Abortion has never been a health matter: Trigger WARNING

Unborn baby 10-12 weeks

People who support the death penalty support it because they do not want certain criminals to be able to re-offend and because they want them punished permanently. Perhaps also because they see it as a deterrent?factor to prevent serious crime. What they don’t do is call it a health matter.

Yes, it is true that we can now use medical drugs to execute criminals in a much more clean, efficient and painless way instead of the more brutal and messy, hanging, firing squad or electric chair; but using medical drugs to execute does not make the act a health matter. It is a medical procedure with the sole purpose of terminating a human life no matter how cleanly or painlessly it is administered.

Abortion is not a health matter for the same reasons yet our government wants to re-label it as such and remove its status as a criminal act. An unborn baby is not a disease and is 99.9% of the time not a threat to the life of the mother. Some may joke that it is a sexually transmitted disease but a baby is not a tumour or a virus and is clearly an individual and unique human that is not actually part of the mother’s body. The only difference?between a baby conceived on purpose and one conceived accidentally is that one is loved and wanted and the other is not. No one ever loves a tumour or syphilis.

Abortion is unique in that, if a person performs one outside of an abortion clinic, it is considered a crime but the exact same act inside an abortion clinic magically becomes legal if the correct paperwork is filled out.

It is not dissimilar to capital punishment. If I administer a lethal drug to a man while he is sleeping and terminate him I am committing a crime no matter how bad he is but if I do the exact same thing as part of a legally sanctioned execution I will not only be allowed to do it, I will be paid for my services as his executioner.

However, in the case of the execution of an unborn child, the child is 100% innocent of any crime in both scenarios and abortion law as it currently stands does not even ensure that the termination of the innocent child’s life is quick and painless. We treat animals that we put down in Vet clinics with more humanity than we ‘put down’ unborn children in the womb who are killed in?various gruesome and painful ways.

Did you know that in America killing a preborn turtle is illegal under federal law and comes with a $100,000 fine and one year in prison but killing a preborn human is legal under federal law and is funded by the government whilst being spun and applauded as being ?empowering??

In New Zealand, a newspaper has reported on proposed reforms to abortion law.quote.

?The Law Commission?[…] proposes three alternative legal models for lawful abortion, all of which would require abortion to be taken out of the Crimes Act and to repeal the requirement for two doctors to authorise the procedure.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said […] “Our abortion law is over 40 years old, starts with the proposition that abortion is a crime.

Of course, it is morally a crime. It is murder. We simply have decided as a society that it is okay to kill unwanted children – let’s be totally honest about it. Proponents of legal abortion have gone from saying in the 70’s that “abortion is a necessary evil” to now claiming that “abortion is empowering to women.”?It is actually a violent and horrific practice that society started tolerating because backstreet abortions often killed two people instead of just one.

It was supposed to be just for victims of rape but now it is practically abortion on demand and the government wants to make it even easier to get one by re-labelling it as a ‘health matter’ Clearly they don’t give a flying fig about the health of the innocent unborn child.

In February I asked the Law Commission for advice on what treating abortion as a health matter could look like,” Little said.

In its briefing, the commission outlined changes to:

? Criminal aspects of abortion law

? Access to abortion services, where they are performed and by who

? The oversight of abortion services

? Related issues such as women’s informed consent, counselling services and conscientious objection by health practitioners. end quote.

Hmmm if it is truly just a health matter why on earth would they have to create a policy to deal with conscientious objectors? I have never heard of a doctor refusing to remove someones gangrenous toe because it broke their moral code to do no harm. If it is a moral issue that many doctors would morally object to, then it clearly is not, and can never be, a ‘health matter.’ No doctor will refuse to treat a tumour or syphilis because those two things are actual health matters and no morality is required as no human being is being harmed. Quote.

Under Model A proposed by the Law Commission, there would be no statutory test to be satisfied before an abortion could be performed and the decision would lie with the woman in consultation with her health practitioner.

Under Model B, there would be a statutory test but it would be in health legislation rather than the Crimes Act. Under the test the health practitioner would need to reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Model C would combine aspects of A for pregnancies under 22 weeks and Model B for those over 22 weeks.

The commission proposed either repealing the criminal offence for abortion or limiting them only to unqualified practitioners.

It also said that aspects of the current law could cause delay and other barriers for women seeking abortions. It said allowing women to self-refer rather than requiring a doctor’s referral would improve access.

Repealing legal restrictions on who performs abortions and where would allow them to be performed ( including administering abortion drugs) by a wider group of practitioners and at other health facilities such as medical centres and family planning centres.

It suggested consideration be given to “safe access zone” around abortion clinics to protect women from being intimidated or harassed by protesters.

“The commission found insufficient evidence to conclude that reform is necessary to protect against such behaviour. This issue, could, however, be considered further if problems were to arise,” It said.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee could be abolished and its oversight functions shifted to the Ministry of Health, which could also take over issuing best practice guidelines to practitioners.

The commission said many submitters raised concerns around informed consent and whether women were adequately supported to make informed decisions, but it suggested counselling should be available but not mandatory.

Abortion Law Reform Association MNZ (Alranz) welcomed the briefing but said Model B, which put the decision in the hands of a health practitioner, did not fulfil the promise made by Jacinda Ardern during last year’s election campaign.

“Model A is clearly superior because it treats abortion as a health issue like any other, and does not place unnecessary barriers between pregnant people and abortion care,” said Terry Bellamak, Alranz national president. End quote.

“Pregnant people” – Lord, give me strength! Quote.

Family First NZ said the Law Commission had ignored the weight of submissions which supported retaining abortion in the Crimes Act.

National director Bob McCoskrie said just 18 per cent of submissions had supported removing abortion from the Crimes Act.

“Despite that strong voice, the Law Commission is treading on dangerous ground for the unborn child by recommending the repeal of abortion from the Crimes Act, and thereby also removing the time limits,” he said in a statement.

McCoskrie said it was disturbing that the briefing also recommended weakening of many of the safeguards around abortion.

Abortion is a polarising issue and before the election, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said it should not be a crime and she would change the law. […] end quote.

UPDATE: After writing this article I came across this post on Facebook from Voice for Life. It turns out that the article in a newspaper missed out some very concerning facts about the proposed Abortion reform bill. Quote.

At the request of the current Labour government, the NZ Law Commission has today published its report, and it proposes that abortion up to birth could be legalised here in New Zealand.

It also proposes that NZ doctors could be stripped of their right to freedom of conscience when it comes to referring for abortion.

This outcome is now a very real possibility in our country because of an ideology which wants to pretend that aborting an unborn human being is no different to life-saving or therapeutic medical practices. end quote.