Family Planning fail to justify use of RU 486
Family Planning fail to justify use of Murder Pill RU 486 for killing Unborn Children
The New Zealand Family Planning Association on 8 December issued a statement in defence of the use of the lethal drug, Mifegyne, RU 486 for the killing of unborn children in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. The Association, an ardent advocate for a culture of death sought to refute recent press releases of Right to Life and other pro-life organisations. Family Planning claims that medical abortions are safe. Mifegyne is a murder pill, it is highly effective and has a success rate of 98 per cent in starving to death unborn children. Medical abortions are unsafe for unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. Right to Life believes that Family Planning have a complete disregard for the human rights of unborn children and for the protection of their lives.
Family Planning claims that medical abortions are safe for women and that there have been worldwide, only 12 reported maternal deaths. This figure is questioned. There is believed to be substantial underreporting as doctors are very reluctant to indicate on a death certificate that the death of the mother was the result of having an abortion.
Why is Family Planning in complete denial of the physical and psychological damage inflicted on women as a result of having an abortion? A preliminary report by a working group of psychiatrists studying the psychological effects of abortion states that women who obtain abortions have significantly elevated rates of depression, suicidal thoughts, sexual disturbances, and other psychological disorders. They also die at higher rates than non-abortive women.
The report, which examines manifestations of
Post-Abortion Syndrome, was authored by Carmen Gomez-Lavin
of the University of Navarra in Spain. It states that 80
percent of women who had had abortions suffer from symptoms
of depression, and 40 percent have contemplated
In addition, 70% of such women exhibit irritability, 60% suffer behavioural disturbances, 40% experience sexual disturbances, and 30% have been involved in drug abuse.
The report also states that women who obtain abortions have a mortality rate 3.5 to 6 times higher, and a suicide rate between 6 and 7 times higher than that of women who give birth.
New research published this last month continues to add to the evidence documenting the physical risks of abortion on women.
First, a study
published in Finland found that women who underwent chemical
abortions were 4 times more likely to suffer physical
complications compared to women who underwent surgical
abortions. 20 percent of women suffered complications after
chemical abortions compared to 5.6 percent of women who had
surgical abortions. The most common complications were
hemorrhage (which occurred among 15.6 percent of women
having chemical abortions compared to 2.1 percent of women
having surgical abortions) and incomplete abortion (6.7
percent compared with 1.2 percent).
At least six U.S. women have died after taking RU-486 and hundreds of adverse reactions to the drugs have been reported to the FDA, many life threatening.
Why does Family Planning deny a link between abortion and breast cancer? A second new study of women in China found that those who had abortions had a 17 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer. The study follows on the heels of a review published by Turkish researchers that found a 66 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer among women with a history of abortion.
Family Planning states that in the year to December 2008, 17940 abortions were performed in New Zealand. During that time Family Planning made 4866 referrals throughout New Zealand. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, requires that the woman’s own doctor refer the woman to an abortion certifying consultant if the doctor considers that the woman has grounds under the Crimes Act 1961. If the woman does not have grounds, the doctor should decline to refer the woman. Right to Life challenges the Association firstly, to publicly state how many women seeking an abortion were refused a referral to a certifying consultant on the grounds that in the opinion of the Family Planning doctor the woman did not have grounds. Secondly how many women were referred by an association nurse or social worker to a certifying consultant? Such a referral is unlawful.
Family Planning claims to uphold the law on abortion. The Association has a policy “that the provision of abortion services is an important back-up measure in a comprehensive family planning programme.” The policy also “supports the principle that termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy should not be a legal offence.” The Association’s policy therefore supports the decriminalization of abortion and the removal of all legal protection for the human rights of unborn children. It would make the killing of unborn children a human right. Justice Miller in his judgment of 9 June 2008, in the High Court in Wellington on the Judicial Review of the performance of the Abortion Supervisory Committee stated, that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants...” Right to Life would therefore have serious concerns about the lawfulness of any abortions performed in Family Planning clinics. Right to Life in the interest of the unborn and their mothers is totally opposed to Family Planning being granted licences to kill unborn children.