Abortion in the Media

Abortionist set to launch DIY abortion guide online

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Just in case you were starting to believe the pro-abortion rhetoric about decriminalisation as a compassionate means to stop so called ‘backyard abortions’, think again.

In an astoundingly reckless act, prominent Brisbane abortionist Adrienne Freeman is about to launch an online DIY abortion guide.

Ms Freeman was found guilty of unprofessional conduct last year by the Health Practitioners Tribunal after she helped a woman abort a 19-week-old unborn baby at home in 2003.

According to Brisbane newspaper, the Sunday Mail, the controversial website is set to be unveiled and submitted for medical peer review in October, and includes “plain and simple instructions” and “how to” videos.

The website, Safe Home Abortions, also includes a range of research papers extolling the virtues of the abortion drug, misoprostol. The Sunday Mail also quotes the website as saying, “Pregnancies can be terminated at any gestation by administration of misoprostol."

Misoprostol induces labour in pregnant women. It is used for medical abortion throughout Australia, generally in combination with methotrexate which causes the baby to die first. Where approved, it is also used in combination with mifepristone as RU486.

Medical abortions can be particularly distressing due to the drawn-out nature of the process which often takes up to a week. This fact is all too well known following Angela Jackson’s RU486 abortion which she ‘live-tweeted’ to the world earlier this year.

The Sunday Mail goes on to quote Ms’ Freeman: “Women have the right to choose when and where to terminate a pregnancy.” Freeman doesn’t even bother to make a statement about whether a mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first place. She also conveniently neglects to mention that her services also terminate a child.

Ms Freeman goes on. "No matter how careful people are in their lives there will always be a need for pregnancy terminations.”

It is indeed very sad that Ms Freeman simply accepts that Australian women “need” abortion. Unfortunately, in many ways she is right. Social norms, lack of support and unsupportive families often leave women with no good options. It is tragic that Freeman’s solution is to provide an easily accessible means for the coercion to run it’s course. So much for choice.

It appears the abortion industry is set to provide backyard abortions to women who have no choice. Surely women deserve better.

Cosmopolitan helps to normalise abortion

Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:30:00 GMT

Abortion is a rip-off (even when someone holds your hand).

Womens fashion and lifestyle magazine, Cosmopolitan has weighed in on the abortion debate with two articles in their June and July 2010 editions. The overall message is that abortion is a legitimate part of modern womanhood, that offers women empowerment and control, given a little support. Life Network Australia asks if this is really true.

The June article is a somber depiction of one woman’s (‘Sarah’) experience of late term abortion. She underwent the abortion because of social pressures (she felt too young at 21), and pressure from her father who thought that a baby would bring shame on the family. Following the abortion, Sarah suffered from physical complications, and a raft of psychological after-effects associated with post traumatic stress.

Congratulations to Cosmo for telling it like it is. The article clearly demonstrates the pressure, lack of options, confusion, guilt and regret that characterises many women’s experience of abortion. Interestingly though, ‘Sarah’ states that she is “100% in favour of abortion”. This statement, interpreted as being in favour of a womans ‘right to choose’, seems out of place following the story which clearly suggests that she would have been better off had she continued with the pregnancy.

The article in the following edition discusses the role of ‘abortion buddies’, described as abortion doulas, in supporting women during an abortion procedure. These doulas (a distortion of the term used for those who support women during childbirth) provide information and emotional support during what is described as a traumatic experience. The underlying message is that women should support each other during their time of need – a kind of quiet solidarity among the sisterhood.

On the surface, it is difficult to pinpoint anything sinister about the two articles. They openly discuss the unpleasantness of abortion, and the benefits of supporting women through this difficult time. What could be wrong with that? In the context of a counselling newsletter – probably nothing. In the context of a fashion magazine, the result is dramatically different.

Sandwiched in between stories about relationship breakups, and squeezing pimples, the articles have a profoundly normalising effect. In this context, the articles assure women that abortion is a necessary part of womanhood, despite it’s unpleasantness. Two recent articles in Cleo magazine have a similar effect. Listed right up there next to period pain and bad hair days; just part of “the entire spectrum of pregnancy”.

Having admitted that abortion is unpleasant, Cosmo fails to ask the question, ‘is abortion really necessary?’ The answer must be ‘no!’. After all, if abortion is necessary, then there is no real choice.

Modern feminists seem to have fallen for the abortion lie – and submitted to the demand that they become men. They have been convinced that, because women can not fully participate equally in society (financially and socially, in Sarah’s case) if they bear their children, that they therefore must have the ‘right’ to give up that which is holding them back, their own children.

Common sense would suggest that if the problem is that childbearing is not valued by society, then surely the answer is to change social attitudes, not to give up childbearing. If having testicles was socially outlawed, we wouldn’t expect men to be campaigning for safe and legal castration! Such a solution hardly represents emancipation. Abortion is a means to rip women off.

The abortion doula in the Cosmo article, Lauren, describes the abortion ‘choice’ as “a huge victory”. She suggests that women will feel “empowered by a good experience”, and will “feel like they have control over their life and body”.

The contrast with Sarah’s story is telling. She reports that her sleep is interrupted by dreams about her baby. She has changed her profession because she is uncomfortable working with children now. She struggles with physical intimacy with her partner because of fear of another pregnancy. Physically, she suffers from bleeding and infection. None of these after-affects are unusual.

So much for feeling empowered and in control. (Oddly enough, Lauren also describes the abortion experience as “pretty traumatic”, one that “they don’t want to revisit”. This appears to be a much more accurate description.)

Having someone hold your hand during your abortion is a nice idea, but does little to address the real harm. Abortion robs women for years, if not for a lifetime. The doula won’t be there in the morning. She won’t be there while women navigate the increased risks of infertility, physical complications, suicide, substance abuse, and so on. Neither will the abortionist, or those that fought so hard to win the right to abort.

Consider a different scenario. Imagine for a moment that abortion is as unthinkable as slavery. The news of Sarah’s pregnancy is greeted with ‘what a shame’, or ‘this is going to take some adjusting’, or even some short term rejection from her family – at worst. There are no suggestions of giving up her child, no pressure to meet family expectations, no agonising ‘choice’. Just getting on with adjusting and preparing for the unplanned joy that she is entitled to.

Period pain and pimples are part of being a woman – abortion isn’t. Abortion is a poor second best, and women deserve better.

Gillard ignores abortion - suicide link

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:04:00 GMT

According to the Herald Sun, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pledged to provide Australia with a $277 million suicide prevention package, aimed at boosting psychiatric services and expanding 'Lifeline' to reach out to Australians at risk.

Ms Gillard promised that Labor would make services for men a priority and that the party would also fund programs in schools where student communities are affected by suicide. Ms Gillard rightly states that "Every suicide is a tragedy'' and that "Every year we lose 2,000 Australians to suicide, that means six more people today, tomorrow and each day after."

While considering Australian suicide rates and necessary funding, Ms Gillard should take a close look at the research conducted in Finland and California, that showed a dramatic increase in suicide statistics for women post abortion.

The Elliott Institute reports: (Nov. 29, 2005) — Compared to women who have not been pregnant in the prior year, deaths from suicide, accidents and homicide are 248 percent higher in the year following an abortion, according to a 13-year study of the entire population of women in Finland.

The study also found that majority of the extra deaths among women who had abortions were due to suicide. The suicide rate among women who had abortions was six times higher than that of women who had given birth in the prior year and double that of women who had miscarriages.

In addition, researchers examining death records linked to medical payments for birth and abortion for 173,000 California women found that aborting women were 62 percent more likely to die than delivering women over the eight year period examined. That study also found that the increase risk of death was most prominent from suicides and accidents, with a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide and an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidental injuries.

The lead author of the California study, David Reardon, Ph.D., stated that "Women seeking abortions should be informed that abortion is associated with significant physical and mental health risks, and it also deprives them of numerous physical and mental health benefits associated with childbirth."

Mr. Reardon also said "It is especially important for health care providers to be aware of these risks and the risk factors which identify those women who are at highest risk. Providing women with the resources to help them resolve emotional issues relating to past abortions will not only increase their well-being but may possibly save their lives".

Given that Ms Gillard is a founding member of EMILY's List, it is unlikely that any such counseling (warning of the risks and follow up care) would be forthcoming for pre or post abortive women. Any genuine effort to address risk factors for these women, including suicide, would also be unlikely, due to Ms Gillard's loyalty to EMILY's List, which so passionately supports abortion at any time, for any reason.

The right to cull - Downs Syndrome

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:30:00 GMT

A recent article in the Herald Sun reports that two Victorian couples are suing their doctors for failing to diagnose Down Syndrome in their unborn babies.

According to the report, both couples claim that they would have aborted their children had they known that their children would be born with Down Syndrome.

The article quotes Maurice Blackburn lawyer Kathryn Booth. “NSW, SA and Tasmania have legislated against such claims. But in Victoria, people can sue for compensation for the continuing costs of raising a child to the age of 18, where the child was born as a result of negligent care”, she said.

If the 200-odd comments posted under the online story are anything to go by, Australians have more sympathy for the children and the doctors, than for the parents.

Many of the comments point out that parents shouldn’t conceive if they aren’t prepared to accept the risk that their child might not be ‘perfect’. They also point out the dangers of a eugenic culture where we demand our children be ‘made to order’ and cull those who don’t make the grade.

Others point out the inevitable response from a medical profession which must increasingly practice to avoid litigation, rather than providing the best possible care.

Astoundingly, one of the parents taking legal action speaks about his daughter, who is now 4 years old: "Don't get us wrong: we love our daughter. She's part of our family, and we treat her like gold."

Lets get this straight – he loves her, but given the opportunity he would have killed her. More than that, he is so upset about not having been able to kill her, that he is willing to bring legal action.

Something doesn’t add up.

It’s a good thing the girl in question can not understand the nature of the legal action.

A couple of the comments online speak louder than the others. These speak about the great joy of raising a special child with a disability.

This brings us a little closer to the heart of the issue. Once we, as a nation, decide that our unborn children have no inherent right to their own lives, we open up a Pandora’s box of competing rights that doesn’t lead to freedom, but to greed, fear, and loss.

Comments by Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, associate professor of the John Paul II Institute, have also been published in the Herald Sun.

Social commentator, Bill Muehlenberg has also posted some insightful comments on his CultureWatch website.

Smoke and mirrors over late term abortion - AMA survey

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:04:00 GMT

Current alcohol laws are antiquated, and out of step with modern attitudes towards drinking. According to a recent poll conducted by one of Australia’s biggest brewers, the majority of teenagers believe that that alcohol providers should not face sanctions for supplying alcohol to minors. The authors have called for the decriminalisation of supply to minors.

Huh?

There has been no survey of teenagers about their preferences for alcohol supply. However, in a remarkably similar exercise, the Medical Journal of Australia, journal of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), has recently published research that claims that a majority of Australians support decriminalisation of late term abortion.

An anonymous online survey of 1050 Australians aged 18 years or older was conducted between 28 and 31 July 2008. The survey used ‘contextualised’ questions, that is, it asked the respondents to apply certain circumstances to women close to them, and to specifically consider their responses in that context. The survey is not available for examination, but it appears that the research was focused on abortion after 24 weeks gestation, that is, beyond the age where babies are likely to survive outside the womb.

The Journal article describes the results: “Our study showed a high level of support for access to early abortion; 87% of respondents indicated that abortion should be lawful in the first trimester (61% unconditionally and 26% depending on the circumstances). In most of the clinical and social circumstances described in our survey, a majority of respondents indicated that doctors should not face professional sanctions for performing abortion after 24 weeks’ gestation.”

The release of the article was supported by a press release by the AMA claiming that ‘most Australians support late abortion’. An opinion piece by the authors was also released, drawing a link between the survey responses and the decriminalisation of late term abortion. Another, separate article by one author, espouses extreme views about the morality of late term abortion but has very little reference to the research.

The print media has readily taken up the material, with the Adelaide Advertiser, Courier Mail (Brisbane), Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian all running pieces on the story.

In examining the Journal article, supporting data (to the extent that this is available), and the claims of the authors, a number of inconsistencies become apparent.

Firstly, a note regarding the authorship of the article. Lachlan de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu are well known for their extreme views regarding termination of pregnancy, particularly during the third trimester. De Crespigny is also a provider of abortion services, being the man who delivered the fatal injection to the heart of baby Jessica at 32 weeks. Mark Textor is an owner of Crosby Textor which undertook the survey (as declared by the authors). Given that certain survey outcomes are both within the authors' interests and their influence, the study demands critical attention. It seems unlikely that the authors would have published the results and heralded them so loudly if the outcome were different.

Secondly, readers should remember the role and motivation of the AMA. As an industry lobby group, it is reasonable to expect that they will advocate for public policy that serves their members' interests best. What we should not expect, however, is that they will advocate for the wellbeing of either patients, or the wider society, particularly if this means curtailing their business.

Third, there is an implicit assumption put forward in both the research paper and the accompanying media releases that bears some examination. Both suggest that legislation should reflect the attitudes of society and current practise. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but the role of law is to limit the freedoms of some, to ensure the more basic freedoms of others. Outside of abortion, government is expected to constrain, even change, public attitudes. For example, dring driving, cigarette smoking, speeding. It would be ludicrous to conduct a poll to determine whether teenagers thought cigarettes should be legally available at an affordable price. Similarly, we don’t legalise paedophilia just because this is ‘current practice’ for some individuals. We elect good leaders who examine all the facts, and legislate for good social outcomes that benefit all members of society.

The study itself uses methods that distort the responses of the participants, and then misrepresents the results. This is psuedo-science at best, and at worst is a dodgy attempt to put some credibility into a campaign designed to manipulate the public and lawmakers.

The paper refers to ‘factual information about the proposed law change in Victoria’. It is not clear what kind of information this included. It is a fairly safe guess that it did not include reference to termination up until birth. It is also a a fairly reasonable assumption that no information about abortion procedures, the fate of the child involved, the lack of support available for women, high rates of coercion, or the psychological and physical risks was provided. The data therefore, at best, reflects the attitudes of those who are ignorant of the real nature of abortion, particularly late term abortion.

The method of questioning personalises the abortion decision by describing specific situations. It does not, however, personalise the experience of the other person involved (all references to babies were accompanied by the word ‘suffering’ so that the baby appears to benefit from his/her death), nor does it provide any personal stories of women’s grief and regret following abortion. The respondents’ answers are therefore skewed toward providing what appears to be a compassionate response to a request for an abortion. Perhaps a more truthful title would be “Survey shows most Australians wouldn’t prosecute doctors who save women’s lives.” No argument with that.

One of the questions asks respondents to indicate whether or not they thought that a doctor should face professional sanctions for performing an abortion after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, including three where there is risk to the life, physical health or mental health of the woman. The inference is that such situations exist. The continuation of a pregnancy may, in limited circumstances, create unacceptable risks that require termination of the pregnancy. However, the intentional death of the child is never a necessary part of any treatment after 24 weeks. These babies are likely to survive if given care. I doubt the respondents were aware of this.

The short preamble to questions regarding late term abortion focuses on a ‘grey zone’ between 22 and 26 weeks “where some foetuses have survived, most with ongoing disability, through major medical intervention.” This reference to disability and medical intervention skews the respondents’ answers toward cases of borderline viability when answering. The study, however, reports the responses as refering to any age following 24 weeks, implicitly including up until birth. I doubt that the respondents were thinking of fully developed babies when answering.

Finally, the conclusion by the AMA that “A majority of Australians support laws that enable women to access late abortion” is a misrepresentation of a survey about doctors’ professional liability. Nowhere did the survey ask if people thought late term abortion should be decriminalised. Why not ask the obvious? The answer is simple – there are many other outcomes of decriminalisation - an increase in the number of abortions (as we are currently seeing in Victoria), an increase in the level of coercion, an increase in the number of women experiencing severe after-effects, a decrease in our regard for the rights of the unborn etcetera.

Some critical thinking is required here. This report has nothing to do with research, and everything to do with the pro-abortion beliefs of the authors.

The question of legalisation is much more complex than doctors and their risk profile. This simplistic and deceptive approach is both self-serving and calculated. Those with a financial agenda use poor science to manipulate the media, politicians, and the wider public into believing that laws that protect our vulnerable citizens (born and unborn) should be removed, so that their businesses can flourish.

How about a real debate – lets talk about the real issues: coercion, regret, dead babies, infanticide, consciencious objection, physical risks, psychological carnage, big business, lack of care and support, lack of positive options, and social attitudes (towards rape, disability, young mums), to name a few. We must cut through the smoke and mirrors and have a look at what is really at stake – the lives of our children and the wellbeing of their parents. Australians deserve better than (late term) abortion.

The Australian Christian Lobby have also released a response to the AMJ article.

When science meets business

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:37:00 GMT

The ABC has reported that "A major review of scientific evidence in the UK has found that the human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks into term".

In response, Life News quotes Paul Tully, the general secretary of a British prol life group, 'Society for the Protection of Unborn Children' (SPUC). Mr. Tully described RCOG as "an organization that supports abortion so its take on foetal pain is expected" and "The RCOG supports the killing of 570 babies every day in Britain, at all stages of pregnancy, through the abortion policies it pursues and the lucrative activities of its members."

Life News reported that US National Right to Life Attorney, Mary Spaulding Baulch is disputing the findings of the Royal College of Obstetricians. She stated that most scientific research says that pain exists and that "An objective expert in neurobiology would be appalled by the stunning lack of scholarship in the RCOG article."

The suggestion that "The connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed before the 24 week mark" or that "the foetus is not conscious" (according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) contradicts other scientific reports that state "Research has indicated that in fact abortions performed on babies between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system (pain inhibitors) has barely begun to develop. A 20-30 week old foetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. (“Physical Examination and Health Assessment” by Jarvis 5th Edition p 183).

Dr. Paul Ranalli made a presentation on "Pain, Foetal Development, and Partial-birth Abortion" on June 27, 1997 in which he outlined that "Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino-thalamic system is fully established and connected."

He described three indicators that provide evidence for the pain felt by an unborn baby:

"There are three different indicators providing evidence that the foetus feels pain.

Anatomical
- pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
- pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)

Physiological/Hormonal
- foetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
- two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released in massive amounts by the foetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)

Behavioral
- withdraw from pain
- change in vital signs. "

The ongoing agenda of the abortion lobby and the medical practitioners who carry out abortions continues to blur the lines between science and business. Any mother who has felt her baby moving inside her womb and has seen ultrasound footage of behaviour (not unlike that after birth) knows that this new review is seriously flawed.

Local community mourns Angel Baby

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:02:00 GMT

"Angel Baby" is the name given to a newborn baby boy who was abandoned at a bus shelter, and subsequently died, some two years ago. It is a sad story, with the tragic ending of a life so young - also sadly, his mother has not come forward to receive the care and support she is likely to need. A funeral ceremony, funded by Angel Baby's community of Shepparton was described as a beautiful ceremony, and was held recently following release of the infant's body by the Coroner.

However, a letter to the Editor of a local newspaper describes the hypocrisy of the Shepparton Member, Ms. Powell. Local resident Mr Ewan McDonald wrote:

"Has anyone else noticed the glaring double-standards of the Member for Shepparton? Commendably, Mrs Powell joined with other community representatives in mourning the death of "Angel Baby", however, less than two years ago she voted in the Victorian parliament to pass the "Abortion Law Reform Act 2008". This was the bill that saw abortion decriminalised in the State of Victoria which now has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. This Law eliminated all legal protection for Victorian children until the moment of birth.

And what has been the result? A recent Channel 7 News story reported an alarming 600% increase in late term abortions performed at the Royal Women's Hospital. These are babies only weeks younger than "Angel Baby" and yet Mrs Powell voted for their destruction. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that mourns the death of an unwanted newborn baby whilst approving the deaths of tens of thousands of others in utero".

Another double standard in recent days is an article in the Herald Sun by Felicity Williams that rightly warns of the risks, of consuming alcohol, to babies in the womb or being breastfed. However there is a much much greater danger to babies in the womb, some 20,000 Victorian babies die each year from abortion!! As Mr McDonald (above) pointed out, babies are being aborted (late term) at an increase of 600% at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. What do we hear about this from our 'lamestream media' outlets? Just one report, about item 4 on one television channel.

The loss of little "Angel Baby's" life is a tragedy, no doubt, but the destruction of tens of thousands of unborn babies who are betrayed every year by so many of our politicians, media representatives and society can be descibed as nothing but heartless. Every single one of these lives is precious and must be protected and nurtured!

Abortion advert trivialises human life

Tue, 25 May 2010 12:51:00 GMT

Pro-Life groups in the UK have condemned the airing of TV commercials for abortionist group Marie Stopes in Britain, describing them as ‘grotesque’ and ‘misleading’.

According to LifeSiteNews, pro life groups say that the advertisements cover up the dangers of abortion and “trivialize” the taking of human life. Marie Stopes, one of the world’s largest international abortionist groups that receives an estimated £30 million a year from the UK National Health Service, claimed that the ads were needed to “inform” women and help them “confront the taboo” surrounding abortion.

However, the UK charity LIFE said that despite the claims by Marie Stopes, the ads have nothing to do with women’s health and they withhold crucial information from women about the dangers of abortion. LIFE spokesman Michaela Aston said, “Let’s be absolutely clear - abortion has nothing to do with sexual health. In fact, abortion is more likely to damage a woman's sexual health.”

Ms Aston told The Guardian "I can only express utter disbelief that this is being allowed, given the opposition to abortion advertising expressed during the recent public consultation. To allow abortion providers to advertise on TV, as though they were no different from car companies or detergent manufacturers, is grotesque," she said.

“There is a growing body of scientific evidence supporting LIFE's forty years' experience of counselling women after abortion, that the procedure can cause lasting and sometimes severe psychological ill-effects,” Aston told LSN.

“Marie Stopes are not up-front about this. They sell abortion as a quick-fix solution to crisis pregnancy and largely deny that it has any adverse consequences. Marie Stopes are not empowering women to make ‘confident, informed decisions,’ as they claim, because they are not giving women all the facts.”

LIFE also questioned the transparency of the ASA’s consultation process about abortions ads: “Why did they go ahead with a public consultation period when they knew all along about the ‘charity loophole’? …Who made this discovery and when? And why weren't we informed about it during the consultation period?”

An announcement last year that the ASA was considering approving the advertising of abortion on TV was met with 40,000 complaints against the proposal, according to LifeSiteNews. In response, BCAP deferred a decision as to whether to allow the ads.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said it will be taking advice as to the legality of the ads.

“By suggesting that abortion is yet another consumer choice, it trivialises human life and completely contravenes the spirit of the 1967 Abortion Act, which was supposed to allow for a small number of legal abortions in a limited number of hard cases, but has been twisted and distorted to allow for mass abortion on demand,” SPUC’s Anthony Ozimic said.

The ads, he said, “trivialise abortion. It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion.”

The Marie Stopes ad the ads, which will run from May 24 to the end of June on BBC Channel 4, does not use the word “abortion,” but asks “Are you late?” and directs pregnant woman to Marie Stopes International's 24-hour helpline. The group in their press release boasts that of the 195,296 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2008, one in three were at Marie Stopes facilities.

An online petition is being circulated that allows the public to protest and request that permission to air the ads be rescinded.

Christian lobby calls for a rethink on Victorian abortion policies

Sat, 22 May 2010 12:07:00 GMT

The tragic news that almost one late-term abortion is performed every single day in Victoria and that many of these abortions are carried out on healthy babies for “psycho-social” reasons must cause a rethink on Victoria’s abortion policies, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) said today.

ACL Victorian Director Rob Ward said that late-term abortion figures from the 2007 annual report of the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity paint a picture of ‘unspeakable cruelty’.

“If it is not enough that Victoria’s abortion laws have allowed 345 late-term babies to be killed in 2007, then surely the fact that 54 of them were still alive after the procedure and then left to die should cause the Government to take stock,” Mr Ward said.

“The situation is even more horrendous when you consider that the 2007 figures reflect the situation before abortion was decriminalised in Victoria in October 2008.

“There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the number of late-term abortions being carried out in Victoria has increased significantly since the State’s open-slather abortion laws were passed.”

Mr Ward said that it is time for the Government to come clean and release all the information it has about the effects of its abortion legislation – including more recent statistics about late-term abortions.

“To its shame, Victoria appears to be solidifying its reputation as the abortion capital of Australia. There is an urgent need for the Government to review its abortion policies and we call upon them to do this immediately,” Mr Ward said.

“Every abortion is a tragedy and Christians will not remain silent on this issue, especially while babies old enought to survive outside the womb are being aborted regularly in our State."

LNA President speaks on national radio

Fri, 14 May 2010 12:27:00 GMT

On May 4, Life Network Australia President, Sonja Couroupis, spoke on national Christian radio. In an interview by the Australian Christian Lobby, Sonja commented on the recent case in Italy where a baby boy was left to die after a botched late term abortion. She exposes Australia's terrible track record of live births following abortion. She also mentions the increase in late term abortions in Victoria following the passing of legislation in 2008 which allows for abortion on demand in that State. Have a listen to the interview on the ACL website (May 4, starts at about 8:30 minutes).

Six hundred percent increase in late term abortions

Sat, 08 May 2010 00:01:00 GMT

Reproduced with permission from the Australian Christian Lobby.

Seven News has reported that late term abortions at Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital have jumped from one per fortnight to an alarming three per week since Victorian politicians decriminalised abortion in October 2008.

In the story which aired last month, presenter Jennifer Keyte said “midwives and doctors feel traumatised” by having to perform so many and are unhappy that other hospitals were not equipped or refused to perform late term abortion.

Journalist Louise Milligan said: “The abortion is almost always requested because the baby will die anyway or has a devastating disability.”

However, it is strange that such a sharp rise in demand for aborting babies with lethal foetal abnormalities or ‘devastating disability’ has coincided with the change in law.

Or could it be that disabled babies previously allowed to live are now having their lives ended?

And how do we know that what the hospital calls a ‘devastating disability’ is not a misdiagnosis or a non-life threatening or correctible condition?

Queensland Senator Claire Moore told a Senate Inquiry in 2008 that Medicare funding for late term abortion was needed so that babies with a severe disability did not become a burden on the disability services budget.

Moore’s unguarded submission, made on behalf of 41 Senators and Members of Parliament, revealed that many abortion advocates see abortion as a form of eugenics.

Milligan said the liberalisation of abortion laws had led to “alarming” requests for abortion.

“A family asked to terminate because the baby had a hare lip. The woman was 32 weeks pregnant.”

ACL hopes requests like this are denied by doctors but under the new law unborn babies can have their lives terminated for any reason up to 24 weeks and after this for any reason as long as two doctors consent.
It is interesting that Dr Lachlan De Crespigny makes an appearance in the news story defending late term abortion.

It was his ending of the life of a 32-week unborn baby girl with suspected dwarfism in 2000 which was used as a lever for the Victorian law change.

While ACL is opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, the Seven News revelations expose the folly of the Victoria’s open slather abortion laws which have no checks and balances or protection for any unborn babies - especially those whose only crime is to have a disability.

Tragic Italian news highlights cruelty of Australian abortion laws

Sat, 01 May 2010 12:02:00 GMT

From the Australian Christian Lobby

Tragic news from Italy that a baby boy who survived a botched abortion at 22 weeks and was simply wrapped in cloth and left to die by Italian doctors has again highlighted the extreme cruelty of late-abortion practices.

Media reports indicate that the baby was discovered alive last Saturday - 20 hours after the botched termination - when a hospital chaplain went to pray beside the body and noticed him moving. The baby died in intensive care on Monday, with Italian police launching a homicide investigation as Italy’s laws state that doctors have an obligation to try to preserve the life of a child if it survives a termination.

The Italian report – and police action – further expose the distressingly cruel nature of abortion practices which occur legally and no doubt far more frequently in Australia, without repercussions for those involved.

In late 2008 a Senate committee looking into the Medicare funding of second trimester/late term abortions was given shocking evidence of babies being born alive after botched abortions and left to die, as well as the foetal pain experienced during abortions. For example, statistics from Victoria show that 47 of the 309 post-20 week abortions performed in 2005 resulted in the delivery of a live born child who was then left to die.

And yet despite these revelations nothing has been done to help these children and our abortion laws are only becoming more permissive.

However, in some heartening news from the US, politicians in the US state of Oklahoma have voted to pass two abortion Bills that will require women to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy.

Doctors will also be permitted to withhold test results showing foetal defects and will be protected from ‘wrongful birth’ malpractice lawsuits brought by parents who would have aborted a foetus had they been informed about its genetic or other defects.

Abortion industry still keeping women in the dark

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:22:00 GMT

The Herald Sun has reported on recent legislation in Oklahoma (US) that will require women to view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion procedure. Governor Brad Henry (Democratic) tried to block the Bills last week, but the Oklahoma legislature, the majority of whom are Republican, overwhelmingly overrode his veto with the help of Democrats.

According to the article, Pro Choice NSW spokesperson, Jane Caro, believes that "the new laws would strip women of basic human rights" and she advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together." Ms. Caro also stated "The new laws are outrageous on every level and destroy the human rights of the women in that state. They no longer have equal human rights."

President of Life Network Australia and mother of five, Sonja Couroupis, believes this response is hypocritical, "How can 'choice' be 'choice', when all the information is not presented? - an ultrasound is information!"

As for human rights, Ms, Couroupis stated that "Ms Caro is obviously uninformed of the devastation done to women by abortion. Statistics of such damage have led to legislation such as that in Oklahoma".

Mrs Couroupis continued, posing the question, "And what of the (human) rights of the millions of babies, including baby girls, aborted every year throughout the world? Where are their rights?"

Born alive abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden considers herself a "voice for the voiceless" and asks the same question, "What were my (human) rights?"

The article goes on to state that "even women who are victims of rape or incest will be required to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy".

Life Network Australia believes it is insulting to assume that women who have already been violated through rape or incest would automatically require and seek an abortion. It is unacceptable to make generalisations about women in this tragic situation and make statements on their behalf, based on these generalisations. Why shouldn't all women, facing any kind of unplanned pregnancy, be entitled to as much information as possible, including the viewing of an ultrasound?

Mary Spaulding Balch, Director of State Legislation for the National Right to Life (US), said that, "Ultrasound gives a mother a window to her womb," and Vice President of Right to Life Australia Margaret Tighe agrees that the new laws were "terrific news" and should be adopted in Australia.

Mrs Couroupis challenged Ms Caro's statement that "the new laws (in Oklahoma) would force abortions underground", describing her language as desperate and dramatic. Perhaps she is worried that such laws will not be good for (abortion) business, a business that thrives on the abuse of women, babies and families?

Women deserve better!

Melbourne Dr. under investigation

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:17:00 GMT

The Age (April 9, 2010) has reported that an anaesthetist is likely to have deliberately infected 12 patients with hepatitis C at an abortion clinic in Croydon, Melbourne.

This is a tragic situation for the women concerned (the loss of their unborn baby and now their own physical complications) but is a reminder of the significance of abortion procedures, which are frequently described as "simple" and "safe". This is not the case. Women considering abortion need to fully understand the nature and risks of the medical procedure, including longer term implications.

Australia should follow US ban on abortion funding

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:18:00 GMT

Article released by the Australian Christian Lobby

The US Congress this week voted to ban taxpayer subsidising of abortion in its health care bill.

In fact, the bill, a centrepiece of President Obama’s agenda, would not have passed unless he agreed to Congress’ demand to use an Executive Order to ensure no public money was used for abortion.

The abortion debate is far from settled and research shows a majority of Australians are uncomfortable with abortion – particularly late term abortion.

A recent Senate Inquiry into Medicare Funding of late term abortions heard evidence that some aborted babies were born alive and left to die.

Taxpayers’ money, particularly that of conscientious objectors, should not be use for ending the life of the unborn particularly where there is no lethal abnormality and where the mother’s life is not at risk.

It is disappointing that the Federal Government has ignored the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry to collect nationally consistent data on abortion, despite the fact that politicians on both sides of the debate agree that there are too many abortions.

It is estimated that 80,000-90,000 abortions occur each year in Australia.

President Obama’s Executive Order banning taxpayer subsidising of abortion only allows public funding in the rare cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is endangered.

While some US pro-life groups are concerned the Bill and Executive Order may have loopholes, it is nonetheless encouraging that the plight of the unborn has been elevated to the top of the US’ political agenda, albeit briefly.