Abortion in Australia

We are delighted to learn that the Croydon clinic in Melboirne will no longer be performing abortions on unborn babies over 24 weeks.
Although we would rather they stop doing abortions completely, this news is welcome!
In warning of women "pursuing unsafe solutions", Health Services Commissioner, Beth Wilson seems to forget that only about a month ago, a 42 year old woman died just days after having an abortion at this clinic, and that another 40 year old lady almost died just weeks earlier. She seems to also be trivializing the infecting of some 60 women with hepatitis C at this Croydon facility. Ms Wilson stated that "The worst case scenario is that it will lead to backyard abortions" - we would argue that the harm inflicted at this clinic is no different (to that in "backyard abortions"), but on a bigger scale and with government endorsement and funding!
While pleased with this development, we are disappointed that the Baillieu Government hasn't yet repealed the current abortion laws which have legitimised the harm done to women and babies at this clinic and in others across Victoria.

We remain optimistic that the Victorian Government will reinstate protection for women, babies and families and the tragedies that have occurred since 2008 will not have been in vain.


Related articles will be added shortly.

The Australian Family Association (AFA) have indicated that they "expect a private members bill to decriminalise abortion to full-term before the end of 2011". 

"With an election due by early June 2012, (April/May most likely) the Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, is under intense pressure from the abortion lobby to allow debate in parliament on abortion.

According to the AFA, "Premier Bligh has stated repeatedly she supports the full decriminalisation of abortion.  As a member of EMILY's list, it is no surprise as the Premier is simply following orders.  All EMILY's list supporters (www.emilyslist.org.au) must also vote according to the goals and objectives of EMILY's list".

Even Emily List's leaders themselves have defended Bligh from the attack of the abortion lobby. In an article ('Blaming women not the answer to abortion law reform') Hutch Hussein (National Co-Convenor of EMILY’s List Australia) and Tanja Kovac (National Co-ordinator) said that "A number of women in the Queensland parliament enjoy our support and we have no reason to question their loyalty to change". They added that "Blaming Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, or anyone of our supporters, for failing to reform a piece of legislation that pre-dates even the right of women to vote is counter-productive to affecting change in the best interests of women, and the partners who support them".

Hussein and Kovac, of Emily's List, also described the patience required to implement open slather abortion legislation: "Incremental change is not popular – calling for revolution when it can’t be delivered makes for more interesting television. But incremental change –law reform inquiries, private members bills requiring conscience votes, consensus building and other boring, but essential steps needed to take people with you on a journey for change - is what makes for lasting behavioural and social transformation. This is why progressive women, like Premier Bligh, need two things -  firstly, the people of Queensland to elect more progressive MPs into their parliament and, secondly, the support of women’s movement and the community sector and the press to take a greater interest in the institutional structures that work to limit women’s control over their own bodies".

Hussein and Kovac also advised Emily List supporters to "Be clear on who the enemies of Reproductive Freedom are and direct our energies accordingly".

It would appear now that as Bligh's term as Premier may be coming to an end, with an election due early next year - that the abortion lobby is demanding Bligh 'go for broke' on legalising abortion up until birth. 

ACT NOW:The AFA urges all Queenslanders to contact their state MP to express their concern. Find your MP here. 

Life Network Australia asks that everyone opposed to the current Victorian legislation also act quickly to make contact with Queensland MPs and express our opposition. 

Related Articles:

Emily's List  

Abortion Fetish of Professionals

Abortion nightmare in Victoria

 

A "pro choice" DVD has been released that features the architects of the barbaric Victorian abortion legislation of 2008. It is well worth taking the time to hear the arguments that convinced the majority of politicians in Victorian Parliament that day and to take a brief look at the characters and portfolios of a few of the "main players".
 The footage is 25 minutes long, but is a great insight into the arguments that were used. It also demonstrates the coordination and collaboration that was required to pull off such a feat, something pro lifers must learn from if we are to have any impact at all. The pro life movement is driven by outstanding groups and individuals, but it is imperative that we work together consistently to pool information, resources, ideas and enthusiasm.

It would seem that the 'cart is before the horse' when it comes to abortion legislation and that some of our medical "experts" in Australia are just a little too passionate about late term abortion than the public are aware or likely to approve of.
 
One in particular, Dr Lachlan De Crespigny, has quite the abortion portfolio! Featured in media reports about late term abortion, his claims, research and practice have gone relatively unchallenged and have not been given the scrutiny required.

Dr. De Crespigny is perhaps best known for his involvement in the abortion of a 32 week old baby girl, Jessica Jane, that had suspected dwarfism.  Endeavour Forums Babette Francis wrote about how this late term (and illegal) abortion influenced the 2008 decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria.

To say that this case caused outrage from the community would be an understatement. Andrew Bolt's coverage of this story in the article 'We kill Babies'  has resulted in a surge within the pro life movement (including the beginning of LNA!). 
Incredibly, some media outlets now sympathise with Dr De Crespigny for the scrutiny he faced over the abortion of Jessica Jane (who "did not appear to be so small afterall")!

Many attribute the change of legislation in Victoria to the 'Jessica Jane' case - which became about the protection of doctors like Dr. De Crespigny, who perform late term abortions. It did not appear at all to be about the health and welfare of women and their babies (which was evident in the amendments designed to offer women and babies at least some protection - that were all outrightly rejected by the Brumby government). 

Dr De Crespigny's reach is not limitted to Australia. An article by Michael Cook, (Oct, 2009, republished June, 2011) stated that in Britian, "studies have shown that about 92% of women who are told that their child will have Down syndrome go on to have a termination". In his writing in the blog of 'Oxford University's Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics', Lachlan de Crespigny says that "this is not a bad thing", although he "acknowledges that Down syndrome children often have sunny dispositions"!!
Dr De Crespigny stated that "Few people choose to have a Down syndrome child. It is hard to find adoptive parents for a DS child. Couples with a previous DS child usually have prenatal testing to minimize the risk of having another disabled child and they proceed to abortion of an affected fetus." He also said that "risk-free prenatal tests should be celebrated". Dr de Crespigny is described in the article, as "a distinguished Australian expert in prenatal testing".  

While the notion of aborting babies with disabilities is abhorrent to many of us, it seems that Dr. De Crespigny and his colleague Prof Julian Savulescu may have used examples of terminal illnesses to justify all late term abortions to the public- even if many of these babies are, in fact, healthy.

In Australia, an article by David van Gend reveals that Dr Lachlan De Crespigny  made the claim that late term abortions are done "for major problems as a last resort", and they gave the example of an abnormality of a baby's heart. However, at the time that they made this claim, the data from the Health Department's 2005 survey of perinatal deaths revealed a very different story.

According to the Herald Sun, it showed that: ""The majority of late abortions were for psychosocial reasons, not fetal abnormality" and that  "At 23-27 weeks of pregnancy, when other premature babies are being cared for in the hospital nursery, the records for 2005 show that 108 healthy babies were terminated for psychosocial reasons, which is five times as many as those terminated for congenital abnormality."
Mr. van Gend said that "abortion for psychosocial reasons is by far the biggest single cause of "stillbirth" in Victoria" and that "In 2005, the deliberate ending of these healthy lives accounted for one in every three stillbirths".
He also asked the question: "Is late abortion merely a tragic response to grave fetal abnormality or risk to the mother's life?", then responded: "No. Late abortion is done for any reason that sufficiently stresses the parents and its numbers are climbing fast." Another Herald Sun article reported that in 2005, 180 late term abortions were performed for 'psycho social' reasons.
The argument provided by Dr De Crespigny to convince the public, is inconsistent with state government statistics.

Louise Mulligan  reported a 600% increase in late term abortions, at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, since the decriminalisation of abortion in 2008. Ms Mulligan consulted with Dr De -Crespigny and provided a comment from him in her report. Ms Mulligan repeated his earlier claim that the majority of these late term babies were aborted because they "were going to die anyway or have a devastating disability." 
We do not have Victorian Department of Health's report to refute this information, but given the unreliability of this claim previously, it can certainly not be accepted 'as Gospel'.   
   
Dr De Crespigny and Prof Julian Savulescu were also authors of a survey about late term abortion, the results of which were published by the Australian Medical Association and in newspapers all around Australia. This research claimed that Australians support the decriminalisation of late term abortion. Life Network Australia critiqued the survey, which raises many questions.

One might reasonably ask "Why do Dr. De Crespigny and Professor Prof Julian Savulescu appear to have such a vested interest in / passion for late term abortion?"  This commitment (to abortion up until birth) is enough to send chills down ones spine - not unlike those I felt when watching 'Silence of the lambs'.  

Then there are the babies being born alive and left to die on shelves or thrown into a bucket of -formaldehyde.  Indeed this situation is playing out as quite a horror story! The rhetoric of  "between a woman and her doctor" and "my body my choice" is grossly inadequate and inappropriate.

The Health Department's current report on infant mortalitity and morbidity was supposed to be released at the end of 2010. Given the 600% increase in late term abortions at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, we anticipate the information with dread. When asked about the delay, MP Bernie Finn said that the ALP government (who was in power at the time) did not want the public to know what has happened in Victoria.
We are awaiting greater transparency from the new Liberal Goverment of Victoria.
Life Network Australia has submitted an FOI request for this report and are currently pursuing the ombudsman to appeal the recent rejection (of the FOI request).

It would appear that medical experts and research that Australians depend on and trust are not objective, transparent or reliable when it comes to abortion.
The downward acceleration of abortion legislation has resulted from a lack of transparency from health departments, research based on questionable surveys (by doctors seemingly 'hell bent' on late term abortion) and a media more than happy to publish their claims without any objective assessment.
Australian babies must be protected from such bias and incompetence - their lives depend on it!

In the lead up to the NSW election, Leesha McKenny (SMH, Feb. 16, 2011 ) has reported that 'Leaders reject abortion change' - the title of her article.

According to the SMH, Premier Kristina Keneally has told a forum of Christian leaders at Parliament House, that her government "will not pursue decriminalising abortion in NSW".  

MS Keneally was also asked about whether NSW might adopt legislation similar to that in South Australia, which keeps more detailed records of abortion data and statistics. She revealed that NSW collects some data but that it is not made public and that she "had concerns about privacy issues, about how the data is collected and how it is interpreted". Ms Keneally did not dismiss that similar measures might be considered in NSW in the future and said that "as a nation we need better information to inform this debate".

The article described the response of the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell who also stated that "his party similarly had no plans to seek the decriminalisation of abortion" and that "Any abortion vote in Parliament would be a conscience vote for members of his party".

This comment by Mr. O'Farrell is of little comfort to pro life advocates who witnessed the change of legislation in Victoria which now allows (legal) abortion up until birth! This extreme Victorian legislation was passed by a conscience vote, with the rejection of sixty amendments that were designed to add at least some protection for babies and women.

David Hutt from the Australian Christian Lobby told The SMH that "The invitation only event was an opportunity for the leaders to make their case to the Christian community on various issues before the state election on March 26." 

Christian leaders "from a cross-section of denominations"  were represented at the forum in Sydney.

Media Release from the Reverend Fred Nile MLC, released Tuesday, 22nd September 2010.

The Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has raised concern that new scientific research linking abortion and breast cancer is being ignored in Australia for ideological reasons.

"Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer that Australian women suffer, with approximately 14,000 new diagnoses every year. It is a horrific condition that can rob women of their sense of femininity, dignity and ultimately life", said Rev Fred Nile.

"Whilst I applaud the hard work invested by researchers, community groups like the McGrath Foundation and collaborative efforts like pink ribbon day, prevention is always better than cure. So I find it tragic that some in our community are choosing to ignore preventative measures that could directly affect the health and well being of tens of thousands of women. Due to political ideologies, some are still ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence that abortion significantly increases a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.

Because of his concern, Rev Fred Nile raised this issue in the NSW Parliament on Tuesday 21st September 2010, quoting from an affidavit of leading breast cancer surgeon, Angela Lanfranchi:

"I am a breast cancer surgeon practising in New Jersey, since 1984. I hold the position of Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. I am also a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and am certified by the American Board of Surgery.

She goes on to say:

As a breast cancer surgeon over the last 25 years, I have cared for ever-younger women with breast cancer; my youngest was 25 years old. There has been a 40% increase in incidence in invasive breast cancer over my career. I have researched the causes of these alarming increases over the past fifteen years and have become knowledgeable about the reasons for these trends, one of which is induced abortion ...

Just last year alone, three studies from the United States, China and Turkey, confirmed that abortion is associated with increased risk of breast cancer ...

Epidemiological studies have long confirmed that abortion is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, satisfying the Hill criteria for causation. These studies will necessarily continue to be produced because scientists know that in order to conduct valid studies concerning any risk factor all known variables must be controlled for, and induced abortion is one of them.

The physiology of why abortion increases the risk of breast cancer is well-understood, as explained below.

A lobule is a unit of breast tissue consisting of milk glands and ducts which carry the milk towards the nipple. Before the first full-term pregnancy, a women's breast is about 75% Type 1 and 25% Type 2 lobules where ductal and lobular breast cancers form respectively. By the end of the pregnancy, the breast is about 85% fully matured to cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules and only about 15% immature, cancer-vulnerable lobules remain, thereby reducing the mother's future risk of breast cancer. After weaning, Type 4 lobules become Type 3 lobules. There are permanent changes in the up and down regulation of genes in these Type 3 lobules conferring life-long reduction in breast cancer risk.

During a pregnancy the absolute number of these lobules also increase as the breast doubles in volume with an increase in the number of lobules and a decrease in stroma (the surrounding connective tissue) ...

Only after 32 weeks' gestation does the fetal-placental hormone human placental lactogen ... in concert with other hormones, fully mature the breast lobules into Type 4, making them cancer-resistant. An abortion before 32 weeks prevents this from occurring. The same physiology accounts for an approximate doubling in breast cancer risk due to premature birth before 32 weeks, as shown by several studies. In addition, it has been well-established by at least 2 meta-analyses that abortion increases the risk of future premature births. A combination of these two effects results in a further increase in breast cancer risk from abortion ...

In light of the clear physiology linking abortion to breast cancer, and the numerous studies documenting the increased risk, physicians have a professional duty to disclose that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

Greater honesty is needed to prevent negative psychological impacts of abortion.

"Women are hard-wired for relationships—and a woman’s relationship to her baby is one of the most powerful of all, whether she realizes it or not. The hard-wiring of the brain may explain many women’s disturbing post-abortion feelings," write Professors Evelyn Birge Vitz and Paul C. Vitz in an article published in the September 20 issue of Public Discourse.

In the article the authors relate spending a semester with students studying the stories of women who shared their experiences after an abortion.

The authors found that "many of these women are in acute pain; some are almost totally incapacitated" by their post-abortion feelings.

"What is particularly striking is that most of the women who have these powerful emotional reactions to their abortion are stunned by them. They were not opposed to abortion; many were actively pro-choice. They were blind-sided by their own reaction. One woman lamented—and thousands of others echo her mystified anguish—‘If this was the right decision, why do I feel so terrible?’”

"When responding to the stress of the abortion, she may well be drawn to nurturing, to ‘tending and befriending’ behavior: this is, we saw, characteristic of women. But one of the key persons she might have tended and befriended—her unborn child—she has just terminated. She therefore has no ready outlet to cope with this significant stress."

"Add to this already toxic mix the very power of the memories involved in most unwanted pregnancies and abortion experiences," the authors write, "such as the nausea or other physical symptoms, often exacerbated by hormonal instability and mood swings; the anxiety over the unwanted pregnancy; the drama of the pregnancy test; often, the difficulty of making the decision, then the waiting before the abortion can take place; perhaps protesters in front of the clinic; the abortion clinic waiting room, crowded perhaps with other emotional women and men; the abortion itself—the doctors and nurses, the stirrups, the vacuum or other machinery—then the recovery room; the pain and bleeding afterward.

"All these dramatic experiences are likely to provide her with indelible memories. A woman may return to them and relive them over and over."

The authors conclude that "though a woman can decide rationally to have an abortion ... a terrible and shocking reaction sets in after their abortion. Often what lasts is not the relief or the power of the logical arguments: these may prove very short-lived. It is, rather, the failed, betrayed relationship between the woman and her fetus—now, in her mind, her dead baby—that has staying power."

The authors call for a greater honesty from the medical profession toward women contemplating abortion "to prevent at least some women from having to experience this painful surprise."

"Women need to be told the truth. They need to be prepared for what may be the consequences of this major life decision. This is what informed choice means."

Source: LifeSiteNews.
Full article.

After a debate described by observers as "vicious" and "brutal" the Victorian Legislative Council last night rejected a motion to have the deaths of babies who are born alive following abortions investigated by a committee of the Parliament.  The motion was lost twenty-seven votes to nine votes, after ALP MP's were instructed to vote against it.  The motion was moved by Peter Kavanagh of the DLP.

"My motion was simply a call to investigate the deaths of babies.  The fact that these babies have been born alive after 'failed' abortions seems to mean that abortion staff think that those babies do not have a right to live.  Even after they have been born alive.  Last night's vote suggests
that unfortunately this is also the attitude of a majority of Victoria's politicians" Mr Kavanagh said.

"Brian Tee and Gayle Tierney for the ALP together with Colleen Hartland for the Greens launched a coordinated personal attack on me. All of them asserted facts which were contradicted by the very documents to which they referred. They did not even read the motion they were arguing against!" Mr Kavanagh said.

"I was told by several distressed ALP MP's that they had to vote against my motion.  They said that the ALP decided to vote against the proposed investigation because it did not want anything at all that even hinted at abortion to be mentioned at the time of the election" Mr Kavanagh said.

On 20 May 2010 the Herald Sun reported on the recently released 2007 annual report of the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity which showed that 54 out of 181 late term foetuses who were aborted for “abnormalities” (at around 26 to 28 weeks) survived late term abortions but all of them in the period studied died “post-natally”.

He further noted that babies born after 26 to 28 weeks of gestation have a very high chance of survival if given even minimal care, and that the death of every one of these babies in the period studied therefore suggests that they were neglected to death, if not deliberately killed.

Recent media reports suggest that the number of late-term abortions in Victoria have sky-rocketed since abortion was decriminalised in the State.