If I told you that there was a politician who didn’t want to do anything about a law that allows child abuse or child mutilation, would that make you raise your eyebrows? Would you vote for them if they had that attitude? If you were the Prime Minister for a day and knew there was a law on the books of the land that resulted in people being murdered, would you immediately review it and try and overturn it? Most of us would. National leader Christopher Luxon believes that abortion is tantamount to murder – but he has pledged that he will not touch the law if he becomes Prime Minister. How can that be?
TRANSCRIPT:
The cognitive dissonance of Luxon’s abortion views
If I told you that there was a politician who didn’t want to do anything about a law that allows child abuse or child mutilation, would that make you raise your eyebrows? Would you vote for them if they had that attitude?
If you were the Prime Minister for a day and knew there was a law on the books of the land that resulted in people being murdered, would you immediately review it and try and overturn it
Most of us would.
National leader Christopher Luxon believes that abortion is tantamount to murder- but he has pledged that he will not touch the law if he becomes Prime Minister. How can that be?
When Christopher Luxon first became leader of the National party, he was quickly under attack by the pro abortion media for his views on abortion and the rights of the unborn child. They were rabid in their questioning – and Luxon was equally unequivocal in his response
But then Roe v Wade was overturned and once again the mainstream media manifested. And a pro-life national MP was told to take down a post celebrating the decision because even though it’s a conscience decision – which means there’s no specific party position on the issue, apparently it sends the wrong message from the National party now
And since then, Luxon has been desperate to guarantee NZers that he will not revisit the law. Never. Ever.
No other law has he made that guarantee as far as I’m aware. Three strikes. Retirement age.
According to the most recent Abortion “services’ Aotearoa NZ report , an average of 36 children per day are killed in the womb. A large classroom – every day!
The rate of abortions per pregnancy has decreased slightly after an increase last year. That’s a good thing. More pro-life pregnancies. More children being given the right to life. Women choosing life over death. Superb.
But it’s levelled out since the massive decreases over the past 2 decades
If you look at how many abortions women have had, the blue represents 1st time abortions. So as you can see, more than 40% of Maori abortions are their 2nd 3rd of even 5th. For other ethnic groups, its about a 1/3rd that are on to repeat abortions – so this is not the exception for abortion as we are led to believe.
If you look at how many live births – children – the women have previously had before the current abortion, sadly it shows that while blue means it’s the first pregnancy, the other colours – orange grey yellow light blue – means that the mum has had previous children. About 55 – 70% of pregnant mums have
When we look at ethnic breakdown, we see something sad. As you can see, in the blue, Maori have a disproportionately high level of abortions. 16.5% of the population but 24% of all abortions. So what is the response of the Ministry of Health to this trend.
But here’s an interesting observation. The higher the deprivation – in other words, the poorer the parents – the more likely for an abortion. Which is one of the sad realities of abortion. Often the decision is made based on economics. We can’t afford a child. THAT is not a solution.
Now there is one really positive thing in the report
Here’s a disturbing issue. Last year’s report revealed that there had been a 45% increase in late term abortions – after 20 weeks. Now remember we were told that the new law didn’t change anything about late terms abortion. That was a complete lie.
Previously the Crimes Act allowed for an abortion after 20 weeks gestation only in exceptional circumstances. Statistics NZ data shows that 800 late term abortions have been performed over the last 10 years where there was no danger to the physical health or life of the mother – that’s the reason they often say – but 91% of all late term abortions didn’t have this reason. The new law means that late term abortions will be available to women if the abortion provider “reasonably believes the abortion is clinically appropriate in all the circumstances,” having regard to the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. This is a very broad subjective test.
* the terms “physical health” “mental health” and “wellbeing” are not defined by the Bill. Given the policy intent to make abortion more accessible, it is difficult to see many instances in which an abortion would reasonably be refused. A baby could be aborted after 20-weeks as long as the abortionist who intends to perform the abortion considered that the abortion was ‘appropriate in the circumstances’ with a ‘nod’ from a colleague (another abortion provider!).
Just lastly, there’s 3 disturbing things in the commentary.
Firstly, they talk about pregnancies of later gestation i.e. late term abortions – but they say they were refused not because they were late term but potentially because the services just weren’t available! Remember, under the previous law, post 20 weeks – late term abortions were only in exceptional circumstances. They’re now legal – and the Ministry of Health are concerned that women can’t get late term abortions if they want them.
Another concern mentioned is that sex selection abortions were a reason for requesting an abortion. An amendment to place an explicit ban on sex selection abortions was voted against by a majority of MPs. Sex selective abortion is a well-known problem in China and India, where son-preference cultures have resulted in extremely skewed sex ratios. The practice of sex selection has been widely condemned. But not by our MPs.
Thirdly, there’s a big push for medical abortions with phone consultations and telemedicine – abortions done at home. DIY abortions. What could possibly go wrong? Well lots actually.
The stats shows that more than 161 women suffered complications including hemorraging, retained products, infections and even failed abortions – AND THIS RISK WAS GREATER WITH MEDICAL ABORTIONS. More than 30 medical abortions they couldn’t even find the patient to follow up. Is that safe high quality health outcome? No I don’t think so either.
Finally, and here’s the key point, we were told when this extreme abortion law was being pushed through that women were being denied abortions, that there wasn’t abortion on demand, and we needed to liberalise the law so that all women who wanted an abortion could have one.
But that was all a myth.
How do we know that? Because the number of abortions has barely changed. The same number of women want them. The same number of women are getting them. It always was abortion on demand – and it still is. It’s just more normalised and easier to get, plus late term abortions – even DIY abortions at home now.
As we said at the time of the debate, to remove legislation about abortion from the criminal code and insert it to the health code is to equate a procedure to remove an unborn baby with a procedure to remove an appendix, kidney stones, gall bladder or tonsils – simply ’tissue’ removed as part of a ‘health procedure’. This is the narrative they want.
Our abortion law denies the humanity of the baby and again, creates inconsistency with other legislation and public health messaging for pregnant women – not persons – women – because only women can get pregnant – messaging which clearly recognises the rights of the unborn child. Anybody who has viewed the ultrasound of an unborn child will know that this policy is a gross abuse of human rights. The humanity of a child is NOT based on whether it’s wanted or not wanted. It never should be based on that. It worked in the 70s but it’s flat earth science now. We’ve seen the ultrasounds. We’ve seen the foetal development. To support abortion, you have to park your conscience and science in a deep dark vault.
Abortion denies the humanity of the unborn child. When politicians and even the Ministry of Health can’t determine when a life begins or exists, why would you trust them with many other decisions they may make.
