Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

Children’s rights in the society

Monday, August 17th, 2009

Ruby Harrold-Claesson sent us this translated article:

Children’s rights in the


By Annette Westöö, Göteborg

This year, marks the thirtieth year since Sweden became the first in the world to prohibit child-smacking. The law has attracted much attention internationally and Sweden is considered in large parts of the world as a pioneer country in terms of children’s rights. Bris (Children’s Rights in the Society) notes the anniversary with a campaign where they ask the question “What has actually happened?” It is a sensible question, because now is the time to look back on these thirty years and see what has been achieved. How much is there behind all Sweden’s fine words about the rights of the children?

Five years before the anti-smacking law was passed the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament) passed another controversial law: that of free abortion. Since 1974, this decision led to over 1 million children being killed in our country. The consequences of the two laws in combination are absurd. In Sweden, a parent is prosecuted and tried in court for a slap in the face. The same parents can be – completely within boundaries of the law – to poison, maim and kill their children if they are younger than 18 weeks old. Smacking a child can lead to police action, whereas that same child could have had its head crushed by an adult at an earlier stage of its development – quite legally. The situation is bizarre and profoundly tragic. Save the Children, Bris and other organizations that claim to protect children’s rights – as far as I know – do not lift a finger to save the unborn children.

Where is the logic? I who am approximately contemporary with these laws, I am experiencing great pain over the disaster that contempt for the smallest children’s rights has meant for Sweden. The Sweden that we from the late seventies have grown up in has been deprived of one million citizens. People who would have lived among us as our family members, neighbours, schoolmates, colleagues, friends and spouses. People who would have helped to build this country and take care of the older generation. People who are irreplaceable and unique.

Can all you experts, ideologues and opinion leaders – especially those from the forties – who contributed to the passing of these two laws give me an explanation?

What were you really thinking?

Annette Westöö, born 1977, is a MA in Religious Knowledge and she is a teacher for seven years. She is the vice president of the pro-life organisation “Human Rights for the Unborn” and she is an active member of the Swedish Church. Annette Westöö has for many years been an active protector of children’s and their families’ rights. During the past years she has written several debate articles and opinion pieces about the rights of the unborn child.

The Swedish version of this article has been sent to several Swedish newspapers, but so far its fate is unknown. It is published here with the kind consent of the author.

Destroying the Family: Swedish style

A family flees from the Welfare State

Back to Articles

Back to Main

Original Article:

Barnens rätt i samhället

Annette Westöö, Göteborg

I år är det trettio år sedan Sverige blev först ut i världen med att förbjuda barnaga. Lagen har väckt stor uppmärksamhet internationellt och Sverige betraktas i stora delar av världen som ett föregångsland när det gäller barns rättigheter. Bris uppmärksammar jubileet i en kampanj där man ställer frågan ”Vad har egentligen hänt?”. Det är en klok fråga, för nu är det tid att blicka bakåt på dessa trettio år och se vad som åstadkommits. Hur mycket ligger det egentligen bakom Sveriges alla vackra ord om barnens rätt?

Fem år före anti-agalagens tillkomst stiftade Sveriges riksdag en annan kontroversiell lag: den om fri abort. Sedan 1974 har detta beslut lett till över en miljon barns död i vårt land. Följderna av de båda lagarna i kombination är absurda. I Sverige kan en förälder åtalas och dömas i domstol för en örfil. Samma förälder kan – helt inom lagens råmärken – låta förgifta, lemlästa och döda sitt barn om det är yngre än 18 veckor. En dask riktad mot ett barn kan leda till polisingripanden, medan detta barn kunde ha fått sitt huvud krossat av en vuxen i ett tidigare stadium av sin utveckling –  helt lagligt. Situationen är bisarr och bottenlöst tragisk. Rädda barnen, Bris och andra organisationer som säger sig värna om barns rättigheter har vad jag vet inte lyft ett finger för att rädda de ofödda barnen. Var finns logiken?

Jag, som är ungefär jämnårig med dessa lagar, upplever stor smärta över den katastrof som föraktet för de minsta barnens rättigheter har inneburit för Sverige. Det Sverige som vi sena sjuttiotalister har vuxit upp i saknar en miljon medborgare. Människor som skulle ha levt ibland oss som våra familjemedlemmar, grannar, skolkamrater, kollegor, vänner och makar. Människor som skulle ha hjälpt till att bygga det här landet och ta hand om den äldre generationen. Människor som är oersättliga och unika.

Kan alla ni experter, ideologer och opinionsbildare – förmodligen främst fyrtiotalister – som var med och drev fram dessa båda lagar ge mig en förklaring?

Hur tänkte ni, egentligen?

Ruling on scan offer before abortions

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

Ruling on scan offer before abortions

By EMILY WATT – The Dominion Post

Women should be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound scan of their baby before they decide to abort it, the Health and Disability Commissioner says.

Anti-abortion group Right to Life complained to the commissioner after finding four district health boards Auckland, Waikato, Wairarapa and Canterbury did not offer women the chance to view the scan before going ahead with an abortion. Waikato DHB said it was an “infringement of the patient’s rights” to offer it.

Commissioner Ron Paterson said any pregnant woman should be told of their right to view an ultrasound, and it was up to them whether they did or not.

It is a debate that is raging in the United States, where a number of states are considering passing laws that would force women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Some want them to listen to a fetal heartbeat as well. Critics have labelled the proposals “emotional blackmail”.

New Zealand’s abortion rates are high, with more than one in five known pregnancies in New Zealand aborted. In 2007 the most recent statistics available 18,380 abortions were done.

The High Court made a landmark ruling last year that expressed “powerful misgivings” about the lawfulness of many abortions. That decision is due to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal next week.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said offering women the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan would reduce abortions. He said American research showed when women considering an abortion were given the opportunity to view a scan, a large number of them chose not to go ahead.

Right to Life last year canvassed 13 DHBs to see whether they offer women considering abortion the chance to view ultrasound scans, which are taken to help determine the week of the pregnancy. Four did not.

Commissioner Ron Paterson has written to Waikato District Health board chief executive Craig Climo saying it was a woman’s choice whether or not to view the scan.

“She needs the information that she has the ability to view the scan to make this choice,” he wrote. Health Waikato said it supported the commissioner’s advice.Mr Paterson told The Dominion Post his comments “should not be misconstrued as being about abortion”.

“Most pregnant women undergoing an ultrasound scan would expect to be told that they can see the scan image if they wish to. There is nothing novel about confirming that the law entitles them to do so.”

He said in some cases it would be “distressing and inappropriate” to ask a woman if she wanted to see her scan.

Mr Orr now wants the abortion consent form changed so women confirm they were offered the chance to see the ultrasound.

Health Minister Tony Ryall said it was “a matter that should be addressed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee and I have directed Mr Orr to them”.

12-year-old steals day with pro-life speech

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009


12-year-old steals day with pro-life speech

Teachers threaten disqualification, but girl chooses to speak against abortion

Posted: February 16, 2009
8:36 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued for the rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit.

“What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?” the seventh-grader begins in a video recording of her speech on YouTube. “What if I told you that this choice wasn’t based on what you could or couldn’t do, what you’d done in the past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?”

The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only as “Lia,” continued:

“Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die.

“That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion.”

But what made the 12-year-old choose to speak about abortion?

“It was really a family thing,” her mother explained on the blog Moral Outcry. “I saw Lou [Engle] speak at a conference several years ago. I came back to my family with the Life Bands, and we all wore them, made our covenant, and prayed the prayer for abortion to end. … We were invited to participate in a ‘Life Tape Siege.’ Once my kids heard of this invitation, they all agreed: ‘We have to do that!’ Since then, Lia’s passion for seeing abortion end has continued.”

Despite Lia’s enthusiasm for her topic, her teacher “strongly encouraged” her to select a different one for her class presentation or she would be considered ineligible for an upcoming speech contest.

“[S]everal teachers discouraged her from picking the topic of abortion; she was told it was ‘too big,’ ‘too mature’ and ‘too controversial,'” her mother wrote. “She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition.”

Lia’s mother continued, “Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about.”

Lia’s teacher was so impressed by the speech that she allowed her student to advance as the winner. Lia presented her speech to judges in front of her entire school on Feb. 10.

The school principal and teachers called Lia’s presentation the “obvious winner” – but the judges suddenly disqualified her the following day “because of the topic and her position on abortion,” her mother said.

Lia’s father later revealed that the judges had a “big disagreement.” One was offended by the speech and voluntarily stepped down while the others reversed their earlier decision – declaring her the winner.

Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional speech competition, and more than 130,000 visitors have viewed her presentation online.

“Why do we think that just because a fetus can’t talk or do what we do, it isn’t a human being yet?” She asks in the video. “Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?

“We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they’re wanted?”

She continues, “No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit together in their mother’s womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name.”

Pro-life group at Canterbury University

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

“Back in September 2008, a group of interested young people  had a meeting about the possibility of setting up a pro-life group in the University of Canterbury. We decided at that meeting that this was definitely something we wanted to pursue. University campuses are one of the best places to spread the pro-life message as there are thousands of young people at each campus, and the majority of women who have abortions are at campuses. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity that is not being used: there are no known pro-life groups in any campus in New Zealand at the moment, however we are hoping that our new group will be the first in a network of campus groups all over New Zealand.

Here’s a description of our new group:
We want to be a hub at the University of Canterbury for students who are pro-life, that is, valuing the preciousness of a baby’s life before birth. Also, we wish to help pregnant mothers by pointing them towards useful, caring counseling services. As well as having regular club meetings during term-time, we plan to run public forums and seminars at which we would present our views and welcome input. We believe this is a very relevant issue in today’s society and would like to help co-students understand better what abortion is.

– Lillian Hoyt, pro-life UC President

We have a site booked for each of the clubs days, running from the 23-25th February, where we will (Lord willing) have a stall, hand out brochures, talk with people about pro-life issues, and give away little hands gingerbread biscuits. :) If you’d like to get involved with our group or become a member, we’d love to hear from you – contact us at: , or come along to the clubs days and have a chat to us there. If you’d like more information with what’s happening in New Zealand in regard to abortion, or you’d like to donate to the cause, look us up on where we have news updates, videos and links to other pro-life groups.  Please pray that there will be a lot of support for this group and its activities

See you there!

Lydie Moore”

Pro-life is cool

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008

Re: Pro Choice Propaganda

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008


Also see: Abortion – High Court decision

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”.

Latest NZ abortion statistics are a grave tragedy for NZ women and their unborn babies

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

A press release from Family Life International, New Zealand

Contact: Brendan Malone: (03) 351 3225 – Mobile: 021 054 0762

The latest New Zealand abortion statistics issued today by Statistics New Zealand show that in 2007 there were 450 more induced abortions than in 2006. This represents 450 more legally sanction acts which exposed NZ women to serious physical and psychological harm, and 450 more innocent Kiwi babies who lost their lives to abortion.

The latest figures show that the abortion rate increased from 17,930 abortions in 2006 to 18,380 abortions last year, an increase of 2.5 percent in a one year period.

If this current trend continues as it has for the last two years, then next year the number of induced abortions in New Zealand will be higher than it has ever been before in our history.

The public debate that has occurred during the last week regarding Justice Millar’s High Court ruling about NZ abortions has simply exposed how very little most New Zealanders know about the true harmful effects of abortion, or about how seriously unsound much of the arguments used to support it actually are.

It has also exposed that many of the pro-abortion supporters in this country are intolerant and hateful of individuals and opinions which dissent from their own. One pro-abortion editorial in the Dominion Post last week called pro-lifers the Teleban, and last week a hateful and obscene pro-abortion video posted on YouTube targeted a prominent NZ pro-life advocate with imagery which features a gun pointed at his head.

While New Zealand women and their unborn babies continue to pay an unnecessary and horrific price, those who endorse and carry out abortions continue to ignore the harm that their ideology is doing to Kiwi women and their unborn babies, and those who support abortion continue to do so blindly, without properly considering the philosophical and moral validity of their pro-abortion position.


Abortions Increase – Tragedy for Teens and Families

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008


17 JUNE 2008

The abortion figures for 2007 released by Statistics NZ today continue to paint a terrible picture for teenagers and families, and confirm the continued failure of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, as highlighted by the High Court case last week.

Almost 4,300 teenagers had an abortion in 2007. Each week, over 80 teenagers have an abortion, and represent almost a quarter of all abortions performed in NZ.

Since 1991, the number of 11-14 year olds having an abortion has increased by 141%. The number of abortions for 15-19 year olds has increased by 82%.

“This is a tragedy for the girls involved, some as young as 11,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director. “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 provides evidence that the myth of safe sex pushed by Family Planning, the AIDS Foundation and similar groups is miserably failing our vulnerable young people, who are being made even more vulnerable by then being encouraged to have an abortion,” says Bob McCoskrie. “This is why 83% of parents in a recent US Zogby poll believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence and ‘wait’ message.”

The overall abortion rate is at its highest ever, except for 2003. More than 350 abortions happen every week.

At the same time as over 18,000 abortions were being performed in NZ last year, adoptions totalled less than 90, according to the Adoption Option Trust.

“Of huge concern is the fact that 22% of abortions are being performed at 12 weeks or greater despite all the pictures, scans and scientific understanding of the fetal development of the unborn child,” says Mr McCoskrie. “These images are obviously being kept hidden from some of the women seeking an abortion.”

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.


For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42