While I am sure Senator Eggleston has the best intrests of his patients at heart, I hardly think that we should place his opinion over that of the Australian Medical Association, or the Royal College of Obestritians and Gynecolegists (apologies for the appalling spelling), who both apparently support over-turning the ban. Women would still have to go to a doctor to get a prescription, and they would manage with their doctor how they would be cared for. It is not as though the proposal is to let Mifesperone to be sold at the local Coles.

Every medical procedure or treatment has risks. The fact that some women do not have easy access to a hospital in case of hemmorage is appalling, as she is just as likely to require that access for a natural miscarriage, or any other drama. It seems to me that if you KNOW that you may need services, you can put yourself in a position to be able to access those services, and be aware of the warning signs, even more so than if a random event, like miscarriage, which happens in something like 30% of pregnancies.

Even highly trained doctors with years of experience can sometimes act out of consideration for their preconceived religious/philosophical beliefs, rather than out of concern for the wishes and well-being of their patients.

Many years ago, my first wife [after having had what we both regarded as enough planned and wanted children] went to our GP [who just happened to be Catholic] for a referral to a specialist to have her tubes tied. She was referred to a specialist [who happened to be Catholic] and he refused to do the operation, or even to discuss it in a rational manner. But they both took our money, in return for virtually refusing the service which we had suggested. So much for "morality". Could something like this still happen today? Knowing the grip which religious dogma still has on many otherwise rational people, I would have to say "Probably yes".

My sister, again many years ago, had a responsible position at a fairly large English hospital. She told me that one of the doctors was a Jehovah's Witness and would have nothing to do with blood transfusions. Apparently, if one of his patients could be seen to need this procedure, he would excuse himself and send for another doctor. Hopefully, another doctor would be available, but is any hospital invariably adequately staffed? And what about a large scale emergency involving many critically injured people?

How about Tony Abbott, a Catholic, as Health Minister? My comments are not about politics, or Tony's intelligence, honesty, integrity, capability or any other quality. His personal feelings are bound to be part of his decision making processes and it is probably inevitable that he is not really comfortable about abortion.

Those who feel that I am being unfair could consider this. What if we had a Health Minister who was a Jehovah's Witness? He/she could be one of the most honest and capable people imaginable, but could he/she be totally impartial on matters involving blood transfusion? And what if new techniques became available? Wouldn't he/she be more likely to consider the alleged risks, rather than the likely benefits?

enaj: Your concerns about a return to backyard abortions may be unnecessary. Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson [60,000 abortions] said " One can expect that if abortion is ever driven underground again, even non-physicians will be able to perform this procedure with remarkable safety. No woman need die if she chooses to abort during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy." [from Aborting America, Doubleday 1979 p.193] I don't want anyone to die, mothers or babies.

Indeed, wealthy women have always been able to procure safe terminations, and, if it is driven underground, will do so again, but what about women with few resources? What about girls like a relative of mine who, as a terrified 15 year old, resorted to taking some appallingly dangerous concoction recommended by some backyard person as the cheapest method and nearly died, in agony?
If abortion becomes illegal, the major effect will be to drive up the price and then desperate women will, as they always have, take matters, sometimes fatally, into their own hands.
You simply cannot compell women to bear children they do not want. That is the insurmountable problem.

Absolutely correct enaj, safe abortion was the preserve of the wealthy when abortion was banned and that would be the situation today if the mostly male and fundy religious have their way.

Consider this extract from an article about RU 486 on the ABC science website:

"Professor Caroline de Costa is the Professor of Obstetrics at James Cook University in Cairns. She was the author of October's Medical Journal of Australia article, and she's the AMA's spokesperson on RU 486. Yes, there is a small risk of pelvic cramps and bleeding after taking RU 486, but the risks can be safely managed, and the risks are no greater than managing other obstetrics procedures like pregnancy and surgical abortion, she says. She told the ABC’s PM program, 'A small number of women who have a medical abortion may need to be seen by a doctor and examined, and an even smaller number of those may need to have curettage, but that's also true of women who have a surgical abortion.’........

........The conservative Christian right is a powerful force in federal politics and it could be a while yet before RU 486 lands on pharmacy shelves in Australia.

In the meantime, beware politicians brandishing a report."

The full text is available at:

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/s1509095.htm

Big Al and others would do well to accurately inform themselves on the advantages/disadvatanges of RU 486.

I am always bemused by this hysteria over foetal life. If human beings were in danger of extinction, maybe, just may be there would be some justification, although it would still be an infringement on the autonomy of women.

In fact imagine a world where humans were on the brink of extinction - how swiftly would women be coerced into becoming baby machines? Enforced artifical fertilisation? Legalised rape? Frightening scenario. Not likely to happen - but an interesting hypothesis.

I agree that religious ideology should have absolutely no bearing upon our supposedly secular government's approval or otherwise of medical treatments, including RU-486. In recent days it has become increasingly apparent that Health Minister Abbott, in rejecting calls from the AMA for the legalisation of RU-486, has selectively cherrypicked from the limited advice he has received in order to justify his refusal to legalise RU-486 on supposedly medical grounds.

In so doing, he commits exactly the same kind of deception that Ransom does in this article: disingenuously invoking concerns for women's health as the basis for banning RU-486, when in fact he is motivated by his religious beliefs. The AMA has called the Health Department's research upon which the Minister claims to have based his decision "skewed", a leading obstetrician has called it "alarmist", a Liberal doctor backbencher is calling it "totally and absolutely ridiculous" and even Dr Andrew Childs who contributed to the Health Department's advice stated he has never said the drug should not be used.

Indeed, as stated by Senator Kerry Nettle this week, "Mr Abbott's position is consistent with the religious right's anti-choice scare campaign which has been trying to drum up fear of the drug based on selective and inaccurate usage of available data.