Abortion in the Media

Life Network Australia congratulates the new board of Toowoomba's St Andrews Hospital.
According to the Chronicle (July, 2011), the hospital's board chairman, Reverend Andrew Clarke,  said that "a new interim policy on abortions would effectively ban the practice at St Andrew's."

The Presbyterian Church reportedly "sacked former long-standing board chairman Treg Rowe and eight governors two weeks ago after the church feared the former board was attempting to overturn the church's influence on the running of the hospital." 

According to the article, "The current policy was in accordance with Queensland legislation where an abortion is lawful when carried out if there is serous danger to the woman's physical and mental health from the continuance of the pregnancy”.
The stance of St Andrews is in line with this legislation. Reverend Clarke commented: “In the rare contingency where two specialist gynaecologists, in consultation with the medical director, deem that termination of a pregnancy is necessary to prevent life-threatening injury to the mother, and that the threat of injury is so imminent as to require intervention prior to the age of foetal viability, such intervention is ethically justifiable."

He also said that “St Andrews has never practised abortion on demand" and that “This revised policy simply further restricts an existing policy.

In a public letter to be published in The Chronicle tomorrow, four Toowoomba obstetricians are challenging the new hospital policy, but have said that "banning all terminations as dictated by the board was unlikely to have a significant effect on the demand for these services."

Drs John McLaughlin, John Esler, Geoff Kelsey and Anthony Cerqui said that “These women will be subjected to a significant increase in pain and stress by forcing them to seek treatment outside the Toowoomba private hospital system.” Life Network Australia argues that these women need practical and emotional support when facing unplanned pregnancies, not abortion.

Life Network Australia commends the new board of St. Andrews and encourages them to withstand the inevitable and aggressive onslaught from pro abortion advocates.  Despite the pro abortion rhetoric of "choice", it seems they are not happy unless abortion is the first and seemingly only "choice" offered. The move by St. Andrews will hopefully encourage women to consider more positive "choices" available to them.

St. Andrews has set a wonderful precedent and hopefully more hospitals and Churches will follow their courageous lead by making a strong stand for women and their unborn babies and families. 

Please email the board a message of support minister@rest.org.au

Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has received constant criticism by the pro abortion lobby for her Government's concern about the use of abortion drugs, particularly those unapproved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (many also argue that abortion does not come under the category "therapeutic").

Life Network Australia has been following the case of Tegan Leach, a 19 year old Cairns woman who was charged earlier this year for procuring her own miscarriage, while her partner Sergie Brennan, 21, was charged for procuring a miscarriage and supplying a drug, misoprostol.

The ongoing exploitation of this young couple by the pro abortion lobby is inexcusable. The young couple were charged with importing an illegal drug, not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to induce an abortion, which raises issues of safety. The situation of this young couple in crisis has been splashed on newspapers all around the world in what can only be described as a heartless campaign by those pushing for liberal abortion laws in Queensland.

Another recent case, in Texas, near the Mexican border, further highlights the dangerous use of drugs to procure abortion, in this case, again misoprostol. According to LifeNews, Ruby Lee Medina, 31, and her boyfriend Javier Gonzalez, 37, allegedly placed the remains of a seven-month-old unborn (aborted) child neatly in a box and, as some reports indicate, set the box under their Christmas tree. The couple have been charged with abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence.

According to LifeNews, "an anti-ulcer drug not meant for pregnancy or abortion purposes was used to procure an abortion". Medina used the anti-ulcer drug, which she obtained from friends who reside in Reynosa, Mexico, for the self-induced abortion. Gonzalez said that Medina called for an ambulance after she began bleeding and told paramedics she did not know the location of the unborn child.

The couple attempted to flush the body of the baby down the toilet but were unable to do so - they had then planned to "bury the baby's body in their backyard but police found them out first".

"Apparently they cleaned up the fetus and they placed it inside a gift box under the Christmas tree," the police chief said.

Medina’s mother, Marina Perez, was surprised by the news and couldn't understand what had happened. She said "the couple had already planned to name her grandson Noel". She said "the drugs caused Medina to go into labor to deliver the baby, whose remains were cremated at an area morgue on Monday".

The article went on to say that "Medina and Gonzalez appeared in court on Monday and had their bail set at $20,000. Officials waited until Monday to formally charge the couple so Medina could recover in an area hospital". Medina has four other child, who are reportedly staying with their grandmother, and police suspect that Medina has engaged in a self-abortion in a similar manner as this one once before and that she was using illegal drugs at the time.

Life Network Australia maintains that no abortion is safe, the life of an unborn baby is taken and the procedure holds serious risks for the mother, which are to be (responsibly) highlighted by the Queensland Government (see our article). 

Addiction experts have described abortion as a form of self harm when contesting the claims made by Irene Vilar that she is an "abortion addict", according to The Age.

'Impossible Motherhood' is a newly released book in which Ms Vilar compares her 15 abortions in 17 years to the addictions of "a druggie".

According to the article, a senior lecturer in media and communications at the University of Sydney, Fiona Giles, believes "the addiction portrayed in the book is not to abortions but to an abusive relationship".

The article quotes Dr. Giles as saying that “Her problem is that she was addicted to a relationship with a much older man who was also her teacher so not only was there an age difference, there was a strong power difference." “My main feeling was that she … was inflicting self-harm as a way of coping through that time.”

Leslie Cannold, president of Reproductive Choice Australia and a medical ethicist at Monash University and at the University of Melbourne, dismisses the case, stating that "This woman's story is anomalous. That's why it was seen as worthy of a book".

However, of paramount importance is that this situation can occur in the first place.  Where is the accountability of abortion providers to all women? Where is the duty of care to the patient and why wasn't anything done to provide psychological care for Ms Vilar?  And not a mention of the 15 babies needlessly destroyed!

In saying "What Vilar's story clearly shows is the importance of access to safe and legal abortion", Ms Cannold  demonstrates the abortion lobby’s disregard for women, the difficult situations they face and their welfare. Women in situations like Ms Vilar’s need access to professional, confidential support and care, not more ready access to abortion. Legal abortion (no abortion is safe) only continues the cycle of abuse and loss.

Ms Vilar is yet another example of women deserving better. 

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. 

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.