Sunday Paper Article South Australia

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Medical groups applaud passing of pill bill


Carol Nader
February 17, 2006


The decision to strip the Health Minister of his powers to control the controversial abortion drug RU486 has earned the approval of medical groups but dismayed the pro-life lobby.

Yesterday's vote in the House of Representatives was watched closely by doctors, who have been campaigning for several months to remove the decade-long ban on the drug, also known as mifepristone. The drug was effectively banned in a deal with then independent senator Brian Harradine to secure his vote for the partial sale of Telstra.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had issued a position statement on mifepristone last year that said the drug was safe to use in the early stages of pregnancy.

College president Ken Clark yesterday welcomed the outcome of the vote, but warned that it would not be the entire solution. "Work needs to be done on safe and proper ways for RU486 or mifepristone to be used in Australia and to maximise the number of women who can have access to it, but within safe protocols and systems," he said.

Dr Clark said with proper planning and programs, he hoped it would make it easier for women in rural areas to gain access to terminations.

The Australian Medical Association has also supported the drug's use despite the disapproval of some of its Catholic members.

President Mukesh Haikerwal said "common sense had prevailed".

"What we need is experts reviewing medical products with the full knowledge and data to back up their deliberations and it's got to be based on science, not on political whim," he said.

Right to Life Australia spokeswoman Margaret Tighe was "dismayed" by the vote's outcome. "I think the House of Representatives has succeeded in bestowing a final seal of approval on the practice of abortion on demand in this country," she said.

She also attacked the "intellectual dishonesty" of the politicians who "stoutly proclaimed" the vote wasn't a vote about abortion. "If that was the case then why was there a conscience vote on it?" she said.

The Victorian Government welcomed the decision. Abortion remains technically illegal in the state and the Government is unlikely to decriminalise it during an election year. But a Government spokesman said Premier Steve Bracks and Health Minister Bronwyn Pike "have publicly supported these changes and were keen to see that the vote was about medical assessment of drugs rather than a vote for or against abortion".

Royal Women's Hospital chief executive Dale Fisher said women's health was "fundamental to our social fabric".

"Much of the RU486 debate was ill-informed and disturbing and must serve as a wake-up call for those of us committed to ensuring women's health is informed by the needs of women," she said.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, which is essential to sustain a pregnancy.

Without the hormone a foetus cannot attach to the uterus. The drug is usually followed by the prostaglandin misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the foetus.

Doctors believe the two drugs together are the best option for a medical abortion. It is best done in the first nine weeks of pregnancy.

from The Age

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Australia Paves Way for Abortion Drug

THE NEW YORK TIMES

February 17, 2006

The abortion-inducing drug RU-486 will probably become available in Australia after a vote yesterday in the House of Representatives.

The vote removed the authority to ban the drug from the minister of health, Tony Abbott, who is conservative, Catholic, and opposed to abortion. He had argued against the legislation, saying that abortion was no different from the murder of a pregnant woman's baby.

Prime Minister John Howard of the conservative Liberal Party also opposed the legislation. The Liberals control the House, but so many members crossed the floor to vote with Labor, the Greens and the Democrats that the legislation was approved by a voice vote.

In a debate that was highly emotional and personal, Peter Costello, the country's treasurer, broke with Mr. Howard, voting for the bill after recounting how he had confronted an agonizing decision many years ago over whether to abort his wife's pregnancy, when she was unconscious with a brain tumor.

He had decided to proceed with the pregnancy, he said, and both his wife and the child survived. "The law should allow a choice," he said.

From The New York Times

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Canberra passes abortion drug vote

Thursday, February 16, 2006


The abortion pill is legal in 30 nations,
including the U.S., where it is advertised
on the New York subway.


Australia's lawmakers have voted Thursday to remove regulatory control of a controversial abortion drug away from the health minister.

The use of the drug -- called RU-486 -- had been controlled by Australia's staunchly Roman Catholic Minister for Health, Tony Abbott.

But a comfortable majority of lawmakers in Australia's House of Representatives decided to shift responsibility for the drug to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the nation's main pharmaceutical regulator.

Two attempts to amend the bill calling for the change both also failed by a large margin.

The House of Representatives approved the bill with overwhelming support on a voice vote. No official count was taken.

The TGA has the power to approve or deny the use of all other drugs in the country, but the parliament voted in 1996 to transfer the power of approval for RU-486 to the health minister.

Most analysts have said moving the control from the minister will clear the way for its approval as the TGA would likely follow other nations around the world.

The decision "is a winner for Australian women and their families and also a winner for the House of Representatives," Senator Lyn Allison, one of the bill's co-authors, said in a statement Thursday.

"I'm glad reason has triumphed over spin," she said.

"The Therapeutic Goods Administration is clearly best placed to determine the safety of RU-486."

The abortion pill is currently legal in about 30 nations, including the United States.

Despite abortion having been legal in Australia for 30 years, debate over this issue has been passionate, drawing the attention of activists in the United States and Europe.

A Senate inquiry into RU-486 before the bill to change the law was introduced received more than 1,000 submissions from advocacy groups and private individuals on both sides of the debate -- including two from the United States.

Danna Vale, a lawmaker from the ruling center-right Liberal Party, provoked an angry outcry from colleagues when she said Australians were aborting themselves "out of existence" and that the country was at risk of becoming a Muslim state.

Liberal and conservative politicians alike denounced Vale's remarks suggesting that Muslim immigrants could eventually outnumber native Australians if the current rate of abortions continued as "completely ill-founded."

She later apologized for her remarks.

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard opposed any change to the law.

For his part, Abbott warned of an "epidemic" of abortions in Australia if the drug was taken out of his control.

But supporters of the pill argued that the minister was not trained nor qualified to evaluate the safety or efficacy of drugs.

What's more, they say the pill is less invasive and cheaper than surgical abortions and women should be have a right to choose.

CNN's Hugh Riminton and Grant Holloway contributed to this report

from CNN

[leebella]

The Australian

Final say left to a single bureaucrat
By Patricia Karvelas
February 17, 2006

IT will come down to one bureaucrat - a scientist or possibly a doctor - chosen from a pool of six.

As employees of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the identities of the officers are kept secret.

But one of them will collate the data, read the case by the drug company for selling the drug alongside the relevant scientific journals and deliver a judgment on whether the abortion drug RU486 will be allowed in the country.

If a drug company makes an application to import RU486, this medical officer will handle the whole process, including the assessments through the various streams, such as pharmacy and chemistry, toxicology and medicine.

The bureaucrat will write the evaluation and send it to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee for their views.

Executives of the TGA also sit on this committee as observers.

Oncologist Martin Tattersall, head of Cancer Medicine at Sydney's Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, is chairman of the expert committee.

When the recommendations come back from ADEC, the senior medical officer, who has handled the process right the way through, decides whether the drug is registered.

For this financial year, the fee for a new prescription medicine submission is $182,900, of which $137,200 must be paid at the time of the application.

The remaining 25 per cent is due when the decision is made within the statutory timeframe allowed for review, which is 255 working days for a standard application.

There are provisions for the timeframe to be reduced if the same drug is approved overseas for the same intended indication and the sponsor can provide two independent evaluation reports from acceptable countries, such as the US, Canada, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Sweden.

The costs are unknown, but because the drug is off patent it will not be expensive.

www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18172122-2,00.html

[leebella]

Herald Sun

Abbott's $60m plan to counter abortion

17feb06

FEDERAL Health Minister Tony Abbott has prepared a $60 million scheme to offer counselling to women with unwanted pregnancies.

News of the measures follows parliament's vote yesterday to strip Mr Abbott of his approval powers over the controversial abortion pill.

The outcome means women could have access to drugs like RU486 by the end of the year.

However, Mr Abbott has prepared a submission containing two measures that aim to reduce the abortion rate.

The first is to set up a 24-hour a day advice hotline for pregnant women, at a total cost of $12 million over four years

The second measure would create a new Medicare rebate to allow pregnant women three counselling sessions with psychologists and other specialists trained in mental health medicine at a cost of $12 million a year for four years.

The proposals are expected to be taken to cabinet within the fortnight, where it is likely they will be approved.

www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18176703%255E1702,00.html

[leebella]

The Sydney Morning Herald

Govt to fund church abortion counselling
February 18, 2006 - 10:59PM

Church-affiliated groups will be funded by the federal government to counsel women facing unwanted pregnancies under a plan by Health Minister Tony Abbott.

His plan, to be considered by cabinet this week, would see groups such as Lifeline and Anglicare being funded directly by the government to provide the counselling, the Sunday Telegraph reports.

Mr Abbott believed counselling services currently offered by abortion clinics was predisposed toward termination, the paper said.

Mr Abbott has prepared the submission for cabinet on ways to decrease the abortion rate.

His first proposal is to set up a 24-hour advice hotline for pregnant women, at a total cost of $12 million over four years.

His second is to give pregnant women three Medicare-funded counselling sessions with psychologists and other mental health specialists, costing $12 million a year for four years.

The plan comes after parliament voted last week to hand power over access to the abortion drug RU486 from Mr Abbott to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia spokeswoman Kelsey Polwell said her group was concerned that any one counselling service would put pressure on women to make a particular decision.

Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja said she was concerned the hotline and Medicare rebates would be skewed towards anti-abortion groups.

© 2006 AAP

www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-to-fund-church-abortion-counselling/2006/02/18/1140151852928.html

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Abbott is 'not God' on abortion, says Gillard

Phillip Coorey
20 Feb 2006


HEALTH Minister Tony Abbott was playing God by trying to force women considering an abortion to seek counselling from a church group, Labor said yesterday.

Labor health spokeswoman Julia Gillard said counselling should be voluntary and a woman should be able to choose who to see.

"We all know Tony Abbott is a very religious man, but he's not God and shouldn't have the right to pick who is going to counsel every Australian woman who decides that she would like some counselling," Ms Gillard told the ABC's Insiders program.

"I'm not suggesting churches would manipulate it, but I'm saying that not every woman who is dealing with the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy would choose to be counselled by a church.

"She might choose to be counselled by somebody else and she should be able to make that choice." Mr Abbott, a devout Catholic and strident anti-abortionist, was thrashed last week when the Parliament voted overwhelmingly to strip him of the power to veto the availability of abortion pill RU486.

In response, he will take a $50 million proposal to Cabinet this week in which church-affiliated groups such as Anglicare and Lifeline would be funded to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies.

Mr Abbott believes counselling from abortion clinics is too predisposed towards having a termination.

His plan involves a 24-hour "pregnancy-support hotline" and face-to-face counselling. Women who seek counselling will be able to claim the fee on Medicare.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said under Mr Abbott's plan, women would be coerced, not counselled.

"Tony Abbott would prefer to lecture women, rather than ensure they have access to comprehensive reproductive services," she said.

from the Advertiser

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Abbott's plan for abortion advice

Glenn Milne
19 Feb 2006



FEDERAL Health Minister Tony Abbott (pictured) plans to bypass abortion clinics by handing counselling services for pregnant women to church groups.

Under a plan to be considered by Cabinet in the next few days, the Federal Government would directly fund church-affiliated groups such as Lifeline and Anglicare to provide counselling.

Mr Abbott's proposal has alarmed family planning clinics and women's groups, who fear women will be pressured into continuing their pregnancies.

Cabinet will consider the $50 million plan after the Health Minister lost his bid to retain responsibility for approving the abortion drug RU486.

Mr Abbott has argued in Cabinet that professional advice should be at arms' length from abortion providers, telling colleagues that counselling services should be professional and non-judgmental.

But there is no doubt that church-affiliated groups would be far less likely to recommend an abortion in the absence of a serious health threat to the woman.

It's understood Prime Minister John Howard strongly supports Mr Abbott's submission.

But some other ministers have doubts.

The plan has two prongs: a 24-hour "pregnancy support" hotline and face-to-face counselling.

Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia spokeswoman Kelsey Powell questioned the proposal.

"We would be concerned with any counselling service that put pressure on women to make one particular decision," she said.

Ms Powell said the Government should provide more access to contraception and fund better sex-education programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

from The Sunday Mail

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Abbott vow to fight on

Glenn Milne
19 Feb 2006


UNDETERRED by his loss over RU486, Health Minister Tony Abbott is determined to continue his anti-abortion crusade.

Mr Abbott has now put a plan to Cabinet which aims to bypass all counselling services to women now provided by abortion clinics.

The plan, worth more than $50 million, would result in the Federal Government directly funding church-affiliated groups such as Lifeline (an arm of the Wesley Mission) and Anglicare to provide alternative counselling.

Mr Abbott believes counselling offered by abortion clinics is fundamentally predisposed towards going ahead with termination.

He has argued in Cabinet that professional advice should be at arm's length from abortion providers.

He has told colleagues counselling services should be professional and non-judgmental. But there is no doubt church-affiliated groups would be far less likely to recommend an abortion in the absence of a serious health threat to the woman.

Mr Abbott has rejected calls for increased funding for education about abortion because that would involve the six Labor states, which have much more lenient views on the issue. The counselling option would be directly funded by the Commonwealth alone.

The plan has two prongs; the first involves setting up a 24-hour "pregnancy support" hotline. Current community advice providers would be asked to tender for the operation.

The second prong involves face-to-face counselling. Counsellors would be given a Medicare provider number, allowing clients to claim back the fee. Mr Abbott is proposing these counsellors come from the ranks of GPs with mental health qualifications or psychologists.

His proposal is based on research which shows the longer a woman thinks about abortion, the less likely she is to go through with it.

It's understood the Prime Minister is highly supportive of the Health Minister's submission. But some other ministers are known to have doubts.

Mr Abbott has highlighted the rising levels of abortion in Australia – he puts the figure at 100,000 a year – as a trend that must be turned back. In Parliament this week, during the debate over the abortion pill RU486, he described the figure as a matter of "unutterable shame".

In an emotion-charged conscience vote, Parliament opted to strip Mr Abbott of his veto power over the use of the pill.

Now the decision will be made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

During the campaign to take control of the drug away from Mr Abbott, some MPs accused him of letting his fiercely held Catholic beliefs cloud his judgment on the issue – a claim rejected by the Health Minister as "sectarianism".

from the Advertiser

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Vote no cure for abortion laws

20 February 20 2006


The RU486 decision was important, but it is not the big issue, writes Lachlan de Crespigny.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration's role in deciding whether RU486 should be available to women is appropriate. An important factor in the vote was the moving personal experiences of some politicians who understand the dilemma and heartbreak that goes with abortion. Those without such personal experiences do not always share that compassion.

Yet, sadly, the experiences of many women continue to be unnecessarily distressing. This will continue. Important though the RU486 decision was, it is not the big issue. Reform of our antiquated, unclear and varying abortion laws is. The agonising RU486 debate leaves a feeling of disillusionment: it seems less likely than ever that our unjust abortion laws will be addressed. We urgently need legislative change to put the divisive abortion law debate to rest.

It is regrettable that many political leaders are still under the illusion that our abortion laws serve us well. Politicians who believe the law does not need review are ill-informed.

The status quo is dangerous for women and their doctors. Abortion is a crime across most of Australia. Politicians should allow doctors to provide their patients with drugs and medical procedures according to law and a just distribution of finite resources. This means abortion laws must be clear.

Virtually all women request some form of prenatal testing, including an ultrasound examination in the middle of pregnancy. Optimal medical care means that the ultrasound examination should often be carried out at 20 or even 22 weeks. Those who receive the terrible news of an abnormality and request abortion may then have to shop around, or even miss out, on lawful abortion. Their request for abortion may need approval by an anonymous committee that offers no explanation of its decision-making process. On few other issues would such a lack of accountability be accepted.

Doctors are anxious about, and many refuse to perform, legal abortions because of unpredictable legal risk and potential public exposure. A system is flawed when a doctor's first priority cannot be the patient's welfare. Doctors are increasingly facing court action or investigation following abortion. This environment unreasonably denies women abortion.

In recent years, few states and territories have escaped debate surrounding individual women's stories. Doctors are being subjected to legal action and controversy following abortion procedures.

In 2000 a patient had a termination at 31 weeks at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. Despite the abortion being legal and lifesaving, there have been inquiries, court cases and public debate, all co-existing with a culture of concealment by the Victorian Government and hospital administrators.

While abortion laws are unclear, and hospital administrators are allowed to hide their disgraceful treatment of the patient and her doctors, we are destined to continue to be plagued with cases being reported to statutory authorities. The resulting damage to the lives and careers of women and their doctors is great.

It is shocking that not only can women and doctors face jail sentences under abortion laws if an abortion is performed, but doctors can face jail sentences for manslaughter by negligence if they refuse the abortion and the woman later commits suicide.

Until Australia has clear and consistent abortion laws that are supportive of women, they will continue to be refused lawful abortion, and the list of doctors facing public scrutiny after offering abortion will continue to grow.

All jurisdictions should follow the Australian Capital Territory's lead in allowing women to access abortion without fear of criminal prosecution. Only 9 per cent of Australians believe that women should be denied reproductive choice.

The federal, state and territory governments should combine to introduce a single, clear, national law on abortion, in early and late pregnancy. The heated RU486 debate leaves us further than ever from implementing consistent, clear abortion laws. This is an unfortunate legacy of the gain women made in Parliament last week.

Lachlan de Crespigny is principal fellow in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, and honorary fellow, Murdoch Children's Research Institute.

from the Sydney Morning Herald

[leebella]

You know SoC I was just thinking after all these months and hundreds of posts we've finally got back to the original topic of counselling clinics ;D

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

leebella said:

You know SoC I was just thinking after all these months and hundreds of posts we've finally got back to the original topic of counselling clinics ;D

Yeah ...sigh! It won't end there though.

Here's the latest disturbing news from the US:



S. Dakota legislature passes abortion ban
Wed Feb 22, 2006


SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.
The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

...from Reuters

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

I found this article interesting...

Carter makes sense about avoiding tragedy of abortion

February 22, 2006
BY JENNIFER HUNTER


Recently I read a book review by Garry Wills, adjunct professor at Northwestern University, about former President Jimmy Carter's latest book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. The review compelled me to go out and buy the book, not because I was such an admirer of Carter's tenure in the White House -- I don't think he was a brilliant president -- but I do think he is a true humanist and I respect his commitment to make the world a better place to live.

What particularly struck me about the book was Carter's attitude to abortion, which, as a deeply religious man, he opposes but he also recognizes women's right to control their own reproduction. "I am convinced that every abortion," he writes, "is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors, and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I have had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions. ..."

But he added, "Many fervent pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby who is born, and are the least likely to support benevolent programs that they consider 'socialistic.' They ignore the fact that once a doubtful mother decides not to have an abortion, she and her family usually have a number of needs: continued education for the mother, or a maternity leave from her job; special health care, with insurance to cover the costs; housing allowances; an adequate minimum wage, and tax credits to help the employed mother and her child have a decent life. Two-thirds of women who have abortions claim their primary reason is that they cannot afford a child."

The way to end abortion is not through laws that force women to wait 24 hours before the operation or getting parental consent or legislating that women get counseling cautioning about the moral dangers of ending a pregnancy. Chipping away at women's right to choose is not the way to solve the problem, even though most anti-abortion activists have been working fervently, state by state, to do this -- the Indiana legislature is considering a pair of laws, one to require doctors to tell patients that birth begins at conception and the second to put severe restrictions on abortion facilities.

The way to end abortion is through greater access to contraception and better education. In our state, according to the Illinois Campaign for Responsible Sex Education, only 34 percent of the classrooms in Illinois schools provide comprehensive sex education, and nearly 18,000 births each year occur to girls 19 and under. This is appalling. A bill just introduced in the Illinois Senate by Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) to give grants to schools and community-based organizations for sex ed programs is a start, but much more needs to be done here and nationally.

Abstinence programs are not the answer: Don't people promoting this unreasonable solution remember the raging hormones of adolescence?

Carter understood this, quoting a New York Times story that noted, "American girls are five times more likely to have a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and 70 times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands." Why? Because women in other countries don't have the same hurdles in their way to obtaining contraception or information about it.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which gathers data on birth control and abortion:

**Every tax dollar spent on contraceptive services saves an average of $3 in Medicaid costs for pregnancy health care and for medical care of newborns.

**Each year, publicly supported contraceptive services help women prevent 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies, which would result in 632,300 abortions, 533,800 unintended births and 165,000 miscarriages.

**Without publicly supported services, there would be 40 percent more abortions annually in the United States than currently occur.

Cutbacks to Medicaid and the failures of many states to educate students about sexuality will likely force an increase in these numbers. Anti-abortion activists always suggest adoption, but that is not an easy option for a mother who has gone through nine months of pregnancy and given birth. The best solution is the one endorsed by Ronen: Educate our kids about sex.

As Carter notes, most of the fervent opponents of abortion don't seem to understand the human dimension to this, the struggle of women who cope with an unplanned pregnancy. They are often the same people who support the death penalty. It's unfortunate they don't have as much compassion and wisdom as our former president. The women and girls of this country would be much better off if they did.

From the Chicago Sunday Times

[SoCrazyInLoveWithGUY]

Pro-choice movement questions abortion counselling services


Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 16/08/2006

Reporter: Tom Iggulden

A new front has opened up in the abortion debate. The pro-choice movement is accusing anti-abortion organisations of deceiving pregnant women seeking advice about where to get a termination.

Transcript
TONY JONES: A new front has opened up in the abortion debate tonight. The pro-choice movement is accusing anti-abortion organisations of deceiving pregnant women seeking advice about where to get a termination. They say some pregnancy counselling hotlines are hiding their real purpose to talk women out of having an abortion. The Federal Government funds nearly 30 pregnancy counselling hotlines. All of them are run by pro-life organisations. Tom Iggulden reports.

TOM IGGULDEN, REPORTER: In February, this man's teenage daughter was allegedly raped. A few weeks later she realised she was pregnant and turned to her father for help. The man, who we've called 'Mark', asked local police in Shepparton in Victoria where he could go for advice.

'MARK': We were after some advice on how to go about getting it terminated, where we have to go, what we have to do.

TOM IGGULDEN: The officers looked up the local Yellow Pages and found this ad under the heading 'Pregnancy Counselling'.

MARK: When I rang that phone number, the woman asked me what it was all about, which I explained that my daughter was raped and she was pregnant and she wished to terminate. The woman then said to me, "Well, you know it's a body you've got there. It's alive." I said, "Yes, I understand all this," and she said, "Well, you're nothing but a bloody murderer."

TOM IGGULDEN: As it turns out, Pregnancy Counselling Australia was about the last place Mark should have turned for advice on where to get an abortion. It's run by a pro-life organisation and has a strict policy against referring callers to abortion clinics.

HELEN DENNIS, PREGNANCY COUNSELLING AUSTRALIA: We do not want women to go through the abortion experience.

TOM IGGULDEN: Pregnancy Counselling Australia's Helen Dennis says she's not aware of Mark's case.

HELEN DENNIS: Certainly it does surprise me. Our counsellors are specifically trained never to use words like 'kill' or 'murder' or 'sin'.

TOM IGGULDEN: Mark feels the experience with the hotline drove a wedge between him and his daughter.

MARK: I felt like I'd failed, I couldn't help her. I just felt lost. I can't understand how they can place an ad in a local phone book like that which is very upsetting.

TOM IGGULDEN: There are now calls for those ads to be changed and Pregnancy Councelling Australia has already agreed to include a fuller description of its services. But the new ads will not explicitly say that the hotline won't refer callers to an abortion clinic.

HELEN DENNIS: The fact that it says "Alternatives to abortion" - I think that is pretty clear.

TOM IGGULDEN: The Federal Government funds close to 30 pregnancy counselling hotlines nationwide. All of them are pro-life.

TONY ABBOTT, FEDERAL HEALTH MINISTER: The Federal Government provides via Medicare quite a lot of money to organisations that do terminations. Why shouldn't we provide some modest assistance to organisations presenting people with other options?

TOM IGGULDEN: Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja has moved a private member's bill that if passed would, she says, require hotlines to be upfront about their attitude to abortions in their advertising.

SENATOR NATASHA STOTT DESPOJA, DEMOCRATS: You just have to be upfront about your perspective. You cannot mislead or deceive about the type of pregnancy counselling service you provide.

TONY ABBOTT: I don't think Natasha wants to introduce transparency so much as prevent organisations which have what might be described as a pro-life philosophy from getting any Federal Government support.

SENATOR NATASHA STOTT DESPOJA: In order to qualify for funding, you don't have to fit a particular philosophical definition. That's rubbish.

TOM IGGULDEN: Senator Stott Despoja says there's evidence Mark's case is not an isolated example.

SENATOR NATASHA STOTT DESPOJA: They've been told that they are a murderer, they are contemplating killing their child, that they are sinful, that they will get breast cancer if they have a termination or other long-term side effects that are resulting from having an abortion.

TOM IGGULDEN: But Mr Abbott disputes the problem is widespread.

TONY ABBOTT: I'm not an eavesdropper on the calls and I would certainly hope that any organisation that the Federal Government provided some support for would treat all callers with deep compassion.

TOM IGGULDEN: Today in Canberra senators were presented with a petition with 15,000 names supporting the private member's bill. Tom Iggulden, Lateline.

www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1716798.htm