LifeSiteNews 16 March 2017 Family First Comment: “The 20-week ban … challenges the current national abortion standard and properly moves the legal needle from viability to the baby’s ability to feel pain,” he said. Similar laws are now in place in 16 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.” Time for New Zealand to be added to the list!
The new state law was passed last year and signed by Ohio Gov. John Kasich in December. It restricts abortions at 20 weeks or greater or when the unborn child can feel pain.
Physicians could face fourth-degree felony charges and up to 18 months in prison for violating the law. Women and the fathers of unborn babies also could sue doctors for performing illegal abortions.
“The 20-week ban … challenges the current national abortion standard and properly moves the legal needle from viability to the baby’s ability to feel pain,” he said.
Stuff co.nz 17 March 2017 Family First Comment: A superb commentary to (finally) bring some balance to the media coverage. “…the fact that abortion remains in the Crimes Act serves a symbolic purpose. It’s a reminder that abortion involves extinguishing a life, no matter how hard the pro-choice lobby tries to disguise that fact.” www.chooselife.org.nz
OPINION: Is there any issue more polarising than abortion? It’s a sensitive subject because we know that tens of thousands of New Zealand women, in fact probably hundreds of thousands, have had abortions.
They will have had them for a variety of reasons – some compelling, others perhaps less so. We know from Abortion Supervisory Committee reports that some women have had multiple abortions. Of those who had abortions in 2015, 43 had had seven or more, 74 had had six and 193 had had five, which suggests they regarded the procedure as no big deal and presumably no cause for regret. But a much greater number of women will have agonised over the decision, and a significant number will have suffered psychological consequences. Decades of feminist insistence that abortion is simply a matter of women’s rights and women’s health won’t necessarily have made them feel any better about getting rid of the human life taking shape inside them.
…. This is an issue so polarising that even the labels applied to the opposing camps are contentious. Abortion rights lobbyists prefer to be called pro-choice rather than pro-abortion, which is understandable. “Pro-abortion” implies that they think sucking a foetus out of the womb and dumping it in a plastic-lined bin is a good thing, which surely can’t be the case. “Pro-choice” frames the issue much more inoffensively as an issue of women’s rights rather than babies’ deaths. Conversely, “anti-abortion” suggests a hard, unsympathetic line and may even conjure up images of the fanatics who firebomb abortion clinics. “Pro-life” puts a friendlier, more positive spin on the anti-abortion stance. We can expect to hear more from these groups after the Abortion Supervisory Committee, in its latest report, recommended a review of the 40-year-old legislation that sets out the circumstances in which abortions may legally be carried out. Like it or not, we’re back in the old minefield. Abortion rights activists took the report as the cue to mount a fresh campaign for liberalisation of the law, as the committee surely must have known they would. The activists were quick to pick up the committee’s statement that some of the language in the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (CSA) Act is sexist and outdated, as if that somehow renders the entire legislation invalid.
Outdated language can be easily fixed, but highlighting the issue is a clever propaganda tactic because it portrays the act as a quaint hangover from an era when men supposedly told women what to do. In truth, the renewed debate is about much more than semantics. Complaints about sexist language are a smokescreen, because merely making the act gender-neutral wouldn’t achieve the activists’ objective. When they talk about “reviewing” the legislation, what they really mean is rewriting it to make abortion available on request – their goal since the 1970s. The committee has obligingly opened the door a crack and the abortion rights lobby has jammed its foot into the gap, as the committee possibly intended. The abortion rights lobby wants abortion decriminalised – that is to say, no longer treated as an offence under the Crimes Act, which they regard as an anachronism. To all intents and purposes the provision relating to abortion in the Crimes Act is negated anyway by the CSA Act, which enables the Crimes Act to be legally sidestepped.
Media Release 15 March 2017
A poll has found that half of NZ’ers in the 18-40 age bracket believe that women risk harming their mental health as a result of having an abortion.
The independent poll commissioned by Family First NZ and carried out by Curia Market Research asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: “Women who have abortions risk harming their mental health as a result of the abortion.” Overall, almost half (46%) agreed with the statement, 22% were unsure or didn’t say, and only 33% disagreed. There was little difference between male and female respondents. Significantly, strongest agreement with the statement came from the younger 18-40 age bracket (50%).
“This is the unheard discussion around abortion. From personal experience, and from the hundreds of women who have contacted me through the Buttons Project, I know that there is a mental health component to having an abortion – but no-one wants to talk about it. Yet this poll reveals that many people are aware, especially the younger generations. That is a positive,” says Marina Young, spokesperson for Family First NZ and founder of the Buttons Project.
“Abortion can harm a women, but pro-abortion groups refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women involved. 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 Mrs Young.
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.
And a research paper entitled “Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence” by Professor David Fergusson, John Horwood, and Joseph Boden which was published in the 2013 edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the evidence shows that abortion was not associated with a reduction in rates of mental health problems, but was associated with increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol and drug misuse, and suicidal behavior. They state: “There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of some mental health problems.”
A meta-analysis of 22 studies and over 877,000 participants over a 14-year period, published in 2011 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, revealed that 81% 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 also revealed that as many as 10% of all mental health problems are directly attributable to abortion. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK have 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.
In a poll of NZ’ers in 2011, the majority of New Zealanders (64%) said that women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives.
“Family First NZ believes that any attempts to liberalise the laws around abortion in New Zealand would cause more harm than good to women. It is time that the research on the post-abortion mental health outcomes was given equal weight against the pro-abortion claims of ‘benefits’,” says Mrs Young. READ FULL RESULTS ENDS
Labour Wants To Remove Abortion Safeguards Media Release 13 March 2017
Family First NZ is concerned that the Labour party wants to remove safeguards in the current abortion law which are there to protect women and children and introduce extreme abortion laws which has been shown overseas to place women at risk.
“Contrary to misrepresentation by pro-abortion groups and politicians, any New Zealand woman who has an abortion under the current legislative guidelines and protections is not committing an illegal act, and is therefore not considered a criminal. To claim otherwise is simply false scaremongering aimed at deceiving people into supporting the introduction of an extreme abortion law in New Zealand. The existing safeguards are there to protect women and children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Abortion is also a health issue – it’s a surgical procedure that has risk factors associated with it. A sound law needs to reflect that reality, and not leave women exposed to harms, such as those recently witnessed in the criminal trial of Kermit Gosnell who was able to operate a dangerous legal abortion facility which resulted in female client death and other atrocities thanks to extreme abortion laws. Is that what the Labour party wants?”
“What is really required are laws which protect women from the Gosnells of this world, that promote informed consent and complete information about abortion and abortion-related risks, and that provide women with independent pregnancy counselling so that women can make truly informed decisions from a place of certainty and knowledge,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“The good news is that there has been a significant drop in abortions to the lowest number since 1994, and the rate will continue to drop as knowledge of the prenatal development of the unborn child increases, and as an increasingly pro-life younger generation become parents themselves. The ‘bunch of cells’ argument which has driven the right-to-abortion argument is now just ‘flat-earth science’.”
“Abortions can harm women – a fact supported by half of New Zealanders – yet pro-abortion groups refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Contrary to erroneous claims by pro-aborts, the Abortion Supervisory Committee has simply recommended that some of the wording in the Act which is ‘outdated and clumsy’ should be updated, should reflect ‘technological advancements’, and ironically should reinforce ‘safety, and robust consultation processes’. The report does not call for a change to the legal status of the law.” ENDS
Forty-year abortion law, described as ‘offensive’, in fact still good, says Government Stuff co.nz 17 March 2017 Family First Comment: It’s not ‘good” because human life is being killed, but it’s way way better than what Labour and Greens are proposing! The current law also has safeguards which protect women! Justice Minister Amy Adams said “The Government has a busy legislative programme focused on issues that affect large numbers of New Zealanders, such as family and sexual violence, money laundering and vulnerable children to name just a few. We are not currently looking at reforming or re-drafting the abortion law on the basis that it is working broadly as intended.” http://www.chooselife.org.nz
A 40-year abortion law that still refers to people with impaired mental capacity as “subnormal”, does not need changing, says the Government.
Justice Minister Amy Adams said the law might be outdated, but it was workable and the Government had higher priorities.
“The Government has a busy legislative programme focused on issues that affect large numbers of New Zealanders, such as family and sexual violence, money laundering and vulnerable children to name just a few.
“We are not currently looking at reforming or re-drafting the abortion law on the basis that it is working broadly as intended,” she said.
Adams comments came after the chair of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Dame Linda Holloway, requested MPs on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee redraft aspects of the law.
ComputerWorld 15 March 2017 Family First Comment: Disturbing results…. “Just 16 percent of high-school students and 37 percent of primary school students reported a limit on the amount of screen time they had at home. “More than half of high school students said they were never supervised. “However the Family First lobby group has been issuing warnings about children’s excessive screen time for several years, the latest in February when Family First national director, Bob McCoskrie accused the Ministry of Education of “turning a blind eye to growing concern from health and development experts about the disproportionate use in many families’ lives, particularly the young in New Zealand.”
A survey of almost 6000 New Zealand children in primary and high schools has found most have minimal supervision of their screen time at home and few time limits imposed.
The survey was undertaken by CensusAtSchool TataurangaKiTeKura, a national, biennial project run by the University of Auckland’s Department of Statistics with support from Statistics NZ and the Ministry of Education. It is designed to show children the relevance of statistics to everyday life.
To undertake the survey year 5 to Year 13 students (aged 9 to 18) used digital devices to answer 35 online questions in English or te reo Māori CensusAtSchool says the survey, undertaken by 57000 students so far, provides a unique snapshot of Kiwi childhoods. .
Students were asked if, on a school day, there was a limit on the amount of screen time they had at home. Just 16 percent of high-school students and 37 percent of primary school students reported a limit. For those with limits, primary schoolers were allowed a median of an hour and secondary students two hours.
Students were also asked how often their screen time was supervised, meaning a parent or caregiver was watching or was in the same room as the child. Four in 10 primary schoolers said “a little,” and two in 10 “usually.” More than half of high school students said they were never supervised, with a further three in 10 saying they were supervised “a little.”
CensusAtSchool co-director Rachel Cunliffe expressed surprise at the results. “I imagined that in this completely wired world, the majority of kids would have limits – parents often discuss ways to find a balance between screen time and outdoor play time,” she said. She cited Ministry of Health advice that outside of school, five to 18-year-olds spend less than two hours a day in front of the television, computers, and game consoles.
Screen time warnings from Family First
However the Family First lobby group has been issuing warnings about children’s excessive screen time for several years, the latest in February when Family First national director, Bob McCoskrie accused the Ministry of Education of “turning a blind eye to growing concern from health and development experts about the disproportionate use in many families’ lives, particularly the young in New Zealand.”
He continued: “Parents, children and teachers remain unaware of the medical and developmental risks and the position of medical bodies on discretionary screen time. And the majority of children and adolescents in New Zealand, including toddlers, continue to significantly exceed medical guidelines.”
In February 2015 Family First released a commissioned report: We Need To Talk – Screen time in NZ, Media Use: An Emerging factor in child and adolescent health by biologist / psychologist Dr Aric Sigman. It issued a second statement in October 2016 warning of the dangers of excessive screen time for children and again citing its 2015 report.
Gender differences
According to the CensusAtSchool survey seven in 10 students said they spent time on their phone. Of that group, the most avid users were high school girls with 89 percent on their phones once school was out, and for a median of three hours – though a quarter spent five hours 30 minutes or more.
Four in ten students said they spent time gaming after school, with the keenest gamers high school boys. They spent a median of two hours in front of their Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo and the like – but a quarter spent four hours or more gaming.
CensusAtSchool also asked students what they did most often with their cellphones. Primary school boys reported playing games (27 percent) and primary school girls sending texts or instant messages (32 percent). At high school, it was all about social media for both girls (49 percent) and boys (31 percent). http://www.computerworld.co.nz/article/615961/nz-children-screen-time-unsupervised-unlimited/
