Life Network Australia
HOMEABOUT LNACOMPASSION TO ACTIONENEWSCONTACT US
INFORMATION
INSPIRATION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION
LET LNA HELP YOU
SUPPORT LNA

Abortion in the Media

Emily's Voice ad campaign - 'Madeleine's Story.'

Life Network Australia - Thursday, July 21, 2011
In May, Emily's Voice, (not to be confused with Emily's List) ran a fantastic advertisement that showed the reality of the impact of abortion on one young mother, Madeleine. The 'Not born yet' ad ran for four weeks in Toowoomba, on three commercial stations on high rotation, appearing in many different time slots, including prime time.
Emily's Voice are currently running another beautiful ad about adoption. Both ads (and others) can be viewed 
here
Emily's Voice are delivering a positive, life affirming message to the public and are inevitably changing hearts.
Anyone who might be interested in running an Emily's Voice advertisment in their own local area can contact Emily's Voice:  info@emilysvoice.com or write to them at PO Box 2216 Toowoomba, QLD 4350 Australia.

Babette responds: 'Pro Lifers - We're self funded and we won't discriminate.'

Life Network Australia - Monday, June 27, 2011

Recently, Tanja Kovac (national co-ordinator of EMILY's List Australia) published an article titled 'The hypocrisy of pro lifers' in which she took aim at Babette Francis (Endeavour Forum), Margaret Tighe (Right to Life Australia) and Archbishop Hart. The article was riddled with more ludicrous misinformation that is so often used to target pro life advocates. 

Babette's response
Used with permission.

When a friend told me I was mentioned in The Punch, I looked forward to reading the article because I associated The Punch with Punch, the British weekly magazine of humour.  Instead of wit, I found the article by Tanja Kovac in The Punch yet another inaccurate diatribe against pro-lifers.

Tanja asks where are Archbishop Hart, Margaret Tighe and Babette Francis? Archbishop Hart is very possibly on his knees praying for you and for the many social welfare agencies of his Archdiocese.

Tanja, just look up the phone book under “Catholic” and you will see the long list of activities undertaken by the Catholic Church to help those in need. Ever heard of “The Vinnies” (the St. Vincent de Paul Society)?  Or Mother Teresa’s “Missionaries of Charity”? As for Margaret Tighe, like me she is probably working at a computer replying to tiresome articles from those who don’t bother to get their facts straight.

Incidentally, Margaret Tighe’s Right to Life Australia funds the longest-running 24-hour pregnancy counseling service in this country,  Pregnancy Counseling Australia. This service is funded by pro-lifers, unlike abortion clinics, which are subsidised by get taxpayers.

Now to deal with Tanja’s inaccuracies - first of all, Ted Baillieu is not pro-life.  He voted for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008, so don’t blame us for what he does.

Secondly, it was former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello (who incidentally was my local federal MP) who initiated the baby bonus being paid to ALL mothers.  Because this was a payment that was non-discriminatory between mothers in the paid workforce and unwaged mothers at home, Emily’s List feminists have been frothing at the mouth ever since and have been determined to end its non-discriminatory nature.

Lo and behold, once they got their very own Emily’s List candidate installed as Prime Minister in The Lodge, the discrimination between career mothers and unwaged mothers began. The latter get $3,000 less than career mothers do via Paid Parental Leave. 

All mothers need baby-sitting on occasion, and it is not surprising that with the lower payments they get in the baby bonus, unwaged mothers need a low-cost baby-sitting option. Possibly the Baillieu government considered it unfair that career mothers, who get their child care subsidised by the federal government,  was taking advantage of the “Take a Break Occasional Child Care”. 

Career mothers may have wrecked it for everyone.

More importantly, many mothers - whether career mums or unwaged mums - do not want to put their infants in collective child care because of the risk of picking up colds, flu and gastro, but prefer to have them cared for in their homes.

My organisation, Endeavour Forum Inc, has consistently lobbied for all child care funding and subsidies to be paid direct to mothers so they can choose the kind of child care they prefer.  It is ironic that feminists who are so big on “choice” when they demand the right to terminate the lives of their fetuses, are opposed to choice in child care funding or education. 

Child care funding paid directly to mothers would reduce a lot of bureaucratic costs and “churning”.

Finally, many pro-lifers work with or financially support The Helpers, a group who offer assistance outside abortion clinics to pregnant women.  This assistance ranges from offers of accommodation or financial assistance to pay off car loans, rent or other necessities. 

Try it for yourself, Tanja, go outside an abortion clinic and see the kindness and assistance on offer by The Helpers, unlike the abortionists who don’t want to know you once they have your money. 

Moreover, pro-lifers don’t ignore the sad cases of women traumatised by their abortions - counseling and help is available for them also. Tanja Kovacs needs to take more responsibility for getting her facts accurate instead of labeling pro-lifers as hypocrites for decisions made by a pro-abortion politician.

The whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Life Network Australia - Wednesday, October 07, 2009

The relentless push by those in favour of abortion continues with another pro abortion article this week. Yet another journalist in support of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Queensland, Adele Horin ('Right to choose abortion wins strong support', Brisbanetimes.com.au, October 4, 2009) writes that "57 percent of Australians support a women's right to obtain an abortion readily when they want one", that "one-third supports abortion 'in special circumstances', and only 4 per cent opposes abortion outright".

To gain a more accurate account of the study undertaken, it would be necesaary to know the questions posed. For example, for the "one third", what constitutes "special circumstances"?  Rape? Incest? Disability? Such "special circumstances" account for relatively very few abortions. 

Ms Horin states that "Queenslanders in particular, hold liberal views on abortion, yet politicians' fear of small religious minorities appears to have stymied decriminalisation of the procedure in some states, a study shows" and that "the findings, from the Australian Election Study, are based on polling 1873 electors at the 2007 federal election". 

Allan Carman ('Have your say', Cathnews, October 5, 2009) responded by asking "Where do they get these results? How many people were surveyed and from what demographic?" He stated that "as usual, a story using skewed results from a secular media source".

Mr. Carmans comment is supported by the failure of the media to publish the results of a recent online poll in the Courier Mail in Brisbane asking whether Queensland abortion laws should be changed. Almost 10 000 people responded (ten times the number of respondents in the 2007 Australian election study). Of these 10,000 respondents, 71% opposed changes to abortion laws in Queensland.

It is time for the public to begin to question the reliability of media sources and their motivation for the distortion or omission of relevant information regarding abortion.


Recent Posts


Tags


Archive