The meta-analysis by Dr Priscilla Coleman, professor of human development and family studies at Ohio’s Bowling Green State University, was published in the September 2011 edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Dr Coleman analysed 22 peer-reviwed studies published between 1995 and 2009. They covered 877,181 women, of whom 183,831 had undergone an abortion.

The results revealed higher rates of anxiety related disorders (34%), depression (37%), alcohol use/abuse (110%), marijuana use (230%), and suicidal behaviour (155%) in women who had abortions. When these women were compared with women who delivered after an unintended pregnancy, the abortees had an overall increased risk for a mental health problem of 55%.

Dr Coleman also found that almost 10% of all mental health problems in the community are directly attributable to abortions.

Acknowledgement

Reprinted fromVoxyPoint by permission of Family Voice Australia, 4th Floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000. Voxy Print November 2011, p. 6.

Speaking in pidgin English,via a translator, he stated: “I am a very passionate man,” and “I do haf a verry beeg reeespect for sex.”

Gordon writes:

He is passionately pro-life, and last year filmed a video expressing his views which, when posted on the web, was hailed by anti-abortion campaigners as “one of the most beautiful, authentic things ever seen”.

In it, Bocelli sits at a piano and tells the camera that he wants to recount a “little story” about a young pregnant woman who is admitted to hospital with a misdiagnosed case of appendicitis. After tests, “the doctors advised her to abort the child. They told her that would be the best solution because the child would doubtless be born with some kind of disability. But the courageous young wife decided not to terminate the pregnancy, and the child was born. The woman was my mother, I was the child”.

Bocelli was born with sight problems and was eventually diagnosed with congenital glaucoma. At the age of 12, he went completely blind after an accident during a football game….

His views on abortion are well rehearsed, and he has heard about British MP Nadine Dorries and her recent attempt to strip termination clinics of their conselling roles. He interrupts the translator as she relays my question and says very firmly, which I repeat in full here: “You ask me before of my point of view about religion, and I told you I am very religious. It means that before I fight against something, I try to fight in favour of something.

“It is not Christian to go against someone. I am in favour of life. And, of course, personally I do not share the idea of being able to interrupt life arbitrarily. But I cannot be the judge of those who decide in a different way. As much as I can, I show them an example and act as a role model, because I believe this is the only way.”

Source: Article (abridged)

He’s ‘very passionate’  but no bunga bunga please.

Based on interview with Andrea Bocelli by Bryony Gordon, Telegraph Group

Reprinted in The Dominion Post. 19 Novembr 2011, B5.

Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, issued the following Media release today entitled -

“Reduced Abortion Rate Welcomed But Still Concerns”

Family First NZ Media Release 29 October 2011

Reduced Abortion Rate Welcomed But Still Concerns

ONE IN FIVE ABORTIONS IS FOR TEENAGER

Family First NZ is welcoming a drop in abortions according to figures released by Statistics NZ today. However, there is still huge concern that more than 65 teens have an abortion each week on average, more than a third of the women have had previous abortions, and 16% of abortions are being performed in the 12^th week or later despite the research on fetal development. 

“Teen abortions account for just over a 1/5^th of all abortions in 2010,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This is a tragedy for the girls involved, some as young as 11. It is also devastating for the extended family, especially if the young girl has been sneaked off for the abortion by Family Planning or a School Counselor without the parents’ knowledge or consent.” 

“It is incorrect to label abortion as ‘pro-choice’, because nobody chooses to be in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy and having to make such a difficult decision.” 

A Universityof Otago study in 2008 found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Other studies have found a link between abortion and psychiatric disorders ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders. 

“With 98% of abortions in NZ being performed on the basis of the mental health of the mother, it is time that the research on the post-abortion mental health outcomes was given equal weight with the pre-abortion claims. Abortion harms women – yet groups seeking to decriminalise abortion refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

“Along with protecting the rights of the unborn child, we need to protect the rights of women to know the medical facts in order that they can make fully informed decisions.

Family First NZ is calling for a law which requires informed consent (including ultrasound) for all potential abortions, and counselling to be provided only by non-providers of abortion services. Parental notification of teenage pregnancy and abortion should happen automatically except in exceptional circumstances approved by the court.

Abortion Harmful to Women’s Mental Health – Study

Media Release 2 September

Family First NZ says that a meta-analysis published today in the British Journal of Psychiatry has revealed that 81 percent of females who had an abortion were found to be at an increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, alcohol abuse and suicidal behaviors. 

The study, “Abortion and Mental health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published 1995-2009″ by Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D., took into account 22 studies and over 877,000 participants over the 14-year period. The study also reveals that as many as ten percent of all mental health problems are directly attributable to abortion. 

“This confirms and is consistent with previous NZ research which showed that abortion harms women. Abortion harms women but poro-abortion groups refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women. We believe women have the right to the best independent information and advice before making a decision that could impact them later in life,” says Marina Young, Spokesperson for Family First NZ, who through her own abortion experience formed the Buttons Project.

 A University of Otago study in 2008 found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Other studies have found a link between abortion and psychiatric disorders ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders. And the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK recommended updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. They said that consent could not be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information. 

“Family First NZ is calling for a law which requires informed consent including the offer of ultrasound for all potential abortions, and counselling to be provided only by non-providers of abortion services as is being introduced in the UK. Parental notification of teenage pregnancy and abortion should happen automatically except in exceptional circumstances approved by the court,” says Mrs Young.
“With 98% of abortions in NZ being performed on the basis of the mental health of the mother, it is time that the research on the post-abortion mental health outcomes was given equal weight against the pro-abortion claims.”

ENDS

Right to Life, has resolved to seek leave of the Supreme Court to allow an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal stated in its judgment of 1 June 2011 on the appeal of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and the cross appeal of Right to Life that the unborn child did not have a right to life.The Appeal Court also overturned the judgment of Justice Forrest Miller in the High Court in 2008 which found that:

”The Committee does in fact have the power to require certifying consultants to keep records and report on cases they have considered.” He also stated, “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.”

Right to Life supports the dissenting opinion of Justice Arnold in the Court of Appeal, who stated that, “it is implausible that Parliament would have intended to preclude the Committee from keeping under review the way in which they performed their role.”

 Right to Life seeks to appeal on the following matters:

·         The legal recognition of children before birth as human beings endowed at conception by the Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life.

·         Recognition that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has the statutory  power and duty to review the performance of certifying consultants so that they may be accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions they authorise.

·         Recognition that abortion counsellors should be independent of abortion providers.

·         The overturning of the costs awarded by the Court of Appeal to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

The right to life is the foundation of a civilised society. It is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the person within it. The first duty of the State is to protect the right to life of all its members including its unborn children. To deny the right to life of unborn children is a violation of its human rights and a grave injustice.

Human life begins at conception and the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life, these rights are inalienable and universal. From conception the new human being is entitled to the respect and protection due to the human person. Right to Life contends that unborn children as members of the human family are entitled to the protection of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, section 8 titled, Right not to be deprived of life. which states,

“No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Right to Life contends that this is the justice issue of our era. The Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, in its report to Parliament in 1977 stated that:

“The unborn child as one of the weakest and most vulnerable forms of humanity should receive protection.”

Justice Miller, in his judgment of 9 June 2008, stated that:

“the rule according human rights only at birth is founded on convenience rather that medical or moral grounds.” And “A legal right to life would be incongruous in such a law, for it would treat the unborn child as a separate legal person, possessing a status fundamentally incompatible with induced abortion, far from modifying the born alive rule, the abortion law rests on it.”

Right to Life commenced these proceedings as a Judicial Review of the Performance of the Supervisory Committee in 2005 in the High Court in Wellington. In the event that leave is granted to appeal to the Supreme Court, it is anticipated that the appeal may be heard early in 2012.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

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.

“The Court of Appeal majority held that it was not up to the ASC to review the role of the certifying consultants, despite their key role in approving abortions. However the dissenting judge rightly said that the ASC should be reviewing the operation of the abortion law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. 

“If the ASC is not there to review the operation of the law which most NZ’ers would expect them to do, they are simply a ‘rubber stamp’ and should be disbanded. This decision is a timely reminder that for the sake of both the women concerned and the unborn children, a woman’s ‘right to know’ law should be introduced.” 

“This is supported by a recent poll which showed that the majority of New Zealanders think women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives,”

 In the poll of 1,000 people in March, respondents were asked “Would you support a law that would require a woman considering an abortion to first see a doctor, who is not an abortion provider, to be informed of the medical risks and alternatives to abortion?” 64% supported this proposed law, 29% disagreed, and the remainder (8%) were either unsure or refused to answer. 

 “The majority of people believe women have the right to the best independent information and advice before making a decision that could impact them later in life. The Court of Appeal has decided that it is not the role of the ASC to enforce that – thereby making the ASC redundant.” 

“It is also concerning that the Court of Appeal believe that the law does not recognize or confer a right to life on the unborn child. This is completely inconsistent with warning messages about prenatal alcohol and drug use, assaults on pregnant women, and even the report released today by Sir Peter Gluckman referring to ‘environmental risks that occur prenatally’. Just when does a child obtain a right to live? 30 weeks? 40 weeks? In the birthing room?”

“Abortion can harm women – yet groups seeking to decriminalise abortion refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women.” 

A University of Otago study in 2008 found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Other studies have found a link between abortion and psychiatric disorders ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders. And the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK recommended updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. They said that consent could not be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information.

“With 98% of abortions in NZ being performed on the basis of the mental health of the mother, it is time that the research on the post-abortion mental health outcomes was given equal weight with the pro-abortion claims.”

 “It is now quite clear that the term ‘abortion supervisory committee’ is an oxymoron,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Family First NZ

Note: For Poll results accompanying this media release see: www.familyfirst.orgt.nz

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.Unborn children are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. Human life begins at conception and at the moment of conception the new human being is endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. These rights are inalienable and universal. From conception the human being is entitled to the respect and protection accorded to the person. These rights are inalienable and universal. Our human rights are not conferred on us by the State or by the Courts but it is the courts that should recognise those rights. 

The Courts are the sanctuary of the oppressed and the defenders of human rights. It is the duty and privilege of the State and the Courts to uphold our human rights. Organisations in the pro-life movement are entitled to see it as their duty to seek the protection of the Courts for the human rights of unborn children. Right to Life is disappointed that the Court of Appeal has failed to uphold the human rights of unborn children.  

Right to Life is disappointed at the judgment of the Court of Appeal which has overturned several important findings in the judgment of Justice Miller given in the High Court in 2008, which would have provided significantly increased protection for the unborn child. The Court has quashed the findings that there were serious concern about the lawfulness of many abortions in New Zealand, The Court quashed the High Court finding that the  Abortion Supervisory Committee had a statutory duty to review the way certifying consultants are carrying out their very significant authorising function under the Act. 

Right to Life is encouraged by the dissenting opinion of Justice Arnold who stated, “ it is implausible that Parliament would have intended to preclude the Committee from keeping under review the way in which they performed their role.”  

Right to Life contends that the judgment of the Court has effectively placed certifying consultants above the law. 

Right to Life is disappointed that the Court has overturned the costs granted to our Society in the High Court. The Court of Appeal has granted costs to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for the hearings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, these costs could be substantial. If the Committee should pursue these costs it will be a disincentive for any voluntary society in the future to bring matters concerning important human rights issues of public concern to the Courts.

 Right to Life is totally committed to continuing to seek legal recognition for the status of unborn children as human beings endowed by their Creator at conception with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. We are also committed to seeking the full protection of the law for protection of the lives of unborn children and the welfare and health of women who are the second victims of abortion. Right to Life will take advice from our counsel on the advisability of seeking leave to appeal the judgment in the Supreme Court.

Right to Life applauds the media release made by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference expressing concern at the decision of the Court to refuse to recognise the right to life of unborn children. Right to Life encourages other church leaders to speak up in defence of the lives of our precious unborn.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

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 ].

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

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?