Cherish Life Queensland has welcomed the overwhelming decision by the LNP State Convention today to oppose changes to the laws on abortion in the Criminal Code.
The convention gave 95% support to the resolution, moved by Senator Barry O’Sullivan, which noted “the widespread community disagreement and disharmony about altering current abortion legislation in Queensland.”
The final resolution was an amended version of motions originating from LNP Women and the Toowoomba North State Electoral Council.
The resolution stated that “any civilised society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.”
The resolution affirmed LNP policy “that there should be no change to sections 224, 225, 226 and 282 of the Queensland Criminal Code”.
Cherish Life president Julie Borger commended the LNP for holding to its long-standing policy and keeping its promise to the people of Queensland at the last election that there would be no change to the abortion laws.
Mrs Borger noted that one of the key terms of reference for the Queensland Parliament Health Committee inquiry into Independent MP Mr Rob Pyne’s first abortion bill was whether “the law needed to be changed “to reflect current community attitudes and expectations.”
“Unlike Mr Pyne and his out-of-touch supporters among the pro-abortion EMILY’S List within the Labor Party, the LNP through this resolution has reflected community attitudes,” she said.
The most recent quality research on abortion in Queensland, a randomised telephone opinion poll conducted by Galaxy in May on behalf of the Australian Family Association, showed that 85% of voters were opposed to late-term abortion after 20 weeks and 53% were opposed to more permissive abortion laws.
Labor Independent MP Mr Rob Pyne, was trying to fool Queenslanders into thinking that his second abortion Bill which was tabled yesterday [Eds: 17 August] in State Parliament would be restricting abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, according to Cherish Life Queensland..
"Pyne's new Bill is a con job to trick the public into thinking he is protecting viable babies," Cherish Life Queensland president Julie Borger said.
"The truth is that Pyne's latest Bill is modelled on Victoria's extreme laws," Mrs Borger said.
"The requirement in Pyne's new Bill that abortions after 24 weeks have to be approved by two doctors is simply window dressing to pretty up an ugly piece of legislation. The fact is this is just a sham and a facade, as the second doctor is not required to see or speak to the patient, or even look at her file.
"For that matter, the second doctor does not have to be independent so it could be that the two doctors at an abortion clinic who would profit from the procedure would approve the late-term abortion.
“Furthermore, Mr Pyne’s Bill wimped out on applying any penalty to a doctor disregarding the rules for late-term abortion, specifically stating this would not be an offense.
"How can a just, caring and civilised society allow the killing of pre-born babies, particularly those who would be viable outside the womb?
"If the mother does not want to keep her child, there is no need to destroy the baby in the womb. It would be a more loving alternative to let her be born alive and adopted out."
Mrs Borger said that in Victoria, 179 (or exactly half) of the 358 late-term abortions performed in 2013 (the most recent year released) were done for "psycho-social" reasons, that is on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies.
She said a recent Galaxy poll showed that 94% of Queensland voters were opposed to abortions after 20 weeks.
Mrs Borger said it was ironic for the latest Pyne Bill to describe the proposed no-protest areas around abortion clinics as "protected areas".
"There is no protection inside abortion clinics for either mother or baby, " she said, " as with every abortion, the toll is one dead, one wounded."
Mrs Borger did welcome the one positive aspect of Mr Pyne’s new Bill, that it would give legal protection to the conscientious objection rights of medical professionals.
Pyne’s latest Bill - Health (Abortion Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2016 - http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2016/5516T1292.pdf
Galaxy poll – http://www.abortionrethink.org/images/What_Qlders_Really_Think_About_Abortion.pdf
Victorian late-term abortion figures - http://realchoices.org.au/victorian-perinatal-data/
Queensland Health states 27 babies born alive during abortions were left to die!
Queensland Health disclosed to parliament that 27 babies were born alive after abortion and were left to die. “This means that every second week another little baby died after struggling to breathe after being aborted. At the same time, babies of the same gestational age were being cared for in neonatal wards. The only difference? The first group were deemed ‘unwanted’, ‘disabled’ or ‘inconvenient’”, Cherish Life Queensland State President Teresa Martin said.
“If this is the number when preborn babies are still protected by law in this state, what will that figure rise to when all protection for them is removed?” Ms Martin asked, “This is just the figure that is known, but how many more are there that perhaps are not being disclosed?”
There is also grave concern about the medical staff who have had to be part of this ‘procedure’, perhaps even against their own consciences. “This barbaric practice of late term abortion and the subsequent distress of watching the aborted babies slowly die must surely take a toll on their emotional and mental health,” Ms Martin said.
“We strongly encourage our Queensland politicians to call for an inquiry into abortion. Women deserve care and support in a difficult pregnancy, not the death of their child,” she said.
Media Contact: Teresa Martin, State President, Cherish Life Queensland
E: [email protected]
Ph: 07 3871 2445
Further comments, clarifications or questions can be directed to Teresa Martin, State President, Cherish Life Queensland Inc - Ph 07 3871 2445.
“Abortion, whenever it is done, always means the destruction of an unborn human being, and the abandonment of the mother to a desperate decision to have her unborn child killed as a ‘solution’ to her problems,” said Cherish Life Queensland state president Teresa Martin.
“It is totally irrelevant when Queensland law was written - truth doesn’t depend on which century one is born. Very little was known then of the nature of life before birth, yet human life was respected then, more than it is now when so much more is known of the complexity of prenatal development and the undoubted humanity of the unborn has been recognized,” she said.
Mr Pyne has stated he went into politics with “a reform agenda”. If he is serious about this, why does he not concentrate on amending some of the situations that may force a woman to consider abortion, or be forced into an abortion against their will?
Does he realise that for many young and even very young women and teenagers, abortion is a cover for pregnancy as a result of sexual abuse? Or as a result of homelessness due to family breakdowns?
Has he made the time to study the possible physical, mental and social effects of abortion that lead inevitably to much expense to the public health system in an attempt to remedy those effects?
By Medicare figures, Queensland already had well over 10,000 abortions in 2015. What is to be gained by increasing that figure? Is it a sign of a progressive state that many more tiny human beings are being killed every year?
When the Victorian abortion law was changed to allow abortion to up to the day of birth (late term abortion) at the say-so of two doctors, the number of third trimester abortions increased by a factor of 6! These babies are only weeks from birth yet are thrown away like rubbish! It is hard to believe that what has happened both in Victoria and also in Tasmania will not happen here. These babies would be eagerly welcomed by infertile couples.
Mr Pyne seems to be captive to the extreme agenda of the feminist movement as represented through EMILY’s list, a pro-abortion group dedicated to achieving their goals of facilitating pro-abortion women to enter parliament, who are then indebted to them. Their agenda is free legal abortion to birth with no exceptions and the suppression of free speech by so called “exclusion zones” around abortion facilities.
We are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he hasn’t considered all these ramifications, and hope that he is willing to examine the evidence against abortion – that abortion is not good for women. Women deserve better than abortion.
If abortion is decriminalised in Queensland, the proportion of abortions done by public hospitals would increase from 2% to “20 to 25%”, according to evidence earlier this month from a medical expert to the parliamentary inquiry into abortion laws.
The report of the Health Committee inquiry will be tabled in State Parliament on Tuesday.
Dr Carol Portmann, former director of maternal and foetal medicine at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, who now performs abortions up to 20 weeks as part of her private gynaecology practice, said Queensland Health would have to support public hospitals to cater for this increase in demand.
Currently, Queensland public hospitals only perform “therapeutic terminations” (which meet the current judicial interpretation of the law that for an abortion to be legal there must be a serious danger to the woman’s physical or mental health), while 16 private clinics perform the other 98% of abortions which are mainly for financial or social reasons.
This would mean that the number of abortions done in the public hospital system would rise from 295 (out of about 14,000 done in Queensland each year) to more like 3,000 – a 10 times increase.
Dr Portmann said the current “health culture” in Queensland public hospitals would make it difficult to find medical and nursing staff who would be “happy to be involved on a regular basis” in meeting the demand for more abortions.
She said that over time “a significant cultural shift” would occur so that abortion would be considered “part of routine medical care”.
Cherish Life Queensland president Julie Borger said this would corrupt the public hospital system and put great pressure on pro-life doctors and nurses to participate in abortions against their conscience.
She said the pro-abortion lobby also gave evidence to the inquiry that decriminalisation would not increase the number of abortions, yet at the same time claimed that some women had not been able to get access to an abortion because of remoteness from an abortion clinic or lack of money.
“They cannot have it both ways. Obviously, if these women who allegedly cannot access abortion under the current law would be able to obtain it under a decriminalisation regime, then numbers must increase.
“More abortions would hurt more women. With every abortion, the toll is one dead, one wounded.
“We need to look for better ways to support families and not go for the ‘quick-fix’ of abandoning women to abortion and all its harmful consequences.”
Add your reaction
It is with great joy that we see the launch of a website to help women seek legal justice for their unwanted abortions or abortions performed where they were not told the truth about post-abortion trauma.
We strongly urge you to send the link below to all your friends.
You may not even know some of them have had abortions and are hurting. Let’s help support them and get the word out there.
“The news that the abortion drug RU-486 will be available after a simple phone conversation with a person in the medical profession licensed to issue this toxic drug regime has been met with extreme concern by Cherish Life Queensland,” Teresa Martin, State President, said. “Under the guise of making abortion more ‘accessible’ for rural women, this will only increase medical problems for these women,” she said.
There are a number of issues of great concern in the “over the phone” issuing of the abortion drug RU-486:
- Rural women, the very people the Tabbot Foundation (TF) say they are wanting to help, will be in serious danger should they access these abortion drugs and then suffer excessive cramping and haemorrhaging, and due to distance, be unable to access good medical help in an expedient time period.
- Due to distance and the scarcity of rural medical facilities, the required ultrasounds and blood tests themselves will be quite difficult for these rural women to access in the first place thereby placing them at a serious risk to their health.
- Most women don’t know their blood group, something that will need to be established prior to taking the abortion drugs. If their blood group is Rhesus negative, they may need medication for Rhesus factor sensitisation. In both these instances, this will mean that doctors and other medical staff will be forced to become part of the abortion process even if they have a conscientious objection to abortion when the woman visits to have their blood group established, any other pathology tests done, ultrasounds performed and any subsequent medical treatment needed prior to taking the RU-486 drugs.
- As there is no requirement by TF for medical conditions such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) to be assessed, a woman with PCOS may be pregnant with the only child she will ever conceive, but if she is not checked for PCOS how will she be able to consider this possibility? Women deserve all the facts.
- TF states that this “over the phone” consultation will relieve the pressure on women who are ‘too worried’ about going in to an abortion place, but these same women will still have to front up for blood tests and ultrasounds etc to establish gestational age which will be equally as ‘worrying’ for them.
- To have an RU-486 abortion, the woman cannot have an IUD in place so she will need to visit her doctor to have this removed. Similarly, the woman can’t have a pelvic infection so again, she will have to visit her doctor to have this established. Both these situations blows out of the water the “embarrassment” excuse that TF use as pressure to have this dangerous drug mail out allowed.
- Pro-abortion groups have stated that this “over-the-phone” service will halve the cost of abortion for women but this will not be the case if they have to access emergency services, treatments and medications when things go wrong, as they will in some cases.
- There is also no addressing of the intense situation of these women when they find that the sanctuary of their home has become the tombs for their babies. One can only imagine the mental anguish that this will cause as they see their tiny baby in a pool of blood.
- On the TF website in a section titled “Parental Consent” which states a ‘mature’ minor may give consent without a guardian. How will it be possible to establish this ‘maturity’ from a mere one-off telephone conversation? What process will they use to be able to deduce that the minor is ‘mature’? How will the issuer of the abortion drugs know that there is no coercion? How will they be able to assess that there has been no sexual abuse or incest and that these drugs are not being pressured upon the minor as a cover-up?
- TF states that the service will only be offered for pregnancies of fewer than 63 days but what if the mail is delayed and arrives after this time period? How can they be certain that women won’t take it anyway putting them at even greater health risks of bleeding etc?
- Who will be legally liable if the mail is late? Who will the woman sue – the postal service or the abortion provider?
- How will it be established that the unborn baby and other pregnancy-related tissue has been fully expelled from the mother’s womb? How will it be possible to fully and accurately access this from a mere follow-up blood test? That will only establish that she is no longer pregnant. It won’t establish that there are “retained products” festering away. There is already documented evidence of one woman In Australia (and at least 14 more world-wide) dying from the effects of an RU-486 abortion – how many more will there be now with this simple-to-obtain mail out of the drugs?
- According to TF, women will be posted the abortion drugs (Mifepristone and Misoprostol RU486), prophylactic antibiotics, painkillers and anti-nausea drugs. How will the issuer of these drugs ensure that these women don’t get them mixed up and confused? People under stress – and aborting one’s baby would certainly be stressful
- Patients can and do make mistakes. What if they don’t bother taking the antibiotics or don’t complete the full course leading to a resistance to future antibiotics and/or the mutations of the infection-causing microbes so that they become so-called ‘superbugs’?
- What if there is an unknown allergy to some of these drugs? How is that being assessed? And what if good medical help, in the instance of rural women, not immediately available? Who will bear that legal liability?
- At the exorbitant cost of $250, and no doubt with a very large profit margin for the provider, why should the Australian taxpayer, at least half of whom do not agree with abortion, be forced to subsidise through Medicare even more killings of unborn babies?
- There is no other area of healthcare where medical drugs are dispensed by a mere “over the phone” consultation. This is a highly dangerous situation and women deserve ALL the facts of the dangers of an RU-486 abortion to be presented to them and they certainly deserve a far more all-encompassing exploration of their situation than abortion drugs as the only answer.
“It is a disgusting low blow by TF to be so insulting as to use previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s name for this organisation when he was so opposed to abortion and this abortion drug regime,” Ms Martin said, “It shows the true nature of the types of people behind this organisation and if that is the lack of respect they show to a previous PM, we can’t see them truly caring or showing much respect to abortion-minded women.”
Further comments, clarifications or questions can be directed to Teresa Martin, State President, Cherish Life Queensland.
Add your reaction
Ms Plibersek comment that RU-486 is giving women “more choice” is misleading — it is only a ‘choice’ between abortion and abortion, one using the misnomer “medical” and one being surgical. That is hardly “choice”. Choice would be offering other options such as help to allow the baby to be adopted, help to place the child in foster care, help to actually parent one’s own child. There is no “choice” involving abortion (‘medical’) and abortion (surgical) — merely pressure and no real help nor option offered to the pregnant woman.
It is a total abuse of her power as health minister and misuse of our money as taxpayers that we should be financially aiding women to kill their unborn babies via the PBS subsidy. Abortion-inducing drugs are not “like any other drug” — “any other drug” is not specifically designed to kill a pre-born baby as RU-486 is used and licensed for here in Australia.
It is untrue to state as she was reported as stating in The Sunday Mail (30.6.13) that “statistical evidence internationally shows the complication rates are very low”. There is no way of truly knowing this — many women who suffer “complications” do not re-present at the abortion mill, may no mention to any emergency department of a hospital that they have taken RU-486, and if a woman actually dies from loss of blood due to a chemical abortion using RU-486, her death would not be put down as due to the abortion but due to the loss of blood, and not to what caused that loss of blood! And there is often a lack of transparency or expedient and accurate reporting if a death does occur due to the side-effects of RU-486 as was evidenced in the two year delay in reporting on the death of a woman who died in 2010 here in Australia but the case only came to public attention in 2012 due to a lack of reporting!
The only state domestically to keep abortion statistics is in South Australia and a study done there showed 324 cases of women presenting to emergency with complications after using RU-486. It is also true that a fair proportion of these women will need a surgical abortion after using RU-486 due to it not “doing it’s job” properly for whatever reason. So the abortion industry makes even more money — and let’s make no mistake about it, the abortion industry is a money-making industry. If fact we know that targets are set — one large abortion company here in Australia even advertises for staff stating that they will be paid bonuses if they “increase productivity and product margins”, “optimise client numbers” and “deliver on their (MSI i.e. abortion company) objectives…”
It is illogical to think that there will not be an increase in abortion numbers with the easy and cheap access to this abortion drug. The whole point of any marketing strategy is to have ease of availability and easy-to-afford- costing. Putting this shocking drug on the PBS achieves those deadly aims.
Advertising for a Marketing Co-ordinator recently, the ad asked for someone who could “identify marketing opportunities” and “manage marketing campaigns”. Bearing in mind that the largest part of the abortion industry’s money comes from abortions (no surprise), it is illogical to think that this (abortions and in particular RU486 abortions) would not be a major part of any “marketing campaign”.
To Tony Abbott, quoted in The Australian (26.4.13) as stating that he is happy for “due process to be followed” re taxpayer subsidies for RU-486. If that quote is accurate, I am extremely disappointed that his “minders” have moved him away to this much weakened position in the hope it will capture a few more votes from the pro-abortion side. All it will do is lose the pro-life vote! Mr Abbott, our Australian women and their pre-born babies DESERVE BETTER PROTECTION THAT THIS!!! Stop bowing to the feminazis and make a pro-life stand like we used to be able to count on you to do!
Add your reaction
Apparently “proper process” so that women can make abortion decisions about how they will abort their babies is what thrills Leslie Cannold. Cannold is a glued-to-it abortion protagonist, and like a pit bull terrier without the lipstick, won’t stop pushing for the “right” of women to pay someone to remove their babies from their wombs. According to Cannold, the less they have to pay — and the more we taxpayers have to pay — the happier she is, in fact, “thrilled” according to this report.
The federal government, led by EMILY’s List member Julia Gillard, is “expected to agree” to the subsidising of the abortion drug RU-486, the report states. This means that for a cost or around $11.80, even a minor will be able to ‘afford’ to use this means to kill their baby.
Reported adverse effects in Australia run at 830 currently, but remember, these are only those that have been reported. How many other women and young girls haven’t notified their doctors? To date there is one recorded death in Australia directly linked to RU-486 (which took two years to come to light!), but how many have really occurred? If a woman has a surgical abortion and haemorrhages to death, the cause is not recorded as“haemorrhage due to abortion” but merely as “haemorrhage” which totally misconstrues the true reason.
It is highly unlikely that the ‘reason for death’ will be noted as “haemorrhage/complications/infection due to abortion drug RU-486” thereby skewing the real reason for any deaths that will occur. We state “will occur” with intention as these deaths have occurred and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to occur, sad as that may be.
The push for this evil drug is from Marie Stopes International, an UK-originating abortion organisation whose founder was a self-professed nymphomaniac who found ‘coloured’ people to be abhorrent, along with large families, people with poor vision, and a whole realm of other normal people that she felt didn’t fit her version of normal!
MSI state women could be “traumatised” without a cheap and easy-to-obtain method to abort their babies, conveniently not mentioning how much more trauma these women will experience after their abortion! Their life becomes divided into two segments — 1. Before my abortion, 2. After my abortion.
Cannold states that women “will have a choice about which procedure they choose” as they now won’t be “constrained by a financial consideration” but is she going to advocate for them to be told what that choice will involve? That with RU-486, their babies will starve to death due to the effect of the first drug which shuts down the food (nutrients) source for the baby? That the second drug will then start their wombs contracting to expel their babies and that they will deliver their dead baby at home, into the toilet, in their bed, or perhaps in their bedroom? That their homes, their sanctuaries, will become the tombs for their babies? And possibly their tombs as well?
The fascinating statement by the World Health Organisation (in the article) states that there is “less chance of death and infection” than with a surgical abortion – this is blatantly wrong! South Australia is the only state in Australia that keeps statistics on abortion, how they are done, the negative outcomes (if they are reported!) etc. The findings in that state have shown an overwhelming increase in further ‘fix-up’ treatment/hospitalisation needed after RU-486 abortions! If these are the results found in SA, there would be no reason to think that results would be different anywhere else!
Women deserve better than abortion!