Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2574 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Mr Deputy Speaker, here is a woman who has, not once but twice, been through the process of abortion. She feels that, not once but twice, the process led her somewhere where she probably did not want to go. However, based on her experience, as a positive, she says there should be more information-women should be aware of what she has gone through and what they may go through. I believe it is that sort of advice, from somebody who has been there and felt the agony of abortion, that we should take into account today. To repeal the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act would be a great shame.

It is unfortunate that we are afraid of information. Information is meant to empower us, information has been used previously to keep people down because those who had it used it to their advantage. However, we are now swamped with information about the effects of abortion. If it is not conformed, then what will we do? Mr Berry has achieved his purpose of making it legal. How will we make it safe? How will we make it rare? I would suggest we do not make it safe, and we do not make it rare, by removing information from people when they are vulnerable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many reports I could read through. "Fifteen studies link abortion and substance abuse"; "Half a million women may suffer from post-abortion syndrome"; and "New studies evaluate their effects on women's mental health". They go on and on.

However, I think we need to look at the more credible studies, if I can call them that. Let us try to find the studies that are independent of advice from either a pro-choice or a pro-life group. I refer to the STAKES study from Finland. Here we have a country, which has socialised abortion for 30 or 40 years, now saying their results show that abortion is a risk to women. I believe we ignore that at our peril.

If you wish to look at further information, in the journal called Acta Obset. Gynecol. Scand. There is a report of a Scandinavian gynaecology survey. That survey summarises the effect on women who had elective abortions and those who had delivered newborns. The women were tracked for 52 weeks-not a short period like, say, six or eight weeks-to find out which group would have the higher death rate. The report determined that women who had had elective terminations had 61/2 times the risk of suicide and 14 times the risk of being a homicide victim. The total death risk for women who had had elective abortions was 31/2 times that of women who had delivered babies.

That is from an organisation which does not have an axe to grind, which does not have a pro-choice or a pro-life point of view. This is an organisation that, looking at the data in an epidemiological way, has concluded that there is clear risk to women from having an abortion. I wonder why, then, we would go on.

Janet Daling, who is a well-known pro-abortionist, says:

If politics gets involved in science it will really hold back the progress that we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.

She goes on to say:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .