Syndication
Subscribe to our site updates
Follow us on Twitter


Recent Comments
- Rob on Sex creeps into early prime time TV
- Wolfheart on France’s nudist [fundamentalist] mullahs ‘at war with swingers’
- C. Dromgool on Steve Crow forced to remove offensive sleazy Erotica Expo billboard
- Ash on What REALLY Happens During an Abortion
- Rob on What REALLY Happens During an Abortion
- Chuck Bird on Report On James Louis Mason v The Queen CA 481/2009
- Aaron Schmiedel on John M Carr and the defunct Triton Energy Corporation shareholder
- Rob on Mixing Business with Porn and Charity: John M Carr and Steve Crow
- ConstantNeophyte on Abortions Authorised on Mental Health Grounds a Farce – Dr Margaret Sparrow
- ash on Did the ‘anti-smacking’ legislation reduce Child Abuse?
Newsletters
(Copies of all Society research reports are disseminated to research partners.) - June 2010, Issue 111
- Dec 2009, Issue 110
- May 2009, Issue 109
- September 2008, Issue 108
- April 2008, Issue 107
- December 2007, Issue 106
- August 2007, Issue 105
- May 2007, Issue 104
- September 2006, Issue 103
- December 2005, Issue 102
- December 2004, Issue 101
- May 2004, Issue 100
- May 2003, Issue 99
- October 2002, Issue 98
- September 2001, Issue 97
Categories
- Abortion (14)
- Announcement (6)
- Anti-smacking Bill (19)
- Application For Leave (6)
- Broadcasting Standards Authority (3)
- Celebrating Christian Tradition (1)
- Censorship (37)
- Censorship & New Technology (20)
- Child Sex Crimes (5)
- Children's Television (5)
- Civil Unions (3)
- Complaints to Broadcasters (4)
- Computer games (10)
- Crime (16)
- Families Commission (1)
- Family (14)
- Film & Lit Board Reviews (9)
- Film & Lit. Board Appointments (8)
- Film Ratings (5)
- Films (11)
- HIV/AIDS STIs (1)
- Homosexuality (13)
- Human Dignity (11)
- Kinsey Fraud (1)
- Marriage (6)
- Moral Values (38)
- Porn Link to Rape (3)
- Pornography (62)
- Pro-life (12)
- Prostitution (2)
- Rape statistics (4)
- Recommended Books (12)
- Sex Studies (1)
- Sexual Dysfunction (9)
- Submissions (1)
- Television Violence (4)
- Uncategorized (100)
- Violence (17)
- Youth Crime (8)
- YouTube (4)
Archives
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- January 2007
- November 2006
- October 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
Family Values & Community Standards
Internet Safety
Pro-Life Groups
Meta

Abortion Supervisory Committee to appeal Abortion Judicial Review Judgment to Court of Appeal.
Media Release – Right-to-Life (NZ) 2 August
http://www.righttolife.org.nz
Crown counsel acting for the Abortion Supervisory Committee has advised that the Committee has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Forrest Miller delivered on 9 June 2008 at the completion of a Judicial Review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee in the High Court in Wellington.
The judgment found that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended”.Justice Miller stated that ; “In my opinion , the statistics and the Committee’s comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request.” The Court held that the Committee does in fact have the power to review and scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and to require them to keep records and question them on the use of the mental health ground to authorise 98% of the abortions in New Zealand.
The Committee seeks the reversal of the judgment in respect to the following specific grounds.
It is claimed that there was no evidential foundation for the Judge’s findings that “There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”
It is claimed that there was no evidential foundation for the Judge’s finding that “The approval rate [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under section 187A the consultants must form the good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health.”
The Committee claims that the Court erred in law in concluding that the Committee’s functions under the Act empower it to form its own opinion about the lawfulness of certifying consultant’s decisions.
Right to Life is confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold the judgment in respect to these important issues. It is the intention of Right to Life to cross appeal and re present our case denied in the High Court for the legal recognition of the status of the unborn child as a human being and a person endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life. Secondly there will be the opportunity to put before the Court of Appeal the issue which the Royal Commission considered important, whether abortion counsellors should be independent from abortion providers.
Right to Life had sought declaratory orders. The Committee has appealed to the Court of Appeal before Justice Miller had the opportunity to consider issuing orders in relation to the Committee’ function and duties. The question of orders is now a matter for the Court of Appeal to consider.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Phone 03 3856111