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 suicide.
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
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.