Abortion in the Media

ACL - Media release
Sunday September 6, 2009

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Jim Wallace said Dr Grundmann’s entry into the abortion debate praising Queensland Premier Anna Bligh yesterday for “letting sleeping dogs lie” (Weekend Australian, 5/6 Sept) should send a shiver up the spines of civilised people everywhere.

“Dr Grundmann wants to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’, but the most vicious sleeping dog in this debate, the practice of partial-birth abortion, still needs to be destroyed”, Mr Wallace said.

Dr Grundmann is Australia’s most prominent advocate of “partial-birth abortion”, a technique developed in the US but banned in 2003 by the United States Congress as “a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary.” The method involves half-delivering the baby – often older than those in our hospital nurseries – before piercing its head and crushing the skull. The baby is given no pain relief. The US Supreme Court, which contains a majority of pro-abortion judges, upheld the ban in 2007 – but there is no ban on Dr Grundmann practising this “gruesome and inhumane procedure” in Australia.  

Asked on Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes on April 17, 2005, “Do you pierce the baby’s head with a sharp instrument?” he replied, “I’m not going to discuss details of specifics about procedures because I don’t think that you or the public needs to know.”

In November 2005 Dr Grundmann was confronted again on the SBS’s Insight program. “I’m not sure that the debate would in any way be enhanced by descriptions of fairly explicit surgical and destructive procedures,” he said.

Mr Wallace said, “Dr Grundmann clearly does not want his practices exposed to the light of media investigation or parliamentary scrutiny, because he knows the only response of civilised and compassionate parliamentarians would be to impose appropriate regulations.”

Mr Wallace challenged the Health Minsters of Queensland and Victoria – where Dr Grundmann has clinics – to act without delay.

“The Health Ministers have authority to stop this gruesome and unjustified practice immediately, without needing another Parliamentary debate, by making it a condition of licensing for private clinics that they cannot perform partial-birth abortion”, Mr Wallace said.

“This is unfinished business, a ‘sleeping dog’, more important that the small legal technicality dealt with by the Queensland Parliament last week. The practice publicised and practised by Dr Grundmann is ‘gruesome, inhumane and never medically indicated’ and no Government can allow another baby to be mauled to death by this ‘sleeping dog’ of partial-birth abortion”, Mr Wallace said.

 

Contact: Glynis Quinlan 0408 875 979 or Jim Wallace 0402 341 755

As the pro abortion agenda in Queensland continues it’s relentless onslaught, media across the country have been decrying the plight of women who have been sent across the border into NSW to obtain the medical abortions that they ‘must have’.

The story of ‘Shay’ has been twice reported in The Australian, which cites her story as one of the reasons that Queensland legislation should be amended in response to the withdrawal of medical abortion services in some Queensland facilities.

Nineteen weeks pregnant, Shay was told that her baby was so severely malformed as to have no prospect of survival. She was subsequently advised by her obstetrician to terminate the pregnancy with a drug-induced abortion, according to one article in The Australian.

According to the other article, a surgical termination would create complications for her and husband Brad having other children, because the pregnancy was already into the second trimester.

One of the very worrying aspects of this story is some of the language used to decribe the young woman’s situation. Why is this an abortion she ‘must have’? Was Shay given any real choice? Or was she pressured, as so many women are, to get rid of the dodgy baby and get on with conceiving a better one? Not that those exact words are ever used, but the message is often clear.

Those with the courage to love their children despite even fatal abnormalities can experience great joy, and have the opportunity to grieve a natural loss, rather than having to grieve their own decision. Check out T.K. and Deidrea Lauxs experience with their son Thomas, or the story of baby Faith whose life mother Myah describes as the ‘best 93 days of my life’.

The unfortunate reality of abortion is that what starts as an opportunity, a ‘choice’, quickly becomes an expectation that ultimately robs us of true freedom. Women deserve better than abortion. 

In another spectacular example of the failure of society to respect and value women, the introduction of another method of taking our children has been heralded as a ‘step forward’.

Earlier this week, abortion provider Marie Stopes International announced that RU486 will now be used in nine of their clinics, alongside the current suite of surgical methods. The announcement was followed by a plethora of media coverage from almost every major newspaper and television station in the country. Pro abortion writers have also clamoured to press home the victory, releasing commentary like Leslie Cannold’s which was published on Tuesday in the Mildura Sunraysia Daily.

But for those that recognise that women are poorly served by a society that expects women to embrace abortion, the announcement is a great disappointment.

Ms Cannold asserts that the use of RU486 to terminate unborn children is ‘one more step in Australian women’s struggle for full equality and reproductive rights’. But one wonders, why is losing a child, ‘equality’? If pregnant and parenting women can’t currently participate equally in our society, then surely society is the problem, not the ability to bear children! The expectation to abort that inevitably follows opportunity robs women of one of their most precious abilities. Ms Cannold’s comments are familiar, but nonetheless perpetuate a vicious attack on the very women she hopes to champion.

Ms Cannold also praises what she suggests is the impending grant of a licence for the abortion drug to be imported and marketed in Australia. Medical practitioners will ‘finally be able to dispense the drug like all others … on the basis of patient need’, she writes. Aside from the fact that this is not a therapeutic drug ‘like all others’ because it treats no illness, the confession that women ‘need’ abortions is further evidence that our society is failing to support pregnant and parenting women.

Like many other abortion proponents, Ms Cannold raises the case of the 19 year old Queensland woman who will face court next month, charged with procuring her own miscarriage. She fails to mention that the woman used illegally imported drugs and self-administered them without medical supervision. Nor does she mention that the woman appears to be the first to ever be prosecuted under Queensland’s abortion laws (no wonder Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is treating the case as ‘anomalous’). The fact that RU486 was available at a local abortion clinic is also clearly relevant.

The case is sad, not only because the Queensland couple has endured the very public loss of their child, but also because of the shameless way that abortion proponents have sought to leverage the couple’s tragedy. What is most telling about this case is that the couple have gone to such great lengths to end a pregnancy because they believed that they were ‘too young’ to be parents. In many societies, 19 and 21 year old parents would be confident in raising a child. To our shame, modern Australian social norms outlaw many pregnancies, preferring instead to present the default position of abortion, leaving many couples with little choice.

Ms Cannold makes a stinging attack on Queensland Premier Anna Bligh over her refusal to introduce legislation to reform abortion law in that State. Cannold asks ‘exactly what has to happen to women in Queensland before their politicians act to represent them?’ What is happening, is that thousands of women are being bullied into unwanted abortions by a social norm that is perpetuated by those who believe that female biology is a disability. True representation would protect women from exploitation and encourage a society where women and motherhood are valued and supported.

Ms Cannold closes her article by suggesting that to fail to provide abortion services is to treat women as ‘human incubators whose lives are worth little or nothing at all’. Is this what she thinks of pregnant women? This attitude is the very reason that so many women are convinced to give up their children. If pregnant women were given the respect that they deserve as the nurturers of the next generation, abortion would be rare. Women deserve better than abortion. 

The ABC News and Channel 10 Late News reported last night that the abortion pill RU486 will now be more easily accessed within Australia.

Fourteen doctors, in nine Marie Stopes clinics across Australia have been given authorised access to the RU486 pill by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), according to Jill Michelson, national clinical adviser for abortion provider Marie Stopes International. The drug will be available to be used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. She stated that "...we have been waiting for a long time in Australia as we know this drug has been available in around about 30 countries since the late 80’s."

A NSW Right to Life representative expressed concern that RU486 may lead to an increase in abortions in Australia.

Comments posted anonymously on the ABC website included concerns about when the drugs may or may not be prescribed and also about the need to look more closely at why women are seeking abortions.

Furthermore, on the ABC website, Ms. Michelson made reference to a young couple in Queensland who face criminal charges after allegedly importing and using a contraband abortion drug.  Reference to this case has been constant  but what is not mentioned (again) is that this young couple allegedly used a drug not approved in Australia and administered it without medical supervision, raising issues of safety. It is also unclear as to why the couple did not avail themselves of their local abortion clinic which is authorised to administer RU486 – see previous LNA article on this case.

On Channel 10 Late News, Marcel White, President of Right to Life Australia, commented that the role of the TGA is to prevent harmful substances coming into Australia, but in approving the use of the abortion pill RU486, the TGA is authorising a drug designed to kill the unborn.

Jill Michelson (Marie Stopes) argued that the pill provides women with greater choice.
 
However, according to the Australian Christian Lobby, "The last thing that women need is another way to ... kill their babies. What is needed is more support for women who find themselves in a situation where they have an unsupported pregnancy and we should be really offering a greater choice for women rather than just the default position (of) abortion."

Real choice is about supporting and informing those facing unplanned pregnancies with options for having their babies, rather than just providing another means to terminate. It is also questionable why an abortion provider, who is a clear commercial beneficiary of  the decision to make RU486 accessible, is sought for comment on this important issue involving women, families and their unborn babies. 

An article on a popular men's web site that offered advice on how to pressure or coerce your wife or girlfriend into an unwanted abortion has been removed after receiving a flood of criticism from people on both sides of the abortion debate, according to The Elliot Institute News.

US-based Elliot Institute, billed as the ‘leader in post-abortion research’, released the astounding news in their July 28 eNews bulletin. 

The web site article described a situation in which a woman become pregnant after she and her partner agreed not to have a baby. The author, Isabella Snow, wrote about things the man could say to persuade the woman to have an abortion, even if it was unwanted.

Especially disturbing was the advice that the man threaten to withdraw his support if the woman has the baby anyway, which is a form of coercion. “This was her decision, not yours, and the bulk of the responsibility is now hers," Snow wrote. "Take a moment to spell this out for her when she gives you her final decision; it just may sway her over to your side."

Elsewhere in the article she tells men to back up their position by laying out the reasons they can't have a baby, asking questions about how they will afford the child or who will take care of the baby. According to the Elliot Institute, women and girls report that this is a technique often used at abortion businesses in the US to make them feel that they can't have the baby and that abortion is their only option.
 
Many readers expressed anger, disappointment and dismay at the author for endorsing and even encouraging coercive actions that can lead to unwanted abortions. Posts from male readers of the site express frustration and a sense of loss from abortion of their unborn children, indicating that abortion can hurt men as well as women.

There is strong evidence that many abortions are, in fact, unwanted or coerced.
 
A survey of American and Russian women who had abortions found that more than half of American respondents reported feeling rushed or uncertain about the abortion and 64 percent reported feeling pressured to abort by others. Given the similarities between Australian and US culture, coercion may be just as prevalent in Australia.

Download the Elliot Institute’s special report Forced Abortion in America and find more information and resources here.
 

An increasing number of older women are having abortions, reported the Sydney Morning Herald on August 1. The article, inspired by research at the Department of General Practice at Monash University, and published in a letter to The Medical Journal of Australia, listed some of the reasons given by 50 women attending an abortion clinic in Melbourne.

According to the article, the researchers found that 80 per cent had a regular partner and at least one child. The most common reasons for termination were financial pressures, a focus on career or studies, already having dependent children or being emotionally unprepared for children. One-third cited one of these as their main reason for having an abortion.

Not mentioned in the article is that of the 50 women surveyed, 98% (all but 2) had previously undergone abortion.

In the US, almost half of the abortions that occur each day are repeat abortions. Long term Catholic pro life worker, Father Frank Pavone writes about this phenomenon:

Often the mother, pregnant the second time, thinks, "I aborted my first child. I'm not worthy of being a mother. I don't deserve this child." And she goes to the abortion mill. Repeat abortions are a sign of ambivalence, and at times of self-punishment.

Dr. Theresa Burke also explains, "Repeat abortions and replacement pregnancies are two common ways in which women reenact elements of their abortion trauma" (Forbidden Grief, p.110). … We repeat what we don't understand, in the hopes of mastering it.

Fr Pavone rightly points out, that the compassionate response to repeat abortions should not be ‘How can she do that?’, but ‘How can I help you to heal?’. “That question expresses the heart of the pro-life movement, a movement that knows that the destiny of mother and child are forever intertwined, and that we can't love one without loving the other.”

There has been a 29 per cent increase in women aged 30 to 50 terminating a pregnancy between 1996 and 2006. More research into all areas of abortion in Australia is vital.

  

Next month, a 19 year old Cairns woman will face a Queensland court, charged with procuring her own miscarriage, according to a report in The Australian on August 01. The woman allegedly imported mifolian and misoprostol, the ‘Chinese version’ of the abortion drug RU486.

The incident is odd, to say the least. As the President of Cherish Life (formerly Queensland Right to Life) has pointed out, similar drugs are readily available through an abortion clinic in Cairns.
What is not odd, is the mileage that the abortion industry and its proponents are making out of the woman’s situation. In what can only be described as a stunt, prominent Queensland abortion provider, Caroline de Costa has publicly stopped administering RU486, citing legal uncertainties arising from the case.

Ms de Costa and others have also taken the opportunity to call on the Queensland government to liberalise abortion legislation in that State[link], claiming that current laws are unclear. However, Doug Kerr, a Gold Coast lawyer and former president of Queensland Right to Life, told The Weekend Australian that to his knowledge no recipient of an abortion had been prosecuted under the criminal law.

The saddest part is that the woman and her 21 year old boyfriend have endured the very public loss of their child, because they believed that they were ‘too young’ to have a baby. Another one of those unspoken ‘rules’ about childbirth, and another lost child.

So many Australian women have succumbed to pressure to conform to strict social norms of family planning. The sooner we learn to embrace children (even surprise babies), to value parenthood, and to support Australian mothers, the better.

 

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'.