Abortion in the Media

The Sunday Times has revealed that new laws are being drafted in Western Australia that will mean that offenders who kill an unborn baby, through an assault on the mother or through dangerous driving will face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

These laws will be introduced into State Parliament later this year and according to journalist Joe Spagnolo, "will, for the first time, recognise an unborn baby as a human life". Mr Spagnolo said that "Under present laws, an unborn baby has no legal status and is not recognised by the courts."

 Attorney-General Christian Porter, who is drafting these new laws, said that "The State Government's proposed laws reflect our view that any act of violence against a mother-to-be is an especially serious offence." Also that "Where an offender causes serious injury or death of an unborn child, the law must properly reflect the extreme emotional trauma such a loss can cause to the mother."

Mr Porter said. "This ensures these changes will not affect a mother's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy" and that "The proposed legislation will be drafted to require an unlawful act to be done to the mother before any penalty can apply."

While Life Network Australia welcomes this legislation, we must also make two important points:

1) This law is to relect the "extreme emotional trauma" suffered by the mother. Research has shown that abortion also has this impact on many mothers - so can we expect this standard to be applied consistently to acknowledge the grief and trauma of post abortive mothers as well? 

2) How can this parliament "recognise the life of the unborn" in only selective situations -where there is violence against mothers (abortion is also violence against mothers)? If W.A Parliament is to recognise the life of the unborn, why isn't this inclusive of all unborn babies - why doesn't this definition apply equally across all other legislation?

Given the research on the impact of abortion on women, it is accurate to say that the loss of any baby can be a traumatic experience. It is not enough to recognise the lives of babies lost and the grief inflicted in only certain circumstances. While this legislation is commendable, Life Network Australia seeks a consistent approach to offer protection to all mothers and their unborn babies.

Channel 10 News footage here (click on 'Innocent victims'): http://ten.com.au/news.htm 

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

Life News have reported that "A new CNN national poll of Americans finds results that are almost identical to a Gallup survey earlier this year, and it shows 62% of Americans want all or most abortions made illegal". Read more here

This is exciting news out of the U.S - and encouraging to Australian pro lifers as we endeavour to also change the tide on abortion opinion by challenging and dispelling the myths of the abortion industry.

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

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.

The tragic news that almost one late-term abortion is performed every single day in Victoria and that many of these abortions are carried out on healthy babies for “psycho-social” reasons must cause a rethink on Victoria’s abortion policies, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) said today.

ACL Victorian Director Rob Ward said that late-term abortion figures from the 2007 annual report of the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity paint a picture of ‘unspeakable cruelty’.

“If it is not enough that Victoria’s abortion laws have allowed 345 late-term babies to be killed in 2007, then surely the fact that 54 of them were still alive after the procedure and then left to die should cause the Government to take stock,” Mr Ward said.

“The situation is even more horrendous when you consider that the 2007 figures reflect the situation before abortion was decriminalised in Victoria in October 2008.

“There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the number of late-term abortions being carried out in Victoria has increased significantly since the State’s open-slather abortion laws were passed.”

Mr Ward said that it is time for the Government to come clean and release all the information it has about the effects of its abortion legislation – including more recent statistics about late-term abortions.

“To its shame, Victoria appears to be solidifying its reputation as the abortion capital of Australia. There is an urgent need for the Government to review its abortion policies and we call upon them to do this immediately,” Mr Ward said.

“Every abortion is a tragedy and Christians will not remain silent on this issue, especially while babies old enought to survive outside the womb are being aborted regularly in our State."

From the Australian Christian Lobby

Tragic news from Italy that a baby boy who survived a botched abortion at 22 weeks and was simply wrapped in cloth and left to die by Italian doctors has again highlighted the extreme cruelty of late-abortion practices.

 Media reports indicate that the baby was discovered alive last Saturday - 20 hours after the botched termination - when a hospital chaplain went to pray beside the body and noticed him moving. The baby died in intensive care on Monday, with Italian police launching a homicide investigation as Italy’s laws state that doctors have an obligation to try to preserve the life of a child if it survives a termination.

The Italian report – and police action – further expose the distressingly cruel nature of abortion practices which occur legally and no doubt far more frequently in Australia, without repercussions for those involved.

In late 2008 a Senate committee looking into the Medicare funding of second trimester/late term abortions was given shocking evidence of babies being born alive after botched abortions and left to die, as well as the foetal pain experienced during abortions. For example, statistics from Victoria show that 47 of the 309 post-20 week abortions performed in 2005 resulted in the delivery of a live born child who was then left to die.

And yet despite these revelations nothing has been done to help these children and our abortion laws are only becoming more permissive.

However, in some heartening news from the US, politicians in the US state of Oklahoma have voted to pass two abortion Bills that will require women to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy.

Doctors will also be permitted to withhold test results showing foetal defects and will be protected from ‘wrongful birth’ malpractice lawsuits brought by parents who would have aborted a foetus had they been informed about its genetic or other defects.

The Herald Sun has reported on recent legislation in Oklahoma (US) that will require women to view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion procedure.  Governor Brad Henry (Democratic) tried to block the Bills last week, but the Oklahoma legislature, the majority of whom are Republican, overwhelmingly overrode his veto with the help of Democrats.
 
According to the article, Pro Choice NSW spokesperson, Jane Caro, believes that "the new laws would strip women of basic human rights" and she advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together." Ms. Caro also stated "The new laws are outrageous on every level and destroy the human rights of the women in that state. They no longer have equal human rights."
 
President of Life Network Australia and mother of five, Sonja Couroupis, believes this response is hypocritical, "How can 'choice' be 'choice', when all the information is not presented? - an ultrasound is information!"

As for human rights, Ms, Couroupis stated that "Ms Caro is obviously uninformed of the devastation done to women by abortion. Statistics of such damage have led to legislation such as that in Oklahoma".

Mrs Couroupis continued, posing the question, "And what of the (human) rights of the millions of babies, including baby girls, aborted every year throughout the world? Where are their rights?"

Born alive abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden considers herself a "voice for the voiceless" and asks the same question, "What were my (human) rights?"
 
The article goes on to state that "even women who are victims of rape or incest will be required to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy".

 Life Network Australia believes it is insulting to assume that women who have already been violated through rape or incest would automatically require and seek an abortion. It is unacceptable to make generalisations about women in this tragic situation and make statements on their behalf, based on these generalisations. Why shouldn't all women, facing any kind of unplanned pregnancy, be entitled to as much information as possible, including the viewing of an ultrasound?
 
Mary Spaulding Balch, Director of State Legislation for the National Right to Life (US), said that, "Ultrasound gives a mother a window to her womb," and Vice President of Right to Life Australia Margaret Tighe agrees that the new laws were "terrific news" and should be adopted in Australia.
 
Mrs Couroupis challenged Ms Caro's statement that "the new laws (in Oklahoma) would force abortions underground", describing her language as desperate and dramatic. Perhaps she is worried that such laws will not be good for (abortion) business, a business that thrives on the abuse of women, babies and families?

Women deserve better!

Independent SA candidate, Trevor Grace understands the harm that abortion does to Australian women, and is prepared to do something about it.

"I've seen what abortion does to women, I've visited people who've been traumatised by abortion and what they keep on saying to me [is] 'Why wasn't I told, why wasn't I told the truth about what I was doing?' That was predominantly the message," he said, according to ABC News.

He says his anti-abortion election posters aim to create awareness about the high abortion rate in South Australia, and he has refused to take them down.

Democrats political candidate Jeanie Walker says anti-abortion posters put up around Adelaide by an independent candidate are offensive.

She says they increase the stigma on women who need help and on doctors who perform abortions. "Women don't just lightly go in and decide to terminate a pregnancy," she said. "There's a multitude of reasons why they may do that so we need to sort of keep this out of the political arena.

But isn’t that the point? Abortion is not undertaken lightly because it is deadly serious. Serious enough to demand that no woman should have to give up their child because of a lack of support or because of social pressures. Serious enough to mandate full disclosure of the number of abortions occuring and the physical and psychological risks to the woman.

It’s about time women in politics stopped supporting the violence that abortion does to women. Women deserve better.

--

Liberal Senator, Cory Bernardi, makes the following observation: 'It strikes me as ironic that those who preach the most about tolerance, or demand the right to free speech, are often so intolerant of others having a differing view.' His thoughts on this matter can be read in The Border Watch.

--

Trevor Grace is a high school teacher and has been campaigning for the rights of the unborn for over ten years. He has held a number of forums around the state, including Adelaide University, Adelaide Town Hall and colleges, informing men, women and youth about the truth of abortion and its effect on unborn babies and women.

During this time Trevor and his wife Robyn have also been actively involved in providing practical and financial support for pregnant women (and their families).

ACL has called on the ACT Government to investigate allegations that a Canberra Hospital patient was pressed to terminate her baby at 31 weeks gestation following failed treatment for an earlier misdiagnosis.

ABC radio this week reported that Canberra Hospital had recommended a late-term abortion for a baby who was later born healthy. Read the full report.

In a subsequent media release ACL ACT Director Nick Jensen said serious questions had been raised about why a Canberra Hospital senior obstetrician had in the past recommended that Fiona Vanderhook abort her now healthy 14-month-old baby son in marked contrast to six other specialist opinions, and that these allegations needed to be properly investigated.

“This issue raises wider questions about whether or not abortion is the solution of choice for some doctors. How many expectant mothers are being pressured into having abortions in the ACT without properly being counselled about other options?” Mr Jensen queried.

“In this instance one can only imagine just how hard it would have been for Mrs Vanderhook to go against the repeated advice of her hospital obstetrician to continue with the pregnancy. However, if she hadn’t taken the risk of disregarding his advice Mrs Vanderhook would not today be the mother of a lovely baby boy.

“Instead, as Mrs Vanderhook put it herself, she would have had to see ‘a baby induced and to watch him die and not do anything about it’. A recent Senate Inquiry heard evidence of this late term abortion practice happening in other states.

“How tragic when abortion is pressed on ACT women in such a way. How many other times, for example, are women being encouraged to have abortions in the ACT for suspected or relatively minor physical abnormalities, or because of social or economic concerns?

“We need to remember that children’s lives are at stake in this issue, and that women need to be given greater choice in dealing with an unsupported pregnancy or if there are perceived complications with the baby.”

Mr Jensen said the Canberra Hospital incident highlights problems that can easily arise as a result of the ACT having the most liberal, or open-slather, abortion laws in Australia – with abortions able to be performed at any stage of a pregnancy (right up until birth) for any or no reason.

“We shudder to think how many times the abortion of completely healthy babies has taken place in the ACT and how many women have gone on to regret what has happened – and the lack of real choice they felt they had,” Mr Jensen said.