There have been various proposals put forward for suggested government action such as not funding late term abortions or only funding those that have occurred following the informed consent of the mother through viewing foetal images.

Frankly - that is not good enough. Right to Life Australia wants abortion defunded - as simple as that! Those who think we’ll win some concessions by making timid suggestions will find that they could end up with nothing.
Margaret Tighe, President RTLA, RTLA News, Jan.-Feb. 2005, 1

Anti-abortion advocates are a motley crew, ranging from Margaret Tighe types, who believe that all abortions should be outlawed regardless of the circumstances, to people like David van Gend who would apparently permit abortion ‘in cases of rape, incest, pregnancy in minors(!) or where it is necessary to save a mother’s life’ - www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/a1/0c0291a1.asp

The National Civic Council is a far more pragmatic body than Tighe’s group, perhaps just a little too pragmatic. Paul Russell, the NCC’s South Australian state president, has a very intriguing article entitled ‘Cutting the abortion rate - the political options’ in the current issue of News Weekly (26 Mar. 2005).

Russell begins by noting the ‘wide variety of thought amongst pro-life groups’ about the best way to tackle the abortion issue. Many people think that the Religious Right is some sort of monolithic entity but this is quite untrue. Some of these groups and personalities bitterly disagree with each other over a wide variety of issues and tactics.

Unlike Margaret Tighe, Paul Russell explicitly recognizes that ‘politics is the art of the possible’ and that anti-choice campaigners should acknowledge that ‘practical limitations do exist’. He makes the unwarranted assertion that there is ‘an identifiable mood for change in our society’ but immediately warns anti-choice politicians that ‘if they push for too much, the risk of failure increases’:

… It is better to have a win that reduces the incidence of abortion by some degree than it is to fight valiantly for the whole, and gain nothing.

This is exactly the opposite of Margaret Tighe’s approach.

Russell proceeds to discuss four serious options for the anti-choice campaign:

(1) informed consent provisions; (2) partial-birth abortion bans; (3) parental involvement laws (in the case of minors); and (4) Medicare funding restrictions.

Russell’s basic aim is to establish which option would be ‘the most effective in reducing the incidence of abortion’. He doesn’t spend much time on either (2) or (3) above, recognising that they comprise only a small proportion of total abortions. This is another difference between Russell and many anti-abortion organisations which seem convinced that eight-month pregnant women are being aborted in large numbers all over Australia. Russell also has serious doubts about option (1):

… If pro-life [i.e. anti-choice] agencies were to provide mandated [pre-abortion] counselling, [an] ethical dilemma comes into play. As evidence that the informed consent regulations had been fulfilled, the counselling agencies would probably need to provide written proof that a pregnant woman had met the requirements.

This would effectively be a licence to abort. Catholic counselling services in Germany only a few years ago were directed to cease their services by the Holy See for this very reason.

Russell thus finds himself forced back to option (4), government funding restrictions. While this is not surprising, I was quite astonished by the generally cold, calculating and unemotional tone of the article. It seemed to me devoid of all reference to reality and even to the existence of a truly moral order. Women, perhaps young and poverty-stricken, perhaps older and with established families, find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. These girls and women are real people with a wealth of emotions and experiences, probably with strong family ties and responsibilities, qualitatively different beings from the foetuses growing inside them.

Russell’s solution: make it as hard as possible for these distressed women, and particularly the poorer ones, to obtain safe and legal relief! What sort of moral response is that?

Filed in: Abortion