I’m sorry, but after Roe vs Wade meltdown, Luxon has to emphatically refuse to make any Abortion more difficult


I have to hand on heart tell you I never believed Liberals who claimed Roe vs Wade could ever be overturned!

I thought it was something we told our daughters as a scary joke while tucking them into bed at night, ‘You go to sleep right now or the Republicans will sneak in and take away your basic human rights!”

Every single one of the right wing Judges now preparing to take a massive leap backwards said they wouldn’t change Roe Vs Wade, and yet here the lying scumbags are prepared to betray their promises so their vengeful God can burn abortionists in hell.

Make no mistake this is a far right Christian attack on the rights of women backed by a lunatic fringe of 30% dictating to the other 70% something as intrinsic as basic health services.

This is the true legacy of spite Trump planted and its toxic harvest will literally kill.

That’s why, after watching all those right wing Christian judges make false promises to never tamper with abortion rights, we urgently require the issue to be put back to Luxon and get a clear agreement that ACT will quit any Government that attempts to restrict abortion rights and Nicola Willis will quit as Deputy of National.

No one is safe if the State claims this power over any one of our bodies, women have every right to expect a free abortion with wrap around counselling services if required.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

End of story.

Luxon can do the 45 second CEO soundbite but he has zero intellectual curiosity, he is a devout evangelical Christian whom believes his wealth is proof positive that Jesus loves him. His policies will make things far far far worse in this country in terms of housing, inequality and poverty so don’t pretend voting against Jacinda for him makes you radical or edgy, it makes you a fuckwit, especially if he has some devout desire to burn abortionists.

Some will argue I’m being unfair to Chris who has stated that it isn’t an issue, but he agreed abortion is murder and I’m sick of being surprised when right wing Christians promise one thing and then do another when they are in power.

I’m totally over that!

After this attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade, every Right Wing Christian seeking power is under suspicion.


Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media


  1. I’m mostly pro choice – with some reservations over what constitutes a baby/human life, but where were all these shocked individual human rights campaigners when vaccination mandates were being forced on people?
    Does bodily autonomy only apply to trendy causes? Or women? Or pregnant women?
    (I’m mostly against vax mandates except for certain key high risk workers.)
    I’m not sure the left has any moral high ground with the “rights to their own body” argument any more, because they argued against it so recently.
    Why do the big government people suddenly go all individual rights over abortion?
    Its one of the dirty hypocrisies of the political left.
    Yes you can reverse the argument and point the finger at the political right, one reason I’m not a Nat voter.

    The answer is there are few absolutes, and people who try and deal in absolutes take us nowhere but ever decreasing circles (hello woke).

    Which brings us to Rowe vs Wade, the overturning of a controversial law which now allows states to decide abortion rules individually.
    Perhaps as it should be?

    • (I’m mostly against vax mandates except for certain key high risk workers.)

      The “except” fudge.
      More properly put: you are not against vax mandates.

      • It’s not a fudge.
        I think it’s fair for a limited number of roles to need to be vaxed – those working in health with the immune compromised for example, but my caveat would be those who don’t wish to be vaxed be supplied roles elsewhere.
        So no one is forced to get vaxed or be fired.

    • an abortion is an entirely personal matter, anti vax is a community protection issue…hence the different stance..in a nutshell

      • For a vaccine that gives you 0.8 x less likelihood of contracting covid, I’d say that’s weak but not zero protection from infection. Better protection from serious disease (4x) granted.
        And who has considered the massive social and mental health cost of firing people for not getting vaxed?

        Where does this community protection argument end?
        Why aren’t we mandating measles vax for everyone? Flu? Whooping cough?
        Why aren’t we speed limiting cars to 80 or 100 km/hr?
        Because costs/negative outcomes might outweigh the benefit perhaps?

      • The Covid-19 vaccines never protected the “community” though. They were provably non-sterilising (i.e. vaccinated people still trivially contracted and spread the virus as is now painfully obvious in NZ) from the beginning. And BTW, any unborn baby would eventually become part of the community if they were not aborted, so I don’t really get your point regardless.

        • disappointingly I’m still not magnetic, the nano-bots must be faulty, bloody cheap chinese nano-bots GGRRRRrrrrrrr

      • And anti abortionists would consider any embryo or fetus a human so who’s safety are you advocating? Not theirs. Others argue for different definitions of human life.
        Abortion is a moral/ethical issue that needs more than black and white yes/no as I’ve said above.
        No one group of people has a monopoly on ethics despite some very much thinking so.

    • KCC the mandates were based on the science (and actual evidence) that vaccination offered both protection to individuals and restricted transmission ( remember this was pre Omicron) of a contagious disease. As tricky a topic as abortion is, it’s not contagious and most of the organised resistance comes from people who have a fairytale as the basis for taking away rights.

      I get that doesn’t answer the self determination argument as such but they are not really good comparators.

      • Wheel, the science kept on changing because they were wrong from the beginning. The vaccines have obviously failed and the science was dubious at best. You can shove your mandates where the sun don’t shine. My body my choice.

  2. If you’re sick of being surprised Martyn then you’ve done amazing well staying in political commentary. I’m not sure why Luxton (and I’m not a supporter) should be under any more obligation to state something or be under suspicion anymore than anyone else. And if he states something – would it be an ironclad assurance anyway? Over the years governments of all descriptions have not stuck to what they’ve said or have brought in things they never campaigned on.

    We’ve had promises to have aNZ that cares for everyone, reduced poverty, assets kept here, trickle down benefits for all, transformational politics, improved housing and health etc etc. What we usually get is policy made on the hoof and brought in under stealth. For some of us it is making voting very problematic and whoever I vote for I’m going to have almost zero expectations when it comes to meaningful change. As one of my colleagues stated – hers will be a protest vote rather than thinking it will do any other good.

    That’s what politics in Aotearoa NZ has come to. I expect to be surprised – though not necessarily in a good way.

    • fester is open to scrutiny because he flouts his fundamentalism to curry right wing support, we are entitled to know his real position on fundamentals not his PR statement position, which he’s shown in many cases he rolls back on.
      If he is a genuine believer in fundamentalist xtian society then he must be against abortion so why not state his intention to ban it if he’s ever in a position to do so and if he’s just another pollie grifting on the right then his supporters need to know that.

      • I understand what you are saying but most politicians flout something to curry favour with particular groups. Also he may be against abortion personally but that doesn’t automatically mean he would try and ban it. I know many people who hold personal views on a range of matters but keep that separate from their work or political life. In my particular line of work I often have to make assessments, recommendations and decisions on matters by weighing them up against relevant legislation, rules and policies. My personal view on them is kept aside from the functions that I perform in the workplace as it is for many. I also know many Christians who have voted for politicians who hold beliefs different to their ones but look at wider matters rather than single issues and/or who don’t automatically seek to have the state impose their views on others. That doesn’t necessarily stop them promoting a viewpoint, depending on the issue, but life is a lot more nuanced than the simplistic black and white that some would like it to be.

        • he’s a politician his work and personal lives are not separate, they are presumably the very reason he’s in politics…so just fess up fester.

  3. This kinda sounded like a New York Democrat rant. A few things:

    i) Putting aside the moral question. Roe vs Wade was a poorly constructed legal argument from the get go. Ask any US constitutional expert and they’ll admit it. So when there was a conservative, Constitution-based majority on the SCOTUS there was a fair possibility this would be overturned on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
    ii) It will be fascinating if this has an effect on the mid terms. Which side will it galvanize or will it be a non event in regards to this
    iii) The United States (as much as we aren’t told of this given our newsfeed comes straight from ABC/MSNBC) is a diverse place. Some states want a move back to a fundamental Christian state. So this decision will be a verdict straight from GOD and be very popular.
    And finally:

    iv) Another road bump on the way to the next US civil war

    • It’s highly relevant to hate on any Supreme Court Justice of The United States of America who pledged to maintain freedoms and rights.

  4. The other thing to watch will be the amount of over reaction the woke have on this assumed decision. If it goes the way of BLM and protests get violent then this won’t play out well politically and give holier-than-God idiots like Pence extra motivation. The other thing to watch is the preferences of the largest minority in the States, Latinos. Catholic conservatives by the main – which way will they view this.

  5. Define freedoms and rights on a universal basis.

    There is a large swathe of individuals (such as me) who believes their freedoms and rights have been assaulted in the last 2 years here and the majority of the Western World.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander…….

    • so panzerboi we should ban abortion ..cuzz femibanismistcalism
      basically as an act of revenge coz your feel feelz are all hurty wurty by girlies…is that it

            • Of course. Roe vs Wade is about “facts”

              Any proffesor of US Constitutional Law like you, Frank the Tank 🙂

              Would know that Roe vs Wade is actually Privacy (Roe) vs (Wade) Planed Parenthood and the states right to protect.

              So in the first trimester abortion does not require state protection because the legal definition of a person is contractual so needs a birth certificate where as pro lifers claim personhood is at conception.

              In the second trimester there’s a little bit about protections because we really don’t want drive by abortions where people use lose of income or lose of perceived beauty as an excuse to have abortion.

              At the third trimester babies fully formed and even doctors will not perform abortions in protest at this stage because generaly no one wants to kill babys so the only way is if the mother’s life is threatened and not because of rape or other mental issues as some feminists like Weka would have people believe.

              So really it’s not about rights, freedoms, morality or politics even though it is. It’s just satisfying everyone’s moral outrage isnt worth the effort. The most obective argument then I’ve seen is the legal requirements around personhood seemed good enough for the last 50 years.

              I mean fine if pro lifers want to change the legal definition of a person to conception then I’d like to see all pregnant woman put pre n hospitals and released on discharge after giving birth y’know a 9 month labour instead of a day of to.

              I mean fuck these pro lifers are so fucken stupid we can’t use them as supreme Court judges but just stupid enough to fuck everything up.

  6. Quick question for those who believe in the right of women to have sovereignty over their bodies.

    Do you also support the right of people to sovereignty over their bodies to choose NOT to be coerced to take an experimental vaccine?

      • Bollocks. Nobody is forcing vaccination on anybody.

        But if you choose to avoid vaccination when the vast majority accept it, you can hardly expect that majority to negate the decision they made by allowing you to mingle. You accept what you did was a minority decision, abide by the rules made by the majority, and you still have the right to debate.
        But you don’t have any right to blatantly break the majority’s rules. Like it or lump it.

        • Apply that logic to the majority of residents in say Louisiana or Utah. You’ve supported Frank’s argument albeit with realising that you’ve done so

  7. This SCOTUS decision hasn’t “banned” abortion or anything of the sort. All it has done is moved all abortion regulation (or lack there of) back to the individual States, which is where it should have remained in the first place (i.e back in 1973). Just like some States allow the Death Penalty and others do not, or now some States allow cannabis while other do not – this should never have been dictated by the Federal Government.
    Incidentally, Poland also currently has an effective abortion ban – does anyone really think that Brussels (i.e the EU) should be telling Poland what they can and can’t do, irrespective of what their people wish via democratic processes? Let’s all just be like China where a totalitarian government makes all the choices for their people, right?

    • the EU was making some ineffectual noises at poland until the recent kerfuffle in the region.

      as you know the ‘states rights’ thing is a red herring the welfare queen rep states who are prepared to suck on the rich creamy tit of federal funding will institute bans…adding to their already 3rd world social problems with unwanted kids and expect more enlightened states to shovel even more money at them.

  8. Of course they lied. Just like Ronald Reagan and Bush Snr lied about eastern bloc countries becoming part of NATO. It’s always very obvious when these types of people are lying. People are far too nice to them.

  9. Even if Luxation wanted to remove abortion rights (hypothesis), who imagines he’d be able to convince his caucus full of liberals like Bishop and Willis? Stop obsessing about Luxation’s “religion” – you need to be asking him questions about what he plans to privatize if he gets in, and what he plans to cut to enable his proposed tax cuts.

    • holding rightards to their allegedly deeply held personal belifes about their personal relationship with their sky pixie…is par for the course, they’re the ones who put it out there.

      and yes you are 100percent right to question how socialism for the rich will be paid for.

  10. The basic premise of the question is wrong. It implies that the Luxon can convince the National caucus to have a “ban abortion” bill. There is zero chance of that happening. A substantial number of the caucus members are liberals on this issue, including the Deputy Leader. If Luxon tried this on, he would probably face a leadership challenge, mostly for being stupid.

    So, no, there is no need for Luxon to respond to Roe v Wade. The abortion debate is effectively settled in New Zealand for many years to come. The only reason it would change is if there is a fundamental change in New Zealand society on this issue. Most unlikely.

    • So what if a 5yr old boy says it’s a girl?

      It’s literally 100% nature vs nuture when we can’t apply an age limit.

      It’s not one thing or the other anymore, woke gender ideology that institutions like the Auckland University of Technology introducing extreme leftwing brainwashing to believe that 1+1 can equal whatever morph thingy

  11. now some of the usual suspect states are suggesting banning IUDs and making abortion a murder charge

    ….great more unwanted welfare babies in the low tax welfare queen states….that’ll help lift them from the 3rd world status they clearly enjoy

    I’m buying shares in US clothing suspension device factories.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.