By Ken Orr, Spokesperson, Right to Life New Zealand
Right to Life New Zealand is concerned that the New Zealand Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, at the instigation of the Prime Minister, is an increasing threat to the human rights of New Zealanders.
The Government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is one of the most controlling in New Zealand’s history. This is a socialist regime of an elite few that seeks to impose its will on the nation that it seeks to control against the will of the people. It will ultimately fail as the human spirit refuses to be controlled.
One example of this control is the implementation by Jacinda Ardern of her plans to remove all protection for our unborn children. The Abortion Legislation bill threatens the human rights of unborn New Zealanders by firstly denying that the unborn are human beings. Secondly by denying that the unborn are bearers of human rights the foundation right being a right to life.
The proposed Abortion bill violates the human rights of women who have a right to have the protection of the State from the violence of abortion that would be inflicted on them and their child.
The current abortion law stipulates that “abortions may be authorised only after full regard of the human rights of the unborn child.” The Minister has deliberately excluded this requirement in Jacinda’s abortion bill. There is therefore no requirement for the mother or the doctor to consider the rights of the child, which is now the property of the mother. This is slavery; nobody has the right to own another human being.
The Abortion Bill requires that doctors who are not prepared to kill the unborn child refer the mother to a doctor who will. This is a violation of the human rights of the doctor to follow their conscience in defending life. The ultimate result will be to drive doctors who refuse to cooperate in killing the unborn, out of the profession.
Under section 20 of her Abortion Bill, an employer providing “contraception, sterilisation and abortion services” must accommodate the conscientious objection of an applicant or employee unless it would cause unreasonable disruption to activities.
However, if an employer considers that accommodating the applicant’s or employee’s objection would unreasonably disrupt the employer’s activities, the employer may take any of the punitive actions described in subsection  that includes dismissal. This is just weasel speech for denying an employee their human rights, including their right to freedom of conscience. This is the action of a culture of death that permits no compromise and demands complete subservience.