News
Featured Image
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in a 2019 press conference.Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

(Live Action) – A lawsuit brought by the New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance (NZHPA) alleging that recent changes to the country’s abortion law violated their rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, and association, as well as their right to be free from discrimination, was decided last week.

The March 2021 lawsuit specifically challenged sections 14 and 15 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 (CSA Act), which was amended in 2020 to make it the most permissive abortion legislation in the world. NZHPA members argued that the 2020 changes made them complicit in abortion, and breached their right to conscientious objection as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

Section 14 requires that “[i]f A has a conscientious objection to providing, or to assisting with providing, to B the service requested, A must tell B at the earliest opportunity — (a) of their conscientious objection; and (b) how to access the contact details of another person who is the closest provider of the service requested.”

Section 15, however, specifies that an employer must not discriminate against individuals who conscientiously object to assisting with or referring for abortions, whether in the hiring process, or by firing an already employed individual… except in cases where “accommodating an applicant’s or employee’s conscientious objection would unreasonably disrupt the employer’s provision of health services.” According to one legal analysis of the ruling, Section 15 means that businesses that commit abortions “would be permitted to recruit specifically for roles that require the provision of abortion services” and that such businesses would be free to discriminate against pro-life candidates or current employees.

The ruling judge seemed to place the “right” to abortion as a higher priority than the rights of health care professionals who conscientiously object to it, concluding, “it cannot be disputed that the ability of women to access legal and safe abortions is a matter of fundamental rights,” adding, “[T]he reality is the obligations imposed by s14 [to give information] are minimal and – at best – only remotely connected with any abortion that may or may not follow.”

She additionally opined, “It is far from clear to me why — particularly in the case of the minimal and remote act required by s 14 — a proper interpretation of s 15 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act would permit the conscience of one individual either to restrict the exercise of conscience by another, or to limit access by women to a process that is not only lawful, but is grounded in their fundamental rights.”

A similar case brought by the NZHPA in 2010 was decided in favor of conscientiously objecting health care professionals. A pro-abortion article on the subject, written by ALRANZ President Terry Bellamak, noted that the differences between the 2010 and 2021 court cases come down to the current legal stance that abortion is health care. “In 2010 abortion was a criminal justice matter,” Bellamak wrote.

“Today, abortion is a health matter. Back then abortion was literally against the law, with two certifying consultants having to approve the abortion to make an exception. Now we have a right to safe, legal abortions up to the twentieth week of gestation. Abortion had public support in 2010. Now that support is far more widespread.”

ALRANZ, New Zealand’s main abortion rights group, celebrated the ruling, saying in a press release it was “a great outcome.”

“The High Court has considered the case with evident care and clarity, and has found that neither section of the CSAA limits the NZHPA’s rights under the NZ Bill of Rights, and even if they did, it would be a justified limitation,” the group said in a statement. “The High Court has taken the rights of pregnant people into its balancing of the rights in question, as we hoped it would. This judgment demonstrates the effect of treating abortion as a health issue rather than a criminal issue. People have a right to health care, and that right must be taken into consideration.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Tell University of Pittsburgh to stop barbaric experiments using human babies
  Show Petition Text
23466 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 25000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

CAUTION: Some material below is by its nature disturbing and graphic.

The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is involved in barbaric experimentation using aborted baby body parts which are, by the university's own admission, obtained by their abortionist partners, Planned Parenthood, from babies who are still alive when the organs are "harvested."

What happens at Pitt after the aborted baby body parts are obtained is equally as gruesome. Just this May, it was revealed that in one experiment, Pitt was grafting aborted baby scalps onto lab rats to see if baby hair would continue to grow.

This depraved butchery must stop!

SIGN and SHARE this petition which calls on the Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh and the Board of Trustees to call an immediate halt to this appalling experimentation using preborn human beings.

Of course, all abortion is barbaric and wrong, but this is downright ghoulish!

But, to make matters even worse, some of this experimentation is paid for, in part, by your taxpayer dollars, in the form of NIH grants. And believe it or not, some of the grants even specify racial quotas of aborted baby parts for this grisly butchery.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to the University of Pittsburgh Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, and to the Pitt Board of Trustees demanding that they put a stop to this ghastly experimentation.

At the same time, we will also CC this petition to the leadership of Pennsylvania State Legislature, urging them to do everything they can, including defunding (to the extent possible) any university departments involved in experimentation on aborted babies.

NB: You do not need to be from Pennsylvania to sign and share this petition. The University of Pittsburgh is a national leader in medical research and in receipt of millions of dollars in federal tax dollars, thereby necessitating a huge response from pro-lifers around the country!

After signing the petition, you might consider contacting the Pitt Board of Trustees directly to politely, but firmly, tell them to put a stop to this kind of barbarism masquerading as "scientific" inquiry.

The Board's direct phone number: 412-624-6623

The Board's email: [email protected]

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'University of Pittsburgh’s organ harvesting practices include racial quotas for minority babies' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/university-of-pittsburghs-organ-harvesting-practices-include-racial-quotas-for-minority-babies/

WATCH CMP's YouTube video: 'Government-Sponsored Fetal Experimentation at the University of Pittsburgh and Planned Parenthood'

Photo Credit: CMP YouTube / screenshot

  Hide Petition Text

But abortion is not health care, since health care improves patients’ lives instead of ending them. People absolutely have a right to health care, as the abortion rights group stated, but abortion never can and never will fit under that heading.

The New Zealand court decision came at the same time as the country’s significantly expanded prescribing powers for chemical abortions, allowing trained primary care providers, nurse practitioners, and midwives to join the ranks of abortionists.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

11 Comments

    Loading...