Abbott’s sneaky agenda
Gynaecologist and Obstetrician Dr Adrienne Freeman, who performs abortions, warned such an item would be an invasion of patient privacy because it would alert the HIC to the reason for the patient’s visit to a doctor.
Counseling was already catered for in the current system and an additional item would be an incentive to dissuade patients from having an abortion. Dr. Freeman believes,
“It’s another form of harassment.”
FPA Health medical director Dr Christine Read agrees that a pre-abortion counseling item would give GPs more time to discuss options with patients, but says it should not be made compulsory.
“Compulsory pre-abortion counseling is not something you would indicate was necessary, because it is coercive to some degree."
Katrina George from a lesser Women’s Forum Australia site glosses over the sneaky agenda of the Health Minister. Katrina ignores the privacy issue this proposal raises for already vulnerable women and asks us to believe in the goodwill of a Health minister who states
“I don’t think anyone, whether they’re pro-choice or pro-life, is happy about the vast numbers of abortions that currently take place in Australia, and I think as a society it ought to be possible to do better.”
Better according to Tony and Katrina is not more abortions. Better is clearly less abortions. Less abortions would mean more women continuing with a pregnancy.
Continuing a pregnancy in the context of pre-abortion counseling would necessarily involve a pro-life agenda at the expense of a woman’s right to choice.
Image from here
cross-posted at womens forum australia
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[…] This has so many implications. Firstly the sneaky creation of a specific Medicare payment that will be able to ’split’ what is currently covering a variety of Gynaecological services as to the reason/s for the patient’s visit to a doctor. This specific Medicare number could theoretically be cross referenced with women who then go on to be admitted to the variety of Gynaecological services which cover the current Medicare number and by default get a clearer picture of what’s not going on to full-term in the uteri of the nations uppity women. Then our government, perhaps using the Access card could link into Centrelink and find out who the women are who go on to claim a baby bonus within say 12 months of the date of the call to the pregnancy counseling services. Perhaps our government could track who does the better pregnancy counseling service and pay productivity bonuses. […]
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[…] Suki Lombard agains rips Father Tony Abbott, this time for his decision to award a contract for pregnancy counselling to a Catholic faith based service organisation, Centacare, instead of evidence based counselling services. On the issue of privacy in the digital age, Suki rightly and frighteningly observes: This has so many implications. Firstly, the sneaky creation of a specific Medicare payment that will be able to ’split’ what is currently covering a variety of gynaecological services as to the reason/s for the patient’s visit to a doctor. This specific Medicare number could theoretically be cross referenced with women who then go on to be admitted to the variety of gynaecological services which cover the current Medicare number… and by default get a clearer picture of what’s not going on to full-term in the uteri of the nation’s uppity women. […]