Right: Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who announced that Australia's long-standing ban on foreign aid which might promote abortion.Arguments against Australia supplying foreign aid to fund abortion services
1. There are Australian citizens who object to their taxes being used to support abortionThe 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.