Natasha’s article is very short on details

EG:-
What information should or should no be given during counselling?
Should counselling services become uniform in the information they provide?
Should counselling become compulsory before and after an abortion?
Who pays for this counselling?
Should the father be involved in the counselling?

And of course, what can be done to limit unwanted pregnancy in the first place?

As well, anecdotal evidence does not mean much when forming national legislation, and public opinion polls don’t mean much if the public does not have much knowledge on the subject, and the outcome of public opinion polls can be easily manipulated by choice of wording in the questions

This may be off topic a bit but Timkins' point about this dealing with stopping unwanted pregnancy in the first place is very important. (I would argue the most important)

I am all for allowing choice for the woman (and man) to have an abortion or not. But pro choice also means the choice of having unprotected sex, using a pill that is 99% effective (1% could be a big 1%), etc, and accepting the consequences. Is more education needed? Why concentrate solely on the abortion issue. (Forgive me if Ms Despoia has put forward bills on this I am not fully up with the history)

I hear the apparent large numbers of abortions performed, and ask, why? Not every one is a change of mind due to circumstance? Is it? What portion of this number is not in the realm of choice eg rape v condom breaking v pill failure v choice of unprotected sex. Do we not need to understand that to provide effective prevention. It is usually better than cure. Isn't it?

If anyone has this data I would like to see it.

Comments by Timkins and the Big Fish may indicate their concerns but have nothing to do with the issue raised by Natasha ie requiring pregancy counsellors who won't refer for terminations should b e required to state that in their advertisements. Can future comments stay on topic.
BTW, I fully agree with Natasha

Abortion [within certain guidelines] is a legal option in Australia [as it should be]. A large majority of Australians agree with this concept, regardless of how survey questions are phrased. Many of us feel somewhat uncomfortable that so many abortions seemingly need to be performed, but we respect the woman's right to choose for herself.

But this is not good enough for some elements of what could be referred to as the Religious Right. They carefully use every [legal] opportunity to frustrate the laws of Australia and force their unproven and unprovable religious based views on the rest of the Australian population.

I don't usually like quoting from the Bible, as many Biblical passages can be construed to mean almost anything or nothing [and are unprovable as the "word of God" anyway], but "Do not bear false witness" makes good sense and cannot be interpreted any other way. It means, "Do not falsely misrepresent a situation", or more simply, "Do not tell lies". It is recognised in law [and by common sense] that you can, in effect, falsely misrepresent a situation by omitting to say something.

The deliberate attempt on behalf of some pregnancy counsellors to avoid any reference to the abortion option is obvious. Someone who is basically opposed to a [legal] course of action on religious grounds can hardly be expected to discuss this option on level terms, but they should be forced, by law, to state this to a prospective client, before the prospect decides to choose them as a counsellor.

The way things seem to be now, at least some of the "Right to Life" counselling services seem to use the same methods as confidence tricksters and shonky sales people. "Tell 'em anything, as long as they buy!" Of course, this could be seen as "The end justifying the means", a concept beloved by totalitarian regimes and anyone else who wishes to frustrate democracy.

Thankyou Rossco,
But what constitutes a “referral”?
What constitutes a “pregnancy counselling service”?
What constitutes "advertiseing".
Can a doctor refer someone to a particular "pregnancy counselling service", and not another
Should someone have to shop around to find the “pregnancy counselling service” that suits them?
And why would someone go to a “pregnancy counselling service” when their mind is already made up.
And if their mind is already made up, then where did they get the information in the first place, to enable them to make up their mind.?

There should be answers to such questions if there is going to be legislation, but if there is one thing that would characterise abortion, it would probably be lack of reliable information, and that is possibly the main reason why the abortion rate remains so high, even though the general wealth of society has increased, taxation has increased, social services have increased, and contraception technology has improved.

Also the article mentions some anecdotal evidence, and mentions surveys or public opinion polls regards abortion. Neither are greatly reliable.

Natasha claims to be "all for women who freely choose to continue their pregnancies being provided with the support they need throughout the pregnancy and birth". But her own words show her up.

While agencies "which do not [refer for abortion] would be forced to advertise the fact" and therefore be officially stigmatised as biased, or lose their right to advertise, abortion referral agencies will be able to continue with business as usual. If you refer for abortion, your biases will be tolerated and even endorsed.

In fact Natasha says, with an apparent straight face, "If my Bill became law, women could assume all other organisations [ie those that refer for abortion] offered information and support on all pregnancy options."

Is she being naive or misleading? With very few exceptions it is the agencies that don't refer for abortion that provide the practical support for women to have their baby. They're the only ones that care enough about the outcome for the woman and her child.