You may remember my local MP more for his howlers than his contributions.

On Saturday I wrote: 

Dear Mr.Cadman,

We live in Dural and you are our MP.

We believe in a woman’s reproductive rights and therefore respectfully ask you to vote in favour of the bill asking for the change in how RU486 is handled.
The TGA is the appropriate body to decide on the drug’s safety and efficacy.

A woman and her doctor are the appropriate people to decide if, when and how an abortion happens.

Abortion happens; make it safe.

 

Regards etc.
Suki Lombard and family.

On Monday he wrote:

Dear Lombard family,

Currently RU486 is not available in Australia to bring about termination of pregnancy. A legislative provision allows the Minister for Health to exercise his discretion to declare certain medicines and drugs as being unavailable for use in Australia.  Some time ago a previous Minister made that declaration for RU486.

In the Senate, Democrat Senator Lyn Allison has successfully moved a Private Member’s Bill amending the current legislation to remove the ministerial discretion and make the sole arbiter of drug availability the Therapeutic Goods Authority.  She does not mention RU486 in her amendment. 

Because RU486 is the only drug which has been declared unavailable, the removal of discretion will only apply to RU486. 

I am opposed to the removal of ministerial discretion and to making RU486 a drug available for the termination of pregnancy.  All medical evidence that I have seen is so ambivalent about its safety.  There are very strong limitations for the use of RU486 in the United States which have been imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration. 

Please find enclosed an article which is about to be published.  I think it summarises the main points on the current debate about the drug RU 486.  The points which are made in the article refer to the dangers of the drug, ministerial responsibility and life issues.

 

Yours sincerely

Alan Cadman

and attached this:   Read the rest of this entry »

With thanks to Senator Andrew Bartlett, news of the gender divide on the vote regarding RU486 in the Senate was very telling. 

The Australian House of Representatives has 150 MP’s. 

37 are Female
112 are Male

Whilst there are more men than women and it has been shown that they are more likely to vote against keeping the current RU486 situation, these men are attached to women. 

They are our lovers, partners, brothers, fathers and grandfathers. We are their lovers, partners, sisters, mothers and grandmothers.

They will remember us before they remember jesus.

In NY State, in 1970, Democratic Assemblyman George Michaels cast the deciding vote allowing for NY abortion law to cover women coming from interstate.  When asked what swayed his deciding vote Michaels said –

"My children said yes, my local party said no, I voted yes."

I am confident the vote will go in favour of the TGA – in favour of choice.

UPDATE: Victoria is likely to vote in favour of the TGA.

12 Feb 06 UPDATE:  Enough of the 150 MP’s are likely to vote in favour of the TGA to create a change to the current law regarding approval of RU486.

Image from here  

Today elected men and women will be voting on whether the TGA or Tony Abbott should have the last word on whether a woman and her health care provider can have within their repertoire of choice, the drug RU486.

god, he/she with or without a uterus is not important today.

Today we will find out whether, in Australia, in 2006, our elected officials believe in paternalism or self-determination.

We will find out whether women have reproductive rights or not.

UPDATE: The Senate has voted 45 to 28 in favour of taking the decision away from the health minister.

Image from here  

As a result of a previous post and subsequent comments, susoz over at personal political has organised a place for any and all bloggers to feel welcome.

When: Saturday February 18, 3-5pm (to be precise)

Where: Bar Italia, 169-171 Norton Street, Leichhardt – out the back in the garden (unless it’s raining, in which case I suppose we’ll be somewhere inside, towards the back).

ID: This is a tricky one. How will we recognise each other? Suggestions?

See you there.   

Today Pregnancy Help Australia, which is funded by the Government to give impartial advice to women about pregnancy choices, argued the abortion rate is already very high.

"Responsibility for approval for the use of a powerful drug which has controversial consequences, is deliberately life-destroying…should remain with the Minister for Health and Ageing." – PHA Executive Officer Anne Foster.

PHA receives nearly $250,000 a year in federal funding to provide impartial and non-directive advice to women about unwanted pregnancies.

I assume in an effort to show non-directive and impartial advice the PHA also makes submissions to social support seminars advocating for the reduction of pregnancy-to-birth rates in Australians living in poverty and disadvantage, as the rate of children growing up in such life threatening conditions is already very high.

Counselling under the guise of social engineering is despicable.

Using your position of expert to a vulnerable person is unethical and morally bankrupt. Make no mistake PHA, your comments today with terms such as ‘unborn baby’ ‘slowly killed’ clearly articulate your ideological outlook.

Using taxpayer money to fund your agenda in a secular society is actionable. 

Original image from here