Otago
University has released a report on the consequences of abortion on a woman’s mental health.  It is incredibly interesting and marks a new era for the pro-life movement - that science (and thus reason) is once more on their side, and has dealt a swift blow to pro-abortion movements who claim mental health is the core criteria for abortions.  It has revealled inexplicitly that women who have abortions are 30 per cent more likely to experience mental health problems and substance abuse.  I’ve pasted the whole press release as its all incredibly interesting.

Study examines link between abortion and mental health

Press Release by
University of
Otago at 10:53 am, 01 Dec 2008

Women who have an abortion face a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, according to a new study from the
University of Otago, Christchurch.

But the researchers, writing in the December issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, say their findings point to a “middle-of-the-road” position on abortion; they do not support either the strong pro-life or pro-choice argument.

And this is paramount to the study - that it is neither for or against abortion.  Initially I was critical of this “middle of the road” stance but I see the merits in the study having no stance on abortion and baring the facts as they stand.

The study found, the overall population effects of abortion on mental health are small. The researchers estimated that exposure to abortion accounted for between 1.5% and 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders in the general population.

The conditions most associated with abortion included anxiety disorders and substance use. In contrast, none of the other pregnancy outcomes was consistently related to significantly increased risks of mental health problems.

This basically means that carrying the unborn to full term, and either keeping the child or adopting it out, as no significant impact on mental health of the woman.  This directly contradicts the misconception that woman ought to have abortions for the sake of mental health. It completely and utterly undermines the current law.

However the research findings have implications for the legal status of abortion in New Zealand and the UK where over 90% of terminations are authorised on the grounds that proceeding with the pregnancy will pose a serious threat to the woman’s mental health. This study backs up other overseas research which concludes that having an abortion may be associated with increased risk of mental health problems.

Exactly! The current law in NZ (which was actually intended to be pro-life) has been greatly undermined.  The argument that the mental health of a woman is in danger if she doesn’t have an abortion has been chewed up and thrown out the window.  It no longer has any medical basis - rather the opposite.

Professor David Fergusson, John Horwood and Dr Joseph Boden, studied the pregnancy and mental health history of over 500 women. The women have taken part in the long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study from birth to the age of 30.

The women were interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30. At each of these assessments, the women were asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.

They were asked whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted, and whether this had caused them to be upset or distressed. Initial reactions to the pregnancy were coded on a 5-point scale, from very happy to very unhappy

They were also given a mental health assessment during each interview, to see if they met the diagnostic criteria for major depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol dependence and illicit drug dependence.

The researchers also took into account other confounding factors which might be associated with increased risks of various pregnancy outcomes and/or mental health outcomes. These included childhood socio-economic circumstances, childhood family functioning, parental adjustment, exposure to abuse in childhood, individual characteristics, educational achievement, and adolescent adjustment.

Overall, 284 women reported a total of 686 pregnancies before the age of 30. These pregnancies included: 153 abortions (occurring to 117 women), 138 pregnancy losses (including miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of ectopic pregnancy), 66 live births that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy (or one that provoked an adverse reaction), and 329 live births resulting from a wanted pregnancy (where there was no reported adverse reaction).

Note that 153 abortions occured from 177 women - meaning that 36 women had abortions twice during that period.

This study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

So much for the pro-abortion argument.  How can abortion be a “woman’s right” when it increases their chance of drug abuse and depression?  This goes straight to the core of the pro-life argument - that abortion not only inflicts a terrible end on the unborn, but also drastically affects the state of the mother.  Other studies have shown that woman who have an abortion are also more likely to get breast cancer and find it harder to get pregnant in later stages.

But we will hear nothing about this - the pro-abortion movement will try and wrap this up as some inconsistent study and refuse to accept its claims.  The pro-abortion movement has been caught completely out of touch and out of its depths. 

Its time we had a politician in this country who could stand up for the unborn AND women!  Alas, I won’t hold my breath.

Predictably, Jim Anderton has decided to “go into coalition” with Labour on the Opposition benches.  Good, he’ll be as irreverent there as he was in Government.

Jim Anderton, who was agriculture minister, will be the Opposition coalition agriculture spokesperson on behalf of both parties.

“Before the election, we said we would only enter government in partnership with Labour. We couldn’t support National because we won’t work with parties that are likely to increase poverty, that try to sell publicly-owned strategic assets, that increase unemployment, or that fail to take care of our most vulnerable citizens.”

What humours me is that Anderton still speaks with the authority of a deputy prime minister; as if he’s forgotten that he is the only MP in his party, of which only recieved 0.89 per cent of the party vote.  His role as MP for Wigram may be a constant thrill to him but as an MP (and an opposition one at that) his influence over NZ politics has hit an all time low - and that is saying something.

I’m surprised the Progressives Party still exists.  I would have thought the party would have been dismantled and absorbed by Labour.  We can only hope.

An excellent article from the Economist on the rumours of US President-elect, Barack Obama, picking former-rival and Queen of the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, as his Secretary of State. 

I still think Hillary should have won the primaries but now that Obama is to take the top job, he has the unenviable task of picking who will represent the
US overseas, whose first role, as the Economist states, will be to lead the “reconstruction of America’s reputation abroad”.  No easy feat.

IN THE absence of fact, rumour will dominate: and the latest exciting rumour to emerge from Chicago, where Barack Obama’s transition team is headquartered, and Washington, DC, where the political pundits live, is that Hillary Clinton is going to be the new president’s secretary of state. “Sources” claim this, though all that is known for sure is that Mrs Clinton visited her former adversary last week; and, of course, that the job has not yet been given to anyone else.

To outsiders, used to administrations in other countries changing top-to-bottom the day after an election, that Mr Obama has made no cabinet appointments a full two weeks after his election might seem sluggish. In fact, he is moving quite fast. He has already named his White House chief of staff, an important position, as well as his press secretary and his chief counsel, and has been filling in some of their deputies and assistants as well. This is quite a bit faster than his recent predecessors managed.

Still, the two most important appointments remain shrouded in mystery. No one yet knows the identity of either the next secretary of state or the next treasury secretary, probably the more significant job of the two at a time when the economy is reeling. But the speculation that the job at State is earmarked for Mrs Clinton is fascinating, the more so since no one from the Obama camp has so far shot it down. It is also rather baffling. Mr Obama has impressed many foreign-policy experts with his keen interest in and aptitude for their subject: and with America bogged down in two wars and facing rising challenges from a prickly Russia, a volatile Middle East and a rising China, a fresh and creative approach to foreign affairs is sorely needed.

But if he gives the job to Mrs Clinton, he would be ceding a large measure of influence over the reconstruction of America’s reputation abroad to a former, and perhaps even future, rival who he could find hard to control. “Never appoint someone you can’t sack”, commented one old hand this week: and Mrs Clinton would be almost unsackable, thanks to her huge popularity among a large section of the Democratic Party and the status as an ex-president of her husband.

Her appointment would also marginalise Mr Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, who, as the outgoing head of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, had been expected to play a big role in foreign policy. A secretary of state of somewhat less personal political stature, a Bill Richardson, perhaps, or even a Republican such as Richard Lugar, would have allowed the new president to maintain the primacy of his White House over foreign affairs. It is all too easy to imagine Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton disagreeing messily. Bill Clinton’s complex web of business dealings (he has raised large sums of money from foreign companies and governments, both as a speaker and in order to fund his foundation) is also a potential complication.

There are of course positives at play as well. Mrs Clinton is highly intelligent, formidably hard-working and, though not exactly a foreign-policy expert, knows many world leaders. She has also been involved with foreign-related issues thanks to her position, since 2003, on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. If she could subordinate her ambition to the service of her new president and her country, then she could make a fine secretary of state. But the chances are that she would not be an easy one for Mr Obama and whoever he appoints as his National Security Adviser to manage. 

A fascinating take on the potential rift/bridges simultaneously made if Obama picks Clinton.  I suppose only time will tell if the rumours turn out to be true…

The grim-looking PREFU revealed earlier this month that each fiscal year through to 2012-13, only $1.75 billion has been allowed in the books for new operating expenditure.  Labour has spent this and more besides.

This is a list of policies and the related cost released by Labour since Helen Clark declared no further spending would occur. 

In the NZ Herald,
Clark said that there would be no more significant spending promises from Labour for the rest of the campaign.

“We have judged it not prudent at this present time to make those sort of commitments.”

But alas the Pork-o-meter continues to bulge.  None of these initiatives have been accounted for, either in Budget 2008 or the PREFU.  Labour has also refused to declare how it expects to pay for these.

• $360 000 grant to the Bay of Plenty’s aquaculture, food and beverage, and marine industries (22 Oct)
• $25 million to New Zealand Innovation Centre (21 Oct)
• $3.5 million to the Electricity Commission for its promotion of energy efficient light bulbs (22 Oct)
• $7.6 million boost to the training opportunities programme funding “in light of the changing economic circumstances”.
• $13 million injection “to jump-start the reform of the aged care sector”.
• $47 million funding injection for the ambulance sector over the next five years
• $50 million for redundancy Job Search Allowance (30 Oct)
• $91.375 million funding package over five years to improve wages and conditions for disability support and increase accessibility to services.

Total = 237.83 million (unaccounted and un-costed)

No doubt there is more to come (will be updated as they come).

Even if one discounts these initiatives, Labour has effectively spent its entire spending allowance for the next three years.  It simply cannot afford to keep increasing spending without increasing revenue.  There is no money left in the piggy bank for Labour to keep rolling out the moolah.  Kiwiblog and other commentators are speculating about tax increases if Labour wins this election.  Oh goody.

Despite the palpable change of mood that is in the air, I can’t help but come across diehard Labour supporters who will honestly back
Clark no matter what she does, what she says, or who she crosses.

I’m not a 100 per cent National supporter – it certainly isn’t the perfect party and I’m critical of National whenever I see policy I disagree with.  However, in alignment with my principles, it is the best party for me.  National is very different from Labour – it’s a party that accepts dissenting views, allows for contrasting opinions to meld in the same pot, expression of speech and individuality is paramount to their polices.  I think they’re more family friendly, more environmental, better economic managers and the MPs are more well-rounded people.

Supporting Labour this election is to fight a losing battle.  And while I admire the confidence (and indeed courage) to face adversity when the odds are stacked up against you, I cannot understand why anyone would want to give Labour another go, considering the peril we’re in.

Let’s see how we’ve done:

• Our standard of living has declined in the last 9 years;
• our poor are still poor;
• our hospital waiting lists have grown longer;
• our standard has living has declined;
• our justice system is still weak, still favouring the criminals and punishing the victims;
• our wages are still decline;
• our OECD ranking has declined;
• and our brightest are leaving our shores.

Our years of ballooning surpluses have been squandered by a government more interested in their own future than in New Zealand’s.  The Labour government is undeniably partly responsible for the current economic turmoil NZ is in, and we’re to trust them to see us to the other side, yeah right.

Besides, Helen “safe pair of hands” Clark won’t even be around.  She’s warning us about changing horses mid-race but, ironically, she’ll be out of there before the terms up, so we’ll be changing nonetheless.  Clark won’t led Labour into 2011 - so why risk voting for Clark when she won’t stick around.

So change is inevitable - do we change one lame horse for another, or cash in our old horse now for a fresher, brighter finish.

Lo and behold, Labour is at it again, circulating lies and attacking Key for having vision. Below are excerpts taken from labour08.org (possibly the worst political website in the world).

It confirms that Labour’s main campaign website is not only as misleading as their adverts, but also run by twelve year olds (who haven’t heard of spell check).

Note the spelling mistakes (in bold):

So John Key wants to take the tourism portfolio. But while he’s praising the importance of tourism with one side of his mouth, he’s ripping it down with the other. The thing is,
New Zealand’s tourism industry is built on our environmental image - 100% pure, remember? The trouble is, John’s flip-flops on climate change aretn’t going to fool anyone when his policies show just how little he cares about New Zealand’s clean, green image.

The last thing we need is a brand advocate (which is what the Minister of Tourism’s role includes) who is at best luke warm about the central concept you’re trying to sell.

There’s nothing in National, or John Key’s view of the world that suggests that they understand that being Minister of Toursim is more than just photo-ops, it’s about building an industry and a country that has sustainability at its core.

It also includes a picture from Wikipedia (where coincidently Labour gets most of its “facts” from) of Waikiki Beach, Hawaii.  Labour slams Key’s pledge to take on the Tourism portfolio, and asks “Is this John Key’s (AKA: Shadow Tourism Spokesperson) vision for Tourism in New Zealand?”  For Labour’s information, Waikiki Beach makes USD200 million a year from tourism alone, it is one of the popular beaches in the US and invests 23% into the Hawaiian economy.  I’m sure local businesses in and around Takapuna Beach or Oriental Bay wouldn’t mind an injection of that magnitude every year. 

But Labour isn’t opposed to Tourism for any other reason that Key has advocated it.  Remember their campaign is all about undermining Key’s creditability and maintaining lies about him so they eventually stick.  

Shame about the so-called “neutron bomb”. 

The Progressives have shown once more why they ought not to be in power.  Following the release of National’s prison policy, Deputy Leader and former corrections minister Matt Robson (yeah, “who?” I hear you ask) attacked the policy as “objectively pro-crime”.

Privatising prisons won’t stop a single crime. The highest priority for reducing crime should be reducing the availability of alcohol and drugs, and intervening early before people start out on a life of crime. National will do none of that.

Concentrating on who runs the prisons, instead of on initiatives to prevent crime makes National objectively pro-crime because crime will rise under National.

Obviously, Robson failed to take the first step of any response – that is to first read the policy.  But that’s OK, because he’s a clairvoyant – he knows crime will rise under National because he read it amongst the tea leaves.

National’s focus on prisons is misplaced. Some people need to be locked up, but prisons do not change the crime rate. National should focus on alcohol and drugs and on intervening early to reduce reoffending.

National’s policyis very clear, and stipulates that under a National-led government, the Dept of Corrections might allow the private sector to tender contracts, should the conditions and benefits be right.  The policy clearly stipulates that by allowing private sector in to manage the prison system, National will save money - it even shows how and where – that can be used to boost drug and alcohol rehabilitation and other post-prison initiatives for inmates.

So the Progressives are criticising National for: firstly, saving money, and; secondly, using that money to fund projects which they are advocating for.  

And this is bad news how?

It’s no wonder Robson is such a terrible Corrections spokeman - he was an abysmal Corrections Minister too.

ACT leader Rodney Hide has come out guns blazing against
Clark’s suggestion that people are afraid of Sir Roger Douglas (ACT’s no. 3 on their list).

“My question to Helen Clark is: what is it about Sir Roger Douglas policies didn’t she like?

“Why did she vote for every single one when she sat in Cabinet with Sir Roger?

“Why, in the past nine years, has she not undone a single one of them?

For once, Hide asks a good question.  I’m sure most people don’t actually know that Clark and Douglas sat around the same Cabinet table, when Clark was Minister of Housing, Conservation and later Health.  In fact, Clark actually voted for all, not some but ALL, of Douglas’s “evil” policies.

It is very hypocritical for Clark to condemn Douglas and his policies when she supported every single one of them.

As expected, the Greens have announced they will go with Labour.  What a surprise. 

We don’t exist to prop up anyone else’s Government.

Well, ain’t that the truth – but only because no government ever wants them.  Try as they may, the Greens have been left out of government in 1999, 2002, 2005 and looks like 2008 too.  I’m sure the Greens will be celebrating this as some slick political move, but in reality all it tells voters is that the Green Party are pushovers – so don’t vote for them.

We found that they are closer to each other than either is to us, and neither of them aligns closely with our own ideals for a fairer and more sustainable
New Zealand.

And thank goodness for that.  The fewer parties that adopt Green Party thinking the better.

Here’s what they had to say about National:

There are individual policies where we agree with the National Party, for example they helped us stop a law that would take away control of dietary supplements and they want to see more of the NZ Super Fund invested in New Zealand. 

However our analysis showed us that on the whole National would take New Zealand in the wrong direction, in fact, many policies headed off down a dead end street. This means that we can not form a Government with National, or support them on confidence and supply, although we could work with them in areas where we have common ground.

And on Labour:

Labour also seems to be heading off in the wrong direction in some areas, while in others they are on the right track. Whether we could form a Government with them would depend on reaching a policy agreement that advanced green policies on a number of fronts.

How they have managed to properly analyse Labour and National’s policies when about 40 per cent are still to come bewilders me.

If I was an advisor to the Greens, I wouldn’t have been so honest (not that I believe that this has been a proper analysis – it’s a total farce).  Part of the Greens’ problem is that they are constantly regarded as Labour’s lackeys, with little more merit than that.  Despite having consistent numbers of MPs, they are always discounted by Labour when it comes to coalition building, and it appears 2008 will be no different. 

I would also have waited off a while longer before making this announcement.  Now the mainstream media will discredit anything the Greens say from now on, because they’ve already accepted that they will be Labour’s props (and who cares what props say…)

Writing off National is a blatant disregard to any political commonsense.  This move will not attract anyone towards the Greens and it will put off those who are Green-leaning but sick of Labour.  Watch their popularity plummet.

(Soon to be ex-) Climate Change Minister David Parker’s claims that making the productive sectors pay for emissions via the emissions trading scheme is cheaper than if the taxpayer (government) paid for the Kyoto shortfall is completely at odds with analysis undertaken by leading economists, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Unlike, Parker I’m interested in what businesses and industries think of the ETS.  NZIER’s analysis shows that it is eight times more expensive in the near term to put all the costs onto producers and exporters, than if the government just paid the bill.

Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, put it this way:

“The reason it is so expensive to put all the cost on to producers is because in the absence of all your trading partners pricing carbon, all you achieve is a loss of competitiveness of local industry and relocation to other countries where those costs will not be faced.  Making your local producers internationally uncompetitive and causing plant closure and business re-location is a high cost strategy.”

At a time of economic crisis when most Western countries are in full retreat from expensive climate change policies, it is foolhardy to be pursing policies that will cost New Zealanders jobs and increase global emissions.

It is also a moronic idea to make producers pay for what the government has failed to do.  Under Labour, CO2 emissions have doubled, so our
Kyoto liabilities are vast and expensive.  Sheesh, so much for making money out of Kyoto.