A FEDERALLY FUNDED COVER-UP
by Julie Cook (from Women Hurt by Abortion, February 1995)
"We Women Decide" prepared by doctors Doctors Ryan, Ripper, and Buttfield, promotes abortion as a ‘health enhancing’ procedure, advocates its use as a contraception, claims post abortion syndrome (PAS) a myth, criticises health professionals warning women of a fertility risk, wants all doctors and nurses to be involved in abortion as part of their general training and was critical of the concern that health professionals express regarding repeat aborters.
It is not surprising then to find that one of the doctors herself is directly involved in the abortion industry. Much of the report is unsubstantiated opinion. They freely admit the medical texts "...were searched not for their scientific finding but for the rhetoric employed..."; yet make authoritative statements such as K. .there is no evidence that abortions performed in the conditions operating in Australian clinics and hospitals would have any negative impact on women’s fertility". And stupid statements such as "The disturbing aspect of Gabriella’s story is that a supportive and well intentioned abortion provider genuinely believed that there was sufficient evidence that abortion compromised a woman’s subsequent fertility to mention it as a ‘risk factor’."
PROFESSIONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
Professional opinion is one thing, but to disregard the abundance of medical literature on PAS and the amount of concern expressed by researchers and practising psychiatrists which they themselves acknowledge, then attempt a study, probing into women’s personal lives, evidently ill prepared to deal with PAS, clearly demonstrates professional irresponsibility. That no acknowledgment of PAS was made in their public statements to the press can only further increase the aborted sufferer’s sense of hopelessness, isolation and anger, any may well have an adverse effect on the therapeutic management of the PAS sufferer or her ability to resolve her own grief, most particularly those involved in the study.
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
"Myth 7: Abortion is psychologically harmful to women". As there was clearly contradictory evidence in their own literature they attempted to qualify this statement with the usual ‘if there’s no coercion or pressure and it is the woman’s own decision’ jargon. Yet this still didn’t account for all the traumatised women in their own literature. They stated that "...coercion could occur from any person who holds or has the power to assume influence with the woman, including parents, doctors, male partners and religious and other ‘advisers’." Yet they could offer no recommendations to prevent coercion or the pressuring of women and girls to abort. Indeed they appeared unable to recognise the seriousness of it.
Much was made of what they claimed was women’s inability to negotiate sex, of contraceptive failure, of the abortion service provided, of the relief routinely expressed following the procedure and political statements solicited from the women.
NO CHOICE
However there was ample evidence of anger, guilt, sadness, ambivalence, isolation, resentment, grief and remorse, a sense of victimisation and pain, which they proceeded to rationalise. Many women stated that they did not want to abort, but felt forced, pressured or had no choice. The authors did not even attempt to deal with these underlying problems. Statements were frequently made by the aborted women, that a counsellor, experienced in dealing with PAS, would know warranted further investigation.
1 in 20 IS NOT A MYTH, NOT A RARITY!
Of the 89 women interviewed "...who had sort abortions...", they admitted at least 5 women "...experience (s) ongoing ill effects following their abortion". By their own admission and, despite their techniques we have an absolute base line figure of over I in 20 seriously traumatised by abortion. I in 20 is not a myth, not a rarity.
SKILLFULLY CONFUSING
This ‘study’ was supposed to represent women’s voices as yet unheard. It should surprise no one that WIIBA was not asked to participate. It was skilfully confusing, contradictory, irresponsible and a desperate attempt to prop up the myth that abortion is safe for women when the evidence is mounting that the exact opposite is true. While one may dismiss these doctors (only one is a medical doctor) as fanatics, one can nut ignore that it was financed by the federal government and promoted by the media, notably The Australian, which refused to print WHBA press releases, sent in reply to their support of this cover-up of the damage abortion does to women.