American social scientist to be invited by the Chinese government to mainland China, telling of his experiences with China’s One Child Policy to audiences in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. This article from LifeSiteNews looks at 38 year-old Chinese painter Li Tianbing’s artwork that focuses on the impact on individual lives of the China’s One Child Policy. 

tian1 580x399 A childhood lost: painting China’s one child policy

ROME, April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – He does not accuse, this little boy with the haunting expression, solemn eyed, gazing directly out from the canvas. He does not ask, as he might well ask, ‘Why am I alone?’ but merely stands still and straight, looking steadily forward at the viewer as his imaginary siblings play around him.

The little boy’s face is that of 38 year-old Chinese painter Li Tianbing, taken from photos of himself as a child; the other little boys are his imaginary playmates, brothers and sisters who were never born, who populated his solitary life. Li’s work – huge canvases of ghostly children playing in landscapes that evoke both China’s ancient artistic tradition and its conflicted industrialised present – focuses consciously on the impact on individual lives of the country’s One Child Policy. He was five when the government issued it in 1979.

An exhibition of Li’s paintings, titled “A Game as Pretense of Being,” is currently making an impact in Paris, but could perhaps more appropriately have been titled, “A Childhood of One”. The focus of his work, Li says, is not on the large statistics whose immense scale can depersonalise, but on the policy’s impact on individual human lives. Children in China now, he says, for the first time in the country’s history, know only the life of solitude. No one is allowed to have brothers and sisters, and there are no large families in a country where for thousands of years family was all.

thing 580x385 A childhood lost: painting China’s one child policy

‘Bullet Holes,’ 2012

Li studied international relations in university, then came to Paris at the age of 22 to study at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. He began painting from his memories and his tiny cache of photos. He said in a video interview that when he was a child, using these photos of himself, he created a whole other imaginary self, a life that included siblings and a large and happy family.

“My paintings are about childhood, but a childhood that is conjured up. The childhood I paint is not what happened in my real childhood,” he says.

“I think the One Child policy was a unique social phenomenon of our generation. What I want to express now is how this generation of people sees the world. The signs he carries in his body, his knowledge of the world and his experience of the world.”

When I was looking at the paintings on the internet, and I read that these children were the images of the imaginary siblings Li never had, my first response was, “Oh, he did that too?” Because I was also an only child, raised by a divorced single mother in the 1970s, and I recognised the expression, that of a child immersed in his own inner world, peopled with imaginary friends, pursuing fantasy adventures far away from lonely reality.

Li Tianbing grew up in rural China in the 1970s, the era following the Communist takeover, when the government issued a decree that no one could have more than one child. Government statistics, widely acknowledged to be unrealistically low, show that the policy has resulted in the loss of at least 400 million people, more than ten times the population of Canada.

The single-minded focus of the government at the time was forcing the country to industrialise, to prove to the world the superiority of Marxist principles. To the ruling class of the time, and up to today, the ideology takes priority over the human needs of the people. As a result, China has the world’s highest rates of capital punishment, abortion and suicide among women. In fact, it is the only country in the world where the suicide rate for women exceeds that of men.

While the policy is overt in China, it is merely a more brutalised version of the societal norm of the West. Here it is not forcibly imposed on the people from above, but it insinuated itself into the minds and hearts of the people I grew up around, where it is every bit as entrenched. To the people of my generation, born in the late 1960s to hippie parents whose rejection of the old values has infiltrated every aspect of our societies, being alone, being “only,” is our norm.

And it produces much the same result: adults whose loneliness is deeply embedded, who take solitude for granted, for whom family life is no more than a hazy fantasy gleaned from books and films, less likely to marry and have children of our own, less interested in engaging in the boisterous unpredictable arenas of the active world, always feeling vaguely like an observer rather than a participant.

pps 400x501 A childhood lost: painting China’s one child policy

‘People’s Daily,’ 2011

The loneliness wells up from the faces in Li’s paintings like a deep, suppressed groan.

These are the faces of children, some of them obviously very small children, but there is little evidence of innocence. These are not the sun-drenched dreams of golden-haired, apple-cheeked poppets playing sweetly in meadows and country gardens.

The children in Li’s paintings are not starveling, they are not ragged or grubby or neglected. But they are distant, perhaps envious, and a faint but persistent undertone of anger rings incessantly in the viewer’s mind when he looks back at their eyes.

These children live in another world where we are excluded. Who are we to bring our adult reality, with our macro-economic theories and their overbearing imperatives, into their private realm?

Why have we imposed ourselves in this moment, intruding and breaking their concentration? A concentration that is needed to keep reality at bay. The children wait for us to be done looking at them, so they can get back to their play, their thoughts, their world.

In some of the paintings, it is difficult to tell which is the fantasy, which the ghost, and which the reality. A grayscale little boy, holding a toy, runs down a railway track that cuts through a dimly rendered countryside, with ghostly translucent buildings looming up over him as if in a mist. A group of little boys, in bright pink chroma, follows behind him like a school of glittering fish. Which is the reality, and which is the ghost? Where does the child’s imagination end and the real world, the world of gray industrial scenes, begin?

In another, vaporous children stand before snow-covered tree branches, reading communist newspapers. Of the three, only one looks up and over his paper towards the viewer, an expression of surprise on his face, having seen us watching him, perhaps, and wondering where, what world, we have appeared from.

In nearly every painting, one little boy, Li himself, always with the same expression of surprise and disbelief, looks directly at us, as though we are the apparitions intruding into his world.

sfroc 580x431 A childhood lost: painting China’s one child policy

‘Study for the Rise of China,’ 2012

The paintings have an almost dystopian quality to them, even those showing apparently idyllic natural surroundings, their palettes largely monochromatic, the expressions of the children never joyful but mostly preoccupied and distant. Some of the faces, even those looking directly into the eyes of the viewer, seem closed, as if these children have already made up their minds, already judged the world created for them as a disappointment, and closed the door on us.

Li’s work is an attempt to highlight the reality that the policies that have shaped the macro-picture of demographics, of the economic and social realities on a grand scale in a country with over a billion human beings, have their greatest effect on the individual souls. The human world is not made up of faceless masses, but of one person at a time, living in a unity of a human society made up of other individual persons. In a sense, the existence of “society,” and “culture” and “economics” are all abstractions. Human society can never be about these intangible ideas, but about human beings, one human being at a time.

What a policy that focuses only on these abstractions does to a single, unique human being is the question with which governments never concern themselves, and academics only rarely.

But a single painting is like a single person, and its message, no matter how many see it, is always personal. The children in these paintings assert that they are not instruments or products for use in a grand socio-economic experiment.

See more of Li’s paintings here.

Auckland City Hospital abortion SPOTLIGHT ON ABORTION REGULATION: 877 NZ women admitted to hospital after abortions‎

Media release from Right To Life New Zealand.

A total of 877 women were admitted to hospital in New Zealand between 2009 and 2011 for the treatment of complications following abortions. The total number of bed-days totalled 1047. These important statistics reveal that abortions not only kill an unborn child but can result in damage to a woman’s health.

This information was recently obtained under the Official Information Act, from the Ministry of Health. Information on the nature and severity of the complications is not available. There were a total of 52,120 abortions reported to the Abortion Supervisory Committee in 2009 to 2011. The hospital admittance rate for women being treated for complications arising from abortions was 1.68 per cent. This important information is not included in the Committee’s annual report to Parliament.

Abortionists are required to report to the Committee any complications that result from abortions prior to the woman being discharged. It is noted that a number of the 877 women admitted for treatment for complications would have been admitted to hospital immediately following the abortion, however their hospitalisation is not required to be advised to the Committee. The remainder of the women would have been discharged from the abortion facility after their abortion and then subsequently readmitted to hospital.

In 2010 Right to Life obtained from the Committee under the Official Information Act, statistics of complications reported by abortionists to the Committee in 2010.The information revealed that there were a total of 73 complications reported in the performance of 17,550 abortions; a complication rate of 0.42 per cent. These statistics are collated by Statistics New Zealand on behalf of the Committee. The Abortion Supervisory Committee does not include these statistics in its annual report to Parliament on the grounds that the incidence of complication is so small and not worthy of report.

Right to Life believes that there is considerable under reporting of complications by abortionists that give women a false impression that abortion is a safe procedure. The Committee also excludes from its annual report to Parliament any statistical information on the number of women who are admitted to hospital for the treatment of a complication arising from abortion. The Committee has for many years congratulated abortionists for their skill in providing the women of New Zealand with “safe” abortions.

There are many complications both physical and psychological that damage a woman’s health. Right to Life sought information under the Official information Act from the Ministry of Health on the number of women who were admitted to hospital for psychiatric treatment following an abortion. Our Society was advised that this information was not recorded.

A study of the medical records of 56,741 California Medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 per cent more likely than women delivering a baby to be hospitalised for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. A five year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found that 25 per cent of women who had had abortions, made visits to psychiatrists and were more likely than others to require admission to a psychiatric hospital.

The Committee has a statutory duty under the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act to provide an annual report to Parliament. Section 14 states that the Committee has a duty “To monitor, analyse, collate, and disseminate information relating to the performance of abortions in New Zealand.”

Right to Life asks:

  • Why is information about the number of women admitted to Hospital for the treatment of complications resulting from an abortion not included in the Committee’s annual report to Parliament?
  • How does the Committee reconcile a complication rate of 0.42 per cent with a hospital admittance rate of 1.68 per cent? (which is four times higher!)
  • What action is the Committee taking to ensure that all complications resulting from an abortion prior to the discharge of the woman are notified to the Committee?
  • Why does the Ministry of Health not record the admittance of women to a psychiatric hospital for treatment as a result of having an abortion?

Prolife NZ Tour 2012

On April 10, 2012, in Blog, by Simeon
You are officially invited to come and listen to Steve address the question:

‘Is abortion an answer to overpopulation?’

Mosher Prolife NZ Tour 2012

It’s a big question and indeed a fascinating one, so come, bring your questions, bring your friends, and bring your appetite ‘cos there is FREE PIZZA AND DRINK…. sweet deal Prolife NZ.

ALSO … If you have friends in far places… now’s your chance to get them along to an awesome event because Prolife NZ is hosting Steve Mosher in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch!
So Facebook your friends, e-mail everyone you know and tell them to get along to…

Steve Mosher is:

   -Population Research expert
-President of the US-based Population Research Institute.
-First social scientist to be invited into China by the Chinese government.
-Witness of forced abortions performed on women under China’s ‘one child policy’.

Steve Mosher will be visiting, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch

Auckland: Monday 16th of April 2012 @ 5pm in Library B10.

Wellington: Wednesday 18th April@ 7pm in SU217/218: Victoria University

Christchurch: Friday 20th of April@ 7pm in Rochester Hall: University of Canterbury.

See you there! 
Tagged with: