Moyra Shields has written an article calling for greater abortion services in Wagga, NSW. (ABC -'Women's group 'lifts lid' on abortion restrictions', Nov 4, 2011). 

The president of the management committee of the Wagga Wagga Women's Health Centre, Jan Roberts, said that girls and women having to travel for abortions was "costing individuals and the wider community". 

Ms Roberts also said that "Unless you've got financial backing, a support person to take a trip somewhere else away from town, have the knowledge, know where to go, know who to contact, you end up letting it go and then it becomes too late and that is the bulk of situations."  Although she has not provided any evidence that this is indeed true, Ms Roberts has 'hit the nail on the head' in talking about the lack of information and support made available. If women and girls struggle to find someone to drive them to an abortion clinic, how difficult must it be for them to find ongoing practical and emotional support to continue unplanned and challenging pregnancies! How many of the women/girls who do travel for abortions would keep their babies if Wagga offered excellent support services? 

Ms Roberts says "the reality is many young women are being landed with unwanted pregnancies" - but she should be saying "unsupported pregnancies", which is closer to the mark. A phrase from Feminists for Life comes to mind ..that "Abortion is a reflection that the needs of women are not being met." 

The New South Wales Minister for Women, Pru Goward, said that "if the community wants more terminations offered locally, it needs to speak up because there should be a choice". She then goes on to describe the "pretty obvious answers" for the Wagga community: "Talk to them about options, about contraception, their right to say no"; "Talk to them about the wonderful opportunities that are available for young women and the fact that you can leave parenthood until you're in your 20s"; and "If there's no termination service in Wagga, that's something the community's really got to take ownership of and demand a change in". Interestingly, she does not make a single mention of offering pregnancy or parenting support to these girls, nor does she even mention the option of adoption. It is pretty clear what "choice" Ms Goward is all about. One would imagine that if offering "choice", Ms Goward would include a range of options.

In her statement that "teen pregnancies are particularly sad as the girls have many more years to choose to have children", Ms Goward reinforces the myth that girls become 'un-pregnant' and can put off having their babies until later. In fact, if they abort, they are still mothers - but of dead babies! 

Ms Goward also reinforces negative stereotypes surrounding "unacceptable" pregnancies, in this case teenage pregnancies. The following statements made by her (and others) are discriminating, dis-empowering and simply untrue! She said: that "To have them (babies) as teenagers when they get robbed of their own childhood"; "they deny themselves educational opportunities"; "when they often really struggle to be good mums, although many of them are good mums" (which is it?!!); "It is a very sad indictment of a community that can't offer those girls a better choice." ("Better "choice" for whom?!). She also said that "Life is not a dress rehearsal, you only get one chance at being young." Seriously, could Ms Goward be any more miserable and negative if she tried!??

One young Mum from the Riverina, Taylor, who was pregnant at seventeen said that it is unfair to make generalisations about teen Mums. She said that if Mums are to be judged, it should be on their individual merits...not that judging mothers is helpful anyway. "It is about who you are as a person". Taylor added that "My little boy has made my life amazing  - I love watching him grow and the little milestones he has. It makes me feel I have achieved so much."

Ms Roberts also discriminates against those who, for religious (or other) reasons exercise their right to practice medicine according to their conscience. She made the following statements: "A large percentage of our medical practitioners are of various Christian persuasions who will not perform these operations"; "In our public system we have the same issue. Even nursing staff are given an option on whether to participate if a termination were to happen";and "So to me it is a stranglehold of the Catholic Church on our services in Wagga."

Interestingly, according to Ms Roberts, the right to "choice" only applies if you are her side of the abortion debate. 

As can be seen from yet another pro abortion article, the rhetoric has not changed. "Choice" being discussed, but with only abortion being promoted, reference to religion and the "stranglehold" of the Catholic Church,  more negative stereotypes about teenagers wasting their youth and again...no mention what abortion procedures entail or of babies. 

Life Network Australia maintains that "Women (babies and families) deserve better than abortion" (Feminists for Life, U.S), that "Abortion hurts women" and that girls/women are strong and courageous and are capable of great things, even under challenging circumstances. 

I sent the following letter to the ABC, to Ms. Goward, to the Attorney General of NSW and to my local and federal Members of Parliament:

"Hi,
As the 'Women's Council' representative for the Liberal Party of the
Deniliquin Branch (Riverina), I wish to respond to the ABC's recent article
in which there is a call for abortion services in Wagga, and insist that Ms
Goward's pro abortion comments do not represent the view of the local Liberal
Party members, or of the Riverina community. In fact, there is a very strong
pro life movement within the Riverina, with active pro life groups based in
Deniliquin and Albury.

As a Liberal Party member and a mother of five, I find Ms Goward's comment 
about teenagers "only having one shot at being young", to be grossly
discriminatory and inappropriate - supporting negative stereotypes around
"unacceptable pregnancies." In fact, I am extremely proud of the outstanding
job teen mothers do in our own community of Deniliquin.  All of the teenage
mothers I know personally do not regret their decision to have their
babies... and are fantastic mums!

I was disappointed to not read of Ms Goward calling for more pregnancy and
parenting support services, like Zoe Foundation Australia, which is based in
Mildura. This new initiative does not engage in the life/choice debate, but
recognises a strong need within the Sunraysia district, for girls to have
access to support, which simply is not available.

Indeed it is a lack of support in many regions of Australia, with girls
having to choose between their education, careers, partners, parents etc and
their babies that leaves these teens with no "choice" but to abort.

The article supported the myth that girls can put off becoming mothers until
a more convenient time, when in fact if they choose to abort, they are still
mothers - but of dead babies!

Wagga and the Riverina do not need greater access to abortion services, they
need state and local governments to acknowledge the courageous and
outstanding job teens (and other mums) do in having and raising their babies
and to support them to continue their education and employment
opportunities, should they choose to remain at school or get a job. Zoe
Foundation Australia, amongst other things, provides teen mums with
transport, baby and maternity items, support during labour - whatever they
need.

A study in Tasmania showed that the outcomes for teenage mums improved, 

as they adopted an attitude of responsibility and a drive to do well in life. Another recent collation of studies (meta
analysis) recently published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (Dr Priscilla Coleman) of some 900,000 women showed that abortion (compared to giving birth) dramatically increased problems of suicide, drug and alcohol
abuse, relationship breakdown, depression, self harm etc.

On behalf of the girls, women, families and babies of the Riverina, I reject
the call for greater abortion services in the Riverina and insist that our
teens (I have two) deserve better than abortion. I also call on Ms Gower to
keep her negative opinions about teenage motherhood to herself - a teen
pregnancy is not the end of a life, but the beginning of a new life (albeit
with challenges) with a baby.

Sonja Couroupis (address and phone number supplied).

Written by Bill Muehlenberg - Used with permission.

Hardly has a week gone by when one columnist wrote a ludicrous and misleading piece on pro-lifers, and already we have another writer doing exactly the same thing. We have another pro-death opinion piece demonstrating similar sorts of mental confusion and moral imbalance.

The earlier piece and my commentary on it can be found here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/11/04/no-choice-from-the-pro-choicers/

The piece in today’s Melbourne Age covers the same story and uses the same twisted logic and suffers from the same ethical diarrhoea. Both pieces mentioned the Occupy protestors, and both complained about peaceful pro-life vigils outside of abortion mills in Melbourne. And both pieces insisted that these pro-lifers must be moved on.

Suzy Freeman-Greene, like Susie O’Brien before her, displays a rather large deficit in clear thinking and moral reasoning. Neither one can see through the logic of their own reckless presuppositions, and neither one will allow facts to get in the way of their pro-death ideology.

The easiest way to cut through their moral fog is to point out the moral equivalence of their position to that of a very similar issue of a few centuries ago. Indeed, simply replace a few terms and we all can see the utter bankruptcy of their positions.

For example, Freeman-Greene says this: “Terminating a pregnancy is a deeply private matter. Women should not be subjected to harassment and surveillance on the morning of the operation. They deserve better.” To see the utter foolishness of this, simply see how others argued the very same thing not all that long ago:

“Keeping a slave is a deeply private matter. People should not be subjected to harassment and surveillance when they purchase a slave. They deserve better.” Like slavery, abortion is not at all a private matter but a basic human rights issue. In both cases those promoting these activities have sought to convince us that the person in question (a black or an unborn baby) is in fact a non-person, and can therefore be treated as we please.

Just as the slave owner could treat a slave as mere property and not as a human being, so today the pro-aborts want to treat the unborn as mere blobs of tissue instead of unique persons with every right to life as they have. We now rightly deplore the depraved logic of the pro-slavery crowd, but we don’t yet seem to see the same conceptual ugliness of the pro-abortion brigade.

Freeman-Greene cites a study which shows that women going to the killing centres feel uncomfortable about the protestors: “70 per cent felt stigmatised by them”. Of course they feel stigmatised. A group of peaceful anti-slavery protestors holding pictures of poor abused black people would also make slave buyers feel stigmatised as well.

In the same way showing pictures of bloodied and battered baby seals makes the seal killers feel stigmatised. That is the whole idea: to raise public consciousness about these bloody activities. If a woman feels guilty about going to an abortion mill, perhaps that is a very good thing indeed. It shows us that she is still a real person with a conscience.

It is only when the conscience gets fully deadened that such guilt and shame no longer can produce the desired effect. Guilt and shame are inbuilt warning devices, seeking to alert us to a course of action which must be reversed, and pronto.

And if the worst these women feel is some stigmatisation or guilt trips, at least they can still live to reflect on it all. The end result of abortion is only always just one thing: a dead baby. The baby has absolutely no choice in the matter, and he or she does not even have the luxury of feeling stigmatised or not – only living people can experience that – or anything else.

I have not been the only commentator to write on these matters. When the first article came out last week, one writer managed to get an opinion piece into a website, and it is worth mentioning. Joel Hodge examined the issue of sidewalk protests, and discussed the calls to move them away from abortion mills.

Says Hodge, the Occupy crowd is not at all like the pro-life movement: “Most people (including the Mayor) see a difference between permanently occupying a public place which makes it inaccessible to others, and occasionally congregating on a footpath that still remains accessible. The irony, of course, is that the great mantra of the pro-abortion movement, about the integrity and control that a woman should have over her body, does not seem to apply to those who have an opposing view. If there is a chance, it seems that the state should take control of the bodies of protesters, disrespect their rights and forcefully move them on.”

And as he rightly notes, the real issue here is freedom of information and informed consent – the sort of stuff choice is all about. Women should be able to hear about the risks they may face, and the options and alternatives available to them. But the abortion mills and their media supporters want to take this choice away from women:

“The clinic supporters want people who are providing information about alternatives to abortion to not have the chance to give women, who are often confused and in difficult situations, information and opportunities about alternatives to abortion. Good information and financial support results in real choices, in which some women decide to actually allow their baby to be born. Yet, the clinic supporters want these information-providers moved on and choice denied. Why? One argument is that it is bad for business and staff turn-over. It is good to remember that abortion is a business, as well as an ideological agenda.

“As some feel threatened by the Occupy movement, it could be that the clinic supporters want the state and the police to protect their economic interests against those who provide alternatives. We should be careful when businesses call on the state, particularly in the form of police coercion, to protect their interests. These are murky waters. I’m not arguing that the clinic should not have its legal rights protected. I am arguing that the state should not be called on to do more than protect legitimate and legal rights, especially in a competitive marketplace where people are supposed to have the chance for ‘choice’.”

Yes, at the end of the day, the pro-choicers care little about genuine choice. The abortionists themselves are simply about making money – lots of money. They do not want women to hear the truth about their greedy practices, and they don’t want the public to know either.

In the same way, the slave traders did not want the public to know what they were up to. They wanted to paint a pretty picture of an immoral trade. But campaigners like Wilberforce did everything they could to let the public know what the reality in fact was.

That is just what the pro-life street vigils are all about: offering important information and real informed choices to the public at large and to these women in particular. People like O’Brien and Freeman-Greene want to strip away that right of the pro-lifers, and ban that information from getting to those who need it the most.

What an anti-choice bunch those “pro-choicers” are.

www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/some-occupy-to-protest-others-to-hamper-harangue-and-hurt-20111111-1nbn4.html

www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3638758.html

The Advertiser (Adelaide Now) have reported that humanitarian, Robyn Grace, is coming to the aid of desperate migrants "spending thousands helping pregnant women on temporary visas keep their babies" - pregnancies that would otherwise be terminated.

According to the report, "The 43-year-old Mt Barker resident is meeting the medical costs which the women and their partners can't afford because they are being allowed into the country without private health insurance, have no access to Medicare and work in low paying jobs." 

The article also stated that "Mrs Grace has funded five migrant births with the help of donations at a cost of around $7500 each since 2009". She said "They wanted to keep their babies and I helped out, but who knows how many others are out there in the same situation without anyone to turn to."

The article describes the desperate situations of two immigrant couples who are delighted to have received support from Mrs Grace, after originally being referred to have abortions. 

Life Network Australia congratulates Robyn for her ongoing commitment to women and families needing support and to their precious babies.

The article said that "A spokeswoman for Minister Bowen said the department had "commenced a review" of mandatory private health requirements for visa holders".

Read more here