Abortion in the Media

About 65,000 Americans have signed a national petition in just one week calling on Congress to exclude abortion as a mandatory health benefit as part of any health care legislation being considered, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) announced yesterday, according to LifeSiteNews.  The ACLJ, which specializes in constitutional law, is providing legal analysis to House members urging them to reject the abortion mandate.

" When it comes to mandatory health benefits, Americans don't want their tax dollars used - or force private insurance plans - to fund abortion.  We will continue to push for a legislative remedy that explicitly excludes abortion from any government mandated coverage or taxpayer funded health plan." said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACL.
 
"The two central 'health care reform' bills currently moving in Congress … each contain provisions that would, if enacted, represent the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalising abortion in 1973," explained US National Right to Life Committee Federal Legislation Director Douglas Johnson in LifeSiteNews’ July 13 bulletin. 

"These bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, massive federal subsidies for abortion, mandated creation of many new abortion clinics, and nullification of at least some state limitations on abortion."

Unlike Australia, abortions in the US are not yet funded by taxpayers. With over 50% of Americans now calling themselves ‘pro life’, Obama’s pro-abortion legislation is likely to meet with a lot more opposition over the coming months.

Australian taxpayers paid out over $10.5 million in Medicare-subsidised abortions in 2003.

 

Gynaecologist and abortion provider, Caroline de Costa, has called for uniform abortion laws across Australian states, ‘consistent with 21st-century abortion practice’, ie unfettered access.

The article, appearing in The Australian on July 18 argues that women should not have to deal with laws that ‘dictate how, where and if they can access a safe and legal abortion’. She particularly supports the use of abortion drug RU486 which she describes as a ‘safe and effective drug’.

In his excellent reply published on July 25, Dr David van Gend points out that historical data shows no correlation between abortion being legal, and women being safe. ‘All gains in maternal safety in the 20th century – in childbirth, miscarriage or abortion – came from medical advances alone (especially antibiotics) with no detectable benefit from liberalising abortion law’.

So much for ‘safe and legal’. Furthermore, how can a procedure in which a human being dies be safe? More importantly, how can it be right? As Dr van Gend rightly points out, under Victoria’s abortion law, babies older than the ‘premmies’ in hospital nurseries can legally be killed, with no medical justification at all. ‘Such a law judges a 24-week baby to be a child when wrapped in hospital blankets, but mere human waste when wrapped in the womb’.

Uniform abortion laws mean only one thing – even more death-peddling, even more loss, even more grief. Australians deserve better than to be sold the ‘safe and legal’ lie. We deserve to receive the respect and support required to confidently carry and raise our children in a society where even the most vulnerable are protected and valued.

 

What a bizarre and contradictory situation, in which our society and medical system fight to save premature babies but on the other hand aborts (unwanted) babies at similar stages of development.  Every life, within or outside of the womb deserves protection and is worth fighting for!!

Check out the following articles:
“World’s most premature baby thriving”
“Premature babies are worth every cent”

Victorian legislation currently allows for abortion on demand up until 24 weeks gestation, and up until birth when two doctors consider it 'appropriate'.