Abortion

"The abortion law certainly asserts a state interest in protecting the unborn child, and not merely an interest in ensuring that women may have safe and legal abortions."

Justice Miller, June 2008

Justice Miller, the Judge who heard the case in which Right to Life, a pro-life charity, had taken the ASC to Court alleging they have been failing to fulfil their duties and to ensure the law is being interpreted as intended. Justice Miller agreed that at the moment in New Zealand we seem to effectively have abortion on demand, with figures showing that some certifying consultants decline very few or no abortions whatsoever. Justice Miller found that the ASC were wrong in their interpretation of the law that they had no power to "review or scrutinise" decisions made by consultants, and that this is in fact one of their functions. While Right to Life's argument that an unborn child should have a legal right to life was not upheld, Justice Miller held that our abortion laws show that "the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community."

Justice Miller's judgement is here.

NZ Herald apparently can't make up its mind about NZ's 'anti-smacking' law

Bob McCroskie of Family First sent a letter to the NZ Herald after the latter's recent mocking of the poll Family First initiated relating to the anti-smacking law. It wasn't printed, so here's what was said:

Your editorial “Spare us a smacking referendum” is fascinating in the light of previous editorials by the NZ Herald. In 2001 the NZ Herald Editorial said “ Excessive force is already illegal.. Repealing section 59 would, in fact, promote only confusion ...” In 2003 “(section 59) has led to calls for a change that would amount to a smacking ban. Is it necessary to go that far? Probably not .” And in 2005 “ Section 59 is not the reason that children have been mistreated .”
Now you accuse Family First of ‘alarmism’ simply because we are promoting a change to the anti-smacking law consistent with your own argument – a change which according to the latest poll is supported by a whopping 85% of NZ’ers. They understand that a light smack by a loving parent is not violence or child abuse. Good parents should not be criminalised. Persecution can still happen without prosecution.
Perhaps the next time the Herald prints the ‘alarmist’ photo gallery of MP’s who voted for the Electoral Finance Law, it could also include the photos of the MP’s who voted for the anti-smacking law against the will of the overwhelming majority of NZ’ers.