Why is ALRANZ lying about NZ abortion laws?

 

Over the past few days NZ abortion activist organisation the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) has posted a series of blatantly false and misleading claims about New Zealand abortion laws on their Facebook page.

Firstly, on Friday they posted the following status update:

Anyone with even just a passing knowledge of New Zealand abortion laws can tell you that the claim that “NZ only allows abortion to persevere health” is false.

Our abortion laws actually allow abortion if the unborn child was conceived as the result of incest or sex with a dependent family member. They also allow abortion if there is “a substantial risk that the baby will be seriously handicapped.”

Neither of these two criteria can legitimately be claimed to have anything to do with preserving health – unless ALRANZ is trying to suggest that ending the lives of people with disabilities will lead to a healthier New Zealand society?

(Oh, and that’s to say nothing of the fact that there there is no preserving the health of the unborn child, who is literally robbed of all health and wellbeing anytime an abortion takes place.)

Then just five minutes later, they posted the following:

This would have to be one of the most absurdly dishonest claims being perpetrated by activists trying to pressure our politicians into introducing a more extreme abortion law.

This suggestion is tantamount to making the absurd claim that driving a car is a crime in New Zealand.

Well, sure it is, if you don’t follow the legal requirements to drive a motor vehicle in this country – but if you get your license, drive a registered and warranted vehicle, and you follow the road rules, then, no, it is not a crime to drive a car in New Zealand.

The exact same principle is true when it comes to abortion.

Abortion is only a crime if you break the law and do it illegally, but otherwise our laws allow and openly govern the practice of abortion in this country.

Oh, and by the way, even if you were to introduce a more extreme abortion law in New Zealand, it would still be a crime to have an abortion if you violated the regulations of that new more extreme abortion law.

So this whole claim is as nonsensical as it is deceptive.

Then, just one day later, ALRANZ posted this:

Just to be clear, in Alabama, an unborn child is now legally classified as a person and, outside of exemptions such as risk to the life of the mother, lethal anomalies, or serious mental illness, abortion is now illegal at any stage during pregnancy.

To even try and make comparisons between the law in Alabama, and the current one in this country, which features no such restrictions, and which, by comparison is extremely liberal, is, again, absurdly dishonest.

Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the fact is that EVERY abortion law – regardless of how loose it is – will always deny some people access to abortions that the lawmakers deem to be dangerous (like ones carried out by unlicensed abortionists.)

A tiny minority of people being denied access to an abortion because they don’t meet the legal criteria laid out in our permissive abortion regime is not an argument for the introduction of an extreme abortion law.

Unfortunately, this dishonesty, which is aimed at deceiving the unsuspecting New Zealand public into accepting the lie that abortion is inordinately hard to access here, is nothing new.

Abortion activists have been making false claims like these about our laws for several years now – and with a largely complicit mainstream media, these lies are not only being regularly published without challenge, they are now often being promoted by activist journalists.

The interesting thing is that if you go back several decades you’ll discover that this sort of lying is nothing new for abortion activists.

On page 193 of his 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote the following about abortion activists and their willingness to lie:

“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”

For those who are wondering, Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a former abortionist and one of the founders of abortion activist organisation NARAL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.) He later went on to become pro-life after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion for the first time.

In fact, he wrote Aborting America to expose what he called “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement.”

It seems that lies simply beget more lies, because here we are, many decades later, and deliberately deceiving the public is still a central tactic of abortion activism.

 

 

Leave a Reply