"Conducted by independent market research firm Galaxy Research on behalf of the Australian Family Association, this research shows that there is no consensus among Queensland voters for a change in the law..."

As soon as I read that this article was supported by the Australian Family Association, I was immediately skeptical.

This 'Association' was founded in 1980 by B.A. Santamaria, a prominent Melbourne Catholic activist.It is the Religious Right group of choice for most ultra-conservative Catholics.

If the author did not want to bring religion into the equation when discussing the issue of abortion, then it would have been better not to mention this Catholic Association.

The constant carry-on about 'at will late term abortions' is totally wrong. As a midwife, I have never seen late-term abortions done purely for 'convenience sake'. These unfortunate couples usually have very deformed or disabled babies who are usually incompatible with life outside the uterus.

Most women would agree that carrying a dying baby (such as those without a formed brain) to full term is a horrendous journey.
The result of this abortion (forced labour) of a preterm pregnancy is a dead baby, just the same as it would have been if she had waited until full term.
She just didn't have to wait around in horror and sadness for so long.

No one actually likes the idea of abortion at all, but we can't force women to do something against their will either.
No woman, despite what stage her pregnancy is at, should EVER be forced to remain pregnant if she truly doesn't want to carry on with the pregnancy.
We can't go backwards in time to the days of women dying from self-abortion or illegal abortionists again.

" So why was the case brought to trial then? The purpose of the courts is public justice, not the pursuit of ideological vendettas. ... "
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 7 November 2010 4:29:02 PM

I have seen a couple of different references to a particularly religious zealotry in the local constabulary (probably including the police officers who did the original search for another reason (as yet not disclosed)

The survey was 400 people - 200 hundred in Brisbane and 200 Rest of QLD, which would favour a conservative response

After establishing age of person, and elgibility to vote ..

"A few questions now about abortion.

"B1. Abortion is an operation or procedure which involves termination of an unwanted or difficult pregnancy, preventing birth of a live child. Do you believe abortion involves the taking of a human life?
Yes.........................1
No .........................2
Don’t know ..........3
[mention live child would seem to confer bias]

"B2. 20 weeks of pregnancy is the earliest point at which survival outside the womb is possible. Do you believe that at that time an unborn child is a human person with human rights?
Yes..........................1
No ..........................2
Don’t know .........3
[more bias, towards a child with rights inferred in the question]

"B3. Do you believe that abortion can harm the physical and/or mental health of a woman?
Yes........................1
No ........................2
Don’t know .........3
[more bias - of course it "can". The real issue is does it, and how often? !!]]

"B4. Do you support abortion for non-medical reasons, that is, for financial or social reasons?
Yes ....................... 1
No .........................2
Don’t know ........ 3
[social reasons ... ?? - invokes bias]

"B5. Up to what stage of pregnancy would you allow abortion, would it
be…? READ OUT 1-4 ...

Not at all ....................................................................................... 1
At any time up to 13 weeks, that is 3 months ................................... 2
At any time up to 20 weeks, that is half-way through pregnancy .. 3
Or, at any time during pregnancy up to birth...................................... 4
Don’t know .................""

The average person would not know the nuances of development of and for the embryo; it is fact the foetus has an inability to feel pain as the sensory nerve fibres/pathways of the spinal cord do not join the brain until about 23 weeks gestation due to a barrier called the sub-cortical plate.

When abortion is allowed ought to the domain of a combined expert medical and ethical panel, not public opinion, as really happens all over the world.

I see what you mean by biased questions in the so-called 'independent survey McReal.
One of the many questions I would have asked on the survey would be:

Question: If abortion was made totally illegal in any form, how would we ensure this is enforced?

A) No sex allowed between couples unless they specifically want to produce a baby? (if abortion is outlawed, then contraception is bound to follow soon after).

B) Any pregnant woman who wants an abortion for any reason should be tied to a hospital bed and guarded until she gives birth?

C) All abortion clinics and any hospitals who have wards and staff who have performed abortions should be bombed, with all murderers inside?

D) Any woman accused of causing herself to have an abortion should be jailed for life for murder?

Dear Alan,
Just a note of clarification. I do not share the reservations of the commentors on your article (or, by the way, of Get Up) about the AFA/Galaxy survey's questions. I don't think the report adds much to our knowledge of public views on abortion (and indeed, it is not as in depth as the earlier report, What Australians Really Think about Abortion). However, in my opinion piece you mention, I challenged the conclusion drawn by the AFA that MPs could or would face a swing of 12% if they voted for decriminalisation. This conclusion is unwarranted either by the figures in the report, or by the results in the electorates you mention: a 2-3 % swing over a general swing does not equal a 12% swing, and what is more, the only evidence you adduce for a connection between the swing and the pro-life campaign is that one happened after the other. But eg in the case of Aspley, the swing also happened after a decision to remove a hospital. So you need to do something more than simply note that one happened after the other in order to establish a causal connection. You need more evidence of different kinds to establish the conclusion you draw from the report about voting patterns. kind regards, Helen Pringle

To argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is old or allegedly draconian is a complete furphy. Who defines "draconian"? Is a law draconian simply because it prohibits something? One may as well argue that laws prohibiting theft, murder etc are drasonian.

The age of a law is also irrelevant in most cases. The laws against burglary, theft, murder etc are very old but no one argues they should be repealed.

And as far as survey results go, I would trust those published by the AFA sooner than those published by Planned Parenthood, Children By Choice, or even state or federal governments. The AFA have *nothing* to gain unlike the other organisations who stand to make millions.

Further, to argue that a law should be repealed simply because it is being broken or because it is difficult to enforce is another red herring. All laws are broken - some more often than others. Does that mean we abandon them? Many laws are difficult to enforce - does that mean we repeal them? Obviously the answer any rational person would give is "no".

In actual fact, enforcing abortion laws is not that difficult. It just takes an act of political will and an honest legal system... Hmmm... maybe it is more difficult than it appears.