A recent survey of 1873 electors in Australia showed that 57% of them support a woman's right to have an abortion "readily when they want one". The results of the survey suggest that a minority is dictating government policy on the legality of abortion in Australia generally, and in the states specifically. Victoria and the ACT have decriminalized abortion. WA has amended its laws. All other states and territories have abortion provisions on their criminal statute books.
It appears that politicians are more concerned about being seen to be pro-abortion than they are about being seen to be pro-women's rights.
Consequently, any moves towards decriminalizing abortion have been hampered by minority groups. So, perhaps democracy is not always as simple as the majority imposing their will on the minority. It would seem that in some debates that the minority quite often punches above its weight.
However, it is worth noting that in a similar survey from 20 years ago, the percentage of those that agreed with a woman's right to have an abortion if, and when, she wanted one was only 38% percent.
Queensland, according to the survey results, is the most pro-abortion state, with some 63% of respondents saying they favoured a woman's right to have an abortion. This is interesting because Queensland is currently pursuing a young couple who procured a miscarriage (sometimes reported as an abortion) by acquiring the drug RU 486 (this is not the morning after pill). What makes this interesting is that the young woman being charged is thought to be the first woman in more than 50 years to be charge with procuring her own miscarriage.
The actions of the woman and her boyfriend are illegal because RU 486 is only available at a limited number of medical practitioners. The RU 486 that was used in this case was sourced from overseas.
The abortion debate is an interesting one in Australia considering the studies show that growing majorities in the primary voting demographics support a woman's right to an abortion. This makes the arguments usually put forward by politicians that the electorate is not in support of a move towards decriminalization, wrong. Even more interesting is research that suggest more than 75% of politicians themselves are pro-choice.
The current study is available in the journal People and Place and published by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
04 October 2009
15 September 2009
Abortions, Plastic Surgery, Breastfeeding, and Other Goodies in the Indonesian Health Bill...
No apologies for a really long post...read it if you want to (it is interesting though) :D
The Health Bill which will repeal and replace the current law, Law No. 23 of 1992, has been doing the rounds of the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) since at least 2003. The passage of the bill was somewhat controversial as it includes clauses that permit abortions to occur under very specific circumstances. Ultimately, these clauses saw one parliamentary faction reject the bill outright and another pass the bill but with notes as to their objections included. These factions were the Prosperous Peace Party (Partai Damai Sejahtera / PDS) and the Star Reform Party (Partai Bintang Reformasi / PBR), respectively.
Nevertheless, PDS did accept the right to an abortion where there was a medical reason detected early in the pregnancy (Art. 75(2)(a)). In contrast, the PBR rejected the clause that permits a rape victim to abort the product of that rape. The PBR rejection is based on the rights to life of the fetus / baby.
However, the bill is so much more than just a few clauses legalizing abortion in certain circumstances or more generally female reproductive rights. The bill also includes provisions on generic medicines and the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and the amount of the respective government budgets that are to be allocated to health.
The provisions permit abortion within a very narrowly defined set of circumstances. It is important to note that these circumstances do not include abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is permitted where the pregnant woman is pregnant as a result of a rape. Abortion is also permitted in circumstances where there is a medical reason for the procedure to be conducted. Some of the medical reasons include where there is an identified risk of severe genetic defects in the fetus or where the life of the mother is at risk if she were to carry the fetus / baby to term.
Before an abortion can be performed, counseling must be undertaken by the woman to determine whether she has considered all of the pros and cons of what she is about to do. The bill lists who may provide this counseling.
The bill also requires that the government ensure the availability and supply of generic medicines. This is intended as a measure to ensure that all Indonesians have access to medicines and drugs that they can afford. It is worth noting that the only obligation on the government with respect to generic medicines and drugs relates to those medicines and drugs listed on the essential list.
Interestingly, the bill recognizes the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and then in combination with other foods up to the age of two. The bill also recognizes that some mothers, even when they want to, for medical reasons are unable to breastfeed. Where this is the case the mother is exempted from the provision. However, it would seem that there would need to be a provable medical reason for this before the exemption would come into effect. It is unclear whether mothers need to have a medical certificate that they must carry with them in order to prove this. The bill is also silent on how this is to be enforced.
More interestingly, the bill requires that the ability to breastfeed be facilitated by not only family members, but also by the central and regional governments, and the broader community. This implies that there is an expectation that employers respect the need for women to breastfeed and provide specialized facilities for this purpose.
Anyone that intentionally interferes with the breastfeeding program is liable for a term of imprisonment up to one year and a fine of IDR 100 million.
Furthermore, the bill sets out provisions that require the central government to set aside at least 5% of the state budget for the health sector. The bill also requires that the regional government set aside a minimum of 10% of their respective budgets for the health sector. There is an important stipulation with these minimum amounts, namely: that they are the minimum amount required to be set aside and these numbers do not include the salaries of any employees. Therefore, in real terms the budget for health related matters is likely to be larger than the amounts noted when salaries are factored in.
The bill also addresses issues such as malpractice, an obligation on health services and providers to provide emergency health care to anyone who requires it irrespective of that person’s ability to pay, traditional healers and therapies, plastic surgery and reconstructive surgery, and expressly prohibits the trafficking in organs.
The provisions relating to malpractice and the obligation to provide treatment are attacked to a criminal sanction that provides that where medical treatment is refused then there is a liability to a term of imprisonment up to two years and a fine of up to IDR 200 million. However, where this refusal results in impairment or death then the penalties are ratcheted up to a maximum of ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.
Traditional healers who use “tools” are required to have those tools registered by the relevant authorities. I would be guessing that this includes Mak Erot and her sons with respect to their noted abilities in fixing male issues like small penis syndrome. If a traditional healer causes injury then they are liable for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine of up to IDR 100 million. This is the case even where the injury caused results in death.
So, in that sense it is better to be a traditional healer and kill someone than be a doctor and kill someone. In fact it could be better by about nine years.
The bill explicitly prohibits the commercialization of organ transplants by stipulating that transplantation of organs and body parts can only be done for humanitarian reasons and not for commercial purposes. Therefore, anyone caught trading human organs and body parts are liable for a term of imprisonment up to ten years and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.
The plastic and reconstructive surgery provisions are interesting. Probably more interesting because the elucidations to the bill only state “self-explanatory” which in essence means that the bill is silent as to how these provisions might be interpreted. This is of concern considering that the penalties are severe, up to ten years in prison and fines of up to IDR 1 billion.
Yet, the provisions prohibit the use of plastic and reconstructive surgery if the objective is to change one’s identity. But, isn’t that the purpose of plastic surgery to change or improve how you look, and consequently change your identity? The bill also prohibits plastic and reconstructive surgery that is against community norms. Unfortunately, the elucidations are silent as to what these community norms (and presumably values) are. So, it is worth wondering out loud whether the provision can be used to prevent gender re-assignment surgeries? I guess that this will all become much clearer when the necessary implementing legislation is enacted. So, until then perhaps this is all much ado about nothing.
It is clear that the bill is a lot more than just a few clauses on abortion and when abortion is permitted. Nevertheless, it is expected that it is the abortion provisions that will dominate news headlines. However, the articles dealing with matters such as generic medicines and drugs, breastfeeding, and minimum budgets are equally as important as these in effect significantly alter the regulatory framework from the current law and also seemingly place additional burdens on both the public and private sectors.
The bill comes into immediate force once it is enacted. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.
The Health Bill which will repeal and replace the current law, Law No. 23 of 1992, has been doing the rounds of the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) since at least 2003. The passage of the bill was somewhat controversial as it includes clauses that permit abortions to occur under very specific circumstances. Ultimately, these clauses saw one parliamentary faction reject the bill outright and another pass the bill but with notes as to their objections included. These factions were the Prosperous Peace Party (Partai Damai Sejahtera / PDS) and the Star Reform Party (Partai Bintang Reformasi / PBR), respectively.
Nevertheless, PDS did accept the right to an abortion where there was a medical reason detected early in the pregnancy (Art. 75(2)(a)). In contrast, the PBR rejected the clause that permits a rape victim to abort the product of that rape. The PBR rejection is based on the rights to life of the fetus / baby.
However, the bill is so much more than just a few clauses legalizing abortion in certain circumstances or more generally female reproductive rights. The bill also includes provisions on generic medicines and the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and the amount of the respective government budgets that are to be allocated to health.
The provisions permit abortion within a very narrowly defined set of circumstances. It is important to note that these circumstances do not include abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is permitted where the pregnant woman is pregnant as a result of a rape. Abortion is also permitted in circumstances where there is a medical reason for the procedure to be conducted. Some of the medical reasons include where there is an identified risk of severe genetic defects in the fetus or where the life of the mother is at risk if she were to carry the fetus / baby to term.
Before an abortion can be performed, counseling must be undertaken by the woman to determine whether she has considered all of the pros and cons of what she is about to do. The bill lists who may provide this counseling.
The bill also requires that the government ensure the availability and supply of generic medicines. This is intended as a measure to ensure that all Indonesians have access to medicines and drugs that they can afford. It is worth noting that the only obligation on the government with respect to generic medicines and drugs relates to those medicines and drugs listed on the essential list.
Interestingly, the bill recognizes the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and then in combination with other foods up to the age of two. The bill also recognizes that some mothers, even when they want to, for medical reasons are unable to breastfeed. Where this is the case the mother is exempted from the provision. However, it would seem that there would need to be a provable medical reason for this before the exemption would come into effect. It is unclear whether mothers need to have a medical certificate that they must carry with them in order to prove this. The bill is also silent on how this is to be enforced.
More interestingly, the bill requires that the ability to breastfeed be facilitated by not only family members, but also by the central and regional governments, and the broader community. This implies that there is an expectation that employers respect the need for women to breastfeed and provide specialized facilities for this purpose.
Anyone that intentionally interferes with the breastfeeding program is liable for a term of imprisonment up to one year and a fine of IDR 100 million.
Furthermore, the bill sets out provisions that require the central government to set aside at least 5% of the state budget for the health sector. The bill also requires that the regional government set aside a minimum of 10% of their respective budgets for the health sector. There is an important stipulation with these minimum amounts, namely: that they are the minimum amount required to be set aside and these numbers do not include the salaries of any employees. Therefore, in real terms the budget for health related matters is likely to be larger than the amounts noted when salaries are factored in.
The bill also addresses issues such as malpractice, an obligation on health services and providers to provide emergency health care to anyone who requires it irrespective of that person’s ability to pay, traditional healers and therapies, plastic surgery and reconstructive surgery, and expressly prohibits the trafficking in organs.
The provisions relating to malpractice and the obligation to provide treatment are attacked to a criminal sanction that provides that where medical treatment is refused then there is a liability to a term of imprisonment up to two years and a fine of up to IDR 200 million. However, where this refusal results in impairment or death then the penalties are ratcheted up to a maximum of ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.
Traditional healers who use “tools” are required to have those tools registered by the relevant authorities. I would be guessing that this includes Mak Erot and her sons with respect to their noted abilities in fixing male issues like small penis syndrome. If a traditional healer causes injury then they are liable for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine of up to IDR 100 million. This is the case even where the injury caused results in death.
So, in that sense it is better to be a traditional healer and kill someone than be a doctor and kill someone. In fact it could be better by about nine years.
The bill explicitly prohibits the commercialization of organ transplants by stipulating that transplantation of organs and body parts can only be done for humanitarian reasons and not for commercial purposes. Therefore, anyone caught trading human organs and body parts are liable for a term of imprisonment up to ten years and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.
The plastic and reconstructive surgery provisions are interesting. Probably more interesting because the elucidations to the bill only state “self-explanatory” which in essence means that the bill is silent as to how these provisions might be interpreted. This is of concern considering that the penalties are severe, up to ten years in prison and fines of up to IDR 1 billion.
Yet, the provisions prohibit the use of plastic and reconstructive surgery if the objective is to change one’s identity. But, isn’t that the purpose of plastic surgery to change or improve how you look, and consequently change your identity? The bill also prohibits plastic and reconstructive surgery that is against community norms. Unfortunately, the elucidations are silent as to what these community norms (and presumably values) are. So, it is worth wondering out loud whether the provision can be used to prevent gender re-assignment surgeries? I guess that this will all become much clearer when the necessary implementing legislation is enacted. So, until then perhaps this is all much ado about nothing.
It is clear that the bill is a lot more than just a few clauses on abortion and when abortion is permitted. Nevertheless, it is expected that it is the abortion provisions that will dominate news headlines. However, the articles dealing with matters such as generic medicines and drugs, breastfeeding, and minimum budgets are equally as important as these in effect significantly alter the regulatory framework from the current law and also seemingly place additional burdens on both the public and private sectors.
The bill comes into immediate force once it is enacted. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.
11 August 2009
Logical Fallacies...
1. The best place for a child to live is with his or her biological parents.
2. Unless gays are banned from the military, no heterosexual military personnel will be safe.
3. Making condoms available in high school is like giving a thief a license to steal.
4. His repeated failure to find a job indicates that he lacks ambition.
5. Either you support anti-abortion legislation, or you're not Christian.
Just a few logical fallacies as thought provokers. Adapted from the Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers (1995).
2. Unless gays are banned from the military, no heterosexual military personnel will be safe.
3. Making condoms available in high school is like giving a thief a license to steal.
4. His repeated failure to find a job indicates that he lacks ambition.
5. Either you support anti-abortion legislation, or you're not Christian.
Just a few logical fallacies as thought provokers. Adapted from the Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers (1995).
06 March 2009
The Catholic Church and Abortion -- Brazil
The right of women to choose in the case of abortion must be absolute. I can appreciate that nothing is ever absolute, but any restrictions placed on access to abortion must be limited to clearly identifiable objective terms. I am sure there are plenty of people that disagree with this position and I am sure that some of my readers will disagree with me on this as well. One and all feel free to voice your opinions.
A couple of cases out of Brazil have shown that absolutes seem to work from both perspectives of this little argument. The Catholic Church of Brazil under the leadership of Father Jose Cardoso Sobrinho in the Recife region where the abortion was carried out has stated that abortion is against God's law and even where other law may permit abortion, God's law must prevail. The argument being, nothing can be higher than God's law, and where human laws are contrary to God's law then human laws have no value.
I am happy for the good father to have an opinion on this and to argue for it passionately. However, if there was ever a case for the Catholic Church to take a somewhat more moderate view on the issue, then this would be the time.
A nine-year-old girl that had been continuously raped by her step-father eventually fell pregnant with twins. I am guessing that carrying twins to term as an adult is a challenge, but at nine-years-old, life-threatening might be a more apt word?
The stepfather is 23-years-old, has been arrested, and is in protective custody. Protective custody is probably a good thing for him, as rapists of children are likely to become victims of rape themselves when put into the general prison population. Some might argue that this is still better than what they deserve for the crimes they have committed.
It is worth noting that abortion is illegal in Brazil. Nevertheless, there are specific exceptions to this absoluteness where there are clearly identifiable reasons such as where rape was involved or the health of the woman is in jeopardy.
However, in this case the Church's response has been to excommunicate all those involved in the abortion procedure.
I am not Catholic so perhaps I should not concern myself with all or any things Catholic. However, as a mere mortal man with an interest in humanity and the protection of those less fortunate than myself, I cannot reconcile an absolute stance adopted by the Church and the rights of the child in this case, arguments on abortion aside.
The sad part is that this is not the only case in Brazil that is getting news coverage. Another prominent case involves an 11-year-old who is seven months pregnant after being abused by her 51-year-old stepfather. The stepfather's defense is that it was the girl who initiated the sexual contact and not him.
Child sexual abuse is not only a Brazilian problem, it is a world-wide problem!
A couple of cases out of Brazil have shown that absolutes seem to work from both perspectives of this little argument. The Catholic Church of Brazil under the leadership of Father Jose Cardoso Sobrinho in the Recife region where the abortion was carried out has stated that abortion is against God's law and even where other law may permit abortion, God's law must prevail. The argument being, nothing can be higher than God's law, and where human laws are contrary to God's law then human laws have no value.
I am happy for the good father to have an opinion on this and to argue for it passionately. However, if there was ever a case for the Catholic Church to take a somewhat more moderate view on the issue, then this would be the time.
A nine-year-old girl that had been continuously raped by her step-father eventually fell pregnant with twins. I am guessing that carrying twins to term as an adult is a challenge, but at nine-years-old, life-threatening might be a more apt word?
The stepfather is 23-years-old, has been arrested, and is in protective custody. Protective custody is probably a good thing for him, as rapists of children are likely to become victims of rape themselves when put into the general prison population. Some might argue that this is still better than what they deserve for the crimes they have committed.
It is worth noting that abortion is illegal in Brazil. Nevertheless, there are specific exceptions to this absoluteness where there are clearly identifiable reasons such as where rape was involved or the health of the woman is in jeopardy.
I am not Catholic so perhaps I should not concern myself with all or any things Catholic. However, as a mere mortal man with an interest in humanity and the protection of those less fortunate than myself, I cannot reconcile an absolute stance adopted by the Church and the rights of the child in this case, arguments on abortion aside.
The sad part is that this is not the only case in Brazil that is getting news coverage. Another prominent case involves an 11-year-old who is seven months pregnant after being abused by her 51-year-old stepfather. The stepfather's defense is that it was the girl who initiated the sexual contact and not him.
Child sexual abuse is not only a Brazilian problem, it is a world-wide problem!
07 October 2008
Abortion
The abortion debate is one that rages wherever it is found. Australia is no different in that sense than any other place, there are those that are against abortion and there are those that are for a woman's right to be able to make that decision for themselves. I am one who believes that a woman has the right to choose and that right should not be impeded by legislation or by others through fear or intimidation.The debate in Australia comes and goes. It generally comes when there is news related to abortion or when government's seek to legislate to restrict or broaden access to abortions. In Victoria, the government is seeking to pass a bill that will decriminalize abortion. The bill has successfully navigated the lower house of the Victorian Parliament and now only needs to get through the upper house.
Decriminalizing abortion simply means that the provisions in the Victorian Crimes Act relating to abortion will be repealed. The Abortion Law Reform Bill will allow women to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Having seen the Kid on the USG at 24 weeks it is a hell of a decision to have to make, but I still support the right of a woman to make that decision.
I would hope that the woman has access to all the necessary services to make an informed decision, and then I would hope that she has access to post-termination support services if they are required.
The bill when it is passed into law (assuming that it successfully gets through the upper house) will require that two doctors are involved in the process and they will decide if the termination is warranted based on the woman's physical, psychological, and social circumstances.
It is not expected to be plain sailing for the bill in the upper house and amendments are expected. There are some problematic issues such as the fact that a termination can take place up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. This brought out a number of protesters (photo courtesy of AAP).
And, that doctors who do not want to perform abortions and object on conscientious grounds would be required to refer the woman to another doctor that does not have any conscientious objections to performing the procedure. This in effect makes the conscientious objector complicit in the process to terminate the pregnancy.
However, on balance, I hope this legislation passes the Victorian Parliament and a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is no longer a crime.
A woman must have the right to choose and this right must be protected.
09 August 2008
The Westboro Baptist Church
I have written about the Westboro Baptist Church formed by the Rev. Fred Phelps in a previous entry. These people are the crazy Christian fundamentalists that have decided that God has given them a mission that revolves around the eradication of homosexuality, abortion, and adultery. The chosen method of eradication is to protest at all manner of funerals and attribute the death of the individual to some tolerance of homosexuality, abortion, and adultery.The WBC is the group you see on TV holding the signs and placards that read, "God Hates Fags". These people are hate-mongers, vilifiers, and by my reckoning not even remotely representative of the Christian faith.
The latest target of these idiots has been the funeral of Tim McLean. McLean was the young man decapitated on a Greyhound Bus in Canada the other week. The WBC has decided that the decapitation and cannibalism of McLean was God's way of letting Canada know that he is displeased with the tolerance of Canadian policy and law towards the issues of homosexuality, abortion, and adultery.
To suggest that the WBC is a few sandwiches short of a picnic basket seems to ignore the fact that the picnic basket is not a few sandwiches short but rather it is empty, devoid of all sandwiches! There is nothing rational in the positions that the WBC adopts.
Thankfully, the Canadian border guards have been instructed to bar entry to members of the WBC to Canada. The family of Tim McLean has a right to grieve in peace and bury him without interference from the WBC! I am one that normally advocates that people have a right to protest, and even if I do not agree with you, I still would argue for your right to protest. Nevertheless, some lines in the sand need to be drawn, this is one of those times. The idea of targeting specific individuals as having died because of a government policy and then picketing their funerals is offensive.
The WBC is the same group you see picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers throughout the US. For me the message of the WBC constitutes hate speech and they should and must be prosecuted where the law allows for this sort of vilification to be prosecuted.
My guess is that God hates the Westboro Baptist Church!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)