The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released regulations mandating coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. Under the mandate, the government forces all insurers – including religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces all employers – including religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces all employees and students as well as religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

News of the HHS Contraception mandate led to a massive outcry led by the Catholic Church and then swiftly backed up by leading Protestant leaders including Mega-church pastor Rick Warren who tweeted,

“I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29.”

And Richard Land, a pro-life leader who is a top official with the Southern Baptist Church who stated,

“When it comes to abortifacients, and many birth-control methods are abortifacients, this mandate is reprehensible in its demands for people to violate their conscience. We are not going to do this. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of conscience, and we’re going to defend it. If we have to defend it by going to jail, so be it.”

Today, President Obama announced a “revision” of the policy that he stated would accommodate religious freedom within the confines of the bill. He said,

“Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

LifeNews reported on Congressman Chris Smith’s immedate reaction to Obama’s announcement. The leading pro-life advocate in the House stated that he was strongly opposed to the revisions:

“The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else. It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naïve or gullible would accept this as a change in policy. The newest iteration of Obama’s coercion rule utterly fails because it still forces religious employers and employees who have moral objections to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception to pay for these things, because it is still the employers who buy the coverage for their employees. Today’s announcement is a political manipulation designed to get Obama past his own self-made controversy and past the next election.”

And then this just in from Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL: Pro-Choice America:

Today, President Obama showed us all that he is firmly committed to protecting women’s health. The Obama administration’s policy will make sure women of all faiths who work at religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and service organizations will get contraceptive coverage. It guarantees that women will not encounter any barriers from their bosses or insurance plans in getting birth control without a copay.

Jill Stanek has discussed the recent outpouring of support from pro-legal-abortion groups for Obama’s so-called revision of the mandate.

Are you still confused by the mandate? The abortion lobby isn’t. They’re putting their backs behind this mandate because they know that it is being executed in an effort by the Obama Administration to extend an olive branch to their somewhat disillusioned supporters from inside the abortion lobby.

Not only this, but don’t be under the false impression that this is the end of the road for Obama’s mission to take over health-care insurance and to dictate what will and will not be covered. Next on the health-insurance agenda will be a mandate forcing private employers to fund abortion coverage in health-insurance plans for their employees.

Don’t believe me?

NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson is already reporting that the HHS Contraception Mandate could lay the groundwork for, if elected to a second term, Obama to force insurance companies to pay for more than just drugs that may cause early abortions — but surgical or RU 486 abortion drug-induced abortions themselves.

Welcome my friend. Welcome to the machine.

In September 2006, I began publicly fighting a bill designed to outlaw spanking of children in New Zealand. Incensed by our government’s audacity in their agenda to strip away parental authority, and after many debates and much thinking, I began to identify as a Libertarian. It was also around this time that I started to become aware of, and started speaking against the silent holocaust that was taking place in my country that is referred to with the clean, clinical-sounding term, “abortion”.

I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul. I part ways from him in only a couple of areas. On one aspect of his foreign policy, and then on two aspects of his position on abortion which seem to fly in the face of his otherwise stellar pro-life position.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Issue:
Paul has said that the U.S. is to blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001. This statement is unfounded; he is taking his non-interventionalist policy too far. I agree that some of the unjustified military actions of the U.S. were partly cause for the attacks, but it is going too far to say that the U.S. is squarely to blame. He is naiive in his understanding of Islam, and Islamic states. He would do well to listen to Congressman Colonel Allen West on this subject.

Ron Paul’s States-Rights Abortion Issue:
Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. This is frankly absurd. The Constitution also guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for Paul to remain consistent on this issue, he would have to also say that States should determine whether or not murder of an adult human was a crime.

Ron Paul’s Rape-Pregnancy Issue:
And then this just came out a couple of days ago. CNN’s Piers Morgan asked Paul how rape pregnancies should be handled. Paul replied,

“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen… because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem.”

Morgan asked, “Life doesn’t begin at conception?,” to which Paul replied, “Life does begin at conception.” Morgan followed up with, “Then you would be taking a life,” to which Paul offered the following muddled answer:

“Well, you don’t know if you’re taking a life either, because this is an area that is — but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.”

This is pretty disappointing. Paul appears to be saying that, because we can’t be sure whether or not a life is present (and he is correct here), then we can just go ahead and provide the mother with drugs designed to prevent implantation in her uterus of a tiny human-being (zygote). That’s a fairly happy-go-lucky position to take on an issue of life or death.

Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich:
Mitt Romney tells us he is pro-life, however there is overwhelming evidence showing him to be a flip-flopping moderate who is actually an enemy to freedom and the sanctity of all human life.

Newt Gingrich speaks very well, however he is another big government Republican. Not only this, but he is an adulterer who is currently on his third wife. How could we trust him to be faithful to us?

Why I’m endorsing Rick Santorum
I believe that Santorum does fall into the trap of believing that the government is the answer to many of our problems. He is much more “big government” than I would wish for. However it is impossible to deny that he is a man of principle, who stands unwaveringly by his faith and convictions. Santorum understands that even more of a threat to America than the economic crisis is a crisis of morality.

Also, it comes down to the numbers. Santorum has won five primaries, whereas Paul has not yet won any. Santorum has 72 delegates – 8 times as many as Paul. Admittedly, Paul has been able to pull in significantly more money than Santorum – but look at the return Santorum is getting for his dollar. While Santorum’s triple win yesterday did not gain him any extra delegates, it may win him over some new supporters, providing him with the momentum and funding required to keep fighting for the Republican nomination.

I’m still a Libertarian, and I’m still a Ron Paul supporter – but for this primary election, I’ll be getting behind Rick Santorum.

I believe he can do it.

When someone tells me that they are pro-choice, I always think – well heck, I’m pro-choice too!

Proponents of “abortion as a woman’s choice” will tell you that they think that women should have the right to choose. Choice is placed on a pedestal; it is high up, and we must not question it. Discourse over the nature of the choice is discouraged. Instead emotive and often frenzied campaigns are run calling for the right for women to choose to be upheld.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of expression; of freedom in general. However one person’s freedom ends where another’s freedom begins. I do not have the freedom to take your life against your will. This would be contrary to the meaning of freedom. Pre-born babies are not asked for their opinion before the suction tube is inserted into their mother.

Survivor: Gianna Jessen

As saline-abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has said, “if abortion is about women’s rights, then where were mine?”

It is clear that every non-coerced action we make is a choice. That a given action was a choice has no bearing on its morality.

Rape is a choice. Men have a choice whether they rape a woman or not, however it would be outrageous for me to suggest that somehow, because this is a choice, that it makes rape an acceptable activity. The fact that it’s a choice has nothing to do with its morality, therefore I would be stupid to bring up “choice” as an argument in favour of decriminalising rape. There is only one correct choice, and that is the choice not to commit rape.

The two questions we must ask, – and answer before we make a decision about abortion are: 1) Whose choice are we taking into consideration, and 2) Which choice is the correct one?

1) The decision whether to abort a foetus or not affects two people: the mother and her pre-born child. Therefore, as with all contracts, both parties must have their choice respected. If one of the parties’ choice is ignored, then the decision will be unjust. We cannot know what the baby’s choice will be, as we are currently unable to communicate with pre-born children to ask them whether they wish for their life to be terminated or not. If a foetus gave consent to its destruction, I would support abortion in this instance. Realistically speaking however, a foetus not only lacks the rational capacity to make such a decision, but we would be unable to ascertain its decision even if it were able to make one. Therefore, as with all contracts, we have an obligation to err on the side of caution, and postpone killing the pre-born child until such time as it is able to consent to its death. This may all sound fairly cold and heartless, but consider: how many people do you know who would agree to your proposition of killing them? None.

If a mother, or a relative, friend or doctor of the mother wishes to kill the pre-born child, this wish is superceded by the natural rights held by the foetus – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2) Which choice is the correct one? I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose – given that she makes a moral choice. Nobody has the right to choose to harm another person without their consent. The correct choice is life for the baby.

As far as I can tell, pre-born babies are not yet of a rational capacity to even contemplate whether they wish to die or live. Their natural bodily functions are all crying out “live”, however they have not yet grasped the concept of the desirability of living within their own minds. Therefore they do not have the ability to choose one way or the other. In saying this, pre-born babies do have other thoughts, such as recognising the sound of their mother’s voice… It is possible that there may be some pre-born babies – who, if asked, (were the technology available) – if they supported upholding choice on the issue of abortion, who would respond that they do not. It follows that the vast majority of babies would support the non-abortion choice, as very few humans – when asked, will volunteer to have their lives ended.

In summary: Choice has nothing to do with morality, therefore choice does not impact on the acceptability of abortion. A choice is only permissible if it does not take away the choice of another person.

Here’s a video version I did of this article:

“Sir Francis Bacon said it best when he wrote, ‘Knowledge is power,’” says AbortionWikiDirector, Andy Moore. “AbortionWiki makes use of this power by documenting the U.S. and international abortion industry and lobby on one wiki-based website.” (The Orate Frates, January 19, 2012)

AbortionWiki is a new website that was just launched…yesterday, on January 19th!

What is AbortionWiki’s goal? According to their website:

“AbortionWiki aims to be the reference of choice for all information relating to abortion. The act of abortion has killed more individual humans than all genocides or natural disasters in history put together. While AbortionWiki takes an unashamed pro-life stance, we also recognise that fact is fact. The truth supports the pro-life position and so for our benefit and for the benefit of all people we will enforce stringent referencing on all statements…”

I thought it was quite interesting that Sir Francis Bacon was quoted by Andy Moore, the Director of AbortionWiki. Sir Francis Bacon was born on January 22, 1561 and the 39th anniversary of Roe v Wade is this Sunday, January 22nd.

And, what has [Sir Francis Bacon] had to say regarding the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States?

Turning around this one thing, beloved, can be a staying action on all other predictions that I have given you concerning nuclear war and earth changes. The stopping of the slaying of innocents–this is the key to the reprieve and the key to the mercy out of the heart of Mother Mary as she does intercede for the nations before the throne of grace. ~ Saint Germain’s Prophecy for the New Millennium, pages 275-276.

Sir Francis Bacon also said, “Silence is the virtue of fools.”

When it comes to the issue of abortion and the defense of innocent life, I most definitely agree with him.

Head over to AbortionWiki.org where you can read up on all things related to abortion.

“It may be the furthest thing from your mind right now, but it’s not too soon to think about family planning. You’ll want to have made some decisions about postpartum birth control before your baby arrives. If you’re considering a tubal ligation, be aware that most states require you to sign a consent form…”

Clicking on the “family planning” link takes you through to a page listing various birth control options. Among the options presented, is Emergency Contraception (ECP), commonly known as the Morning After Pill. Here’s what BabyCenter.com thinks about this drug:

“If your regular contraceptive method fails you or you forget to use it or use it incorrectly, using emergency contraception can significantly reduce your chances of getting pregnant. Emergency contraceptive pills — sold under the brand name Plan B — are the most commonly used method. (Alternatively, you may have a copper IUD inserted to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.)

Depending on which regular method of birth control you’re going to use, you might consider buying a pack of Plan B pills so you’ll have them immediately available in case you need them. The sooner you use emergency contraception after unprotected sex, the more likely that it’ll be effective. Since Plan B contains only progestin, a single treatment probably won’t have any effect on your breast milk.”

Note that BabyCenter.com states that using ECP can significantly reduce your chances of getting pregnant. However clicking on the “emergency contraception” link in the above excerpt takes you to a page where BabyCenter.com explains exactly how ECP works:

“ECPs are a regimen of hormone pills that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by temporarily blocking ovulation, interfering with fertilization, or thinning the lining of the uterus to keep a fertilized egg from becoming implanted.

It takes about five days for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus. If you use ECPs after a fertilized egg has implanted in your uterus, they won’t disrupt the pregnancy, and there’s no evidence that they’ll harm a developing embryo, either.”

This explanation is correct. However note the section I highlighted. BabyCenter.com themselves admit that taking ECP may cause a “fertilized egg” (abortion-rights-speak for 5-day-old human being) from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

Of course this causes the tiny human-being to be expelled from the mother’s body, as she was unable to latch on to the nutrients and support required to nourish her.

The accuracy of BabyCenter.com’s claim that ECP prevents pregnancy depends upon the understanding of when pregnancy begins. Advocates of abortion like to tell us that pregnancy begins upon implantation, however the medical community is by no means in agreement on this subject.

Ultimately, regardless of when pregnancy technically begins, BabyCenter.com is advocating the killing of human beings at just a few days old, by use of the Morning After pill.

However Facebook removed the picture from Gomperts’ profile, and her account was suspended.

After complaints from pro-abortion activists, Facebook apologized. That’s right, they apologized for deleting self-abortion instructions from their own website:

“I wanted to take a moment to reach out to you in regards to the warning that you received from Facebook on Thursday. The photo that was removed from your profile is not in violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, and appears to have been removed in error. We do apologize for the removal of this content and the subsequent warning that you received…”

Which is odd, because Facebook did not apologize to me after locking me out of my account for two days for the crime of posting A PHOTO of what an early abortion does to a preborn child. But I digress.

On Jan. 2, 2011, in response to the Women on Waves incident, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand shared a link to the story, expressing their support of their work:

Writing for Live Action, Jennie Stone calls Women on Waves out for what it is,

It’s called “Women on Web,” and they’ll even ship abortion pills to you if the procedure is not legal where you live.  If a woman experiences problems during the chemical abortion, the site explains “You do not have to tell the medical staff that you tried to induce an abortion; you can tell them that you had a spontaneous miscarriage… The symptoms of a miscarriage and an abortion with pills are exactly the same and the doctor will not be able to see or test for any evidence of an abortion, as long as the pills have completely dissolved.”  It’s not just that this is all an illegal act — it’s incredibly dangerous for women.

…They encourage women to illegally obtain the powerful drug Misoprostol, promote instructions on how to self-induce abortions, and encourage women to lie to their doctors about it if they encounter a problem.  That doesn’t sound pro-women’s-lives.

To obtain the abortion pills, Women on Wave’s Facebook page tells women to “go to the pharmacy, buy 12 tablets of Misoprostol. (say it is for your grandmother with arthritis).”  After explaining step-by-step how to ingest the pills, the page warns that if women experience complications, “you have to go to the doctor (you can say you had a miscarriage).”

It seems like abortion-rights groups are at odds with each other over the issue of self-abortion.  Even ardently pro-abortion rights groups like the National Abortion Federation denounce attempting to self-abort, stating that doing so “can be very dangerous to your life…You may injure yourself or die if you attempt to self-abort.” 

The Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is known to be a radical organization with an extremist agenda of decriminalizing abortion in New Zealand – but now we also know that they are so desperate for mothers to be able to have their babies killed in utero, that they’re supporting the extremely unsafe practice of self-abortion, carried out without specialist oversight.

Which is why myself and a group of friends are working to Expose ALRANZ.

From the moment Jesus was born people hated Him and wanted to kill Him. The Romans had put in place a puppet king, King Herod of Judea who was jealous of his position and saw the birth of this baby as a threat. Later on, one of Jesus’ followers named Matthew wrote down the events which we now have in the Bible, Matthew 2:13-16;

“An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt.”

Herod was unaware that Joseph, Mary and Jesus had escaped into Egypt and so initiated a campaign of infanticide against the baby boys in the region in the hope of killing Jesus.

“He sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under.”

Jesus escaped this first attempt on His life, but the very reason He had come into the World was to be killed. His own people, the Jews despised Him, and as another one of Jesus’ followers said, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” At the age of 33 He was condemned to death by crucifixion, arguably the most painful, slow and humiliating punishment in the Roman Empire… 2000 years later we just have a picture of the nativity scene in our minds and revved up Christmas carols down at the shopping mall. Christmas is about getting together with the family, giving each other presents and eating too much. If this is all Christmas really is, then it was just a bloody abysmal failure. If Jesus was just a well-intentioned and good man who died on a cross, then Christianity is a false religion and Christmas is a non-event. As another of Jesus’ followers – Paul said, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile”. We can only say “Merry Christmas” if the angel was correct when he said to the shepherds out on the hillside,

“Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.”

What are these good tidings which made the shepherds joyful, and what does it mean that Christ was Saviour and Lord? The angel was speaking on behalf of God and was making reference to the prophecies hundreds of years ago, documented in the Old Testament of the Bible which looked ahead to God sending a Saviour who would save His people from their sins. The prophet Isaiah wrote approximately 700 years before Jesus’ birth,

“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

This little baby Jesus was God’s solution to our problem of sin. When God made the World, it was perfect, but when Adam and Eve sinned, the World was no longer perfect and people were separated from God by their sin. Because God is absolutely perfect and just, He cannot abide sin – therefore all those who sin must be punished. And the only fair punishment for sinning against an infinitely powerful and holy God is an infinite period of punishment – the Bible calls this Hell and tells us that it lasts forever.

However this is where Amazing Grace kicks in, because God is not only just, He is amazingly gracious and has provided a solution to our problem. We established above, a fair punishment for sinning against God, and now the question is, what is a fair price to pay for us to escape this punishment? Every other religion and faith in the World says that good works can make us right with God, however the Bible teaches that our good works are as filthy rags to God. Sure, it pleases Him when we do good things for the right reason, but good deeds don’t serve to pay the price for the sins we’ve committed. The Bible teaches that God is one God, but in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Son to Earth, miraculously causing Him to be conceived in the womb of a girl called Mary, who had never slept with a man. Since Jesus was the God-man who was immaculately conceived, and never sinned throughout His life, He was acceptable to God as the perfect sacrifice which had the potential to pay for the sins of all the people who ever lived – because again, being God he was infinitely perfect and therefore perfectly suited to be a substitute for us. This isn’t all though. In order to truly defeat death, Jesus would need to not only be killed and receive the punishment we deserved, but He must also overcome death and rise from the dead. Jesus did this on a Sunday about 2000 years ago, and we remember it as the Resurrection. If Jesus had not been raised from the dead, I would have just as much faith in Christianity as I do in George Lucas’s “The Force”.

I think the most common misconception about Christianity is that you have to be a good person to be a Christian, however this couldn’t be further from the truth. P.O.D. got it right when they sang, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven, And I might just push back the next time you shove…” Being a Christian isn’t about being a good person, instead it’s about trusting in Jesus’ death as payment for your sins to make you right with God, and then being thankful to God for that, and the outworking is our good works.

Here’s what I wrote on the first day of 2009, kind of on a similar subject but in particular focusing on the pointlessness of a life in denial of God. Brendan and Scrubone have also written Christmas posts worth reading.

Our Father who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.
Amen.

Was waiting to fall asleep last night, ruminating on the Lord’s Prayer. The last line suddenly hit me in the face:

“Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory”

God’s Word spoke to me and I learned three things.

1. Jesus states that “the Kingdom” belongs to God the Father. Not just some of the Kingdom, but all of it. The terminology He uses is absolute and leaves no wiggle-room. What is “the Kingdom”? I think it is the summation of all kingdoms, nations, states and empires, on earth and anywhere else. This means that anyone who is currently in a position of governance is merely being loaned that privilege by He who claims all governance.
2. Jesus states that “the power” belongs to the Father. Again – this is not just some of the power, but all of the power that has existed and will exist on our earth. Therefore anyone in a position of power, who wields authority – only does so at the grace of the Creator.
3. Jesus also states that “the glory” belongs to the Father. Once again, this is the summation of all glory that is ever given or will be given – to anyone. So when anyone praises you for a good effort or a success in sport, remember that the glory you are experiencing is merely a part of “all the glory” – which belongs to God – and that he is lending you this glory (so to speak).

On 11 November, Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key, and leader of the ACT Party, John Banks – sat down for a cuppa in a cafe to have a chat about the election in Epsom – and undoubtedly, about the relationship between the two parties. It has since surfaced that a reporter left his voice-recorder on the table in a pouch when all the reporters were ushered out. The reporter got the whole of the 8 minute conversation, and passed it onto the Herald on Sunday.

The media and many of the public are urging Key to release the contents of the tape – and this call was only heightened when Key referred the matter to the police.

Today Key was asked why he was not prepared to release the tape. You can watch the video here – and below is the relevant transcript from the dialogue:

Reporter 1: “Why not just release [the tape] though?”

John Key: “Because I’m taking a principled stance – and I believe in the principle which is that it is illegal to tape people without their knowledge – unless one party can answer that – and I’m going to stand up for that principle…”

Reporter 2: “Ok so don’t release the tapes – just tell us what’s on it so we can get it over with.”

At this point John Key walked out on the journalists.

It’s pretty clear that there’s something on that tape that – if made public prior to the Nov. 26 election, would be damaging to the National Party – and the ACT Party to some extent. So the Prime Minister is playing the “principle card” as his reason for not divulging what it was that he and the leader of the ACT party discussed.

Key is well within his rights to suppress the contents of the tape from becoming public. Whether or not this is the wisest move considering that the election is just over a week away is another question.

But I’m just sickened by the fact that he’s got the gall to say that he’s taking a principled stand.

Because he’s not a principled man.

Look at his back-and-forth record on the Green Party’s Anti-Parental-Authority law. Here’s a few statements he made – prior to him and his party doing a 180 degree turn around and supporting the law:

“Proponents of the bill say that doesn’t matter; that in reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly. The law shouldn’t depend on which police officer or which judge or which jury you happen to get on the day.” – 17 April 2007

“If Labour really believes that ‘light smacking for the purposes of correction’ will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to ‘lightly smack for the purposes of correction’.” – 18 April 2007

“The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament.” – JohnKey.co.nz

And here’s Key attempting to defend his decision to go ahead and pass the law -

For John Key to claim that his reason for not releasing the tape is “principle,” is unreasonable abuse of the word “principled” as he has already shown us that he is not a principled person. John Key is “principled” when it suits him – which is not principled at all.

I wouldn’t trust the guy further than I could throw him.