The political right wing in Australia has consistently comprised Conservatives forming alliances with religious fundamentalists.
The Democratic Labor Party of the 50's and 60's was an example of how such an alliance could thwart progressive agendas.
Family First appears to be shaping up as a likely ally to the Right to 'preserve family values'
High on their agenda is to place obstacles in the way of women wishing to make decisions about abortions.
The RU 486 abortion pill,Mifepristone, represents a preferable departure from Surgical abortion for many women and its use has been vetoed by moralistic political intervention to by-pass the TGA,the appropriate body whose function is to evaluate its use in Australia.
The anti-abortion lobby in this country must understand that abortion is a fact of life and legal in Australia. It should remain a matter between a woman and her doctor and RU 486 should be an available option.

And, maracas, The anti-life lobby in this country must understand that abortion is paid for by taxpayer's dollars. As a public expenditure it should not remain a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The ethics of the matter are that politics DO belong in public medicine and open debate about it in a democracy is both ethically healthy and wise. That too is a fact of life.

Maximus the cost of rearing a child is borne by the parents and society. If the child is reared by its parents society pays for basic health care in the form of mass immunisation for example and for the education system. If the child is impaired or sickly then society will pay more money to rear that child.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that children are a wealth hazard not only for their parents but also for society. Its no wonder that the Australian economy is running in surplus because the avaerage age of Australians is 38 and a high proportion of the population, having ot beyond childrearing age, are at the wealthiest stage of their life cycle.

I am not saying don't have kids because they cost money to rear, but I am saying that your arguement is flawed. Arguing that society should not pay for terminations beause they are not ethical.

If society choses not to fund termination through Medicare then Australian women should be able to access the cheapest, most effective, least invasive therapy available, RU486. And if its not funded by taxpayers then you don't have to concern yourself with what someone else is doing.

Maximus, if you were being honest you would admit you couldn't give a rats ass about the cost of abortions but you are really driven by your single minded pro-life moralistic bias.
Perhaps it has slipped your notice that the use of RU 486 would not incur public expense of hospitalisation and surgery but merely a couple of doctors appointments for which the patient personally pays.

Billie, maracas, calm down. You're all gas and gaiters.

I said nothing about the pros and cons of abortion or RU486 in my last post. Check it out again. The point was, simply that IF the public purse pays for medical procedures - any medical procedure for that matter - then they DO become political issues and the public has an ethical right and responsibility to debate the issue.

If the medical procedure was done as a PRIVATE matter between a patient and a doctor paid for by the patient, then the public has NO right to interfere.

BUT WHERE THAT PROCEDURE IS PUBLICLY FUNDED, then everybody gets to have a say. Get it? That's what Cannold's article is supposed to be about - "Note to the PM: Politics doesn’t belong in medicine" - see? And I'm saying "Note to the PM: Politics DOES belong in medicine."

I couldn't care less if all the women in the world drugged themselves stupid on RU486 and never had another baby, ever, or did themselves great harm for that matter, but if I'm paying for it, or subsidising it, I want my say and I do this through my parliamentary representative, hence the issue is political.

Struth, why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to hysterical and illogical women, who DO NOT READ THE TEXT CAREFULLY, but jump to emotional and presumptive conclusions.

At the moment politicians have over ridden the Therapuetic Good Act and said that RU5486 can't be imported into Australia. So that irrespective of the cost of the medication or who is paying for it, women can't get it in Australia. How ever the taxpayer continues to fund surgical terminations at 10 times the cost per termination. It's not even as though surgical abortion is a better alternative than medical termination.

This is an instance where politics has intruded into the doctors' surgeries or pharmacies of Australia.