Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
http://www.echoeducation.com.au/schools/adocs/doca2005/abortion.htm
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 this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
abortion
aid

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
2009/05: Should Australia supply foreign aid to fund abortion services?<BR>

2009/05: Should Australia supply foreign aid to fund abortion services?

What they said...

'We insist that in Australia women get good abortion advice... If they feel it's necessary for whatever reason, at least they get safe abortions so the chances of dying are pretty remote...Let's treat women overseas with the same dignity and decency as we would our own women in Australia'
Liberal front bencher, Mal Washer

'Australia's aid program should continue its current focus on helping to improve the lives of people in poor countries by improving access to clean water, nutritious food, health care, housing and a clean environment. The limited funds available for aid should not be used to destroy unborn children but to provide better care for them and their mothers'
Australian Christian Lobby

The issue at a glance
On March 10, 2009, the federal Government announced Australia would lift a 13-year ban on using foreign aid funds to support family planning and safe abortions in poor nations.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith announced his decision to scrap the ban at a meeting of Labor MPs and Senators, after months of internal party consultation about a policy shift.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the meeting he did not personally support the change and had had long-standing conservative views on abortion, but, the Prime Minister said, there was a clear majority view in the Labor caucus supporting the change
This change in policy has met with the approval of women's groups and a variety of welfare agencies; however, it has been opposed by Christian agencies and a number of federal members on both sides of Parliament.

Background
AusAID Family Planning Guidelines have banned for the last thirteen years the funding of abortion services as part of foreign aid given to developing nations.   The ban was imposed by the Howard Government in 1996.  The full text of the AusAID Family Planning Guidelines can be found at
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/fam-plan-guide.pdf
The Guidelines conclude with the provision 'Australian aid funds are not available for activities that involve abortion training or services, or research trials or activities, which directly involve abortion drugs.' Australian spending on family planning in the foreign aid budget has dropped from $6.9 million in 1995-96 to only $2.3 million in 2006/07.
In May 2007, the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, which has more than 50 members from all parties, formally recommended that the funding guidelines for AusAID be changed to allow the funding of abortion services in developing nations.
The report found that the restrictions denied women in developing countries the medical services available to Australian women, and were contributing to poor health and the cycle of poverty.
The Parliamentary Group on Population and Development was formed in 1995 to support and promote the Program of Action from the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994.
The Group is a voluntary, cross-party body.  The Group has contributed to raising awareness in Australian parliaments about international population and development issues. The Group has hosted meetings and seminars with leaders in the field, including Dr Robert Feachem, Executive Director of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, Dr Thoraya Obaid, Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and Dr Steve Sinding, Director-General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The United States had adopted a similar policy of banning foreign aid to fund abortion programs.  President Reagan instituted the rule, known as the 'Mexico City policy', in 1984, stating that the United States government would not contribute to groups that 'perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations'.
The result, critics said, was that nongovernmental organizations working in the developing world could not refer women to safe abortion providers or even conduct family planning education campaigns that discussed the procedure.
President Clinton rescinded the rule shortly after taking office in 1993. Eight years later, President Bush reinstituted it, saying that taxpayer funds should not be used to promote abortions.
On January 23, 2009, President Obama overturned the ban on United States support to international aid groups that provide abortion services around the world.

Internet information
Make a Stand is an Internet site of the Australian Christian Lobby.  It supplies a Christian perspective on a range of popular issues.  
Following President Obama's decision to allow United States aid to fund abortions in the developing world, Make a Stand published an opinion piece criticising the United States' decision and arguing that Australia not alter its aid policy.  The piece title, 'Aid, not abortion' can be found at http://www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.stw?campaign_id=17

newmatilda.com is an independent Australian website of news, analysis and satire. newmatilda.com aims to provide non-partisan information. It has no association with any political party or media organisation.
On January 27, 2009, newmatilda.com published an opinion piece titled, 'Australia's Abortion Gag'.  The comment was written by Ruby Murray after President Obama removed the ban on United States' aid being used to fund abortion.  Murray supports Obama's policy decision and criticises the Australian Government for having failed to behave similarly to this point.  The commentary can be found at http://newmatilda.com/2009/01/27/australias-abortion-gag

Marie Stopes International was established in London in 1976, and grew out of the organisation originally set up by Dr Marie Stopes - the family planning pioneer who opened the UK's first family planning clinic in 1921.
On January 28, 2009, Marie Stopes International Australia issued a media release calling on the Australian government to follow the lead of President Obama's administration and allow aid for abortion services.  The full text of the media release can be found at http://www.mariestopes.org.au/cms/abortion-aid.html

On February 5, 2009, The Australian Christian Lobby issued a media release urging the Australian Government to retain its ban on AusAID funding abortions in developing nations.  The full text of the release can be found at http://www.acl.org.au/pdfs/load_pdf_public.pdf?pdf_id=1253&from=

On February 16, 2009, the Australian Labor Party's women's rights group, Emily's List, lobbied the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, urging him to allow Australian foreign aid to be used to fund abortions.  The group issued a media release outlining its arguments.  The media release can be found at http://www.emilyslist.org.au/news/editorial.asp?id=263

On March 11, 2009, The Christian Today Internet site published a news report titled, 'Australia follows Obama in lifting ban on overseas abortion funding', and written by Jenna Lyle.  The report presents the decision without bias, quoting a range of views on the policy change.
The report can be read at http://www.christiantoday.com/article/australia.follows.obama.in.lifting.ban.on.overseas.abortion.funding/22747.htm

On March 11, 2009, the Catholic Internet news site, CathNews, published a report outlining the opposition of the Catholic aid agency Caritas to the change in AusAID policy.  The article titled, 'Caritas slams abortion aid decision' can be found at http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12297

The New York-based Guttmacher Institute has assembled world-wide research findings on induced abortion.  This includes incidence, locations, morality rates and legality.  This information can be found at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Arguments in favour of Australia supplying foreign aid to fund abortion services
1.  No other western nation now prohibits such aid
Australia and the United States were the only nations that banned the use of foreign aid for abortion services or family planning. When President Obama removed the United States ban in Januar 2009, Australia became the only country in the world to have such a provision in its aid policy.  Critics of the Australian policy stressed how out of step it was with practices  adopted elsewhere.
The decision to overturn the ban on abortion funding was welcomed by Sarah Hanson-Young, a senator in the Australian parliament for  the Australian Greens. Senator Hanson-Young stated, 'Australia, until this morning, was the last country who had these ridiculous, archaic, inhumane restrictions placed on our aid funding and support. What we now see is Australia has stepped up in line with Barack Obama, who in his very first week as president moved to ensure that these restrictions would be lifted,'

2.  Abortions will occur in underdeveloped countries even if illegal and whether aid is supplied or not
The following information was supplied by the Guttmacher Institute, which produces a wide range of resources on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health.
In developing nations more than half of all abortions performed are unsafe and illegal.  The estimated number of induced abortions in Africa has increased since 1995; however, the region's abortion rate has declined because of an increase in the number of reproductive-age women.
Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.
Where abortion is legal and permitted on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in many circumstances, it is often unsafe. For example, in South Africa, the incidence of infection resulting from abortion decreased by 52% after the abortion law was liberalized in 1996.
Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. However, in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.
More than 95% of abortions in Africa and Latin America are performed under unsafe circumstances, as are about 60% of abortions in Asia (excluding Eastern Asia).
Jane Singleton the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance has stated the changes are long overdue and a big step to helping save women's lives.
Ms Singleton recalled, 'I was up on the border of Myanmar, of Burma at the end of last year. There was a case there when a woman who already had four children and was pregnant had walked for four days to get over the border to the hospital in Thailand. She had tried to abort herself with a stick. She had tried so hard the stick had perforated her buttocks, she nearly died.
Had she died, the fate of her children and her family would have been so very much worse.'

3.  Inexpertly performed abortions kill many women in underdeveloped countries
It has been noted that by not funding abortions in undeveloped nations Australia is failing to prevent the deaths of thousands of women a year. The World Health Organisation estimates that approximately 19 million unsafe abortions are carried out each year in developing nations, with an estimated 68,000 women dying as a result and millions more suffering complications. It is estimated that as a result of deaths caused by unsafe abortions some 220 thousand children lose their mothers.
Almost all abortion-related deaths occur in developing countries. They are highest in Africa, where there were an estimated 650 deaths per 100,000 unsafe abortions in 2003, compared with 10 per 100,000 in developed regions.
Federal Liberal backbencher, Mal Washer, has indicated that he supports the Government's decision to overturn the ban on aiding abortion in developing nations. Mr Washer has stated that there is a 13 per cent death rate for women who have unsafe or illegal abortions in developing nations.
Mr Washer added, 'We would not accept that in Australia. We insist that in Australia women get good abortion advice, and a lot of that would perhaps stop women having unnecessary abortions.
If they feel it's necessary for whatever reason, at least they get safe abortions so the chances of dying are pretty remote.
Let's treat women overseas with the same dignity and decency as we would our own women in Australia.'
Jane Singleton, chief executive officer of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, has stated, 'It will have huge impacts on hundreds of thousands of women and their families who want to make choices about the numbers of children they have and the spacing.'
Australia's parliamentary secretary for development assistance, Bob McMullan, 'The cumulative effect of other things we are doing about maternal health, this initiative and the change of the guidelines will mean that we will start to make an impact on the millenium development goal about reducing maternal mortality.
A woman is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth in a developing country than in Australia. It is the greatest gap in health services between the developed and developing world and we need to do everything we can to give women in the developing countries a chance of having their children safely and living a decent life.'

4.  Australia will supply aid in accord with the wishes and values of the countries being assisted
Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, has indicated that Australia will not be indiscriminately promoting abortion.  Australia's  policy will be subject to the national laws of overseas nations.
Mr Smith has stated, ' Avoiding terminations through family planning services and advice will continue to be the focus of Australian funded activities. Australian and international non-government organisations [NGOs] will continue to be able to choose what services they deliver in line with their own philosophies and policies.'
The government will also spend up to $15 million over four years through UN agencies and non-government organisations on family planning to help reduce maternal deaths. Mr Smith noted that the United Nations estimates that universal family planning could save the lives of as many as 175,000 women each year.

5.  The former prohibition was contrary to Australia's international treaty obligations
Charles Darwin University researcher Suzanne Belton has noted, 'Australia in 1983 became a signatory to the International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which affirms women's reproductive rights.
In 2006, in a written submission to the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development Dr Belton stated, 'In order to reduce maternal mortality, Australian aid money should focus on the prevention of unwanted and mistimed pregnancies and access to high quality post-abortion care and safe abortion. We cannot continue to cordon off abortion as though it does not happen.'
The International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which 184 countries, including Australia, have signed, states that its signatories must ensure access to health care services, including those related to family planning.
Member countries must also take measures to ensure women have the right to decide 'freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights'.
Dr Belton further stated, 'The Honourable MPs will understand that by signing these international treaties, governments are then required to implement them with actions. Governments should also not promote laws which conflict with international obligations and laws should be reformed if they directly conflict with international treaties.'
In addition to funding abortion services, the Rudd Government will now also provide additional funding of up to $15 million over four years through United Nations agencies and non-government organisations to help reduce maternal deaths.
The United Nations estimates that universal family planning could save the lives of as many as 175,000 women each year, while about 68,000 women die annually as a result of unsafe abortions.
Supporters of the Rudd Government's change to Australia AusAID policy in this area argue we are
now meeting out treaty obligations.

Arguments against Australia supplying foreign aid to fund abortion services
1.  There are Australian citizens who object to their taxes being used to support abortion
The Australian Christian Lobby has argued that funding abortion is a misuse of taxpayers' money.  They have argued that the decision was promoted by a radical group within the parliament and does not reflect the wishes of many Australian taxpayers.  Christian taxpayers, in particular, object to their taxes being used for purposes they consider immoral.
The Internet opinion site Make a Stand, which presents the views of the Australian Christian Lobby, has stated of those promoting the change of policy, 'they want more taxpayer money for abortion this time to kill babies in poor countries in a misguided attempt to help.
Supporters of the change say that because over 500,000 women in poor countries die in childbirth each year, Australia needs to help fund abortion services in those countries.
But surely the solution is to fund maternal health programs to help women experience a healthy pregnancy and a safe delivery? Rather than provide abortions, we need to improve developing nations' health systems so mothers and babies can be offered appropriate medical treatment. A simple $2 birthing kit could cut maternal deaths in developing countries by up to two thirds.
Australia's aid program should continue its current focus on helping to improve the lives of people in poor countries by improving access to clean water, nutritious food, healthcare, housing and a clean environment. The limited funds available for aid should not be used to destroy unborn children but to provide better care for them and their mothers.'

2.  There are better means of promoting women's health in developing nations
It has been claimed there are many means of assisting developing nations, other than funding abortions.
Nationals Senator, Ron Boswell, has stated, 'If we're going to give money, there's plenty of ways to give it - health, clean water, food. But [if] someone wants to fund abortion, let it not be us.'
It has been suggested that abortion is only sought by women in developing nations as a last resort, in response to generally poor living conditions.  Some claim that foreign aid should address poor living conditions, rather than funding abortion.  It has further been claimed that many of the women in these countries would prefer aid addressed living standards, rather than funded abortion.
Population Control expert Stephen Mosher, the founder and director of the United States Population Research Institute, has stated, 'A true concern for women in the developing world would be taking into consideration their own desires.'  Mr Mosher has claimed that a survey of women in the developing world found so-called reproductive health care a very distant desire compared to immediate needs.
He concluded, 'We need to be standing up for the women in developing countries who say, "We need clean drinking water, we need penicillin, we need antibiotics for our children when they become stricken with infectious disease, we need inoculations, we need vitamin tablets. We don't need your family planning programs, we don't need your so-called reproductive health care, we don't need your population stabilization programs,"'

3.  The decision will cause political division in Australia
It has been claimed that the Rudd Government's decision  to alter AusAID policy re the funding of abortions will create political controversy and division.  Normally issues relating to abortion are dealt with via a conscience vote.  Here the decision was taken administratively via the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith.
The Minister acknowledged the tensions that the change in policy could create. Mr Smith stated, 'This was a difficult decision. This is a deeply sensitive area. It's one where strong views are held deeply and very personally.'
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, voiced his reservations about overturning the ban, telling the caucus meeting he had 'long-standing conservative views' about the issue and was personally against a policy change.
The issue also has the capacity to create difficulties for the Australian Government, which lacks a majority in the Senate and thus relies on the support of Family First Senator, Steve Fielding.  Family First.  This could have significant implications for the Government a little later into its term.  Ruby Murray, writing for newmatilda.com suggested that the Rudd Government had been slow to change the policy because it was afraid of losing Senator Fielding's support. Ms Murray wrote, 'Australia and the United States were once the only countries in the world where an equivalent abortion ban applied to the provision of foreign aid. Under Barack Obama, the US has now lifted the ban, adding to the pressure on Australia to follow suit. It took Obama all of four days in office to reverse the legislation. Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, has been side-stepping the issue for 15 months, presumably in an effort to keep the important Senate vote of Family First's Steve Fielding on side.'

4. Some religious aid agencies are concerned the change in policy may compromise their work
Some religious aid agencies are anxious that the change in Australian foreign aid policy may put them in an untenable position. Groups that have moral objections to abortion are concerned that as part of their aid work they may be required to promote abortion services.
Caritas Australia is a Catholic aid agency. Caritas chief executive officer, Jack de Groot, has expressed concerns over the policy change.
Mr de Groot stated, 'As an agency of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, our position on family planning is very clear: to promote the sanctity of life and uphold the dignity of every human person.
We are gravely concerned about the implications of this policy for our ongoing work in aid and development around the world.
The Government is yet to consult with us on this change. We are unsure how it will affect our programs and the millions of people we work with around the developing world.'
Mr de Groot has further stated, 'Caritas Australia ... supports the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including the goals of reducing child mortality and improving maternal health.
A clear embodiment of this commitment is our Blueprint for a Better World exhibition, built around the MDGs and currently touring Australia in conjunction with AusAID.
In countries throughout the Pacific, Africa, Latin America and Asia, the Catholic Church is one of the largest service providers in maternal health and early childhood development.
Training midwives in Bangladesh, supporting women and children with HIV in Cambodia, providing counselling, medical services and advocating for justice for victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, challenging stigma, raising awareness and treating STIs in Papua New Guinea, are but a few of our many programs that meet the needs and aspirations of women and children in desperate poverty.'
Mr de Groot is concerned that the organisation's work may be undermined if there is any attempt to have it support abortion.  This would be something a religious organisation would not be able to do.

5.  Christian churches and lobby groups would feel betrayed by this policy change
The federal Government has been warned that should it remove the ban on using foreign aid to fund abortion it will alienate the Churches and those religious lobby groups opposed to abortion.  According to this line of argument, Kevin Rudd promoted himself as a Christian leader during the last federal election. Were his government now to fund abortions in developing nations, many of those religious groups which have previously viewed him favourably would see him as having misled them.
Nationals Senator, Ron Boswell, has stated, 'All bets will be off with the churches as far as Mr Rudd is concerned. He cuddled up to the churches for the last election. If he does this to them then they'll turn upon him.'
Opposition front bencher, Tony Abbott has similarly stated, 'He [Mr Rudd] wore his Christianity on his sleeve. Christianity was part of Mr Rudd's political marketing strategy before the election and this is how he treats the Christian voters who supported him. I think they are entitled to say that he is a phony, based on this Government decision.'
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has spoken out against the government's decision. Jim Wallace, managing director of ACL said, 'This will be the first time in Australia's history that our aid dollars are used to kill unborn children overseas. However this is packaged it will result in aid money being used for an intent which is opposite to that of many of its most passionate advocates.'
Mr Wallace also noted that during the 2007 election campaign, in which Kevin Rudd was elected, many churches and Christian groups lobbied for greater funds for international aid. Mr Wallace stated, 'The great majority of Christians who pushed for this increased aid will be justly appalled to think that some of those aid dollars will now be re-directed towards ending the life of unborn children in poor countries.'
According to Mr Wallace, 10,000 Christians have sent emails expressing concern on the issue to federal politicians as part of ACL's 'Aid, not abortion' campaign.

Further implications
Australian aid will not be used to fund abortion advice and assistance in those countries where abortion is illegal.  Therefore the change in aid policy will have no impact on the female mortality rate in these countries. However, it is likely to reduce deaths in those countries Australia aids where abortion is legal but advice about it and access to it is limited.
Before the change in policy Australian aid was not available to fund activities involving abortion training, services, research, or provision, even where the life of the mother was at risk.  Australia did not train doctors in the provision of safe abortions and did not provide funds to any groups or organisations that gave women information on abortions, whether or not the organisation itself performed them. Doctors receiving Australian Government aid were unable to counsel women who were seeking an abortion, or to help them differentiate between a safe and an unsafe abortion.  
The change in Government aid policy means that these bodies and individuals will be able to supply assistance either directly or indirectly to women seeking abortions in those countries where the procedure is legal.
Obviously, however, easier access to abortion is not a solution to the difficulties many of those living in developing nations face.  Research indicates that abortion is a particularly undesirable option in countries which place a primary value on children as a means of securing the futures of their parents.  Religious beliefs and attitudes toward the nature and value of life may also make abortion an option many women in developing nations feel unable to take.
Concern has been expressed that Australia continue to supply other forms of support to developing nations.  Assistance in disease control, sanitation, clean water sources and food production are seen by many as of greater assistance - the argument being if you can feed and clothe children and parents are not diminished by disease, abortion is less likely to be sought.
On the issue of the political repercussions for the Australian Government, these are not clear-cut.  Senator Brian Fielding has indicated that he is not an absolute opponent of abortion.  This view has put him at odds with many in his party, Family First.  Though Senator Fielding has criticised Prime Minister Rudd for not adhering to his beliefs and opposing the policy change, Senator Fielding's own position on the question of abortion means that he is unlikely to use his balance of power in the Senate to force a return to the previous AusAID policy which prohibited abortion.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
AGE, January 28, page 13, comment by Lyn Allison, `Everyone has the right to choose how they plan a family'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/everyone-has-the-right-to-choose-how-they-plan-a-family-20090127-7qwx.html?page=-1

AGE, January 26, page 5, news item by Michelle Grattan, `End abortion aid ban, Smith urged'.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/end-abortion-aid-ban-smith-urged-20090125-7pgv.html

AGE, January 25, page 11, news item (ref to USA / American laws on foreign aid), `Obama lifts Bush abortion laws'.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/obama-lifts-bush-abortion-bans-20090124-7p2x.html

AGE, January 31, Insight section, page 6, analysis by Michelle Grattan, `Rudd's abortion policy dilemma'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudds-abortion-policy-dilemma-20090130-7u1d.html?skin=text-only

AGE, January 31, page 10, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Decision soon on lifting ban on foreign aid for abortions'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/decision-soon-on-lifting-ban-on-foreign-aid-for-abortions-20090130-7u1q.html

AGE, January 30, page 10, editorial, `Australia must lift its ban on abortion aid'. (if viewing the online version, you will need to scroll down to the second editorial.)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/schools-waiting-for-the-real-revolution-20090129-7swi.html?page=-1