Decriminalisation of what?


Decriminalising’ abortion is in the media again.  It’s not the first time it’s been in the news and it certainly will not be the last time.  This time it looks like it’s going to be an election issue, or at least there is an effort to make it an election issue.  What is being proposed this time is very familiar, and could have come from the wish list of any New Zealand pro-abortion lobby group.

The main proposal is to remove abortion from the Crimes Act.  There is also a desire to reduce the time and complication required before a woman has an abortion.  And there is a desire to keep the status quo for abortions after 20 weeks, (although pre-born children with fetal abnormalities post 20 weeks are targeted).  None of this will happen if abortion is removed from the Crimes Act, unless other legislation is changed too.  Most of the regulations for the two Certifying Consultants are not in the Crimes Act, they are in the Contraception Sterilisation, and Abortion (CSA) act 1977.  So removing abortion from Crimes Act would not streamline the consulting process. And no one has mentioned changing CSA.  Furthermore, the distinction between abortions before 20 weeks and after 20 weeks is in the Crimes Act.  So if abortion was simply removed from the Crimes Act, the likely result would be virtually abortion on demand for the full 40 weeks of pregnancy.

All of this is supposedly to benefit women having abortions and to protect them from the law.  But the Crimes Act specifically protects women from prosecution. It only has legal sanctions against doctors and others involved in preforming abortions.

So this raises the question, is removing abortion from the Crimes Act an attempt to benefit women or is it really a way to move abortion out of the public health system, and create a US style abortion industry with legal protection for doctors to exploit vulnerable women? There are some hints in the usual rhetoric of the recent policy announcement. The issue of consistency of access to abortion across New Zealand and especially in provincial areas is constantly brought up by the pro-abortion movement. People who live far away from major hospitals have a lot of issues accessing timely healthcare and paying for accommodation and travel. It’s big issue in maternity care but somehow abortion promoters forget to talk about that ‘women’s health’ issue.

Removing the oversight of the abortion referral process, and allowing more abortions to take place outside of a hospital setting is going to allow a US or Australian style for profit abortion industry to thrive in New Zealand. I don’t know if our politicians are aware of this, but I know the abortion promoters are. After all, Family Planning did bring in the US$523 616 paid CEO of the United States largest abortion provider to teach them how to bring a ‘reproductive rights’ movement into New Zealand.

And speaking of Cecile Richards, the line about ‘trusting women’ comes straight from her.  Richards’ ‘trust’ of vulnerable women has seen her organisation increase the numbers of abortions it performs during her leadership, as the total number of abortions in the US is declining.

I’ve never met a women at this Centre that I won’t trust. Abortion isn’t, and never has been about trust. Most of these women feel that they don’t have a choice. To say that they ‘trust’ women in crisis circumstances, but then to only offer abortion as a way out, is exploiting women.

It is pleasing to see there is talk of offering more assistance to pregnant women. But government agencies don’t have a great record of catering to the needs of people in crisis. From my own experience they are better at causing stress than they are in relieving it. I’m pleased to work for an organisation that provides practical help for people without them having to have a degree in paperwork. But helping isn’t always wanted by our politicians if they have political issues with us.

So removing abortion from the Crimes Act would seem to benefit doctors and business plans more than women. And removing certifying requirements would allow some of the worst excesses of the Australian and US abortion industry to happen here.

If we are going to change our laws on abortion, shouldn’t we change them to protect women and children, rather than to allow them to be exploited and killed?


New Zealand Family Planning Association now in the business of providing abortions

6 weeks in uteroThe NZ Family Planning Association has applied for and received a license from the Abortion Supervisory Committee to provide early medical abortions at its Tauranga clinic.

The only information was a short reference to the application and granting of the license in the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s Meeting Minutes from January of this year.  However, a phone call to the Tauranga Family Planning Association revealed that a medical abortion could be obtained at that clinic by making an appointment or by getting a referral from a GP.  The abortion could only take place up until 9 weeks, and it was stressed that criteria had to be met and the client would need to see two doctors.  Later abortions are done at Thames Hospital.

All of this has been done in secrecy.

One can deduce that they did not want pro-lifer’s to hinder their application in any way, as it was when they applied for a license in 2009.  At that time all the New Zealand pro-life groups banded together to stop the Family Planning Association from obtaining a license to be an abortion provider.  People protested in Hamilton (where FPA were trying to get a license), in Wellington and they marched in the streets of Christchurch at that time in support of life.  It was reported that the Family Planning Association withdraw their application after many months.

The FPA probably did not want the contraversy which surrounded the license of Southland Hospital to perform abortions either.

But for the Abortion Supervisory Committee to grant a license without any diaglogue with the public is just wrong.  Where is the transperancy? What is the terms of the license?  Are we going to see all of the FPA’s 30 clinics begin to offer medical abortions?

There is clearly a conflict of interests in this application.  The Family Planning Association have been champions of the pro-abortion cause since its inception.  They firmly believe in “choice”.  It is not possible for the FPA to give unbiased counselling to a girl (most of their clients are under the age of 22 after all) who presents with an early pregnancy.  Certainly, they are not going to explain that the child within her womb has a beating heart which will be snuffed out when she swallows the pill mifepristone, (otherwise known as RU-486).

The NZ Family Planning Association is an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.  They will be holding a conference later this year with Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  Planned Parenthood of America has had some bad press lately, and even if they are receiving support from President Obama for their “great services”; their lies, deception and cover-ups are all being revealed.  In time, this American empire will fall.  So too will the NZ Family Planning Association and all those who in the name of “choice” devalue the dignity of women and their unborn children.

Group seeking support for legal recognition of polyamorous ‘marriage’ in New Zealand

AUCKLAND, New Zealand ( – Just one week after the passage of gay ‘marriage’ legislation in New Zealand, it has been revealed that a group has been formed whose goal is to have group marriages recognised in law.

The group, which has a Facebook page entitled “Support legalised Polyamory in NZ”, says “We are supporters of the legal recognition of Polyamorous marriage in NZ. By ‘Polyamorous marriage’ we mean – responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy (Plural marriage of any gender) marriage or union.”

“We believe that ALL committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement” they go on to say.

The group was highlighted recently in the popular New Zealand news site Stuff.

Pro-family advocates have often argued that legalizaing gay ‘marriage’ will lead inevitably to the acceptance and recognition in law of polygamous, polyamorous and even incestuous relationships. Such arguments are often dismissed by gay activists. However, an increasingly visible movement has been forming to push for the legalization of polygamy.

Acknowledging that “this will be a long term project” the New Zealand group believe that “legal multiple partner marriages/unions may one day be accepted.”

For now the group remains small, with only 52 fans on their page.

Meanwhile, traditional marriage advocates in the New Zealand community are taking stock of the new marriage laws, and making decisions as to how best to uphold the value of marriage between one man and one woman when the law recognises marriage as something else.

Reposted from

The debate that wasn’t: New Zealand’s rushed marriage revolution

The following blog post by Carolyn Moynihan raised concerns over the lack of debate held over the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and its subsequent passing into law last Wednesday 17th April.  Thank you Carolyn for writing so eloquently the thoughts of many who have had concerns over the lack of debate and the sheer determination to stamp over anyone who believes that marriage should only be for one man and one woman.   This article was published in  Conjuguality.

The debate that wasn’t: New Zealand’s rushed marriage revolution
Last night (April 17) 77 people changed the institution of marriage in New Zealand from a conjugal union with the potential for generating children and providing them with the nurture of their own mother and father into “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” with the potential for systematically depriving children of their mother or father, or both. All in the name of “love”. Starting in August.

Actually, just 17 people managed to do that, because the New Zealand Parliament currently has 121 members and if 17 of the 77 who finally voted for the “definition of marriage” bill had voted against it and with the 44 who opposed the move, this South Sea revolution could have been put down and time taken to properly discuss the whole idea. The notion put about by MPs and journalists that there has been a “fierce debate” on same-sex marriage over the past seven or eight months is sheer fantasy.

The truth is that those in favour of law change didn’t want a public debate. They didn’t broach the subject in the last election campaign (nor the one before) but sprang it on us through a private member’s bill — fortuitously drawn from the ballot soon after it was introduced by lesbian MP Louisa Wall. Calls for a referendum — taken up by New Zealand First, a minor party in the government, and by a few other MPs — were rejected by the majority in the House on grounds that include: it would be difficult for people to exercise an informed vote (of course, if you won’t give them time to be informed) and “minority rights issues” should not be the subject of a referendum (even though no-one has shown us how people incapable of marriage can have a right to it).

What many politicians appear to want most of all is to show that “we are modern/tolerant/compassionate too”. This applies to the several MPs whose first — and last — word on the subject was “It won’t affect my marriage” or some similar statement. Prime Minister John Key led the way here and other National (“conservative”) members followed suit. Key himself took his cue from Barack Obama, declaring his support for gay marriage the day after Obama announced his, and also from British Prime Minister David Cameron who nailed his rainbow colours to the mast some time ago, causing a mutiny in his Conservative Party’s ranks.

Read more at Conjuguality

Catholic Bishops consider passing of Same Sex Marriage Bill bizarre

New Zealand Catholic Bishops who consistently opposed the Marriage Definition Bill throughout the Parliamentary process have expressed their deep sadness that, despite the fact that such a large percentage of the public are opposed to this, it has become law.

“We find it bizarre that what has been discarded is an understanding of marriage that has its origin in human nature and common to every culture, and that almost all references to husband and wife will be removed from legislation referencing marriage. We know many New Zealanders stand with us in this,” said Archbishop John Dew, President of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference.

“Marriage is the essential human institution that predates religion and state. It is a committed union between a man and a woman which has a natural orientation towards the procreation of new human life,” Archbishop Dew said.

“Marriage is founded on sexual difference and the traditional definition of marriage reflects this unique reality,”

“This uniqueness requires a name and definition which distinguishes marriage from any other form of relationship,” he said.

“We’ve been assured that our religious freedom to teach and practice marriage according to our religious beliefs is protected and we will continue to ensure that this freedom is upheld.” Archbishop John Dew said.

Reposted from The Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand

Disappointment at passing of same-sex marriage bill

Family Life International NZ is disappointed that most politicians chose to vote for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill last night, despite there being a reasonable amount of opposition to it.

True marriage, we believe, can only be between one man and one woman. Marriage offers stability to society and provides for the future prosperity of our nation. Many New Zealander’s believe this to be true and their concerns have been largely ignored by the majority of Ministers.

Supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ tell those of us who oppose the legislation that it will not affect us, that it is about love, equality and human rights. But this legislation does affect those who are not in support of same-sex marriage. We are not allowed to speak our minds. We are called ‘haters’, ‘bigots’. What will come next?

Family Life International NZ is concerned that even with the limited clause which intends to protect religious organisations who, by faith must refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, it does not go far enough. The clause does not protect independent celebrants or those who are at odds with their own Church’s position on same-sex marriage, and it does not protect ordinary service providers. Will we see situations arise such as in Canada where business owners are persecuted because of their refusal to offer services to same-sex couples?

Finally and most importantly, the welfare of children is at the forefront of our minds. Railroading the Marriage Amendment Bill through parliament has meant that discussion around the rights of the child have not been discussed properly. Evidence is clear that children thrive best when they are brought up in a home with a loving mother and father who are committed in a marriage relationship. Why would we legislate for anything less for our children?

The nature of civil marriage has now changed in New Zealand. Introducing same-sex marriage does change the meaning of marriage. It changes people’s perception of what marriage is. In the end, parliament’s decision will lead us to the absolute destruction of marriage and family.

New Zealand becomes 13th country to legalize gay ‘marriage’

New Zealand has become the 13th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was passed in Parliament Wednesday night 77 votes to 44.

Reaction from the supporters of the legislation has been jubilant. Louisa Wall, who submitted the Private Member’s Bill, said, “This third reading is our road towards healing and including all citizens in our state institution of marriage regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

However, while supporters of the legislation are celebrating, many New Zealanders are concerned at how fast it has moved through the parliamentary process, and the effects it will have on the country.

“In passing the ‘shot-gun’ same-sex marriage bill, Parliament has chosen to reject the obvious cultural and natural character of marriage and the subsequent creation and care of children, and made marriage just about partnership,” said Bob McCroskie, National Director of Family First.

“In ramming through this bill in a shameful way without due consideration, and with no clear public mandate, politicians have committed an arrogant act of cultural vandalism.”

The bill, which had its first reading in August 2012, only a month after it was introduced, redefines marriage to include same-sex and transgender couples. The law also allows same-sex couples to adopt children, a consequence of the legislation that has not been widely understood within New Zealand.

There are concerns that the rights of children have been overlooked. “With the accompanying consequence of changes to adoption laws, politicians have also weakened the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults,” said McCroskie. “A child has a right to a mum and a dad. We should not set out in public policy to deny a child that basic right. This is not a sexuality issue. This is a gender issue. The gender of the parents does matter to a child.”

It has been stated throughout the debate that legalizing same-sex marriage will not affect others, however Dame Colleen Bayer, National Director of Family Life International NZ, argued that same-sex marriage does affect those who oppose it. “Supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ tell those of us who oppose the legislation that it will not affect us, that it is about love, equality and human rights. But this legislation does affect those who are not in support of same-sex marriage. We are not allowed to speak our minds. We are called ‘haters’, ‘bigots’. What will come next?”

Archbishop John Dew, President of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference, reportedly reacted to the passage of the legislation, saying: “We find it bizarre that what has been discarded is an understanding of marriage that has its origin in human nature and common to every culture, and that almost all references to husband and wife will be removed from legislation referencing marriage. We know many New Zealanders stand with us in this.”

Civil Unions have been legal in New Zealand since April 2005.

The changes to the Marriage Act will take effect in August 2013.

Reposted from