“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.”

END

Further comments, clarifications or questions can be directed to Teresa Martin, State President, Cherish Life Queensland.

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!

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!

A legal precedence has been set in Queensland but not one we can rejoice about or be proud of.  Conception has now been legally defined as referring to the implantation of the fertilised egg.  That’s right — you didn’t start you life when you actually started your life (ie when the sperm and the egg united), you started your life when you were implanted apparently.  There is little logic to this, but then, logic seems to have little to do with it.

One has to wonder “what” is actually being implanted if not a tiny growing human person?  That little person started his/her life journey when that one single sperm united with one single egg.   If ‘it’ isn’t a “conceived child” from the moment that union occurred, then why would they be implanting “it”?  Reading the news article, it sends a cold shiver down one’s spine — not only does the anti-life industry restructure the meaning and use of words in the case of euthanasia and abortion, but now we are seeing a flow-on effect in relation to the legal system.  One hesitates to wonder where society’s re-meaning of words will end.

That little child, created back in 2008 was already 3 years old when he/she was implanted but there will also be no recognition of that.

Reported in an online article (27.7.12) “Batman massacre' claims 13th victim” we read the tragic news that a pregnant woman had been shot in the horrific events that took place at the midnight screening of the Batman movie in Colorado, USA.  Whilst she is lucky to have survived, her unborn baby was not so lucky.

The opening sentences of this online article (and numerous others) read as follows:  “The Aurora Dark Knight shooting has tragically claimed a 13th victim after pregnant survivor Ashley Moser suffered a miscarriage.  Miss Moser was eight weeks pregnant when a gunman burst into a movie theatre in Colorado on Friday, July 20, killing 12 people and injuring 58 ...  ... While Miss Moser herself was badly injured after being shot in the abdomen and neck, her unborn baby had miraculously survived.  But a family statement has revealed Miss Moser, who remains critically injured, suffered a miscarriage after surgery today.”

Without for one minute wishing to detract from the sadness and tragedy of what has happened, it is always with dismay that we find that the value of an unborn baby in any given media article seems to hinge on the where the media wants our sympathy/empathy/sadness to fall.  If the article was about a woman wanting an abortion, or who had an abortion, the word ‘foetus’ would have been used!

The 24 March 2012 Queensland election results in regards to the rabidly pro-abortion women’s group of EMILY’s List (EL) is all good for the preborn babies of Queensland! Anna Bligh’s bounty of EL women has been obliterated and we hope will not be able to be regained.

The majority of them have been replaced by those who have given an undertaking that they would vote pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Out of the 10 candidates on the EMILY’s List website (just prior to the election), and due to the resignation of Anna Bligh (South Brisbane electorate), there is now only one EMILY’s Lister left and that is Desley Scott in the Woodridge electorate. Jo-anne Miller who had been listed on the EL website is no longer there, however, that could just be their website’s error and may not indicate that Miller has changed her tune. Miller has been retained in the Bundamba electorate.

While the fact that the bulk of the EMILY’s List network has been blasted out of parliament, and we are forever grateful to all those of you who worked so hard to put forth the truth about their voting records on life issues, we must not become complacent.

There is still work to be done to hold the elected politicians accountable. Do not let up your pressure on them in relation to life issues. And pray for them in the roles they now play for Queensland.

Also please pray that whoever is elected in the South Brisbane electorate would vote pro-life. This is vital.

Yep, abortion is safe...  well isn’t it?  That’s what the abortion industry tells the vulnerable women coming to them down the ‘closed-door abortion-only corridor’ they have created.  According to the report, a 42 year old woman died after having an abortion at the renamed Marie Stopes International Maroondah abortion mill (previously called Croydon Day Surgery).

This abortion death house has been under investigation on four previous occasions – one has to wonder how many other problems there have slipped under the radar.  Of these investigations, one involved the anaesthetist James Latham Peters who is alleged to have infected over 50 women with Hepatitis C between 2008 and 2009.  Mark Schulberg, the doctor who owns the abortion mill was found guilty of unprofessional conduct in 2009 when an abortion was performed on an intellectually disabled woman without her consent; as well as for a late-term abortion being done on another woman who was subsequently hospitalised.  This is hardly a surprise —as seen time and again, the deathly abortion industry does not attract the cream of the crop of doctors. 

"... we confirm the death of a female patient, who attended our associate registered day procedure centre in Maroondah on Wednesday, December 14, passed away at Box Hill Hospital on Sunday, December 18," Ms Deveson Crabbe, chief executive (executioner?) of the Marie Stopes abortion mills said. 

The death is currently being investigated by the coroner.  This will not bring this woman back to life, it will not restore her baby to her womb, and it will not create a happy Christmas for her family.

Terry Sweetman, columnist, wrote an article (CM 21.10.11) unsurprisingly calling for the legalisation of abortion.  To him in particular, and all involved in the abortion industry in general, the question has to be asked — abortion is legal up to the day of birth in Victoria, has this made abortion safe?  Of course not!  Just because something is legal, does not make it safe. 

Abortion KILLS BABIES.  Abortion EMASCULATES MEN and robs them of their responsibilities. And tragically ABORTION HARMS WOMEN – sometimes in a deadly fashion.

Wonderful progress have been made in studying pregnant women found to have cancer says an article by  Professor Frédéric Amant of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.  An early experience of caring for a pregnant woman with cervical cancer was pivotal in shaping the course of his career: “She told me her early diagnosis was thanks to the pregnancy.  So she wanted to give her baby the chance he had given her.”

Professor Amant is a lead author of a series in the respected medical journal The Lancet on malignancy in pregnancy.  About one or two per 2000 pregnancies are complicated by cancer, with the most common being breast cancer (40%) and blood cancers (20%).  Professor Amant states there is nothing to suggest the pregnancy causes the cancers.  The biggest challenge is educating the public that chemotherapy is possible in pregnancy without harm to the baby.  Women find it hard to believe they shouldn't have an aspirin, but can take these very strong chemotherapy drugs during pregnancy”, Amant says.  “At first, we did not have much evidence regarding the unborn babies.  But now more than 120 children have been born to women treated with chemotherapy in our ongoing international collaborative study, and they are doing as well as the general population, so that offers reassurance.” 

“Fear of chemotherapy should not be a reason to terminate pregnancy”, he said, “It's rarely necessary to change the standard chemotherapy treatment regimen for pregnant women with cancer, and chemotherapy does not harm the unborn child”. 

This is great news for so many women who are pregnant and find they have cancer yet again reinforcing the consistent pro-life message that abortion is never the answer.

In Brisbane there is a support organisation called Mummy’s Wish — http://www.mummyswish.org.au — that gives practical help to pregnant women with cancer.

One the Australian government website, it states that there were 384 finalised adoptions in 2010–11 which was the lowest annual number on record being a 7% decline from 2009-2010 and a 66% decline from 1,142 adoptions in 1990–91. 

And what is the reason that this decline has occurred?  Well according to their own words, it “can be attributed to a fall in the number of Australian children adopted...”  Yes, you read that right.  There aren’t children for adoption because there aren’t children for adoption.  Red is the shirt because the shirt is red!

It continues that the decline is also due to the number of children considered to be in need of adoption and legally able to be adopted.

One wonders how the factor of 90,000+ abortions in Australia each year plays no part in their reasoning.  Any Year 2 child would be able to see and understand a graph showing that as the rate of abortions rose, there was a corresponding plummet in the rate of adoptions.  

It certainly brings to mind that old saying by Thomas Jefferson, “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."