Abortion in the Media

By Debbie Garratt, Real Choices Australia.

Used with permission.

There was a recent ABC segment on The Drum, in which one of the most vocal advocates of abortion, Leslie Cannold, made some false and misleading statements.
 
On hearing Leslie Cannold claim that, ‘…. many, many, many millions of women die every year from highly preventable causes like unsafe abortion, like lack of access to contraception and unsafe motherhood..’ I immediately wanted to find out where and why all these women were dying and began my own research, especially given Ms Cannold’s oft made claims that greater access to abortion is the primary solution to so many of these tragedies facing women.
 
I figured the World Health Organisation was a pretty safe bet for some accurate figures, however I couldn’t find anything even close to Ms Cannold’s many, many, many millions.   In fact I couldn’t even find anything close to a single million.
 
In fact, the World Health Organisation’s Fact Sheet on Maternal Mortality informs us that around 287,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth related causes in 2010.    More interesting is that the majority of these deaths occur in developing countries and are entirely preventable with WHO stating that:
 
‘Most maternal deaths are avoidable, as the health-care solutions to prevent or manage complications are well known. All women need access to antenatal care in pregnancy, skilled care during childbirth, and care and support in the weeks after childbirth. It is particularly important that all births are attended by skilled health professionals, as timely management and treatment can make the difference between life and death.’
 
Whilst every one of these deaths is tragic, it would seem that greater access to abortion is NOT the primary solution for the majority of these deaths after all.
 
I guess this also must bring into question the recent commentary on the USA election debates, with Romney promising jobs for women that Ms Cannold claims women will not be able to fulfil ‘without access to abortion‘.     It seems to me that if someone continues to push this idea that women can  participate to their fullest potential educationally, socially and professionally, only if they can first abort their children, that something has gone fundamentally wrong with the upholding of women’s rights.
 
To constantly suggest that the best solution to the social, health and professional challenges facing women is a surgical one that deprives women of their right to both bear children AND participate fully in life ensures that we will never have to address the practical aspects of these challenges.
 
We can just keep forcing women to ‘choose’, then denigrating and disparaging them when they don’t experience that ‘choice’ as the positive, uplifting, dance in the streets, or even ‘mundane’  event that a small and loud minority are currently celebrating.
 
I wonder if The Drum, or Ms Cannold will offer a correction to her misleading claim? 
 

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 

Channel 7 News has reported that there has been a backlash against anti abortion billboards on display in the western suburbs of Adelaide. The billboards were created by an unidentified individual and sponsored by a group 'Howgoodisthat'.
Gerda Jezuchowski reported that one of the billboards was removed because it "sensationalised the consequences of a medical procedure". 
South Australian Minister for the Status of Women, Gail Gago "took off her political hat" and offered her opinion, saying "I personally find the billboards to be offensive and most unhelpful to women" and that they are "arrogant and patronising to women".

Chelsea Lewis, policy officer of YWCA said "There's a whole range of circumstances why women choose to have abortions and they don't need this in their faces when they are making a decision that is their legal right".

With one in three Australian women having abortions in Australia, it is the most common female procedure. Therefore, it is important there is an ongoing conversation about abortion - why women have abortions, influences and the difficult circumstances women find themselves in. There is a lack of information about statistics, possible side effects, available support and about the procedure of abortion, that women are entitled to know. The pro abortion lobby are certainly not forthcoming with accurate information and need to be challenged. Burying our heads in the sand and not exploring these issues for women is what is "most unhelpful" to women. For this reason, Life Network Australia welcomes campaigns that put abortion 'back on the table' for discussion.

Both Ms Lewis and Ms Gago claim to advocate for women,(which they may genuinely believe they do with abortion) and run programs to fight domestic violence. American evidence shows that abortion goes hand in hand with domestic violence and that many women go through abortion feeling they have "no choice". The research also shows that for some, abortion is devastating, with long term consequences. Failure to acknowledge post abortion pain makes recovery near impossible.

Psychologist,  Dr Priscilla Coleman, has articles published in medical journals, about the impact of abortion on women and families. Dr. Coleman will be in Australia at the Real Choices Conference in Sydney in May 14 - 16. It would be advantageous for anyone working in women's health, mental health and politics to attend and get informed about abortion. Improved knowledge will inevitably result in better services and outcomes for women, families and communities.

Disturbingly, both Chelsea Lewis and Gail Gago fail to make any mention of those most affected by abortion, the unborn babies, and only refer to abortion in terms of a 'legal right' (which is incorrect as abortion is illegal in S.A) and in reference to the feelings of the mother.

Well known South Australian Pro life campaigner, Trevor Grace, offered his support to those running the billboard campaign, saying that they were entitled to express their concern about abortion.

Shelley Hadfield (Herald Sun Jan 8, 2010) has written an article describing a couple's decision to abort twin boys, in their quest to have a baby girl. The article describes how the couple still "grieve for a daughter they lost soon after birth". The mother admits that she "has become obsessed with having a daughter and it has become vital to her psychological health". They are taking their case to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to win the right to select sex by IVF treatment.

The Herald Sun quotes Australian IVF pioneer, Gab Kovaks, as saying "that he could not understand why the couple should be banned from having a girl", but Bob Phelps, Gene Ethics director, feared that "it could open floodgates". Mr Phelps also said to the Herald Sun that "I'm sorry they lost their daughter, but in the interests of society as a whole, they should seek some counselling for their grief and look for another way of getting a daughter into the family". His suggestion was that they may adopt from overseas.

This whole scenario points to the cruelty of the abortion industry which allows the killing of unborn babies, in this instance, because of their gender - this is dangerous ground. We pride ourselves on being a nation of equality and yet we face the very real possibility of creating and killing babies because of their sex. 

The abortion industry has failed these precious twin boys, as well as yet another mother/couple who are obviously in distress and suffering psychologically. This couple have tragically become the parents of not one, but now three dead babies - another instance of babies, women and families deserving better than abortion.

This article also highlights the seemingly "unacceptable choice" that "pro choicers" still refuse to support or lobby for... adoption.  Why must this mother need to seek an overseas adoption to get the baby girl she so desperately wants, when tens of thousands of baby girls are aborted right here in Australia each year?  Because adoption is not a viable, supported "choice" within Australia - something that needs to be changed.

Recently LNA produced an article about a survey that showed that the majority of Australians do not support abortion or IVF for sex selection.  This is supported by the vote poll 'Should this couple be allowed to choose the sex of their next baby?', in which 90% of the 4206 respondents have voted 'No' so far. The comments following this poll are also indicative of public opinion. This has important implications for the abortion industry and law makers - if abortion was made legal because of public opinion, then how can abortion be legal in this situation, when obviously the majority do not support abortion for this reason?

The legalisation of abortion in Victoria was driven by surveys that (supposedly) proved that Australians support abortion and because of "common practice". How many other reasons for abortion does our society reject?  Gender selection by abortion is already technically legal in Victoria, when women are able to abort to twenty four weeks 'for any reason on demand' or beyond twenty four weeks with the signatures of two doctors. 

Law makers have an obligation to protect life and to restore the value of the unborn, women and families. No one can argue that women and couples deserve better than abortion!

Related Articles By:
Kahya Dlanga News 24 - 'When abortion becomes frivolous'
Marcia Segelstein- 'Our Brave New World of Abortion'
Cherish Life - 'When Only a Girl Will Do'
Helen Parker - The Babes Project - 'Gender Selection Abortion'
Bill Muehlenberg - Culture Watch

---

Abortion is a rip-off (even when someone holds your hand).

Womens fashion and lifestyle magazine, Cosmopolitan has weighed in on the abortion debate with two articles in their June and July 2010 editions. The overall message is that abortion is a legitimate part of modern womanhood, that offers women empowerment and control, given a little support. Life Network Australia asks if this is really true.

The June article is a somber depiction of one woman’s (‘Sarah’) experience of late term abortion. She underwent the abortion because of social pressures (she felt too young at 21), and pressure from her father who thought that a baby would bring shame on the family. Following the abortion, Sarah suffered from physical complications, and a raft of psychological after-effects associated with post traumatic stress.

Congratulations to Cosmo for telling it like it is. The article clearly demonstrates the pressure, lack of options, confusion, guilt and regret that characterises many women’s experience of abortion. Interestingly though, ‘Sarah’ states that she is “100% in favour of abortion”. This statement, interpreted as being in favour of a womans ‘right to choose’, seems out of place following the story which clearly suggests that she would have been better off had she continued with the pregnancy.

The article in the following edition discusses the role of ‘abortion buddies’, described as abortion doulas, in supporting women during an abortion procedure. These doulas (a distortion of the term used for those who support women during childbirth) provide information and emotional support during what is described as a traumatic experience. The underlying message is that women should support each other during their time of need – a kind of quiet solidarity among the sisterhood.

On the surface, it is difficult to pinpoint anything sinister about the two articles. They openly discuss the unpleasantness of abortion, and the benefits of supporting women through this difficult time.  What could be wrong with that? In the context of a counselling newsletter – probably nothing. In the context of a fashion magazine, the result is dramatically different.

Sandwiched in between stories about relationship breakups, and squeezing pimples, the articles have a profoundly normalising effect. In this context, the articles assure women that abortion is a necessary part of womanhood, despite it’s unpleasantness. Two recent articles in Cleo magazine have a similar effect. Listed right up there next to period pain and bad hair days; just part of “the entire spectrum of pregnancy”.

Having admitted that abortion is unpleasant, Cosmo fails to ask the question, ‘is abortion really necessary?’ The answer must be ‘no!’. After all, if abortion is necessary, then there is no real choice.

Modern feminists seem to have fallen for the abortion lie – and submitted to the demand that they become men. They have been convinced that, because women can not fully participate equally in society (financially and socially, in Sarah’s case) if they bear their children, that they therefore must have the ‘right’ to give up that which is holding them back, their own children. 

Common sense would suggest that if the problem is that childbearing is not valued by society, then surely the answer is to change social attitudes, not to give up childbearing. If having testicles was socially outlawed, we wouldn’t expect men to be campaigning for safe and legal castration! Such a solution hardly represents emancipation. Abortion is a means to rip women off.

The abortion doula in the Cosmo article, Lauren, describes the abortion ‘choice’ as “a huge victory”. She suggests that women will feel “empowered by a good experience”, and will “feel like they have control over their life and body”.

The contrast with Sarah’s story is telling. She reports that her sleep is interrupted by dreams about her baby. She has changed her profession because she is uncomfortable working with children now. She struggles with physical intimacy with her partner because of fear of another pregnancy. Physically, she suffers from bleeding and infection. None of these after-affects are unusual.

So much for feeling empowered and in control. (Oddly enough, Lauren also describes the abortion experience as “pretty traumatic”, one that “they don’t want to revisit”. This appears to be a much more accurate description.)

Having someone hold your hand during your abortion is a nice idea, but does little to address the real harm. Abortion robs women for years, if not for a lifetime. The doula won’t be there in the morning. She won’t be there while women navigate the increased risks of infertility, physical complications, suicide, substance abuse, and so on. Neither will the abortionist, or those that fought so hard to win the right to abort.

Consider a different scenario. Imagine for a moment that abortion is as unthinkable as slavery. The news of Sarah’s pregnancy is greeted with ‘what a shame’, or ‘this is going to take some adjusting’, or even some short term rejection from her family – at worst. There are no suggestions of giving up her child, no pressure to meet family expectations, no agonising ‘choice’. Just getting on with adjusting and preparing for the unplanned joy that she is entitled to.

Period pain and pimples are part of being a woman – abortion isn’t. Abortion is a poor second best, and women deserve better.

Article released by the Australian Christian Lobby

The US Congress this week voted to ban taxpayer subsidising of abortion in its health care bill.

In fact, the bill, a centrepiece of President Obama’s agenda, would not have passed unless he agreed to Congress’ demand to use an Executive Order to ensure no public money was used for abortion.

The abortion debate is far from settled and research shows a majority of Australians are uncomfortable with abortion – particularly late term abortion.

A recent Senate Inquiry into Medicare Funding of late term abortions heard evidence that some aborted babies were born alive and left to die.

Taxpayers’ money, particularly that of conscientious objectors, should not be use for ending the life of the unborn particularly where there is no lethal abnormality and where the mother’s life is not at risk.

It is disappointing that the Federal Government has ignored the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry to collect nationally consistent data on abortion, despite the fact that politicians on both sides of the debate agree that there are too many abortions.

It is estimated that 80,000-90,000 abortions occur each year in Australia.

President Obama’s Executive Order banning taxpayer subsidising of abortion only allows public funding in the rare cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is endangered.

While some US pro-life groups are concerned the Bill and Executive Order may have loopholes, it is nonetheless encouraging that the plight of the unborn has been elevated to the top of the US’ political agenda, albeit briefly.

Written by Glynis Quinlan.    

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) today called on the Federal Government to reverse its decision to scrap the National Pregnancy Support Helpline, saying it provides a vital non-directive counselling service which has assisted thousands of women facing unsupported or unintended pregnancies.

ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace said that the initiative to set up and run the pregnancy support line was one of only a very small number of initiatives taken at a federal level to assist women to have a genuine choice when facing an unsupported pregnancy.

“Despite attempts to downplay use of the service, it has assisted several thousand pregnant women and helped them to be better informed about the options available to them, free from the vested interests of counselling provided by abortion clinics. Every time one woman has been helped through a difficult situation in her life it has been money well spent,” Mr Wallace said.

“Polling conducted by Sexton Marketing in 2004 revealed that 99% of people believe women considering abortion should have access to counselling, and that 94% think all alternatives should be seriously considered before exercising this option. Surely this is exactly the kind of professional assistance thousands of women have been receiving through the hotline!

“We urge the Government to continue the service and better promote the helpline, so that it helps even more women in need. The proposal to start a perinatal helpline dealing with issues such as depression appears to be a good one, but it should be undertaken in addition to the specific pregnancy counselling service – not instead of it.”

Mr Wallace said that the majority of Australians – and even most Federal politicians – would like to see Australia’s very high abortion rate reduced, but very little action is actually being taken to achieve this.

“To now learn that such an important pregnancy counselling service is to be scrapped is deeply disappointing, as it is only likely to increase the number of abortions in Australia.”

Mr Wallace said abortion activists had disparaged the pregnancy counselling service right from the beginning, lobbying hard for it to be scrapped and hampering the effective promotion of the service.

“Despite this the service has helped large numbers of women and we urge the Government not to abolish it but to instead ensure it is better promoted so that more women can benefit from it.”

Used with permission.

Article by Bill Muehlenberg
September 13, 2009

Yet another abortion-related murder. The controversial issue of abortion has resulted in more killing. And as usual the media is having a feeding frenzy on this story. All over the world the news of this latest shooting is being reported.

The above story is true, except for a few items. Yes, there was a shooting, but not as you might expect. Over the years a handful of abortionists have been killed for various reasons. The mainstream pro-life movement has always roundly condemned the use of violence in stopping abortion.

But this shooting was different. This time a pro-lifer was shot dead. And one other item needs to be mentioned. Unlike the shooting deaths of abortionists, wherein the mainstream media goes ballistic and runs the story for days, calling on authorities to make pro-life activism illegal, this story has hardly been touched upon in the MSM.

Indeed, not only is it almost impossible to find any coverage of this story in the international media, but where it occurred – in the US – there is also frightening silence. Because this is a pro-lifer who has been shot, the MSM has basically decided that this is not a news-worthy item to carry.

So it is largely the alternative media that has been running with the story. Thus I too will write this up, to allow some more public exposure to this important news item. The details are as follows: Michigan man Jim Pouillon was outside of a High School where he was shot three times and died on September 11.

As one press report puts it, “Locals say that the victim, James Pouillon of Owosso, was well-known in the area for his pro-life activities.  Columnist Doug Powers wrote on his blog that Pouillon, called ‘the abortion sign guy’ by Owosso locals, was known for standing on street corners holding up signs with pictures of aborted children.

“Pastor Matt Trehella of Missionaries to the Preborn said today that Pouillon had joined his organization for a few stops of a pro-life tour less than a month ago. ‘Jim was a selfless, soft-spoken, kind-hearted man.  All who knew him, knew this,’ he said. ‘Please pray for Jim’s family.’

At this point it is not clear what the motivation of the shooting was. So we cannot say for sure if this was related directly to the abortion issue. Of course when a pro-abortionist is shot, the media is all over the story, even before it is clear who did the killing and why.

(Stop the press, this just in: “33-year-old Harland James Drake has been charged with first-degree premeditated murder of pro-life veteran Jim Pouillon this morning as he carried a pro-life sign in front of a local high school, reports local news station WILX-TV. Prosecutors said Drake told them he targeted Pouillon because of his pro-life activities.”)

This may have been the first death of a pro-lifer in the US, but it is certainly not the first act of violence against those who would defend the life of the unborn. Violence, intimidation, threats and abuse are the continual lot for those who stand up for children in the womb.

For example, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue said that this is a long-standing problem: “We have received literally hundreds of death threats in the past three months. Our office has been vandalized three times. Just yesterday, the FBI was in our office and picked up a stack of threatening letters that we received. We denounce violence in the strongest terms. The bloodshed must stop both inside and outside of the abortion clinics.”

Thus there is the daily violence against unborn babies, as well as against those who seek to protect them and speak up on their behalf. As Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life said, “James Pouillon today joined the approximately 4,000 other victims who will be killed today because of abortion. The taking of all innocent lives must stop. I call on the leaders of the so called ‘pro-choice’ movement to condemn this killing and to consider all of the people who lose their lives to abortion every single day.”

Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA, said this about his friend: “This morning a violent man murdered a peaceful pro- life Christian, Jim Pouillon, my close friend. Jim was completely non-violent and never condoned using violence. I knew him very well and had prayed and ministered with him often. He was praying and holding a poster of a newborn baby outside of Owosso High School. One of the students in the school was his granddaughter. His beating heart and measurable brainwaves are stopped. Also today, 4,000 American preborn children with beating hearts and measurable brainwaves are being murdered with suction ‘abortion’ machines or drugs. Their beating hearts and measurable brainwaves are stopped. We condemn both forms of murder. Don’t shoot, stab, smack, slap, or suck the arms and legs off of children with suction machines! Stop the violence!

“The last time I talked to Jim was this week, Monday. I prayed with him over the phone as he was preparing to go talk about Jesus and show pro-life signs in front of Owosso High School, where he was martyred this morning.”

Abortion is clearly the human rights issue of our time. As Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “In the Fifties and Sixties, people lost their lives to secure the civil rights of those victimized by discrimination. Now, James Pouillon has lost his life in the civil rights cause of the 21st Century, the struggle to protect the right to life of every single person, born and unborn. Mr. Pouillon has not died in vain; the struggle will only be renewed because of his courage and sacrifice.”

This tragic story highlights the very real divide in the US about the abortion issue. It is clearly a contentious issue that will not go away. One wishes however that the MSM would be even-handed about this topic. Its near silence about this shooting simply demonstrates how one-sided and biased the MSM is on this topic.

If it ever decides to present a bit of balance here, my job would be less vital. But because it seeks to cover news mainly from a pro-death perspective, this and numerous other alternative media sites will continue to speak out. And for the sake of the 45 to 50 million unborn babies who are killed around the world each year, we dare not remain silent.

Used with permission.

Bill Muehlenberg's CultureWatch delivers reflective and incisive commentary on a wide range of issues, helping to sort through the maze of competing opinions, worldviews, ideologies and value systems.

More information is available from LifeNews.com.