Abortion in the Media

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.

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.  

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.

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.