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?

The Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC) which has for years been promoting abortion as a woman’s right, issued a press release today that calls on “the news media” to “help [their lobby group] uncover the source of Right to Life’s funding [and] make clear [to the public] the group’s full agenda.” Most will see this for what it is – a last minute desperate smear campaign directed at a properly constituted Incorporated Society that publicly discloses its audited financial accounts every year via the Companies website, as well as its objectives. It is clearly a blatant attempt to influence the Court of Appeal by casting doubt on the integrity of a group committed to safeguarding defenseless unborn children against the sordid death culture of the abortion industry and its highly paid State-funded practitioners.

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week Right to Life will seek to defend a ruling of a High Court Judge – Justice Forrest Miller – that questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand that had been, and continue to be, sanctioned by certifying consultants under the supposed ‘watchful eye’ of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC). Under their ‘watch’ the number of annual abortions has risen alarmingly to over 18,500. The ASC has appealed against the High Court ruling that questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand and Right-to-Life is seeking to have the decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, as it is entitled to do. Right-to-Life clearly draws its financial support from its hundreds of members and others supported of its objectives, including the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc (SPCS). Women who have had abortions and now regret it and suffer long-term consequences are also among those who support Right-to-Life.

WONAAC spokeswoman Di Cleary has demanded the media uncover the so-called secrets concerning those who are “bank-rolling its [Right-to-Life] efforts to end New Zealand women’s access to safe abortions.” This is the same woman who on International Women’s Day in 2006, demanded that all male MPs promote condom use instead of considering a Private Member’s Bill by Labour Cabinet Minister George Hawkins that sought to tighten up legislation on abortions. The Bill sought to ensure more education and counselling for women who go for multiple abortions and have expected the State to continue to fund their socially irresponsible lifestyles.

WONAAC spokeswoman Di Cleary had the gall to blame hard-working MPs for failing to create a culture of condom use and sought to subvert the democratic rights of supporters of the Bill to have it considered by a select committee. WONAAC and its bedmate the Abortion Law Reform Association, have for years led an anti-life campaign that has failed to stem the rapid rise in abortions nation-wide. These groups are so besotted by the flawed assumption that throwing countless condoms at the problem will solve it, that they have been deaf and blind to the shameful eradication of our weakest and most vulnerable – tens of thousands of unborn children.

At a time when there is a dearth of children available for adoption to loving a responsible parents who are unable to have their own, the State continues to fund the abortion industry while Right-to-Life relies on membership donations to call into account via the Courts, the out-of-control rate of abortions in this country and the actions of the monitoring body (ASC) set up to protect those unable to speak for themselves – our unborn.

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. deplores this blatant and unlawful attempt by ALRANZ and by extension the pro-abortion lobby, to exert pressure on the Court of Appeal, to pervert the course of justice. It believes that it is a shameful attempt to use Parliament to exert political pressure to interfere in the course of justice. ALRANZ’s press release headline was “MPs Must Oppose Anti-Abortion Legal Challenge” [Emphasis added].

In a democratic society it is a constant and mandatory requirement that the Judiciary should be free from political pressure and interference. Parliament must resist every attempt to pervert the course of justice. The Abortion Supervisory has a statutory duty to uphold the rule of law by ensuring that the abortion laws are complied with.

The matters before the Court of Appeal concern an appeal by the Abortion Supervisory Committee against the judgment of Justice Miller in the High Court in Wellington in June 2008. The Justice said that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” Justice Miller concluded that the Committee has “misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.” The Committee has incorrectly reasoned that the judgment in Wall v Livingston means it “ may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.”

The media has correctly reported on the facts: Right to Life has cross appealed and is representing its case for legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being and a person endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. The child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family, would then have the protection of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Section 8 states that, “no person 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 is also seeking abortion counselling, independent from abortion providers

These matters are matters of law and ALRANZ should allow the judicial process to proceed unimpeded, in the expectation that the law, as intended by parliament, will be upheld and that justice will be done for the protection of women and their unborn children. Right to Life has acknowledged that ALRANZ genuinely believes that it is acting in the best interests of vulnerable women facing an unplanned pregnancy, tragically they are mistaken. However, it has argued that we do not help women by killing their children. A truly compassionate society will extend compassion and practical assistance for women by providing assistance to them to bring their children to birth. This assistance will save the lives of women from a lifetime of sorrow and psychological damage and their unborn babies from destruction.

Viewpoint: by Barbara Faithfull

Bitter brickbats are regularly hurled against those who oppose abortion, the so-called “pro-lifers”. For example the histrionic rant from Chris Trotter, with his monstrous likening of them to the Taleban. (“N.Z’s Taleban on the March” Dom/Post 13th June 2008). Also  there was  his bogus and devious implication that with the 1978 abortion law reform “the women of N.Z.” finally  won the “right” to a safe legal abortion – as if all N.Z. women had sought this and fought for it – far from it!

Admittedly, I for one had signed the 1977 Repeal petition, a decision I later regretted as I became more aware of the mammoth ideologically-driven game of deception which was driving this issue, and which continues to do so to this day.

So today in 2008 the N.Z. public is still being denied the grim facts about it. People such as Chris Trotter, and other pro-abortion activists who cling to that weaselly euphemism “pro-choice”, can hardly be accused of ignorance in such matters; they are far too deeply involved for that.

Yet they avoid such facts like the plague and continue to lure women – many very, very young – into making the pro-abortion fight their fight. Such campaigners disguise the fact that it is all part of an agenda for radical social change determined by a bunch of ideologues many decades ago on the other side of the world : to serve the nefarious ends of the shadowy international Secular Humanist movement for revolutionary social and political change by peaceful means.

Ideologically-driven, then, it is atheistic by nature and Socialist to the core. Also, necessarily then, anti-capitalist, anti all traditional morality and all legitimate authority : that of God, the Church, parental (all corporal punishment etc.), male family authority, school, police – hence, among numerous Humanist front groups are found Councils for Civil Liberties, which forever seem to be critical of the Police.

In Great Britain the Humanists drew up their daring agenda, largely to attack God’s laws relating to homosexual acts, abortion, infanticide, divorce (to make it easier), pornography, prostitution, soft drugs, euthanasia, and to remove religion from schools.

Also with a major concern for global population control, so some of these issues would seem to serve that end as well, such as relaxing laws on infanticide, abortion and euthanasia. Indeed they believe that abortion should be freely available to any woman who so desires it, hence the hackneyed cry “A woman’s right to choose”.

Similarly with euthanasia : their promotional leaflet “Euthanasia” (1) :contrary to the constant reassurances from lobbyists that they only seek to have euthanasia legalized in certain extreme situations, such as for terminal illness etc., the Introduction to that leaflet crassly spells out what they really are seeking, opening thus : “This report is based on the concept held by most humanists, that every individual has the right to choose the time of his or her own death.” There again is that slogan “Right to choose”! Certainly it is a basic catch-cry and slogan of these people, at least with the abortion and euthanasia issues.

By campaigning behind various neutral and innocuous-sounding fronts, and with the common tactic of appealing to people’s emotions, as well as with a broadly compliant news media, the plan has been wildly successful around the Western World.

Some other N.Z. Humanist front groups are, or have been, the Abortion Law Reform Association of N.Z. (ALRANZ), Divorce Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct), Homosexual Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct) and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES).Opposition to all references to God and all Christian symbols such as Easter and the Nativity in public life are also Humanist-driven, and with Civil Liberties groups frequently leading the charge, which occurs widely in the U.S.A.

Proof of the Humanist nature of such front groups is also to be found in the fundamental contribution such people have made, and still make, to the forming and running of such groups. Humanist members’ names feature in founding documents and in ongoing business and campaign records, sometimes to the point of being interchangeable.

Example : ALRANZ. Names such as leading Humanists Wayne Facer and the later Ray Carr, and Civil Libertarian Barry Littlewood, all held offices at its first A.G.M. held on 17^th March 1971. (By 1980 Littlewood was also revealed to be legal adviser and a director of the (then) closing Marxist Book Shop in Auckland) (2)

Another example : Voluntary Euthanasia Society : The name of Leo Stack was one of many Humanists named in its founding document dated 16^th May 1979, and by 2008 he is still involved, and prominently, as its spokesman. Also, by 1979 Ray Carr (an ALRANZ founder in 1971) was Secretary of the Auckland Humanist Society and by February 1981 he was President of the VES (3). Etc. These people certainly are very interchangeable.

Further proof of a Humanist basis to such issues comes with the little-publicised awards which are made occasionally to various front people in appreciation of their valued work for the cause. Until recent years these were made by the Humanist Society of N.Z., but it has now merged with the N.Z .Rationalists to become known as the N.Z. Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) and details of such awards are shown in their quarterly journal, ironically titled Open Society, which can be seen in public libraries and also on the web.

Hardly surprising, then, to see that awards have been made to people such as Dr. Zoe During, in 2000, for her championing of abortion and homosexual “rights”.(4) Also, in 2001, to Dr. Philip Nitschke, “for his courageous advocacy of the right to choose death with dignity”, to name but two.

Hardly surprising, either, to see that Dame Barbara Goodman is an Honorary Associate of NZARH and a “Humanist Secular Celebrant”, she having led the Auckland “Repeal” campaign in the late 1970’s as Mayoress of Auckland. (5) but of course with nary a hint of its true, ideologically-driven nature!

In conclusion, then, I see temerity – nay, utter confidence trickery – in Mr. Trotter craftily inveigling the “young, confident women of the 21^st century” to join the pro-abortion cause despite its underlying hotbed of duplicity and their ignorance of this.

Also in his puerile vilifying of its opponents as an “army of fanatical right-wing activists” and likening them to the Taleban. Surely the very reverse must be nearer the mark.

As for the overall duping of the general public on this issue – to say nothing of other related Humanist issues – this must also necessarily include all the sincere and well-intentioned folk who have been induced to support – and probably still support – the pro-abortion cause in ignorance of its true nature.

As I was, when signing that Repeal petition in 1977, they have been denied their fundamental right to make an informed choice. So much for the hypocritical Humanist slogan “right to choose”. Only when it suits the ideologues’ purpose, it seems.

References:-

1. “Euthanasia” produced and distributed by the New South Wales Humanist Society in 1973. Supplied to me by the late Ray Carr of the Auckland Humanist Society about 1980.
2. N.Z.Herald 7^th July 1980 : “Source of Marxist Books dries up on shop’s closure”.
3. Radio Pacific 24^th February 1981, when Ray Carr was guest in his capacity of President of the VES.
4. In a N.Z.Herald feature of 25^th/26^th November 2000, Dr. During was said to have been honoured by NZARH for her “career of tireless and outspoken (sic) support for liberal causes : abortion, homosexual law reform” etc.
5. According to the Open Society, summer 2007, Vol. 80, No. 4

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

Christchurch anti-abortion campaigner Ken Orr has laid a complaint with police after a video was posted on YouTube showing a gun being pointed at his head.

The video was posted a week ago by prochoicenz as a “message to Ken Orr right-to-life.org from the women of Aotearoa New Zealand”.

For more go to:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4601542a11.html

The ASC consists of three members; two of whom are to be registered medical practitioners. One member is appointed as Chairperson.

Under present law it is not mandatory for certifying consultants even to meet the woman who has requested an abortion. Likewise, there is no legal requirement for the woman to be fully informed of her options in terms of continuing with the pregnancy or moving to abortion.

The ASC operates under the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. It consists of three members, two of whom are to be registered medical practitioners. One member is appointed as Chairperson. Members are appointed initially for a three year term of office. Professor Linda Holloway, DCNSM of Dunedin, chairperson of the ASC was appointed in June 2007. The other members of the ASC are Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch.

The previous members of the ASC were Dr Lesley Rothwell of Wellington, as chair, Papaarangi Reid of Wellington, and Marlene Lamb JP of Morrinsville.

Background on Current Members

Professor Linda Holloway, who was previously pro vice-chancellor of health sciences at Otago University, was appointed chair of the National Health Committee in 2006, having been a member of it since 2002. She is a specialist anatomical pathologist, and at an earlier stage in her career she also worked in rural general practice. Her major area of research interest has been respiratory pathology. She has served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. She has also been in many areas of community work, including the Lottery Grants Board research distribution committee and the Medical Women’s Association. She is a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, in recognition of her career of dedicated service to health science.

Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is a member of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. She was the medical director of the central region for the New Zealand Family Planning Association from 1987 to 1990. As an on-call doctor for the New Zealand Police and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, she assessed victims of sexual abuse. She was also a medical officer at Victoria University’s Student Health Service. Dr Fenwicke also developed a general practice clinic at Waiwhet? Marae in Lower Hutt. She currently works in general practice in Wellington at the level J terminations clinic at Wellington Women’s Hospital, and she also does independent allowance assessments and rehabilitation assessments for the Accident Compensation Corporation. In 2005-06 she was the national medical officer for the New Zealand Fire Service.

Patricia Allan established her own consultancy business as a facilitator and mentor at the beginning of 2004. For the previous 20 years she had been involved in either church or council-funded social service and in ministry roles in Christchurch and on the West Coast. Before establishing her current business, she worked for the Methodist Church’s Christchurch inner-city ministry, and had previously served as the vicar of Hokitika and as diocesan mission coordinator for the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch. She has held a number of governance roles in the Methodist and Anglican churches, including as an elected member of the standing committee of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, and also as a member of the board of the McLean Institute, a charitable trust. She was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for her community work on the West Coast. Ms Allan completed her registered nursing qualification in 1960 and also holds a licentiate of theology.

http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/appointments/2007/jun/14/abortion_supervisory_committee

The ASC tables an annual report to Parliament. This report contains a summary of the Committee’s activities during the year, together with statistical information relating to the number of abortions performed in the previous calendar year. This statistical information is broken down into such categories as the age of women concerned and the grounds upon which the abortions have been authorised and provides the only reference to the absolute numbers of abortions authorised annually. The Committee releases individual institution figures only in its annual report. Licensees may release their own figures if it is their own administrative policy to do so.

.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=g-nVAGXWQFs&feature=related

See: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=-9JTow-oumY

Also see: Abortion – High Court decision

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=z1k8u5zDTWw

The Case brought by Right to Life against the Abortion Supervisory Committee has highlighted that:

(1) New Zealand effectively has abortion on demand – almost 99% of women who apply to have an abortion are granted the right to proceed because certifying consultants have been willing to accept, based largely on good faith in the claims of women – that the continuance of their pregnancy will or might result in an impairment or deterioration of their ‘mental health’ (anxiety, stress, etc).

(2) There are serious and substantial grounds to doubt the lawfulness of many of the approximately 18,000 abortions carried out each year in New Zealand, because the grounds for many of the terminations involved a very liberal interpretation of the provisions of the law for termination, which when correctly applied – only allow for authorisation of an abortion (termination) when the certifying consultants are convinced, based on real evidence, that by not terminating the pregnancy the mother will face a real threat of serious danger to to her health or life.

(3) The Abortion Supervisory Committee has failed in its statutory duty to protect the rights of unborn children by aiding and abetting the termination of thousands of unborn children under their watch. They must be held to account.

The gross negligence of this Committee has been highlighted in that they have allowed thousands of abortions to proceed under their watch, when there were clearly NOT good reasons – in keeping with the law (serious danger to the life or health of the mother) – for the termination of the unborn child to proceed.

These statutory and moral failures will be addressed by Right to Life in continuing Court action in its seeking of a writ of mandamus from the High Court directing the Committee to comply with the strictures of the law and spelling out more clearly its statutory duties in relation to the activities of certifying consultants.

In his judgment Justice Forrest Millar  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”.