Action Blogs

Ban on Foreign Aid for Abortion Services Has Been Lifted

by Anna Saulwick

Yesterday Foreign Minister Stephen Smith made an announcement lifting the ban on Australian foreign aid spending on abortion services and related advice.

The Foreign Minister’s announcement – that the Government will support the same range of family planning services for women in developing countries as are supported here in Australia – is to be applauded. The suffering caused by the political compromises and procrastinations of successive Australian governments cannot be undone, but by lifting the ban on funding for abortion services, and committing to providing an additional $15 million over four years for family planning and reproductive health activities to help reduce maternal deaths, the Government has eliminated one of the most short-sighted and inhumane policies of contemporary Australia.

Jasper

Posted by Jasper 3/11/2009

Obama got rid of a similar policy in the United States in his very first week in office. My question is - what took our government so long?

This rule was completely outrageous. It never should have made it into regulation. The fact that it persisted for 13 years is a national shame.

Dave Sydney

Posted by Dave Sydney 3/11/2009

This is another embarrassing australian policy exposing our inhumane double standards- and it seems like so many of these it was unknown to me until after it was removed... better late than never I guess.

did get up campaign on this? if so congratulations GetUp!

witchypaws

Posted by witchypaws 3/11/2009

Thank the gods that wowserism is starting to come back out of our politics.

Not every woman on earth believes in the right to life or many are in positions where another child would provide hardship to their live beyond tolerance.

Abortion should not be taken lightly but for those who feel the need to make this choice, it should be legal and safe

Go Stephen Smith and your cronies, finally the government does something right in foreign relations

Phildeerho

Posted by Phildeerho 3/12/2009

i think we need to exert a little compassion here ourselves. I do not think the Christians were for the most part intentionally evil or wowserish on this issue. They were simply wrong.

For many Christians the religion is a subculture that separates them as an imagined spiritual elite from what is , in fact, the real world. As a result many cut themselves off from the realities of the streets and from what for many is normal life

To understand the consequences of banning legal abortion I think one had to do as I did in the sixties and sit up with extremely sick girls, who had, the same day, had an illegal and potentially fatal or permanently damaging procedure. Banning abortion did not stop it - it merely created a dangerous possibility for crime, which desperate girls would access at great risk to their lives. Legal abortion can come with counselling and that is so much better.

The decision to have an abortion is often a heart rending one. When one is faced with that decision, legality is the very last thing one thinks of, and that is what Christians need to understand. This is about medicine and compassion - it is not about law - nor about one's relationship to God. But Christians would have to step outside their "Scheinwelt" to understand this - that they are themselves responsible for distorting the image of God

There are two directions in which compassion now should lead us. One is the ovious one of grasping the nettle of family planning and making a clear stand on the right to, and morality of, birth control. It is long past time to take on the Pope. Why do nations make tax breaks for backward theological institutions that do so much damage to society and mentality? We are paying the Pope to spread a message that is fundamentally flawed.

The other is to tackle the core problem - to rectify the damage a theologically bankrupt religion has done to our society.

In the interests of the world, Christianity must be radically reformed. We will never get rid of the dangers of fundamentalism in other religions so long as fundamentalism and Biblical literalism exist within our own religious culture. Religious sicknesses feed off each other, crossing religious boundaries like infections

I suggest we start educationally, by an all out dismantling of Creationism and its bastard child "Intellergint Dersine" through the education system. Evolution long ceased to be just a "theory" - there is NO real scientific argument going on, the real world has moved on. Our physical and cultural origins should be part of every child's education.

The world needs to grow up, and grow up fast. The abortion issue was just one speed hump in the path of progress, stuck there by a decaying religion. But these religions have done far more damage than just this issue - they have ruptured our entire civilisation

Compassion certainly, but we really must start dealing with the consequences of the failure of all our religions and spiritualities to reform, which manifests itself as an unending chain of violence and repression caused by people who for the most part are simply mentally ill.

Liz S

Posted by Liz S 4/7/2009

Thank you. You have so eloquently written my own thoughts on this.

ChazP

Posted by ChazP 3/12/2009

Whilsy I agree with abortion on medical/health grounds it does seem hypocritical and inconsistent thet the Australian government is paying out huge sums of taxpayers' money to encourage the birth rate (Plasma Grants , Child Care subsidies etc etc), it is now paying out vast amounts of taxpayers' money to destroy lives. It also appears that abortion is fast becoming the last line of contraception for many women, when they and their partners should be taking responsibility to use other methods to prevent conception, beginning with abstinence.

Mila

Posted by Mila 8/19/2009

I'm not entirely sure why you perceive this as being hypocritical and/or inconsistent.

Surely the consistency here lies in the fact that it's an individual choice.

We live in a free and democratic society. One which values the rights of the individual above all else. Those rights include whether a woman chooses to have a child or not to give birth.

While I may not want children, I don't begrudge the right of another woman have a child and I'm happy for my taxes to pay for research which helps infertile couples to become natural parents.

Our civic responsibilities are to allow for such freedom of choice for each individual... regardless what our own moral or religious thoughts may be on the matter.

What we are paying for here is the option to choose. There is no inconsistency... neither is there any hypocrisy in a allowing a woman control over her womb and the right to choose whether or not she has a child.

JulesTASAU

Posted by JulesTASAU 3/26/2009

Abstinence .... (Tee Hee).... Get real!

What should be promoted is 'belt and braces' contraception where the female is to use her own contraception and the male to use a condom. Better for sexual health as well.

Heather

Posted by Heather 3/14/2009

Now...
What is more important- stopping people from starving to death and dying from lack of clean water, or letting women have abortions?
Abortions are not at all necessary to life. That's why it's a far better idea to make sure all of Australia's international aid goes to things that are vital, such as food, clean water, and education.

Imagine what people would think if the government decided to spend its international aid money on giving every woman in Africa a makeover. After all, it's every woman's right to feel beautiful, isn't it?
It's exactly the same with abortion. It's not necessary, and compared with food clean water and justice, spending money on abortions is plain wasteful and, in effect, killing the people who are now missing out since the money that would have been used on them is being used on abortions.

And before you say that childbirth can kill women, legal abortions kill almost the same number of women. What is needed is not to kill the unborn babies, but to care for the pregnant women and their babies, through providing adequate healthcare.

Goose

Posted by Goose 5/5/2009

The above post misses a point.. Yes abortion should probably be discouraged and yes no medical procedure is 100% safe and yes Helping women cope with unplanned pregnancy is laudable. Sex education is one of the most effective ways of lowering birth rates/ preventing sti's (research shows sex education doesn't make people more promiscuous).. In many parts of the world the reason for starvation is simply too many people in an environment that cannot sustain them. And no matter how you look at it abortion needs to be in the social toolkit not for 'population control' issues but for many other reasons. Lets educate as well with our money so that abortion is one of the least required tools. Guess which country in western Europe has the lowest birth rate (shrinking/aging population actually....hint.. It's home to the Vatican)

JulesTAS AU

Posted by JulesTAS AU 3/26/2009

More babies born to families that cannot afford to feed or care for them. Surely it is humane not to let that baby be born to starve to death or to die from some filthy disease.

More babies born to this highly overpopulated world ... just what we need to increase Global Warming.

The Western countries have been pouring billions of dollars into Third World countries for over 60 years. Have you seen any dramatic changes that you would expect to see for that amount of money? NO!
Do a bit more research on the corruption within the United Nations. If our foreign aid had been used for what we thought everyone would have wells and clean drinking water by now. Begin to question where our aid goes. Ask to see the accounting of it. Then you would see how many parasites feed off it between us and the recipients until they are getting, if lucky, 20c in the dollar.

Phildeerhound

Posted by Phildeerhound 3/17/2009

The availability of clean, safe, abortions is part of a proper medical service, not a separate issue as some religious fanatics would have it be.

They are therefore a legitimate part of foreign aid provided to improve medical services.

Heather, you are demanding that we all abide by your particular moral code and system of values - How is that any different, qualitatively, from Islamist demands for the imposition of Islamic Law? It is the thinking of the Jihad.

My demand is only that the right of women to choose be protected

The only choice that seems to be being offered by you to the desperate, is between an illegal abortion that can be fatal or cause permanent damage on the one hand, and on the other hand a pregnancy that may either imperil their life - as in the case of a pregnant child, a desperately unwanted child accompanied with possibly ruinous psychological and social consequences, or suicide.

In the case of foreign aid, it is not for us to make the cultural choices. Unless aid comes without conditions it is not "aid" but rather an attempt to use "aid money" to culturally shape an alien society.

I don't think we have that right. I see imposing such conditions as Heather seems to be suggesting as a form of economic imperialism, accompanied as is usual by the moral assertions and values of a particular highly dubious religion.

Abortions are not the luxury that some people seems to suggest - to be cynically compared with cosmetic makeovers. I doubt if any woman seeking to have an abortion has considered it as an alternative to lipposuction or a nose job. To make such a comparison is to insult the traumatised and the desperate

Many girls live in societies where contraception is not freely available, where birth control services are virtually non-existent. 'Mistakes" do occur.

The abortion debate is yet another area where the over zealous imposition of a particular religious view has been socially disastrous. If there is an over-riding evil that world needs to be rid of it is in my opinion the scourge of fundamentalism and rabid catholicism that imposes the consequences of ludicrously unjustified assertions on whole populations in the name of a selfishly distorted image of God

It is not so much about the right to choose as the right not to be patronised, enslaved, and mentally physically, and spiritually imposed on

Phil de Rio

Posted by Phil de Rio 3/18/2009

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Surely it is time this whole hypocritical farce was brought to an end. It is long since time that the Catholic congregations - most especially the women, insulted for nigh on two thousand years -rose in Fury and sacked the leaders of the Church

From a Reuter report March 17 - "Pope Benedict on Tuesday reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS as he started a visit to Africa, where more than 25 million people have died from the disease in recent decades."

According to Reuters he said:

"It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem," he said in response to a question about the Church's widely contested position against the use of condoms."

Reuters adds:
The disease has killed more than 25 million people since the early 1980s, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, and some 22.5 million Africans are living with HIV.

His words were some of his most explicit on the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS since his election in 2005.

Again and again the worlds problems come down to the consequences of clinging to arrogant and deranged religions that are led by the most arrogantly deluded of leaders.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" went out the Catholic stained glass window LONG ago. Instead we have the sinful exercise of feudal power wrapped in a "religious" guise

Sack the lot! - Contraception, population control, abortion, AIDS protection, the nature and role of women, sexual preference and sexuality, the right to divorce - they are just sinfully wrong, and even perverse!

JulesTASAU

Posted by JulesTASAU 3/26/2009

Go-o-o Phil!
Next we could expect the anti-male-circumcision lobby to get involved. (Circumcised males are less prone to AIDS.

I wonder if these morons think of the babies and little girls who are raped by infected men as having sex with a virgin, in some African countries, is believed to cure AIDS.

honest john

Posted by honest john 3/26/2009

JulesTASAU
actually circuncision for males AND females was originally a jewish practice.
nearly all atrocities are the circumcised Vs the uncircumcised.
see what hes got to say about that.

JulesTASAU

Posted by JulesTASAU 6/9/2009

Actually HJ I have never heard or read that female circumcision ever was or is a Jewish practice. Think you might need to check your sources on this one.

Philderio

Posted by Philderio 3/26/2009

Every time i think I can just treat your remarks with contempt I find you responsible for a new lie HJ. Your latest is straight out of Julius Streicher who was hanged at Nuremberg in 1946

The subject of "female circumcision" a practice forced on screaming unanaesthetised little girls in parts of Africa and the muslim world, but having no real basis in Islam, and amounting to genital mutilation comparable with removal of the penis and scrotum in their entirety - was raised in the New England Journal of Medicine - which I suggest has more credibility than the Nazi Journals and propaganda for which, in part, Streicher was eventually hanged at Nuremberg, but which Nazi Journals appear to be your original sources of "information"

One of the letters to the NEJM read as follows :

To the Editor: As both a practicing physician and an orthodox Jew, I applaud the article on female circumcision, but I am concerned about the statement that this practice is ``known... among different ethnic and cultural groups, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, and followers of indigenous African religions.''

The reference cited for this is a chart containing the statement that female circumcision in Ethiopia is ``common among Muslims and Christians and practiced by Ethiopian Jews (Falashas).'' It is difficult to determine the exact source (and hence the accuracy) of this information.

Although circumcision is required for all male Jewish children, in observance of God's commandment to Abraham in the Bible, female circumcision is certainly not a Jewish practice. In fact, any form of female circumcision would be considered bodily mutilation and forbidden under Jewish law.

If female circumcision is indeed practiced by the Falashas, the reason may be that as a persecuted and isolated Jewish enclave for thousands of years, the Falashas did not have access to either definitive Jewish texts or informed rabbinical sources. Many of the religious rituals they practiced had no valid basis in accepted Jewish law.

Daniel D. Buff, M.D.
St. John's Episcopal Hospital
Far Rockaway, NY 11691

A later letter points out that neither in Islam nor in Judaism is female circumcision mentioned in any religious text. As such it is thought that what is preserved here is an African tribal ritual that has somehow survived the cultural changes that Islam otherwise brought.

HJ your philosophy seems to be a peculiarly mangled mish-mash of a number of misunderstood world views from second hand imagine aboriginality (noble savage) to distorted Islamism and half understood trotskyism. But all sources seem to be contaminated with a peculiar assortment of Nazi propaganda that you appear to have spoon fed.

Several people appear to have lied to you but you do not appear to have the knowledge that can separate reality from propaganda. In this I am truly sorry for you but can only urge a return on your part to proper study as a defence against the mental rape you would appear to have been subject to from some very evil sources indeed.

Phil de rio

Posted by Phil de rio 3/19/2009

Time our Government showed the courage of the French and spoke out against this worthless papacy

BBC reports:

The French foreign ministry has voiced "sharp concern" following the Pope's rejection of condom use to fight Aids.

Benedict XVI, who is on a tour of Africa, said handing out condoms only increased the problem of HIV/Aids.

The Roman Catholic Church says marital fidelity and sexual abstinence are the best way to prevent the spread of HIV.

But France, echoing the reaction of some aid agencies, said it "voices extremely sharp concern over the consequences of [the Pope's comments]".
"While it is not up to us to pass judgment on Church doctrine, we consider that such comments are a threat to public health policies and the duty to protect human life," foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said.

Sack Benedict! - and get rid of this antiquated feudal hierarchy that has the arrogance to claim to represent Christ on Earth.

It's time to end this nonsense

cnqaus

Posted by cnqaus 4/2/2009

Your comment

Naomi C.

Posted by Naomi C. 4/7/2009

ChazP and Heather. This change in the Law is to provide a full range of alternatives to women in impoverished countries. The Howard Government's action was a trade off for getting Senator Harradine, Tasmania, to agree to the GST or some such legislation they wanted passed. It was draconian and in complete opposition to what's available to women in this country, who thankfully, are not in such dire straits as some of the overseas countries affected by such measures. What eventuated, was that organizations that had access or information to abortion could not receive any funding. This eliminated many opportunities for women to access vital advice and health care. Women in Australia have access to the morning after pill, RU486 and other forms of abortion services. This has been debated and the will of the people prevailed. The same rights should apply to women whose circumstances are pretty dire, to say the least. Who has the right to deny these women confidential health care and advice?

While there are maternal deaths in Australia, and sadly, babies die too, the numbers in overseas countries due mainly to poverty and lack of health care make ours look almost non-existent. This resulted in women having too many pregnancies that threatened their lives, and too many babies didn't survive their first days let alone live until they were 4 or 5. Anyone who denies non-judgemental advice based only on their personal view is totally selfish. I applaud what the Rudd Government has done, and I hope more women can now have access to the same opportunities; and able to make sound decisions for THEM! It's gross arrogance to force these women into situations that we have no experience of. There are women who've become pregnant while too young. They are unable to give birth naturally, and frequently either die or spend days in labour; the baby dies, and they end up with fistulars that causes incontinence of both bowel and bladder. The ramifications are horrific - they are forced to live separately due to their offensive odours, and while there's an amazing Australian woman doctor(whose name escapes me - she's dedicated her whole life to this, and is now in her 80's)) and her team of caring doctors and nurses, this is not abailable to all women. These women need sound contraceptive advice for their futures, and perhaps a termination is the answer in some cases. Just one example of the different health problems that thankfully, we don't have in this country.

" legal abortions kill almost the same number of women." That is simply not true. And a 'makeover' is not vital to a women's health, and it's a western attitude that puts such a high emphasis on "every woman's right to feel beautiful"? That's belittling and offensive. I think you'll find, that provding food, clean water and shelter for your children takes a higher precedence to most women, than 'feeling beautiful'? We don't have the right to tell another woman what's "necessary" in her life? You're making a judgement call on somebody else. I call that arrogance!

George Bush was a hypocrite. He refused funding for health centres that INCLUDED information about abortion, but was responsible for the deaths of over a million people in Iraq - many of them babies and children. Due to the illegal and wanton destruction of water and sanitation services, many children have died, and many more will be deformed or die in the future due to Depleted Uranium bombs. That type of hypocrisy makes me very angry. It seems, that there are people and 'unpeople' - depending on your political or empire building agenda.

Contraception is not 100% guaranteed to work. Sometimes the contraception fails or there's human error. Either way, while I've known/heard of many women who've chosen a termination; none have done it lightly, or used abortion as a contraception. This is an incorrect and insulting image to paint. If women are able to hold down a job, raise children, vote, make other decisions, why do they need a politician to tell them what they should do when pregnant? It's offensive to our intelligence! An example of still living in a patriarchal society. Women in impoverished countries are poor, not unintelligent or unable to make decisions that are right for their family and their health. A dead mother can't care for the children she has already!
I once heard, that a woman dies every 12 minutes or so, somewhere in the world, due to childbirth, gynaecological problems or backyard abortions etc. I'm in favour of positive actions to stop this unnecessary destruction of womens' lives. I also believe that a living child has more rights than a bunch of cells.

cloakwork

Posted by cloakwork 5/5/2009

fantastic,and its another step further from following everthing the us does

Robin

Posted by Robin 6/30/2009

At last the ban on Foreign Aid for abortion services has been lifted. I am so happy to see this. Thank God we have a Government with common sense.

Bess

Posted by Bess 7/8/2009

Abortion is a huge necessity in developing countries as majority of households simply cannot provide for another mouth to feed essentially adding to the amount of hungry and sick children and placing more demands on the needs for necessities from aid workers such as food and water etc.
Religion is irrelevant, well being should come before anything besides the fact that pushing a Christian agenda onto many non-christian countires is just blasphemy.
I'm glad this policy has been changed.

Jack O\'neil

Posted by Jack O\'neil 7/29/2009

Dear Getup Members

Regardless of the importance of this issue, there is no more serious issue facing all Australians at this point in time than that of the slow POISONING of every man, woman and child for PROFIT and POPULATION REDUCTION. For those who may find this difficult to comprehend, with respect, your Brain and Body has possibly been drip-fed this most toxic and poisonous Medication known to mankind, for several years. This deliberate Act has finally come back to Bite Australia's Economy via Export Trade. Please do your research. Also see.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25842932-3102,00.html

Abuela

Posted by Abuela 10/16/2009

Does any one know why it took so long for our current Govt to act ethically to support the full range of Family Planning services for women in developping countries?

Jack O\'Neil

Posted by Jack O\'Neil 10/30/2009

Is Australia to be Sold-Out to the Communist NWO by Rudd? See the Film!

Will Australia lose her Sovereignty and Constitution becoming enslaved to the Criminal Psychopathic Globalists?

UK politician, columnist and policy adviser to Mrs Thatcher, Lord Monckton Nobel Prize Winner, says the Copenhagen Treaty will implement ‘World Government’ and take away the National Sovereignty of every Nation that signs up and there is no provision for voting, ballots or democracy anywhere in the treaty. Here’s part of Lord Monckton’s recent speech in the US: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4197&linkbox=true&position=1

However, the idea that PM Kevin Rudd will actually sign up Australia to “world government’ without actually announcing it, to me is bizarre and deceitful – in fact you could call it treason and fraud if such a profound change was done without the consent of the people. Obviously a world government would require a taxation base. So MPs, what else will it require? What laws will it impose? What happens to our existing laws?

Lord Monckton says international technical panels will have the right to directly intervene in individual countries over the head of governments we elect. How does this work?

Again, are there any MPs out there who know something about this? Perhaps Kevin Rudd’s office might like to inform us?

VOTE NO TO AUSTRALIA SIGNING ANY TREATY IN COPENHAGEN
See Lord Monckton’s Film

Leave a comment

This is the place for yours and others' views on this blog post. Robust debate is great, but please be civil.

For full details see our Terms and Conditions.

You can do some limited formatting in comments with BB tags. You just need to put the words you want formatted inside tags. You can [b]bold text[/b], [i]italcise[/i], [u]underline words[/u], [s]strike-through words[/s], and put material in [quote]quotes[/quote].

Latest Comments

Haha, Bravo! Great article!
andrew zakhary on Why Scott Bridges will be watching the Senate.
You guys are deluding yourselves if you think you are neutral. You cannot be...
Paul on A reply to Senator Humphries
Although I think GetUp is generally a way of patting ourselves on the back and...
Phil on A reply to Senator Humphries
I am a longstanding Greens voter and Getup subscriber and I think Gary Humphries...
Kay Fisher on A reply to Senator Humphries
I agree with you here, interesting reply, but lacking in actually addressing the...
Travis on A reply to Senator Humphries

Your Senate

Find out more about the Senate

Blogs

An historic victory in the Federal Court
Damian Sturzaker
Time to Pull The Plug On Internet Filtering
Eliza Cussen
Join us on COPtv
Francois
Ban on Foreign Aid for Abortion Services Has Been Lifted
Anna Saulwick
Sunday 28th December - The Latest
The GetUp team

read more »

News

NZ's All Black hero becomes an Australian citizen
www.visabureau.com
Boost in funding to help tighten Southeast Asian border controls - The Australian
news.google.com
Slow-motion disaster - The Australian
news.google.com
Canberra moves on ports crime - The Age
news.google.com
Heads roll at RBA company - The Age
news.google.com

read more »