Media Release 15 March 2017A poll has found that half of NZ’ers in the 18-40 age bracket believe that women risk harming their mental health as a result of having an abortion.The independent poll commissioned by Family First NZ and carried out by Curia Market Research asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: “Women who have abortions risk harming their mental health as a result of the abortion.” Overall, almost half (46%) agreed with the statement, 22% were unsure or didn’t say, and only 33% disagreed. There was little difference between male and female respondents. Significantly, strongest agreement with the statement came from the younger 18-40 age bracket (50%).“This is the unheard discussion around abortion. From personal experience, and from the hundreds of women who have contacted me through the Buttons Project, I know that there is a mental health component to having an abortion – but no-one wants to talk about it. Yet this poll reveals that many people are aware, especially the younger generations. That is a positive,” says Marina Young, spokesperson for Family First NZ and founder of the Buttons Project.“Abortion can harm a women, but pro-abortion groups refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women involved. We believe women have the right to the best independent information and advice before making a decision that could impact them later in life,” says Mrs Young.A University of Otago study in 2008 found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.And a research paper entitled “Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence” by Professor David Fergusson, John Horwood, and Joseph Boden which was published in the 2013 edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the evidence shows that abortion was not associated with a reduction in rates of mental health problems, but was associated with increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol and drug misuse, and suicidal behavior. They state: “There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of some mental health problems.” A meta-analysis of 22 studies and over 877,000 participants over a 14-year period, published in 2011 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, revealed that 81% of females who had an abortion were found to be at an increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, alcohol abuse and suicidal behaviors. The study also revealed that as many as 10% of all mental health problems are directly attributable to abortion. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK have recommended updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. They said that consent could not be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information.In a poll of NZ’ers in 2011, the majority of New Zealanders (64%) said that women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives.“Family First NZ believes that any attempts to liberalise the laws around abortion in New Zealand would cause more harm than good to women. It is time that the research on the post-abortion mental health outcomes was given equal weight against the pro-abortion claims of ‘benefits’,” says Mrs Young.READ FULL RESULTSENDSLabour Wants To Remove Abortion SafeguardsMedia Release 13 March 2017 Family First NZ is concerned that the Labour party wants to remove safeguards in the current abortion law which are there to protect women and children and introduce extreme abortion laws which has been shown overseas to place women at risk.“Contrary to misrepresentation by pro-abortion groups and politicians, any New Zealand woman who has an abortion under the current legislative guidelines and protections is not committing an illegal act, and is therefore not considered a criminal. To claim otherwise is simply false scaremongering aimed at deceiving people into supporting the introduction of an extreme abortion law in New Zealand. The existing safeguards are there to protect women and children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.“Abortion is also a health issue – it’s a surgical procedure that has risk factors associated with it. A sound law needs to reflect that reality, and not leave women exposed to harms, such as those recently witnessed in the criminal trial of Kermit Gosnell who was able to operate a dangerous legal abortion facility which resulted in female client death and other atrocities thanks to extreme abortion laws. Is that what the Labour party wants?”“What is really required are laws which protect women from the Gosnells of this world, that promote informed consent and complete information about abortion and abortion-related risks, and that provide women with independent pregnancy counselling so that women can make truly informed decisions from a place of certainty and knowledge,” says Mr McCoskrie.“The good news is that there has been a significant drop in abortions to the lowest number since 1994, and the rate will continue to drop as knowledge of the prenatal development of the unborn child increases, and as an increasingly pro-life younger generation become parents themselves. The ‘bunch of cells’ argument which has driven the right-to-abortion argument is now just ‘flat-earth science’.”“Abortions can harm women – a fact supported by half of New Zealanders – yet pro-abortion groups refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women,” says Mr McCoskrie.“Contrary to erroneous claims by pro-aborts, the Abortion Supervisory Committee has simply recommended that some of the wording in the Act which is ‘outdated and clumsy’ should be updated, should reflect ‘technological advancements’, and ironically should reinforce ‘safety, and robust consultation processes’. The report does not call for a change to the legal status of the law.”ENDS Forty-year abortion law, described as ‘offensive’, in fact still good, says GovernmentStuff co.nz 17 March 2017Family First Comment: It’s not ‘good” because human life is being killed, but it’s way way better than what Labour and Greens are proposing! The current law also has safeguards which protect women!Justice Minister Amy Adams said “The Government has a busy legislative programme focused on issues that affect large numbers of New Zealanders, such as family and sexual violence, money laundering and vulnerable children to name just a few. We are not currently looking at reforming or re-drafting the abortion law on the basis that it is working broadly as intended.”http://www.chooselife.org.nzA 40-year abortion law that still refers to people with impaired mental capacity as “subnormal”, does not need changing, says the Government.Justice Minister Amy Adams said the law might be outdated, but it was workable and the Government had higher priorities.“The Government has a busy legislative programme focused on issues that affect large numbers of New Zealanders, such as family and sexual violence, money laundering and vulnerable children to name just a few.“We are not currently looking at reforming or re-drafting the abortion law on the basis that it is working broadly as intended,” she said.Adams comments came after the chair of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Dame Linda Holloway, requested MPs on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee redraft aspects of the law.The statute, which sits under the Crimes Act, was outdated and “offensive” in parts – opening up the committee to lengthy legal challenges by anti-abortion groups using semantics to chip away at its authority.READ MORE: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/90534269/Forty-year-abortion-law-described-as-offensive-in-fact-still-good-says-Government?cid=app-iPhone
Diego Costa scored on his Chelsea debut as the title favourites came from behind to outclass newly-promoted Burnley at Turf Moor.There was the threat of an upset as Burnley’s Scott Arfield opened the scoring with a stunner from distance.But Burnley’s lead was short-lived as Costa levelled with a simple tap-in.Andre Schurrle scored Chelsea’s second after a cute Cesc Fabregas pass and Branislav Ivanovic struck from a corner to put his team in command.While Chelsea were unable to add to their goal tally in the second half – although the returning Didier Drogba did go close with a volley when he came on as a late substitute – it was a performance which fully justified why many expect Jose Mourinho’s men to be Premier League champions in May.The club’s problem last season was in front of goal, with the Londoners scoring 30 fewer goals than Manchester City and Liverpool, the two teams who finished above them in the league. In acquiring Costa for £32m from Atletico Madrid over the summer,the club appears to have addressed last season’s failings. The Spain striker was a dynamic and powerful presence up front and, importantly, more clinical than those who led the line during the last season’s third-place finish.The only blemish on Costa’s opening display was a yellow card for diving when through on goal after a defensive lapse by Ben Mee.But it was a harsh decision by referee Michael Oliver as replays showed the sprawled Tom Heaton had made contact with the striker’s protruding leg and, perhaps, the Spaniard should instead have been awarded a penalty.With the club’s other debutant Fabregas adding creativity to the midfield, Mourinho’s new acquisitions have helped make Chelsea a more potent side.It was Fabregas’s breathtaking first-time pass which set up Schurrle at the far post for a magical 25-pass team goal. And the former Barcelona midfielder was again the provider for his team’s third, taking charge of the corner which led to the unchallenged Ivanovic driving home from close range.Mourinho has also tinkered with his defence, which was the team’s strength last season – they had more clean sheets than any other team and conceded the fewest goals.The Portuguese said he was thinking of the club’s future when preferring 22-year-old Thibaut Courtois to Petr Cech, the club’s first-choice goalkeeper for the last decade.While there was a defensive lapse for Burnley’s goal, with the Belgian caught unaware when Arfield struck from the edge of the box to spark raucous celebrations, Courtois did produce a fine reflex fingertip save to deny Arfield another in the second half.It was not a result for the romantics, who would have hoped for a repeat of Burnley’s feats five years ago when they beat Manchester United under the Turf Moor floodlights in what was their home opener that season. But a team which cost £5m to assemble will, more often than not, struggle against such big-spending Premier League rivals.The financial gulf between the two clubs was neatly illustrated by the value of the two debutants on each side.While Costa and Fabregas were purchased at a combined cost of £59m, the players making their Burnley bows – Matt Taylor andLukas Jutkiewicz – arrived for a combined total of £1.5m.Defeat means Burnley’s wait for a first top-flight victory over Chelsea since August 1973 continues but last season’s Championship runners-up will take heart from this performance.They rattled an experienced defence with their opening goal and refused to cave in in the second half, although Chelsea’s intensity did dip after the break which could be the only slight on Mourinho’s men after an impressive opening victory.