Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/09: Should the federal Government attempt to limit or remove access to late-term abortions?
Related issue outlines: 1999-2000: Should late-term abortions be performed in Victoria, for foetal abnormalities or other reasons?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
abortion
laws
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Should the federal Government attempt to limit or remove access to late-term abortions?
What they said ...
'In one section of the hospital, premature babies are being kept alive at 23 weeks, and in another section pregnancies are being terminated at 24 weeks. The law and technology should be brought into sync'
Christopher Pyne, the federal parliamentary secretary for health,
'Parents are faced with the heart-breaking decision of terminating the pregnancy or continuing to full term, knowing the child would probably die, within hours or days, or, in some few cases, live to be severely disabled'
Dr Andrew Child, the immediate past-president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
The issue at a glance
On January 31, 2005, Nationals senator Ron Boswell tabled 16 questions in Parliament for Health Minister Tony Abbott.
The questions concerned the number of abortions performed in Australia; the amount of Medicare funding allocated to abortions now and in ten 10 years' time; the impact of mandatory counselling on abortion rates and how counselling performance is measured; and the cost of providing an ultrasound of the foetus as part of counselling.
(In November 2004 Tony Abbott had attempted to spark Parliamentary and community debate about what he termed the 'abortion epidemic'. The parliament secretary for health, Christopher Pyne at the same time had expressed his concern at the number of late-term abortions being performed, a concern which was shared by Tony Abbott. However, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, had appeared to discourage any abortion debate.)
On the evening of January 31, 2005, a meeting of religious leaders representing a range of Christian denominations, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jews, urged action against late-term abortions.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, now appeared to welcome a debate, although he stressed he has no plans to make legislative changes affecting abortions. He made it plain, however, that any member of Parliament could put a private member's bill on the issue.
Popular speculation suggests that one of the more likely forms for such a bill to take would be an attempt to limit late-term abortions, probably by refusing to fund them through Medicare rebates.
Background
Abortion is a state issue, regulated by state laws. The federal Government's capacity to influence Australian laws governing abortion is extremely limited. It can veto legislation in the two territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Other than this is can restrict Medicare funding for terminations.
Thus one of the likely private members bills to be put by any federal parliamentarian opposed to abortion would be one denying funding to abortion. It is actually more likely that an attempt would be made to deny Medicare funding to late-term abortions as this type of abortion attracts least support within the electorate.
Late-term abortion in Australia
Late-term abortion refers to pregnancy termination beyond 20 weeks gestation. In 2002 and 2003 approximately 5% of abortions took place between 14 and 19 weeks into pregnancy. The vast majority of abortions occurred before 14 weeks.
Western Australia
The nation's most liberal abortion laws are in Western Australia which introduced new legislation in 1998. There abortion is legal with the informed consent of the pregnant woman.
However a 1998 amendment to West Australian abortion legislation states that if a pregnancy is at least 20 weeks duration an abortion can only be performed with the approval of two medical practitioners drawn from a panel of six appointed by the Health Minister. Either the mother or unborn child must be judged to have a severe health condition that justifies the procedure.
Late-term abortion can only be performed in Western Australia at the King Edward memorial Hospital, the only facility with legal approval to perform these procedures in this state.
South Australia
South Australia and the Northern Territory also have laws which allow abortion under relatively liberal circumstances.
In South Australia, relevant legislation was amended in 1969 to make abortion legally available on grounds which include danger to the woman's mental or physical health and foetal abnormality. The abortion is legal if advised by two legally qualified practitioners and is performed in a 'prescribed hospital' on a woman who has been a resident of South Australia for at least two months.
Terminations can be legally performed until 28 weeks' gestation.
The Northern Territory
In the Northern Territory, the Criminal Codes Act 1983 has been amended so that abortion is legal up to but not over 14 weeks gestation, unless there is a substantial risk that the child will be seriously handicapped, under which circumstances an abortion may be performed later into the pregnancy.
In emergency situations, a doctor may terminate a pregnancy up to 23 weeks if s/he believes in good faith that it is immediately necessary to prevent death grave injury to the pregnant woman.
Victoria
In Victoria abortion is illegal. However, doctors performing abortion have been protected from prosecution by a 1969 Victorian Supreme Court ruling that permits abortion when there is a serious danger to the pregnant woman's physical and mental health.
On the question of late-term abortion the situation is complicated by the Victorian Crimes Act which prohibits a woman who is over 28 weeks pregnant procuring an abortion. Under Victorian law 28 weeks is the point in gestation at which the foetus is deemed 'viable'. Abortions performed at 28 weeks and beyond carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Recent events, such as the performance of an abortion on a 32-week foetus suspected of dwarfism show that these penalties are not always applied.
New South Wales
Abortion is also technically illegal in New South Wales. However, in 1971, New South Wales District Court Justice, David Levine adopted a similar position to that applying in Victoria, instructing a jury that abortion was allowable if the pregnant woman's mental or physical well-being were in jeopardy.
In addition, Justice Levine specifically instructed that financial hardship could be a factor in the decision.
In New South Wales there is no 'child destruction' or 'killing an unborn child' offence.
Queensland
Abortion is also illegal in Queensland, however, the 1986 Maguire ruling, though reiterating the general protection Queensland law gives to the 'silent innocence of the unborn' used the defence of 'necessity' to exempt from prosecution doctors who performed abortions.
Abortion is only lawful in Queensland for medical reasons - that is, to preserve a
woman's life or to preserve her from serious danger to her mental or physical
health. Abortion is not legal when a pregnancy is 24 or more weeks advanced.
Tasmania
Laws relating to abortion in Tasmania were amended in 2001. Abortion in Tasmania is lawful if two medical practitioners agree the continuation of the pregnancy would be of a greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman than if the pregnancy were terminated.
The criminal law of Tasmania does not contain a statutory provision that clearly applies only to the termination of late term pregnancies.
Australian Capital Territory
There are no laws making specific reference to abortion in the ACT Crimes ACT. Under the Medical Practitioners (Maternal Health) Amendment Act 2002 only a registered medical practitioner can carry out an abortion. An abortion is to be carried out in a medical facility, and ministerial approval is needed for the medical facility to carry out abortions.
Internet information
In 2004 the National Union of Students Women's Department 2004 produced an information booklet titled, 'Abortion law in Australia'. The document has a pro abortion bias, however, it supplies an informative overview of abortion law in the different australian states and territories.
This document can be found at http://www.unistudent.com.au/student/files/Abortion.law.brief.pdf
Please note this is a pdf file which can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader. This reader can be downloaded without charge from the Internet.
The Population Policy Data Bank maintained by the Population Division of the department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat supplies information on the availability of abortion in different countries. Their information on Australia can be found at http://www.unistudent.com.au/student/files/Abortion.law.brief.pdf
This is a clear two-page document which gives a great deal of information about abortion in Australia.
Again this is a pdf file which requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.
In May 2004 The Medical Journal of Australia published an article titled, 'Abortion: time to clarify Australia's confusing laws' The opinion piece was written by Lachlan J de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu.
It criticises the confusion in Australian law regarding abortion, the differing laws applying in the different states and the conflict between the Criminal Code in those states which prohibit 'child destruction' while at the same time having judicial rulings which have set precedents allowing abortion.
The article focuses on the legal uncertainty surrounding the abortion of a 32-week old foetus in Melbourne in 2000 on the grounds of maternal distress over the foetus' suspected dwarfism. Though he does not acknowledge it in the article, de Crespigny was one of the doctors involved in this termination.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html
On September 22 2004 On-Line Opinion published a comment by Melinda Tankard Reist titled, 'No amount of hand-wringing can bring dead babies back after an abortion'
The article is a criticism of the circumstances surrounding the termination of the 32-week old foetus aborted because of maternal distress and suspected dwarfism.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2560
In April, 1998, the Medical Board of Victoria produced a report titled, Report on late term terminations of pregnancy.
The report is an excellent source of information on current practices regarding late-term abortions in Victoria.
It treats in detail Victorian laws as they effect these terminations. It also considers what impact, if any, the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child might have.
It considers a number of the ethical issues raised in relation to late-term abortions.
It also makes a number of recommendations about preferred practice when late-term abortions are preformed.
The report can be found at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/archive/report/report2.htm
The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT) have an excellent series of articles and information pieces dealing with the issue of abortion. All of these make interesting background reading, though much of it focuses on the situation in the United States. Some, such as those dealing with the legal status of the foetus and the ethics of D & X or partial birth abortion, are particularly relevant to late-term abortions.
The index for OCRT's material on abortion can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
This site is an excellent source of information on ethical issues. It does not approach them from the perspective of any particular religion, instead it considers the issues from a broad range of perspectives, both religious and secular.
OCRT's home page can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/
Arguments in favour of the federal Government restricting late-term abortions
1. Late-term foetuses may be independently viable
Recent medical advances have made it possible to sustain the lives of premature babies born at 23 weeks and in rare cases earlier. Critics of abortion are concerned that in one state the law allows abortion to be performed as late as 28 weeks, at a gestation where the unborn would be viable if born prematurely.
The federal parliamentary secretary for health, Christopher Pyne has argued, 'I think it's wrong that the law isn't keeping pace with modern technology. In one section of the hospital, premature babies are being kept alive at 23 weeks, and in another section pregnancies are being terminated at 24 weeks. The law and technology should be brought into sync.'
Mr Pyne has indicated he is dubious about abortions being done beyond 12 weeks, apart from in exceptional circumstances 'and they shouldn't be carried out at all beyond 21 weeks'.
A similar point has been made by the federal health minister, Mr Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott has stated, 'I don't much like abortion full stop, but obviously abortions at a point in the pregnancy when the child to be might otherwise be viable, obviously raise even more serious ethical issues than those much earlier in pregnancy.'
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on November 10, 2004, commentator Andrew Bolt stated, 'We are too scared to face up to the horrors now perpetrated in the abortion clinics, such as the abortion of babies expelled alive, or killed in the womb just weeks from birth ... I know and respect that a mother has a right to her body, but I know also that these aborted babies, born gasping or killed in the womb just weeks from birth, had a greater right to their young life.'
2. The number of late-term abortions in Australia is increasing
In 2002, there were 163 terminations performed in Victoria at or beyond 20 weeks' gestation spanning the second and third trimesters. The figure represents a more than 40 per cent increase since 2000.
Again in Victoria, the number of late terminations attributed to psychosocial reasons rose from 60 in 2002 to 103 in 2003. Late terminations brought about because screening showed congenital abnormalities also rose, from 103 in 2002 to 116 in 2003.
Referring to abortion generally, rather than to merely late-term abortion, the federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has stated, 'Just about everyone from the most strident prochoice people right to the other end of the spectrum says that it would be good if we could bring the number of abortions down. There appears to be a consensus in the community that there are too many abortions in Australia ...'
Mr Abbott has criticised what he has referred to as an abortion 'epidemic'.
3. Late-term abortions on the basis of foetal abnormalities are problematic
It has been claimed that late-term abortions performed on the basis of foetal abnormalities are problematic. This claim has been made on two grounds.
Firstly there is the possibility that the abnormality has been misdiagnosed. Statistics released by Australia's biggest medical insurer, United Medical Protection, have indicated that damage claims have reached an all time high with the insurer paying $95.8 million in the year to June 2000 to 1,035 claimants. Among the causes for patient complaints were misdiagnoses of foetal abnormalities.
In an opinion piece published in the Herald Sun on November 10 2004, Andrew Bolt referred to a well-known case of late-term abortion which had occurred in Melbourne.
'In 2000, a prominent ... specialist performed an abortion on a healthy 32-week-old foetus, a girl, after her deeply distressed mother threatened to kill herself if made to give birth to a baby so imperfect.
The mother believed from ultrasound tests that her baby, Jessica, could be a dwarf. But the tests were in fact inconclusive and the staff notes written immediately after the baby had been killed in the womb and still-born at the Royal Women's Hospital state: "On delivery, the baby doesn't look small." It seems possible, and perhaps even likely, that the baby had no "defects", after all.'
It has also been claimed that performing late-term abortions on the basis of non-life threatening foetal abnormalities demonstrates a prejudice against people with disabilities. According to this line or argument only the most grossly disabling or life-threatening conditions should be grounds for a termination. Conditions such as dwarfism should not be grounds for an abortion.
4. There are many taxpayers who would not want their money used to fund late-term abortions
National Party minister, De-Anne Kelly has argued that Medicare benefits for most abortions should be withdrawn. Mrs Kelly said, 'I don't believe taxpayers should provide an incentive for abortion.' She completely supports any moves to stop late-term abortions, including the removal of Medicare funding for such abortions.
Critics of late-term abortions do not believe it is reasonable that people with strong moral objections to a procedure such as late-erm abortion should be required to fund it through their taxes.
Right wing lobby group the Festival of Light stated in its publication Festival Focus Queensland, in June 2004, 'Taxpayers who oppose abortion-on-demand are forced to pay for the killing of unborn children through Medicare. People who conscientiously
oppose abortion should not be forced to pay for operations that are ethically offensive to them. Except in extreme cases when the mother's life is in danger, abortion should not be claimable on Medicare, just as face lifts and similar "social" operations are not claimable.'
5. The debate on this proposal will re-open the abortion debate in Australia
It has been claimed that the Parliamentary debate which would surround any attempt to limit or restrict late-term abortion would have the advantage of re-opening the abortion debate. This is seen as desirable for two sets of reasons.
Opponents of abortion see a re-opening of the abortion debate as an opportunity to restrict or prohibit access to abortion for grounds other than the duration of the pregnancy. There are critics who believe that the 'psychological' harm done to the pregnant woman should the pregnancy proceed has become a carte blanche, allowing for virtual abortion on demand. They would like to see either the grounds on which abortions may be granted severely circumscribed or the practice prohibited altogether. A re-opening of the abortion debate might allow them to advance their views.
Another reason offered in favour of a re-opening of the abortion debate is that it would provide an opportunity to investigate the inconsistencies and inequities that are part of Australian abortion law. The laws are different in every state and territory and though the procedure remains available in all states and territories, it is fully legal in only three.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has recently declared a willingness to re-open the abortion debate.
Speaking after an unprecedented meeting of Australian religious leaders urged action against abortion after 20 weeks, Mr Howard said it was an important social issue with strong views on both sides. 'People will go on talking about it for a long time. We need to get used to that,' Mr Howard said.
'If somebody put forward a private member's bill and there seemed to be a strong desire to have a debate about it, then I think the sensible thing would be to allow it to be debated. It would be silly not to,' Mr Howard has further argued.
6. Australia's abortion laws are too liberal
The following data comes from the United Nations' outline of abortion law in Australia.
'Although the indications for abortion in Australia, except for Western Australia, are somewhat restrictive, the practice of abortion in large parts of the country is much more liberal. Since the early 1970s, there have been almost no prosecutions for the performance of abortions.
Prosecutions are deemed politically unwise and difficult to win given that what is involved is the reliability of a physician's judgement as to the state of the pregnant woman's health.
In large metropolitan areas, abortions are available virtually on request, and in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, free-standing clinics specialising in the operation have been established.'
Those opposed to abortion claim that the legislation and judicial rulings that make abortion available in Australia were never intended to be applied with the liberality with which they are. They therefore see a re-opening of the abortion debate as desirable.
7. This debate is being promoted in a principled, non-political manner
It has been claimed that those supporting a limitation on late-term abortions are doing so for reasons of principle, not political expediency. For example, it has been claimed that federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott's, decision to champion a potentially divisive debate over abortion may have cost him any future chance of leading the Liberal Party.
It has been suggested that Mr Abbott's internal party critics believe he has left the impression with voters that a winding back of the right to an abortion may be part of the government's plans once it assumes control of the Senate in mid-2005. It is claimed that such a conservative agenda would damage the Government electorally.
These speculations have lead to the popular belief that those promoting the abortion debate are doing so because of the strength of their convictions, not because they believe it will be to the political advantage of either themselves or their party.
Arguments against the federal Government restricting late-term abortions
1. The decision to abort is one that should be made by a woman and her doctor
The pregnant woman is the one who, without an abortion, will have to carry the foetus to term and then deal with the consequences of managing this new-born life. Catherine Lumby, an associate professor of media studies at the University of Sydney, has stated, 'So many women ... have to face the personal hell of deciding whether to let go of their potential offspring or bring a child into the world they don't think they have the personal or social support to care for. I've grieved with many female friends who've had terminations. Their reasons have been various: tests showing they are carrying a severely handicapped child; an abusive partner and no means of support; and employers who made it clear there are no ... career paths for women with children. Abortion is not something ... women do lightly.'
According to this line of argument, because of the profound impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on the life of a woman, the decision to terminate a pregnancy has to be one taken by the woman concerned in conjunction with her doctor. It should not be a decision which is precluded or limited by governments.
2. Late-term abortions are performed for valid reasons.
Obstetricians and neonatalists claim that severe foetal health problems or, in rare cases, a risk to the mother's life, were the only reasons doctors would perform a late-term abortion. Such severe health problems include a serious heart defect or anencephaly, where the foetus does not develop a skull.
Dr Andrew Child, the immediate past-president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has stated that in these circumstances 'the parents are faced with the heart-breaking decision of terminating the pregnancy or continuing to full term, knowing the child would probably die, within hours or days, or, in some few cases, live to be severely disabled.'
Dr Child further stated, 'As ultrasound and diagnostic techniques have improved, it has put this problem in front of us more often, and it is going to increase as [the tests] get more sophisticated,' he said. 'But there is no point in doing the test unless you can offer the parents this option [of termination].'
' ... That we would be doing these procedures on a whim is just unthinkable,' Dr Child concluded.
3. Inadequate support makes parents reluctant to give birth to disabled children
It has been suggested that women will continue to abort foetuses with severe abnormalities for so long as there is inadequate Government and societal support to enable them to raise their children to enjoy a decent standard of life.
Ms Louise Gilmore, the President of Carers Australia, has said women would continue to terminate these pregnancies until the facilities were improved.
'If women who are pregnant who find out their baby is disabled look around, they would be alarmed at what little help they will get,' Ms Gilmore said.
'Only when women see that support is available to help them bring up a disabled child will they have confidence in making the choice to go through with a pregnancy,' Ms Gilmore added.
4. The number of late-term abortions is very small.
Supporters of current legal access to federally funded late-term abortion note that abortions carried out after 13 weeks gestation form a tiny percentage of those terminations performed annually in Australia.
An editorial published in The Age on November 8, 2004, satted, 'According to statistics gathered in 2002, 99 per cent of Victorian abortions were carried out before 13 weeks. Of the remaining 163 abortions performed in that year, 103 were undertaken because of congenital abnormalities in the foetus while the remainder were for psychosocial reasons: because the mother's mental health was considered to be at risk if the pregnancy proceeded.'
South Australian data shows that in the years 1994-2002, the vast majority of abortions performed in South Australia took place before 14 weeks gestation, and that only a very small proportion (less than 2 per cent) took place at or after 20 weeks.
5. Removing Medicare funding from late-term abortions discriminates against poor or socially disadvantaged women.
The federal Government does not have the jurisdiction to alter abortion law. Its only direct means of limiting late-term abortion would be to remove Medicare funding for such abortions. It has been claimed that such a loss of Medicare funding would discriminate against poor women who would not be able to meet the costs of a late term abortion.
Late term abortions are more expensive than those which occur early in a pregnancy. Marg Kirby, who has worked as an abortion counsellor and been part of the Women's Abortion Action Campaign (WAAC) since 1978 has explained, 'The cost of late-term procedures changes from week to week. At 16-17 weeks, you are looking at $600-800. There is only one clinic in Australia - in Melbourne - which does terminations after 21 weeks, and it costs $4500, plus accommodation and transport.'
Leslie Cannold in an opinion piece published in The Australian on November 9 2004 stated, 'If it passes by this time next year, poor women across Australia wanting to terminate an unplanned pregnancy will be scrabbling around for the necessary funds and inevitably turning up for the procedure later than would otherwise be the case.'
According to this line of argument, not only will removing funding from late-term abortions discriminate against low-income women it will force them to delay their terminations still further while they attempt to gain the money they need.
6. Restricting late-term abortions may lead to further limitations being placed on Australian women's access to abortion.
It has been suggested that any federal attempt to limit late-term abortion or prohibit such procedures may simply be a precursor to a more general attempt to limit access to abortion.
At the moment some 80 percent of Australians support our existing abortion laws. The same level of support does not appear to exist for late-term abortions. Acting on popular and political discomfort about abortions being performed on potentially viable foetuses may be part of a campaign to make any abortion harder to have legally performed.
Senator Lyn Allison, Democrats Health spokesperson has warned, '... a blanket ban on late abortions would be the first of many interferences in [women's] reproductive health decisions and [is] likely lead to removal of Medicare funding for terminations as proposed by special Minister of State Eric Abetz.'
7. Medicare funding should be allocated equitably, not on the basis of minority moral judgements
Ms Eva Cox of the Women's Electoral Lobby (WEL) has claimed that women who have abortions should not be penalised by governments.
'Making changes to a health insurance system, which bans rebates on moral grounds for some procedures, is very wrong and undermines basic principles of good policy.' According to this line of argument Medicare rebates should be determined on a basis of patient need, not on whether certain sections of the community approve of the procedure for which the rebate was being given.
Governments are meant to govern and implement policy for all sections of the community, not for just key sections of their constituency, such as those who oppose abortion.
Banning rebates for abortions, late-term or otherwise, would be as reasonable as banning rebates on hysterectomies because some sections of the community object to the procedure and believe it is over-utilised.
Further implications
The core of the abortion debate is conflicting views of the nature and value of foetal life. For most opponents of abortion human life begins at or near conception and thus the ending of a pregnancy at any point is seen as the destruction of a human being, albeit one in an early stage of development. From this perspective the psychological distress of the mother cannot be seen as sufficient grounds to end the life of another human being. Even medical grounds for a termination need to be compelling. For some, nothing short of averting a threat to the mother's life is sufficient cause to end the life of the foetus.
For supporters of abortion the definition of human life is less clear cut. Life is generally not seen to begin at conception. Foetal life at any stage of development is generally seen as only a potential human being and so one without rights that could counterbalance those of the mother. This view justifies abortion up until quite advanced stages of foetal development.
Where the issue becomes more problematic for some advocates of abortion is when a foetus is so developed that if it were born prematurely its life could be sustained by current medical technology. This is the area that has been focused on by Christopher Pyne, Tony Abbott and others within the Liberal Party as an issue where they may potentially be able to sway the Parliament and perhaps even the electorate. (Support for Australia's current abortion laws runs at about 80 percent.)
Whatever the motivations of Mr Abbott and others who are making the running on this issue, it has been suggested that Mr Howard is prepared to sanction members of his party putting a private member's bill on abortion because it would establish his Government's credentials among a key set of voters.
According to this analysis, Mr Howard does not expect a bill limiting late-term abortion or access to Medicare funding for the procedure to successfully pass through Parliament. Rather, it has been claimed, he anticipates that his willingness to allow the debate to be raised and his own publicly known stance in opposition to abortion will consolidate for his Government the votes of the increasingly influential cohort of evangelist Christians.
In an article published in the Age on February 11 2005 Dennis Glover stated, 'Howard is trying to appeal to people all over the political spectrum who hold strong personal views on often divisive issues connected to religion, nationalism and race. He wants them to put aside their economic interests and vote for conservative values. It usually involves pegging out a position on a topic which intellectuals say involves complex moral and legal issues, but which the man or woman in the street sees as black and white. Abortion is simply the latest issue in this unfinished war of turning the majority against flip-flopping, floundering elites ...
The real reason the Prime Minister is allowing and encouraging the abortion debate is to send a message... morally conservative working-class Australians will know that, secretly, if only those rotten elites would let him, John Howard would love to move against abortion.'
Sources
The Age
1/11/04 page 5 news item by Michelle Grattan, 'MP calls for ban on late
abortions'
3/11/04 page 17 comment by Michelle Grattan, 'The politics of
abortion'
8/11/04 page 14 editorial, 'Revisiting the abortion debate'
2/2/05 page 15 comment by Michelle Grattan, 'Abortion: an issue that just won't go away ... for now'
5/2/05 Insight section, page 10, editorial, 'The abortion issue and its many shades of grey'
11/2/05 page 11 comment (cartoon) by Dennis Glover, 'Howard's secret abortion agenda'
The Australian
3/11/04 page 14 editorial, 'Nothing to fear in a new debate about
abortion'
3/11/04 page 15 comment by Melinda Tankard Reist, 'Take a look at
late-term abortions'
17/12/04 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, 'Abortion debate in need of some ultra-sound advice'
29/12/04 page 12 editorial, 'The people have spoken on abortion'
4/2/05 page 13 comment (with cartoon, survey statistics) by Senator Ron Boswell, 'Abortion's elusive truths'
4/2/05 page 13 comment by Katharine Betts, 'Warning to conservative politicians'
The Herald Sun
8/11/04 page 18 editorial, 'A sensitive debate'
10/11/04 page 23 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'We kill babies'
2/2/05 page 20 editorial, 'Women's business'