Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 14 No.4 - Summer Edition 1997/8                               Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Recognising The Truth
- Editorial
- Mum's Abortion Anguish
- Polluting Women
- More Answers to Pro-choice Arguments
- Visit Your State Member of Parliament
- World View

As part of our Project How You Began, Pro-Life Victoria has been able to supply several sets of foetal models to Mrs Julleanne Whyte, who lives in the Corowa district, just north of the Victorian border. The sets have been placed in local Secondary Schools and used by Julieanne in her capacity as Senior Trainer, in the Billings’ Ovulation Method of family planning, in the Riverina.

Recently she was able to tell us of her experience of the effectiveness of these models as an educational tool. They were used as part of an Information Stand promoting National Family Planning as a life style option, at one of the district’s largest agricultural shows.

Julieanne estimated over 300 people visited the display and viewed the models which illustrate the size of the preborn baby in the womb at 4, 6, 10, 14 and 18 weeks after conception. Amongst those who stopped to look at the foetal models, was a young couple with a toddler in a pusher. The lady told Julieanne her child owed her life to the foetal models on display. These models had been on display at a Parenting Day in which Julieanne had participated elsewhere a year earlier, which this couple had also attended. At the time the couple were contemplating an abortion. When they saw the foetal models, the evidence of the humanity of their unborn child made so much impact upon them, they resolved to choose life for their baby instead. Julieanne described the scene, with them showing the models to their daughter and announcing they were now happily expecting another child.

Such reports are very encouraging to Pro-Life Victoria with our goal of placing a set of these models in every Victorian Secondary School. To date, a total of 220 sets have been distributed to schools and other educators. Fifty more sets are now on order from England and will be available for the start of the school year. Several schools have already placed orders for these for 1998.

That we have been able to order another 50 sets, is due to the generosity of the Trustees of the Democratic Labour Party, who have generously contributed $6,000 to this ongoing project.

Pro-Life Victoria would like to publicly acknowledge the generosity of this Trust. Many readers and supporters of Pro-Life Victoria will be happy to know that their money donated, in the past, to the Democratic Labour Party is being used in such a tangible way to promote the rights of preborn children. The Democratic Labour Party, was a staunchly pro-life political party. The fact that 50 more Victorian Schools will have on display in their libraries and forever more be able to use in classes these outstanding teaching aids, should be particularly heartening to the families of the late Mr Jim Brosnan and the late Mr Frank Dowling, as well as many other benefactors, to whom the cause of pre-born was so dear. We feel our project is a very fitting tribute to these two men in particular. We have no doubt they would thoroughly approve of the good use to which this money has been put.

Herbert  Ratner, M.D.

Top of Page

I am constantly reminded of the fact that behind the more "high profile" in the pro-life movement, is a veritable army of "foot soldiers". I never cease to be amazed at their diligence, consoled by their faithfulness and assured that, out there, there are others who also care. These pro-lifers do so many of the dull jobs that are so important in our overall campaign to regain for our preborn brothers and sisters, their right to be born alive. Letters to editors of local papers keeping the pro-life philosophy alive, is one of the dull jobs. Sometimes we receive copies of these letters at the Pro-Life Victoria office, sent by faithful supporters as evidence that our pleas for such action are heard and heeded.

Reading through one such letter recently, convinced me that it was an opportune time to acknowledge such support. Mr Arthur Fletcher and his wife Muriel are long time supporters of the preborn and the pro-life philosophy. They belong to the Christadelphian faith and understand the objective evil of abortion from their study of the Bible.

Mr Arthur Fletcher has always done his bit - and his best, by writing to his local paper. In one such letter he pointed out the social and economic effects of widespread abortion on our community. Because of the incidence of 100,000 abortions a year in Australia,schools are being sold for land development. Mr Fletcher suggested volunteers should deliver handbills all round such schools suggesting such schools were becoming redundant by 100,000 abortions a year.

Teacher Unions should be approached and reminded that teachers are using class time to destroy their own jobs by encouraging knowledge of abortions and laying the foundation for the continuation of 100,000 abortions a year.

Handbills should also be distributed around abortuaries telling businesses that 100,000 abortions a year means 100,000 less customers for businesses.

Mr Fletcher also believes the medical profession should be told it is destroying its own profession. 100,000 abortions a year means less jobs for doctors. An abortion is the last "job" a doctor will ever do on "the aborted", who otherwise might have provided many more consultations for the medical profession. He concluded by acknowledging the tragedy of Somalia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but added that here in Australia we pay for an equivalent tragedy through so called "Health Schemes". Whilever supporters like Mr Fletcher continue, to do their bit, we can continue to do our bit in Pro-Life Victoria.

With the approach of Christmas and a new year we wish our supporters a well earned rest and a Happy Christmas with their families and friends. And another year of working together to change the prevailing culture of death.

Denise Cameron

Top of Page

Our teenage daughter told us she was pregnant and after much discussion it was considered abortion was the only "solution".

I was against it but could not demand from her that she not have one. Being a responsible parent, I agreed to go with my husband to an abortion clinic.

Sitting in the waiting room it saddened me to see so many young women ready to have an abortion. The phone constantly rang and all I could think was that "there’s another customer for the clinic

I was horrified when the "counsellor" said abortion would be easier if it were not for those "damn Catholics, Catholic doctors and the Right to Life people interfering", as they were always trying to close the clinic down.

I stated it was not only Catholics who were against abortion. I am not a Catholic nor religious but I am against it on humanitarian grounds. I could not let my daughter have an abortion, so I told her this and grabbed her bag. I was disappointed she did not follow me out into the street. I am sorry to state that I should have done more as while I am writing this my heart is aching as my little grandchild was killed today.

That’s the only way to describe what happened to it.

I hope no grandparent will have to experience what I am feeling.

I wish my daughter had had a tour of an abortion clinic before becoming pregnant. It just may have avoided today’s trauma.

from the Brisbane Sunday Mail - November, 1997

Top of Page

An Australian publication, "A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and other Drugs", makes extremely alarming reading.

The pill has been available for 30 years now and yet the problems and side-effects are still emerging. In the words of Prof. John Guillebaud of London’s Margaret Pyke Centre (which must have issued the pill to tens of thousands of women). "When we say the Pill is safe, we don’t mean it is risk free".

In other words the pill is not safe and for 30 years millions of women around the world have been unwitting participants in one giant experiment.

Anyone involved in the pro-life movement should read this book by John Wilks, an Australian pharmacologist. In the Foreword Dr Bernard Nathanson describes it as a "remarkable piece of work, especially strong on the physiology and pharmacologic endocrinology ... encyclopaedic in its range."

Prevents Ovum Implanting

Among the multiplicity of issues covered, Mr Wilks draws on a number of studies which show significant abortifacient capacity of the pill. Ovulation is not always suppressed by oral contraceptives. What effectively happens is that the fertilised ovum, a new human being, is prevented from implanting in the lining of the womb.

An example of the abortifacient nature of the pill can be seen in the figure quoted by the Family Planning Association of NSW (Aust.) with reference to the progesterone-only or mini-pill. Forty out of a 100 women using this type of pill do ovulate, but only 5-10 confirm a pregnancy.

Based on this, Mr Wilks calculates that pharmaceutically induced abortions of undetected pregnancies occur in up to 30-50 per 100 women. It’s not surprising that he is adamant that the adjective "contraceptive" should not be used in conjunction with the noun "pill".

The relationship between the pill and both cancer of the cervix and of the breast is now well established in medical literature - despite variations on the increased cancer risks from study to study. It is therefore scandalous that these facts are not written large in patient information leaflets, particularly as, in the main, oral contraceptives are taken by otherwise healthy women.

And, for both types of cancer, it is young women using the pill who are most at risk. It is also the case that the pill acts as a carcinogenic substance independent of any genetic predisposition a woman may have.

Blood-clots are another side effect of the pill. I wonder how many GPs explain this to the women when they prescribe the pill? Occasionally the health risks associated with the pill do reach the headlines: "Three Pill studies showed increase risk of blood clots" stated The Times in Britain on 21 October 1995.

This was in response to a recommendation by the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) that women should come off pills containing third generation progestins. What the media coverage did not point out was the doubling of the risk was a doubling of the pre-existing risk associated with second generation progestin formulations of the pill. The doubled risk was NOT a comparison with women who do not take the pill. The harmful effects of the pill are increasing over the years, yet we still tolerate this drug to be administered to thousands of healthy women.

Toll on the Young

Again, the tragedy of the pill takes its toll on the young. In May 1994 British teenager Caroline Bacon died of a stroke. She was 16 years old. A family planning clinic doctor prescribed Femoden for her at the age of 14. Femoden was one of the brands condemned by the CSM. The decision to withdraw these brands came too late for Caroline but her bereaved parents - Tom and Jerry - have steadily battled ever since to make it unlawful for doctors to prescribe contraceptives for under-age girls without parental consent. Such has been the steadfastness of their campaign (to help save the lives of other young girls) that they were made the recipients of the Family Life Award 1997 by the organisation, Family & Youth Concern.

Mr Wilks’ concern for the welfare of women is shown when he states, "It is for women such as Caroline that I write this book."

The quest to outwit one of the most intricate and delicately balanced parts of nature the female reproductive system - seems to know no bounds. Scientists work relentlessly to get women’s bodies under control  with some horrifying results. Depo-provera is one example. This contraceptive is an injection with a chequered history. It was released, withdrawn and then re-released, which does not inspire much confidence. Again we find the now familiar catalogue of problems for women. A 360% increase in the risk of breast cancer for long term users who started young. Depo-provera has serious effects on bones, making young women more prone to osteoporosis in the menopause. The long term bombardment of young healthy bodies with powerful artificial hormones amounts to polluting women.

As Mr Wilks observes, we would not treat a rain forest like that.

Norplant, a brand name, consists of six rods impregnated with an artificial progesterone which are implanted in a women’s upper arm. The hormones are released gradually over a period of time. The saga of this "reproductive health treatment" is at best an outrage and at a worst a deep violation of human rights. Norplant was developed by the Population Council, whose pro-abortion agenda is well known. In fact this contraceptive method is an abortifacient because ovulation takes place in up to 41% of women. Getting the rods removed is a major problem for Norplant users. One British women had to undergo a general anaesthetic to have them removed and even now one still remains in her because it is so deeply embedded. If women in the UK have these problems .... what about women in Third World countries? For it is almost certainly those in developing nations that the Population Council had in mind.

Irregular menstruation is a further problem. Becky Stewart, 22, from Oxford reported, "I bleed permanently ... you bleed all the time, you feel miserable and look bad." Again, imagine this in the Third World.

20,000 Used as Guinea Pigs

20,000 women in Bangladesh were used as guinea pigs to test Norplant. They were not told that they were taking part in trials. Women with constant bleeding were told either that nothing could be done, or were asked to pay sums of money completely beyond their means to have the rods removed. Although they had been told that Norplant would help them and that they would be happy if they stopped having babies, the reverse happened. Norplant has created discomfort and for some misery.

What emerges from this detailed, but easy-to-follow guide to so-called contraceptive drugs is that women - their health and their integrity - are of secondary importance to some scientists and doctors. When pro-lifers are attacked for not promoting the pill as the solution to abortion, there is plenty of material in "A Consumer s Guide to the Pill and other Drugs" to show that the contraceptive industry is as anti-life and as anti-women as the abortion industry.

The move to make the pill available over the counter (OTC) without a prescription is another illustration. Without proper instructions to the patient many drugs are potentially harmful, and the pill is no different. An American report has shown the damage caused to unborn babies when women continue to take the pill when they are pregnant - a situation which would almost certainly increase if women did not have to see a doctor.

Nonetheless, there are those who would like to see the abortifacient drug RU-486 put into the OTC category. The high concentration of potent hormones in RU-486 has the capacity to affect every aspect of a women’s body. Effectively by making these drugs available without prescription is to trivialise the side-effects and to imply that a women’s well-being is of no importance.

It seems that the same cloak of silence which shrouds the truth about abortion also envelopes the real dangers of so-called contraceptives. Patient information is woefully inadequate in stating the side-effects. Family Planning Association material trumpets "There is no evidence at the present time that the pill can cause any cancer in a women’s body". Mr Wilks wonders, with some justification, whether those who prescribed oral contraceptive to women, particularly young women, will be around to hold their patients’ hands when they have cancer twenty years on.

Who is to blame for this situation? Certainly governments for not issuing better information on the products. Equally culpable are pharmaceutical Manufacturers for not giving fuller information on the side-effects of their drugs. Women should no longer be treated like "rodents in a laboratory" because all the evidence from this global experiment on women’s fertility points to failure.

If the pharmaceutical industry were to be treated like the tobacco industry and held responsible for their products we could see a vast change in attitudes to women.

Forward by Dr Bernard Nathanson.

Top of Page

When I present the prolife position on school campuses, I often begin by saying:

I’ve been introduced as being prolife, but I want to make clear that I’m really prochoice. I believe that a person has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. It’s none of our business what choice she makes, and we have no right to impose our morals on others. Whether I like someone s choices or not is irrelevant. She should have the freedom to make her own choices.

I’m normally greeted by surprised looks and audible affirmation, including smiles, nods, and even applause. I have used the sacred buzzwords of the prochoice movement - rights, freedom, and choice. I have sounded tolerant, open-minded, and fair. Then I say this:

Yes, I’m prochoice. That’s why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all it’s his body, and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He’s free to choose, and it’s none of our business what he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.

After I let the shock settle in a bit, I explain that I am not really prochoice when it comes to rape. I ask them to point out the fallacy of the "it’s his body and he can choose what he wants" argument. They realise that in emphasising the man’s right to choose I have completely ignored the rights of the innocent woman. My hope is that they also realise it is not always a virtue to be prochoice.

Laws against false advertising restrict a businessman s right to free speech. Laws against discrimination infringe on the freedom of choice of those who would treat minorities unfairly. When others’ rights are at stake - and particularly when their very lives are at stake - any decent society must restrict the individual’s freedom of choice. Is an innocent person being damaged by a woman’s choice to have an abortion? If not, no problem. If so, it is a major problem that society cannot afford to ignore.

It is absurd to defend a specific choice merely on the basis that it is a choice. Yet if you read the literature and listen to the talk shows, you know that this is constantly done by prochoice activists. "The right to choose" is a magic slogan that seems to make all choices equally legitimate.

All of us are in favour of free choice when it comes to where people live, what kind of car they drive, and a thousand matters of personal preference that harm no one else. We are also prochoice in matters of religion, politics and lifestyle, even when people choose beliefs and behaviour with which we don’t agree. But most of us are decidedly not prochoice when it comes to murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and child abuse. When we oppose the "right to choose" rape or child abuse we aren’t opposing a "right" we’re opposing a "wrong". And we’re not narrow minded and bigoted for doing so. We’re just decent people concerned for the rights of the innocent. To be prochoice about someone’s right to kill is to be anti-choice about someone else’s right to live.

Whenever we hear the term prochoice, we must ask the all important question, "What choice are we talking about?" Given the facts about abortion, the question really becomes, "Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill innocent children if that’s what they want to do?"

• People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.

After I spoke at a public high school on the prolife position, the prochoice instructor took me to the faculty lounge for lunch. He pointed to a table where four teachers were smoking and said, "Fortunately, this is the last week smoking will be allowed in here. We’ve finally gotten the district to make the teacher’s lounge non-smoking." Good naturedly I said, "I see you’re not really prochoice." With a surprised look he explained, "But cigarette smoke hurts other people." I said, "So does abortion."

Many people who are prochoice about abortion support laws requiring people to wear seat belts. They are anti-choice about seat belts because seat belts save lives. When lives are at stake, "freedom to choose" can and is legitimately restricted by society.

• The one time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

How to deal with a pregnancy is one among thousands of choices a woman will make in her lifetime. But if that choice is abortion, her child will never have the opportunity to make any choices of his own. A woman will have opportunity to exercise many legal rights. But if one of those is abortion, her child will never be able to exercise a single right.

Top of Page

Or written to the Victorian Health Minister The Honourable Robert Knowles, 22nd Floor, 555 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000, or the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, Level 3, 1 Palmerston Crescent, South Melbourne, 3205 and asked them to stop Dr Grundmann practising as an abortionist and specialist partial birth abortionist in Victoria?

Top of Page

USA- Joan Andrews - To jail again? Remember Joan Andrews? Her crime was a peaceful, non-violent rescue. For this she was sentenced to five years imprisonment. On the same day in the same court, the same judge had sentenced another person to four years imprisonment for murder. After serving 2.5 years, much of it in solitary confinement, public pressure effected her release. Now, more than seven years later, the FBI has again arrested Joan. She went before the same judge. He informed her that unless she signed a statement promising not to go near an abortion mill for three years, he would put her in jail indefinitely for contempt of court.

Six years ago Joan married Christopher Bell, Director of Good Counsel Homes for Single Mothers. They had a baby girl and then adopted a handicapped boy. Joan will not agree to violate her conscience, even considering the anguish of leaving her two young children. The facts are: 1985, her crime: a nonviolent protest; imprisonment until 1988. Now Judge Novak proposes jailing her indefinitely, even though she is now a wife with two small children, one handicapped. Joan will not violate her own conscience, even though such an indefinite sentence is plainly cruel and unusual punishment. Letters, protesting this evil ruling can be sent to Judge Raymond Novak, Allegheny County Courthouse, Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

from the Newsletter, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati Inc. - November, 1997.

US A - The Defining issue: T he newly appointed Chicago Archbishop, Francis George, has rather directly redefined the approach to dealing with abortion. Our readers will recall the method of levelling as many as 12-16 social issues and presenting them all as equally important. This had a devastating effect on the pro-life movement. It looks as though the new Chicago prelate opposes any such levelling of the issues. He has stated: "Abortion is no more a single issue than was slavery. It is instead a defining issue - one which shapes the future of the nation. The present legal policy of abortion-on-demand, which permits even the killing of infants being delivered, weakens the social contract that has kept this country together. To cooperate willingly in evil is morally wrong, and our present laws make us all at least passive cooperators in the crime of abortion. This statement makes clear that the "defining" evil, abortion, must be given priority over all other issues.

from the Newsletter, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati Inc. - October, 1997.

GERMANY - The German Government has banned research into human cloning and German scientists are calling for a global ban on the technique. "The cloning of humans would be a violation of human existence," said Wolfgang Fruehwald, president of the German Research Association.

- from Humanity (NZ’s national pro-life newspaper), - October, 1997.

In the last decade, Cardinal Winning has clearly emerged as Britain’s moral leader arousing public conscience on all issues whether popular or unpopular. He has certainly gained enormous Influence as the leading pro-life Churchman, displaying such courage that the Society for Protection of Unborn Children last year presented him with the "Thirty-One Award", a cup named after the 31 MPs who opposed the Abortion Act 1967 at its Second Reading. The award is not presented annually - but only when somebody displays sufficient moral stature In "bucking" the anti-life ethos.

Cardinal Winning Is shown nursing Emma, daughter of SPUC members Paul and Catriona Atkin, at the 1997 SPUC (Scotland) Annual Conference where he announced plans for his campaign to offer practical help to pregnant women under pressure from any part of the world, in July, the Cardinal’s office announced the birth of the first baby they had saved through the scheme.

- from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, mc, Newsletter - October, 1997.

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive