Just cheer up
Victoria is the only place in Australia that offers women safe, late-term (after 20 weeks) abortions for psychological reasons.
The Bracks Government, has decided it will make women undergo compulsory counselling and then force them to wait 48 hours before they can have the procedure. According to Health Minister Bronwyn Pike, the new regulations, which will not require any legislative change, will provide women with "another layer of support". Her spokesman insists they have nothing to do with trying to reduce the rate of late-term abortions.
So, if you are a woman who is experiencing mental health issues and you are pregnant you have to have "another layer of support" before you can terminate a pregnancy in late-term. You will not be required to undergo compulsory counselling and a 48 hour cooling-off period if you are a woman who seeks a late-term abortion because of foetal abnormalities.
Only women in late-term pregnancies, presenting with psychological reasons are targeted.
"The Bracks Government’s crude measures of mandatory counselling followed by a cooling-off period represent a patronising and insulting decision that panders to largely male legislators and the religious right who think women don’t really understand the "reality" of their choice when terminating a late-term pregnancy." –Sushi Das
Image from here
October 14th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
It’s good to see that The Age will publish pieces like the one by Das. She is right on target – as you are too Suki!
October 14th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
This wouldn’t have anything to do with trying to get a visit from the Pope or am I just spinning conspiracy theories?
October 14th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Thank you and well put grrrls.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Can we get a copy of the dictionary that defines “support” as “harassment designed to put a woman off from seeking a termination” please? Or is release of that one prohibited under the new anti-terrorism laws?
Some pollies are pretty clearly speaking a different language to us.
October 16th, 2005 at 7:26 am
I agree that a 48-hour cooling off period is inappropriate in some ways, namely that it will place additional financial burden on women who travel interstate to access such services, and that an additional 48 hours of waiting after the decision has been made (especially in late-term abortions) will only increase the anxiety levels of the woman.
I also agree with Sushi Das’ reasoning that the figures showing that “teenagers account for the highest proportion of late terminations for psychosocial reasons” suggests “a massive failure in sex education among young people”, backing this up with “(s)oaring chlamydia rates”.
However, I would be interested in finding out what ‘mandatory counselling’ involved, and how the 48-hour period is projected to be used, because I do think some women are being inadequately counselled over their decision to terminate their pregnancy.
I certainly don’t believe that all women, or even women in general don’t understand the ‘reality’ of their choice when terminating a late-term pregnancy.
However, the ‘reality’, according to many pro-choice pregnancy counselling services, is that a woman’s psychological response to abortion is largely dependent on a number of factors: how well the woman is informed about the procedure and her alternatives, whether her decision is consistent with her spiritual and/or ethical beliefs, her experience of the abortion procedure, how well supported she is prior to, during, and after the procedure, how she feels about herself, and how stable her relationships are, and whether she has experienced prior psychological distress.
Most medical and psychological professionals appear to agree that late-term abortion is a significan procedure. And given the gravity of a procedure where the woman can no longer be told that the foetus is ‘just a piece of tissue’ or ‘cells’ being removed, it would make sense for women to receive comprehensive counselling about late-term abortion which encompasses all of the above, and attempts to identify which women will not benefit from late-term abortion for psychosocial reasons.
As much as abortion has become part of contemporary woman’s set of life-tools, as is contraception, it is important we remember that not all women benefit from abortion. And just as women undergoing late-term abortion are being protected from having to continue the pregnancy, women who will not benefit from late-term abortion should be protected from having to undergo it.
While post-abortion grief, depression and guilt are by far not the standard response to abortion, some women do experience it – and for these women, it is crippling, and causes significant psychological distress and trauma.
Women are counselled extensively when undergoing all sorts of surgical procedures, and it would be considered unethical for medical professionals to not make reasonable attempts to protect a woman from the negative consequences of a procedure for which she was ill-equipped, or which was inappropriate for her particular circumstances.
So, I don’t think it’s all bad, girls.
October 16th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Tracy A,
Do you honestly believe that the place to evaluate a woman as suitable for a late term abortion is as she is arriving at the clinic to have one? If that is the case, do you also advocate for a woman to be evaluated as suitable for continuing a pregnancy at the late term stage as she meets with her midwife? If you can answer yes, then you understand the charge of discrimination put forward in this new legislation.
What criteria does the counsellor use? Will counselling be a meaningful exchange for the client and the counsellor or will the client be largely non-compliant? What will the consequences be for non-compliance? How will the details of a ‘potential client’ be provided to the counsellor without breaching a clients right to privacy?
Who provides aftercare/monitoring/committal/incarceration *if* the client is assessed as unsuitable for a late term abortion and is assessed as suitable to continue through to birth? Who pays for this, and the upkeep of the child if it is born, if a woman still does not want to have the child?
A woman who has “experienced prior psychological distress” has the right to make a choice. She is not diminished in her ability to exercise her reproductive rights by her history of mental health. Many women who have significant mental health trauma become mothers and many women don’t – It’s their choice.
Your comment is tied neatly with pretty pink and blue ribbons of care and support, but your message remains anti-choice.
October 16th, 2005 at 9:19 am
I can’t see why the government sees a need to pressure a woman seeking a termination. She will already be stressed to the moon. Decisions to terminate are not taken lightly by any woman. The government devalues all women when they surmise that women are not smart enough to work out their situation on their own.
The only reason to add any steps to the process of obtaining termination services is to dissuade women from obtaining terminations- and Tony Abbott and his flying monkeys know this fully. It’s nothing but harassment intended to force women to bear children when they don’t wish to.
Why can’t women just get the medical services they need without being harassed with political and religious messages? From a biological and medical standpoint, there’s not a damn bit of difference between a uterus and an elbow. Politics and religion don’t have any place in a conversation about a woman’s medical care decisions between she and her GP. She went to a doc to get medical care, not a political argument or a sermon. If she wanted a bit of political Stoush™, she could hang around Tony Abbott’s electorate office. If she wanted a theological debate, she could go verbally duke it out with George Pell on a Sunday after mass. If she’s at a women’s clinic seeking termination services, she’s clearly not looking for an anti-choice lecture.
October 16th, 2005 at 10:01 am
Suki,
“Do you honestly believe that the place to evaluate a woman as suitable for a late term abortion is as she is arriving at the clinic to have one?”
Not particularly, it is far from ideal. However, if counselling has been scant to that date, it might be the only place where these criteria are evaluated. If, as Sushi Das indicates, the increase in teenage late-term pregnancies points to a failure in sex education by the Bracks Government, it may take a while for this to be remedied, and the woman (or child) arriving for referral for termination may be receiving the first counselling she has had.
Do you think that failure to receive conselling to this point means the patient should not receive counselling at all, just because it’s far from the best place to have it?
“If that is the case, do you also advocate for a woman to be evaluated as suitable for continuing a pregnancy at the late term stage as she meets with her midwife?”
The fact that this is a late-term abortion already indicates there is substantial turmoil about the decision, and if the patient has not had adequate counselling about her decision prior to this, she may be made aware of support services that she previously hadn’t been aware of. This may change her decision. Is that bad?
“What criteria does the counsellor use? Will counselling be a meaningful exchange for the client and the counsellor or will the client be largely non-compliant?”
I don’t know. I believe I said in my post that I would be interested in finding out details of this counselling. This would indicate that I don’t know. Shouldn’t this be investigated?
“What will the consequences be for non-compliance? How will the details of a ‘potential client’ be provided to the counsellor without breaching her right to privacy?”
I don’t believe I suggested any ‘consequences’ for ‘non-compliance’ – please point out if this is wrong. Ultimately the choice is the woman’s – or in the case of escalating teenage pregnancies, the child’s – or her parents’.
“Who provides aftercare *if* the client is assessed as unsuitable for a late term abortion? Who pays for this and the upkeep of the child if it is born?”
I don’t believe I’m writing the policy, Suki. Just raising points.
“A woman who has “experienced prior psychological distress” has the right to make a choice.”
Absolutely.
“She is not diminished in her ability to exercise her reproductive rights by her history of mental health.”
Not at all. Did I say somewhere that she had diminished ability?
“Many women who have significant mental health trauma become mothers and many women don’t – It’s their choice.”
Again, I don’t believe I said anywhere that is wasn’t. Just that abortion doesn’t benefit all women all of the time, and that more care should be taken to help ascertain which women will not benefit, and give them the appropriate support prior to, during, and after their decision.
“Your comment is tied neatly with pretty pink and blue ribbons of care and support, but your message remains anti-choice.”
No Suki, that statement is is defensive, patronising and antagonistic, where I don’t believe it is justified. I don’t believe there is anything ‘anti-choice’ about wishing to prevent psychological trauma to women (or children, in the case of teenage pregnancies) for whom the decision to terminate a late-term pregnancy would cause significant depression and grief.
Or do these women not deserve adequate assessment and protection?
October 16th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
After post-natal depression bordering on psychosis, I was told that if I got pregnant my choices were abortion or full psychosis. I chose to have a tubal ligation but being very young I had to have my psychiatrist sign papers.
I never regretted that decision and no amount of counseling would have changed my mind. Women don’t go into these kinds of decisions without any thought at all and no man will ever have to face our choices.
By the way, the psychiatrist said I was the sanest person he’d seen all week.
October 16th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
What the Victorian government is doing is forcing an already traumatised cohort of women to endure a further layer of justification of their already diminished reproductive rights.
I’ll trust the intentions of the belief-based do-gooders like Bronwyn Pike and Tracy A when they advocate for “another layer of support” that involves access to quality and affordable childcare, expanding funding to parenting programs and advocating for RU-486 (mifepristone) to be made available in Australia.
Until such time as all women who are pregnant are forced through a layer of support by the Victorian government; this remains a discriminatory, belief-based, unnecessary procedure.
October 16th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
JahTeh,
Yours is a perfect example as to why the decision should always be between a woman and her treating doctor.
October 17th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
the 48 hours is an extra burden on women from rural areas.
as weezil said: ‘she will already be stressed to the moon’.
October 17th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Tracy, if anyone is being defensive, patronising and antagonistic, it’s you.
If “protecting women” entails ambushing them with religiously motivated bureaucratic roadblocks just when all they want is to be not pregnant, then women could do with a lot less protection.
You don’t catch anyone counselling patients about to have their elbows fixed. Why the fuss over women seeking terminations? Plain and simple, you’re not protecting them- you’re just taking the last available opportunity to make her live her life by your rules.
If you disagree with abortion, you should never have one, but you never have the right to harass or paperchase someone into your way of thinking.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
…Rural and interstate women Brownie,
Half of the women getting late-term abortions in the Melbourne clinic for psychological reasons came from interstate.
Is anyone believing that such a journey has been undertaken without a decision having been made?
October 25th, 2005 at 11:38 am
[…] Recently I posted on the discrimination inherent within proposed Victorian Legislation relating to late-term abortions. […]