THANK YOU KEN ORR & RIGHT TO LIFE ( and Andy)
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”.