A letter urging Christian leaders to demonstrate a united voice on the abortion issue and against the proposed Abortion Legislation Bill
Tracy Kirkley
9 March 2020
Dear Leaders,
I am writing this to a collective group because I do not know how else to reach the leaders en masse. My hope is that it will actually be forwarded and read by YOU, the leadership of the large churches, movements and denominations. I would love to come and meet with and speak with you directly. I am one of the key people who got “March for Life Auckland” up and running – but I am not writing in that capacity. It is as a fellow believer who is greatly concerned that we are not seeing or hearing a united and collective voice from our church leadership (across the multiple denominations). That is no easy thing, but when was it ever meant to be easy being a follower of Christ? We are trying, but we need leaders to step up.
I attended the Open Heaven NZ event in early Feb. Church leaders from the larger (Pentecostal/Charismatic) denominations stood up and rallied us to pray – we collectively gathered to pray for our nation. We worshipped. We felt the presence of God. We sang songs declaring ‘’We are an Army“ and I was left thinking… Really? Are we? We certainly don’t act like it on the big issues – the nation shaping events, laws etc.
We are scattered on so many things and when a clear and pressing blatant issue (such as the abortion bill) is right in our faces, we leave it to a few privates, corporals and volunteers to lead on. While our Lord Jesus, the one we all serve, is highlighting this pressing issue. The timing of it – is happening now; a group of Christians across various faith streams joining to make something happen. The many who sent in submissions to the Bill. The many praying, lobbying. The March for Life Auckland team… We requested your assistance. That the issue could be declared, spoken into, to focus the 10,000 on an issue that is life or death.
We didn’t get it, so we simply handed out all our flyers to the many streaming into the venue. That was effective. The silence and lack of mention of the issue at the event was deafening. I left thinking, “Do these leaders actually truly, deeply care about what happens to families, women and the unborn who are being slaughtered… every day?”
Something was missing. It was a “show” of UNITY… But the depth and breadth of it translating into an actual tangible… felt lacking. I’m open to having this conversation… Are you?
This nation is facing the reality of an Abortion Law being passed, that will allow abortion – up to birth. So many Christians who care and are acting on this issue are looking to church leaders, those who hold an carry a movement, a large congregation to UNITE and LEAD – demonstrate a voice in this issue of life and death.
We know you care. But if this seems like simply another “thing” to add to a busy schedule or workload. What’s wrong? Tangible action. UNITED CHURCHLEADERS that our nation can see is what we lack. And that has weakened the church, many times over, when these issues arise. We don’t see UNITY and a VOICE rise to speak – the collective song sheet being sung loud and clear for our nation. So people like me, and the next-gen, rise up and just get done what needs doing.
We sent out emails to 800 churches in the Auckland Region. We did phone ups and call arounds. We spoke if anyone gave us an opportunity. We blitzed social media. We advertised on radio. We paid a price. We got very mixed responses. We are not radicals or crazy people. We are simply believers who care enough to do something. And those who got the message – responded. Some let their people know it was happening – many didn’t. (We got feedback – it might take people away from a conference, a church thing being organised… it wasn’t something they would speak about.)
Yet, the people came, those who did hear – it was a majority of believers who came. They cared. They marched. They spoke. We prayed. We respected and reflected. It was initiated by a mostly young team. This was incredibly heartening and humbling to be a part of. No big names, no “known” church leaders or voices, just people who turned their care, their prayer, their voices into action. And NZ responded.
It may not be your “thing” your passion, something you will speak to from the pulpit. I challenge you. WHY NOT? Are we too afraid of upsetting people? Isn’t Love our goal? Love for the women still grappling with her grief or guilt or shame… for the unborn, the women who would make a different decision, if she knew that whanau, people around her, truly cared and would support her? No condemnation, no shame. For those in Christ. That is our goal.
If other organisations can band together and sign letters “supporting” this heinous Bill – why are we not seeing the voice of righteousness from our church leaders in In NZ? The world can do it. So why can’t we?
A joint effort – across the various faith streams, Baptists, Anglicans, Charismatics, Pentecostals, Catholics… collectively saying ‘NO this is not right for our NATION.’ It gets left for the brave few. So unity is not demonstrated at a leadership level.
So what does God do? He hands it onto those who are listening – and who will act. It is left to a handful of people who are passionate about the cause to stir, convict, advocate, lobby and make others aware. I am left perplexed why we have had resounding SILENCE at a National level from church leadership. Do you just leave it to those “other” organisations? What message does that send our society? That the church – the Body of Christ – is not UNITED and cohesive in being a voice, the salt and light we are called to be.
This isn’t a ministry that is trying to promote itself, It isn’t a program to win people to Jesus and into congregations. It is the most vulnerable members of our humanity that we seek to give value to, and a voice for – and protect. It is a reflection of Gods Heart.
The time is NOW… If not… When?
Psalm 139, Proverbs 24.11
It takes ONE leader to do this. I am not a leader of a denomination or church. I am simply a fellow believer who cares deeply enough to ACT. And I challenge you to do the same. Reach out to other leaders – any who will UNITE and speak as ONE – to send a message to the leaders of our Nation who are taking us down a dark path.
If you know and turn away, doing nothing, it is on your head. Will you respond?
With respect and an openness to meet, to strategise, to stand in prayer – and action.
Over three thousand pro-lifers at March for Life in Auckland today.
Saturday 29 February 2020
Three thousand five hundred Kiwis attended the March for Life in Auckland today.
With Parliament just days away from voting on a Bill to liberalise abortion-up-to-birth in New Zealand those who marched made a public stand for the unborn and their often vulnerable mothers.
“We showed Parliament today that unborn life is not without advocates in New Zealand, chanting ‘love them both’ and ‘a person’s a person no matter how small’ throughout the march,” says Emma Rankin, March for Life Auckland spokesperson.
The family friendly and peaceful March for Life finished with speeches at a gathering in Aotea Square. “One speaker shared about the pain she still experiences from remembering her three abortions, but encouraged those who have had abortions that healing is possible.”
“Another spoke about the shame he carries having driven 14 year olds to get abortions without the girls’ parents knowledge or consent while he worked in the school system, highlighting the fact that this happens frequently across New Zealand”, says Rankin.
Members of Parliament, including Agnes Loheni, Alfred Ngaro, and Simon O’Connor also addressed the thousands present, encouraging them that we as a nation must be the voice for the unborn.
“This Abortion Bill before us in Parliament is a wake-up call. A time for us as a society to sit-up. … This Bill seeks to remove outright what little legal rights are left for the unborn child. Proponents of this Bill will tell you otherwise, but this Bill is effectively abortion on demand up till birth”, said MP Agnes Loheni March for Life Auckland was a grassroots event organised by a team of dedicated Kiwis who are passionate about the future for our country.
“We all come from a range of different cultures, faith backgrounds, and lived experiences, but we all agree on one thing, that extreme abortion laws are not who we are as Kiwis and that women and children deserve better than abortion,” says Rankin.
Bedside gatherings at Canadian euthanasia deaths are normally an adults-only affair. Of course we’re not privy to most of them, but occasionally a journalist describes the last moments of an elderly man or woman in a magazine feature. Sometimes there’s a party, glasses of champagne, hilarity — until the doctor arrives. The friends and relatives gather around the bed while the doctor administers a lethal injection.
In fact, most of these deaths are of people well over 65. Very few are of an age to be leaving youngsters behind. It is their children or grown grandchildren who are with them in their last moments.
What about people with young children? One experienced MAiD doctor suggests that young children will benefit from becoming involved.
In a blog entry at a University of British Columbia site, Dr Susan Woolhouse, who has been involved in some 70 “assisted deaths”, says “instinct told me that involving children in the MAID process of their loved one was possibly one of the most important and therapeutic experiences for a child. My past experiences during my palliative care rotations reassured me that children could benefit from bearing witness to a loved one’s death. Why would MAID be any different?”
She gives some tips about how to explain the process of dying to young children:
Assuming that children are given honest, compassionate and non-judgmental information about MAID, there is no reason to think that witnessing a medically assisted death cannot be integrate as a normal part of the end of life journey for their loved one. If the adults surrounding them normalize MAID, so will the children.
“These conversations can easily be had with children as young as 4,” she says.
Dr Woolhouse estimates that between 6 and 7 percent of MAiD deaths are of people under 55. As the numbers grow, “this will result in more children being impacted by the assisted death of a loved one.”
This is how she would explain euthanasia to a child:
“In Canada, when someone has an illness that will cause their body to die, they can wait for this to happen or they can ask a doctor help. The doctor or nurse uses a medication that stops the body from working and causes the body to die. This is done in a way that isn’t painful …
“I am going to give your [loved one] medication over a period of about ten minutes. This medication will make her very look very tired and then she will very quickly go into a coma. This means that she will no longer be able to hear, see or feel any pain. You might hear strange breathing sounds, however these do not cause her any pain. Her skin will get colder and maybe even change colour. She will stop moving her body. Her heart will eventually stop beating and this means that her body has died. When a body dies, it can no longer see, feel pain, or hear. It can’t ever be fixed.”
I wonder if a child will find this explanation convincing. The doctor will not be around to answer her questions as she becomes a teenager, a young adult, and a parent. One researcher found that, years afterwards, some children still described the death of a pet as “the worst day of their lives.” How much worse will it feel to remember the day that your mother or father was put down?
Dr Woolhouse’s brief essay leaves some questions up in the air. The obvious question is “where is Dad now?” She can’t offer the child the comfort of an afterlife. Dad isn’t anywhere anymore; he’s just dead.
In her description of her hypothetical patient’s last hours, it’s clear that he is not suffering unbearably, at least at that moment. Why, the child is bound to ask, did Dad want to leave me? Why did he choose to die and leave me an orphan?
But Dr Woolhouse is right about one thing: if you want to normalise euthanasia, what better marketing device could there be than photos of little kids watching her give a lethal injection?
This article by Michael Cook was originally published on MercatorNet under a Creative Commons licence. The original article can be found here. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines.
Listen to Jacqui’s deeply personal and moving story as she shares the courage of her grandmother and mother, who chose to allow a pregnancy to continue that was the result of rape and the difficulties to reconcile her life with the violent act that her mother had suffered.
“Over the years, I’ve come to realise [that] it’s actually not the child’s fault that their mother may have conceived against her will. It’s almost like a punishment to abort that child.”
Today’s challenges come in the form of pushback given around the abortion issue. “Oftentimes the pushback is ‘Oh, but what about women who have been raped?’
“The challenge that I face when I hear comments like that is like, ‘Should I be alive?’ But I am reconciled and grateful. I am reconciled that I am alive and that’s OK. And yes, my conception didn’t come about in a romantic, pretty way… I value that… I value life. I have just as much right to be alive as anyone else.”
Jacqui wanted to make an oral submission to the select committee regarding the proposed changes to abortion law but was declined. When she asked why not, they were unable to provide a clear answer.
“Eventually they said they had heard from lawyers, doctors, teachers… Basically everybody better than me.” Given the opportunity, she would have told them the same as what she would tell any woman who had been raped, ‘Please consider carefully the ramifications of this Bill that you are trying to pass because the premise of aborting due to rape, you’re basically saying that I – and women like me, children, you know – shouldn’t be alive. And to be honest, I find that very arrogant.’
“I don’t believe that we should be deciding who lives and who dies. I find it arrogant that someone would be saying, ‘You shouldn’t be alive, Jacqui.’ … I’m still a human being.”
Jacqui concludes her story with a message to others who have been conceived in similar circumstances, but the same would apply to anyone who’s life was threatened with the ‘offer’ of being aborted.
I would encourage you to stand up. Be proud. Live your life. It’s a cheesy statement but take each day and make it yours. You have every right to life – just as much as everyone else.
“Since before I could remember, my Mum and Dad set a precedent in our home of regular sincere encouragement. It was unlikely that any small task of goodwill would pass without a letter or word of praise being given in return. It was this environment that taught me the power of expressing any kind words that passed through my mind. My Dad was unwell my entire life. At the time I wrote my tribute to him, he was recovering from yet another medical set back. I wanted to let him know how much I admired, respected and appreciated him while he was there to hear me say it. When I read to him how much I appreciated everything he’d done for me, the look on his face confirmed that a few simple words on a piece of paper was the best gift I could have given him. I will be eternally grateful to my parents for teaching me the power of encouragement. At the day of my Dad’s funeral, it made the day so much easier knowing that he had already heard every word that I said in my eulogy. I’m so thankful I wrote my tribute and got to say it to his face!”
The New Zealand Parliament legalised euthanasia this week by 69 votes to 51, pending the outcome of a referendum next year. On paper, The End of Life Choice Act 2017 looks restrictive. Its architect, libertarian MP David Seymour, claims it permits “one of the most conservative assisted dying regimes in the world.”
Opponents say it is full of loopholes, which would make it like every other piece of euthanasia legislation in the world. Indications are that, once such a law is in place, nobody much cares about how it is working.
As National MP Chris Penk said at the final debate: “The question is not whether some people will die in the way the bill allows, but whether many people could die in a way that the law does not allow.” That is what has happened in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Hospices won’t be exempt
The Act allows assisted suicide by a lethal dose of drugs, either self-administered or administered by a doctor or a nurse practitioner. This option would be available to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents aged 18 and over who have been diagnosed as terminally ill and having less than six months to live.
Originally, the Act also covered people with “grievous and irremediable” conditions, which could apply to depressed and disabled persons, but this was dropped by Seymour to garner more support from MPs.
Conscience protection for doctors and nurses was added. They are not obliged to participate in any part of the assisted dying process or suffer any penalties for opting out. However, an attending practitioner with a conscientious objection must tell a patient that they have a right to ask the group administering the scheme for the name and contact details of a replacement doctor or nurse.
An amendment drafted in consultation with Hospice New Zealand that would allow organisations to opt out without risking losing public funding was voted down.
Other efforts to address weak provisions concerning safeguards and accountability were shut down in successive debates by members impatient to get the bill passed.
The beautiful-young-woman-with-a-tumour factor
In the end, Seymour got 69 of the 120-member Parliament on his side. However, to get the eight votes of the New Zealand First Party members (led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters) he and supporting MPs had to accept the party’s demand that the Act go to a referendum. It will be one of at least two proposals the public can vote on alongside next year’s general election, the other being the legalisation of recreational cannabis.
It has taken four attempts, starting in 1995, to get euthanasia across the line in the New Zealand Parliament. Its success this time is in keeping with social trends such as secularisation, but also owes a lot to the advocacy of Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, who died of brain cancer in 2015. As an attractive, clever 42-year-old tragically facing death, she has done for euthanasia in this country what another beautiful young woman with a brain tumour, Brittany Maynard, did for the cause in California.
Ms Seales, who had worked for the liberal-minded Law Commission, applied to the New Zealand High Court for a declaration that she had a “right” to assisted suicide under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. She failed at court, but succeeded in the public domain where the support of her husband and family and influential figures such as former Law Commission chief Sir Geoffrey Palmer – not to mention massive and sympathetic media attention – emboldened politicians to have another go at legalising euthanasia. Seales died peacefully of natural causes in June 2015 and in October Seymour lodged his member’s bill. In December that year the New Zealand Herald declared Lecretia Seales “New Zealander of the Year”.
Tens of thousands of opposing public submissions binned
The Seymour bill was drawn from the ballot in June 2017 and had its first reading in December. It then went to a select committee of MPs for study and to receive public submissions. More than 39,000 submissions were received, 90 percent opposing it. Over four months touring the country the committee heard over 2000 oral submissions, of which 85 percent were opposed. These included the majority of medical associations and individual doctors and nurses who addressed the committee.
In addition, a grassroots effort saw published a number of excellent video testimonies from people who had faced a terminal diagnosis or lived with a severe disability, as well as professional commentary on the issue. One of the people appearing in these videos, Clare Freeman, who became tetraplegic at 17 and attempted suicide, addressed hundreds of opponents in front of Parliament on Wednesday as MPs prepared for the final vote. She recounted how a psychiatrist suggested that she could get help to end her life overseas.
All of this has counted for very little with the majority of our political representatives. The public opinion they fear is the referendum looming at the election next year and the debate that will precede it. As NZ Herald writer Claire Trevett commented today: “Few MPs will want to take the lead in that debate – for few will want to be defined by it and have it overshadow their campaign.” That is probably truer of those supporting the legislation than those against it.
The “misinformation” spectre
Supporters have already raised the spectre of “misinformation” to ward off inconvenient publicity about euthanasia and the End of Life Choice Act itself. In fact, Minister of Justice Andrew Little (a supporter) is so concerned that the public may be misinformed and misled that he has talked about setting up a unit in the Ministry of Truth – sorry, Justice – to monitor advertising campaigns. This applies also to the cannabis referendum.
Following an interview with Little, however, the NZ Herald reports, “Teams in the Justice Ministry will prepare neutral, factual information for each referendum and make that publicly available, but they will not be tasked with calling out misinformation.” The Minister expects things to get “ugly” and expects the worst of social media, but has indicated that complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority are the way to go for disgruntled members of the public. He will simply do what he can to “call out misinformation.”
It would be foolish to think that the public is already well informed (and could only be misled by further debate), although politicians and the media regularly invoke opinion polls that show a level of public support for euthanasia of around 70 percent. If the public is generally ignorant, what is the value of a poll that asks a superficial question such as, “Parliament is considering passing a euthanasia law that would allow terminally ill patients to die with the help and approval of their doctors. Would you support it?”
Of course people should be allowed to die. Of course doctors should do what they can to ease their symptoms and reassure them as they die. Aren’t they, don’t they already? Yes. But the euthanasia movement fosters the deceitful idea that people are being kept alive against their will by extraordinary means.
Three-quarters of Kiwis don’t know what ‘choices’ the Act allows
A poll commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and released early this week showed that, despite the legislation being around for four years, the great majority of the public do not know what “choices” the End of Life Choice Act would legalise.
70% thought it would make it legal for people to choose to not be resuscitated, when people can already ask for such a request to be added to their medical file.
75% thought that the Bill made euthanasia available to terminally ill people only as a last resort, after all treatments have been tried to control their pain.
“However, the Bill does not require an eligible person to have tried any pain relief or palliative care before requesting a lethal dose, or to have a consultation with a palliative care or pain specialist to find out what options are available to them,” says Euthanasia-Free NZ.
Like the Act’s supporters. this group is concerned about the referendum. “We doubt that another year would be long enough to allow the public to become adequately informed about the Bill’s content, amid contentious debates on cannabis and the general election,” says its executive officer Renee Joubert. “We are concerned that a referendum result may not reflect the public’s true sentiments.”
There seems, indeed, a real possibility that the cannabis referendum, being a more grass-roots issue (so to speak) and therefore given more media time, will eclipse that of euthanasia. The best we can hope for in any case is a change of government.
I recently read an article about what it’s like being deaf in New Zealand. One woman interviewed recalled a camp she attended when she was young. The experience made a big impression on her, so much so that she came to realise that being deaf was “who I am”.
This got me thinking about other times I’ve heard someone say that such-and-such is “who I am”. One hears of people saying it about their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, or some other characteristic they consider to be vital to the point of being definitive.
I expect many who say this are very deeply affected by the significance of the characteristic they are describing and this is articulated, with some poetic licence, as “This is who I am”. In some cases (perhaps many), this poetic licence may be energised by the fact that the person has been made to feel like a social outlier because of the characteristic. In these cases, the “poetry” becomes quite poignant and very powerful.
However, some proclaim “who I am” with a polemical purpose which, if spelled out, goes something like this: “This characteristic is who I am. For that reason, your disapproval of it, or disagreement with it, is a rejection of me as a person, a denial of my humanity”. What seems to follow, in the mind of the speaker, is that the disapproval or disagreement must therefore not be permitted and may even be reasonably described as hate speech and condemned as such. We see this happening all around us.
This characteristic is who I am. For that reason, your disapproval of it, or disagreement with it, is a rejection of me as a person, a denial of my humanity.
No matter how the declaration “This is who I am” is used, I suggest that it isn’t actually true. I cannot interfere with a person’s view of themselves – I’m just an onlooker with no authority – but I can have an opinion about this kind of thought process. When the woman declared that her deafness is “who I am”, it occurred to me to ask, “What about your ethnicity and gender, are they just peripheral?”
When a person identifies a characteristic and says, “This is who I am”, they are doing themselves a great injustice and selling themselves way short.
Each person consists of an enormous number of characteristics, some innate and others formed by experience and context. I’ll call each of these a “what” as distinct from the “who”. There are all sorts of whats – sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender presentation, age, height, body shape and weight, strength, IQ, EQ, disposition, beauty, physical prowess, physical health, mental health, attitude to heights, enclosed spaces and spiders, place on various spectrums (eg introvert/extrovert, optimist/pessimist, sweetness of tooth, sensitivity to heat and cold), opinions and world-view, life experience, experience of oppression (from one side or another), skills, self-esteem, memory, facility with languages… I’m not sure the list has an end.
I suggest that “who” a person is must be, at the very least, the aggregate of the enormous number of whats that characterise the person. To be honest, I would go further and suggest that this aggregate is simply “what” the person is, while the “who” of that person is something even more profound and utterly unique.
Who we really are
We Christians believe each human being is made “in the image and likeness” of the creator God. This is rather grand and gives each person fabulous significance and value, which is the other reason I find limited self-identification so irksome.
But even if the imago Dei is notionally set aside, it is apparent that an individual human being is an unfathomably deep and complex unit. So, when a person focuses on a single characteristic and says “This is who I am”, they are saying something that is wildly inaccurate.
We should be prepared to go to some trouble to understand why a person identifies themselves in this way, especially if there is real hurt underlying what they say. However, it doesn’t follow that a poetic understatement, no matter how poignant or tragic, should be taken literally – because then it’s false.
Identity politics
I don’t intend this to be of merely passing interest: it’s relevant to identity politics.
I’m not quite sure just who is “in charge” of identity politics – I only know they’ve been operating behind the scenes and that no-one voted for them. They seem to have decided that each person has only a handful of characteristics – or, at least, only a handful of characteristics that matter.
I cannot interfere when a person entertains a false and limiting belief about themselves. I must feel a little sad and leave them be. However, I object to being told that I must treat their paltry self-identification as a fact.
It is even more objectionable when someone applies this shabby branding tosomeone else.
This happens, for example, when I am identified as “just” a pale, stale male or “just” a phobia-laden Christian bigot or “just” a beneficiary of racist colonialism etc. Once one of these damning labels is attached to me, no interest is taken in my other characteristics, much less in my actual opinions, decisions and actions.
It also happens when a person is encouraged to self-identify in this paltry manner – to see themselves as a person of very few parts. The perverse thing is, this encouragement comes from people who claim to advocate for that person!
“This is who I am” is bad enough. “This is who you are” is worse.
This has been going on for a while, but I continue to be astonished by the new elite (academics, media, educators, much of government) who arrogantly presume to define everyone, especially when that definition is insultingly incomplete. This displays utter contempt for every member of the community – not only those the elite intends to punish for past sins but also those it claims to champion.
Identity politics insults everyone by underestimating them. That’s just the start, of course: after rebranding us and dividing us into herds, the elite –
decides which herds are good and bad (regardless of what people actually say and do);
stage-manages a war between them (women against men, Pakehā against Māori, and so on).
The complexity and uniqueness of every human being is not the only vital truth ignored – also ignored is a person’s accountability for what they do, not for what they are – but that’s where it starts.
