Sample size of your "study", Bek? Source of anecdotal evidence? And is it possible the women you refer to had had terminations because they were aware they really didn't like or want children, and weren't suited to being mothers? Could well lead to "intimacy issues" and "instability" when they chose to have, or were pressured into having children.

The argument being put forward by Kathy and others is that pro-choice counselling services should have to identify themselves as such, if anti-abortion services are required to do so. I would argue that this is unneccessary, as anti-abortion counselling services are the only ones not canvassing a full range of options available to women who are pregnant.

I also have some serious concerns about the so-called validity of the report by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute.

I don't believe that SCBI have been able to answer adequately questions about their: sample size; selection criteria for group participation; methodology (what questions were asked, what type of language was used); location of focus groups; who devised the research tool (was it the organisation)? We might also reasonably ask: who funded the research? Focus group research is expensive: was the donation conditional on an agenda?

Pro-choice activists aren't arguing that the Australian community is complacent about abortion rates, I would have thought Eva Cox made that clear. I don't think pro-choice activists believe that it wouldn't be preferable if there was better sex education and better provision of contraception which negates the need for surgical abortion. But in some places, even this isn't possible. Some doctors will not write scripts for the pill. Some pharmacists will not fill them. Some pharmacists won't even stock condoms...which not only prevent pregnancy but a range of life-threatening STDs.

Also, I can't help but wonder Bek: what about the women you know who haven't told you whether they've had an abortion or not. Do you imbue in (your assessment of) their lack of interaction with their children an assumption that they must have had a termination?

I also have to take issue with the assessment that people who argue a pro-choice position are pro-abortion. As a woman in her late 20s, I have friends with children, friends without, friends who want kids and those who don't. Taking the line being run to its logical conclusion, one might wonder if my first response to the observation: "I'm pregnant" wouldn't be "when is your appointment at the clinic?". What hogwash.

Melinda - I never called you weak-willed. I am merely arguing that I will never accept restrictions on my right to an abortion on the basis that some people may not be very good at making decisions for themselves.

I would never accept anyone been forced into an abortion - but that has nothing to do with requiring that anti-abortion clinics do not advertise falsely. If they are going to refuse to give you information about abortion, they should tell you before you make the effort to go there.

> > >
"There is no money to be made from women keeping their babies so how would the 'prolife industry' profit? The only logical reason for abortion providers to pressure women to abort is because they are running a business. If women leave the clinic still pregnant, no-one gets paid."
> > >

Crap. Pregnant women go to the doctor throughout the entire pregnancy. Paediatricians make more money from births than abortions. Is the pro-life lobby a conspiracy of the "forced-pregnancy industry" to stay in business and make a buck?

> > >
"Why do women need a 'referral' from a counseling agency anyway?"
> > >

Because the law says they have to.

Your experiences, terrible as they may be, have nothing to do with the fact that abortion is legal. If your parents forced you into a choice that you didn't want, while you were still a minor, then you need to work things out with them. But don't use your experiences as a reason to deny adult women the right to privacy and autonomy.

Hi Amanda, I don't believe I have seen 'pro-life' counseling services stating that they offer referrals for abortion when they actually don't provide them. Some state that they offer abortion information or abortion alternatives. There is nothing misleading about that.
How would a counseling agency not offering you a referral restrict your access to an abortion? Check out the yellow pages and then tell me how difficult it is. Did you know that you can "get your life back on track!" They make it sound so exciting.
I now understand what you mean when you claim that pro-life people have a financial interest in a continued pregnancy. This doesn't work for three reasons. 1. This would only make sense if all pro-life people were doctors, however this is not true. In fact, I have recently heard that most doctors (85%?)are 'pro-choice.'
2. I have not heard of abortion providers outside the public system also offering pre-natal care, therefore they have no financial incentive for a woman to continue her pregnancy.
3. The 'pro-life lobby' is not a business, if it was, it would be operating at a loss as many pro-lifers donate time and money to women who continue their pregnancies.
Amanda, I am not using my experiences to deny women 'privacy and autonomy' rather I am telling my story in light of the proposed legislation which requires 'pro-life' organisations to refer for abortions. My argument is that it is wrong to claim 'pro-life' agencies are 'biased' when the proposed legislation would require them to refer women to the even more 'biased' abortion clinics, who make money from abortions! I've noticed that only women who speak positively of abortion providers receive sympathy and respect, while those of us who go through similar experiences yet are unhappy customers, are subject to ridicule, by other women, "feminists" who claim to be representing us!

The term "where requested" only appears in bill in definition of "non-directive pregnancy counselling service".

Section 7 of bill provides that ONLY "non-directive pregnancy counselling services" will allowed a listing "on the 24 hour health and help call pages of each alphabetical public number directory". This is outrageous and totalitarian.

Why should a service be required to offer abortion referals when a woman can look one up in yellow pages?

Secondly, the whole point of seeking counselling is because the woman is confused and unsure. Natasha knows that if they instead get a referral for an ultrasound and see their baby moving around inside the chances of opting for abortion dive bombs. The thought of people rejecting the abortion choice is anathema to far left raving feminists like Natasha, so she wants to minimise effects of such counselling services by taking away funding (of which they receive precious little anyway) and their directory listings.

If Natasha wants to stop misleading advertising and notification then bill should require explicit notification of financial interests since virtually all of the "non-directive pregnancy counselling services" are owned and operated by abortion clinics or abortion advocacy groups. "Non-directive" - you got to be kidding! What a joke!

Natasha also conveniently leaves out the lack of post abortion counselling and care. I have heard countless women talk about the treatment they get when they go back to their abortion counsellors because of the anguish and depression they feel. Counsellors don't want to know them, and the women get told to get over it.

May I recommend Melinda Tankard Reist's book "Giving Sorrow Words" which give the accounts of 10 or so women (out of a pool of thousands she has talked with) of varying demographics and who have had abortions - some for abortion and some against. They tell of the pain they felt and the pain they still feel even after 60 years in one case. They all note the lack of support they got from their abortion counsellors. I didn't get through the first chapter before I burst into tears.

Re Southern Cross Bioethics Institute Study/Survey on Abortion

Critics accuse SCBI of being biased and "fixing" the results. This is total rubbish. Firstly, SCBI employed a professional marketing group, SENTEX Marketing, to help them design the survey. SENTEX have their own professional credibility to protect so would not allow any unethical or questionable behaviour/research.

The funding for the study was by a privite donor - NOT the Catholic church, or any other church for that matter.

Eva Cox (at time she wrote her article) had only read the Executive summary which did not discuss the methodology. The full report gives more info regarding this matter. Note also that John Flemming and Selena Ewing (the principle researchers) have replied to Eva Cox:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3489

The reason the questions have not been released at present is because this is only the first four stages in a multi-part study and SENTEX advised that the questions should not be released until everything is complete to ensure the questions do not exact any influence over future parts of the study.

Amanda,

Pro-life counselling agencies, I suggest, would be more than willing to give women information about abortion. They will tell them how it is done, what the significant health risks are (breast cancer, post-abortion trauma, infection, perferation etc etc), and how terrible you will feel afterwards - for years afterwards - and how you will more than likely regret it for the rest of your life. They will also tell them not to expect any help from their abortion doctors or counsellors if they decide to go through with an abortion, but that their door is always open and they will always be willing to listen.