Writer-Counselor-Wellbeing Coach

Tag: abortion (Page 1 of 4)

Common ground?

This morning I was remembering about 25 years ago when I first began to speak publicly about the adverse experiences of women who sought abortion. I wasn't particularly ideologically aligned. I had just seen quite a number of post abortive women in my practice who were expressing some really negative emotions and relaying stories of pressure and coercion that were really disturbing.

I thought, from what I considered my feminist perspective at the time, that this was an overlooked and important area of concern for women.

It didn't take long before I realised that it wasn't overlooked, it was simply ignored, or dismissed, and that among my feminist friends I'd committed a grave error of judgement in bringing it to light. The first concerned caller, a long term friend and colleague wanted to let me know that she was concerned I might be subject to manipulation because of my 'kind nature'. She warned that I should be careful that I don't reframe women's experiences and I should always remind them that their choice was theirs alone. She said she was surprised to learn I held 'those values' as she'd always thought better of me.

When I shared the contents of this call with a mutual friend it turned out that they had actually discussed 'how to handle this' with me. To say I was confused is an understatement. I was the same person I had always been. One of my friends had had an abortion during our friendship and others had talked about past abortions, and neither had experienced any negativity or judgement from me. Now they were overtly accusing me of having been judgemental without disclosing it.

This began a 1 year period of being ostracised and these friendships all completely eroding. I really had no idea what I had done wrong and it was very difficult for me to understand how they had reframed who I was, when in reality nothing about me had changed.

I continued my work in educating about the issues women were sharing with me about abortion and I began researching coercive factors. I remained 'on the fence' about abortion as an act for a number of years in spite of many attempts from different sides pushing me to declare a position.

Over the ensuing years a new group of people were attracted to my work and entered my friendship sphere in varying ways. I was now a little wary though as many of the people were attracted to me because of the focus of my work, yet I was aware that not all of our values were aligned. Sometimes I wondered what would happen if there was an issue on which we disagreed.

The reason I thought about this today is that the exact thing is happening again on the issue of covid vaccines, except in an even more dramatic and pervasive way. People who have reported holding me in high esteem for my work, my values and my empathy toward others have over the past weeks, ridiculed and denigrated me because we have a difference of opinion on what is going on in our world.

This time round it has felt quite devastating. In fact, I realised recently that it has been one of the most traumatising aspects of this whole Covid crisis for me. I think this is mainly because I have been so personally affected by current issues, as have my own children. Yet even knowing that, people I have known for a very long time have little empathy even for me. It is nasty.

At a time when so many of us have struggled through lockdowns and separations from family and the generated fear, we have become so insular that we are not even noticing when we hurt one another. Fear throws us into a fight or flight position and when someone is that scared, it seems instinct kicks in. This is what bothers me.. does this mean that the innate character of people now behaving in hostile or passive agressive "we are just trying to help you" ways are exhibiting aspects of their true character and I just missed it?
Or does fear create something within some of us that is foreign to our character as part of a survival instinct? Whatever the answer is, it adds a further threat to those who are asking questions or directly dissenting to what we believe are unreasonable demands on our lives.

Many of us are fighting for the freedoms of all of us and will continue to do so in spite of the push back. Freedom should be our common ground. As I write those words I remember 25 years ago explaining to my vehemently pro-choice friend that if abortion is hurting some women, isn't that 'common ground' with the 'other side'.

She said "Absolutely not. Some women need to suck it up so that all women have the right to abortion."

I guess that leaves some of us for fighting for something we believe in for ourselves and for everyone, some days even against the very people who we hope will benefit from our battle.

Unethical censorship

da vinci unborn

This image is the logo on a medical organisation's letterhead. It was redacted from a submission to a health committee whose task it was to report to parliament on the issue of abortion reform in Queensland in 2018.  This, and any words related to the foetus or abortion procedures were heavily censored from submissions.  One of the health committee members, Michael Berkman, posted the following on his Facebook page:

"I'm a member of the health Committee, and it was quite an extraordinary experience hearing evidence on the abortion law reform bill. Some of the misinformation from anti-choice campaigners has been staggering, but if you look past the rhetoric there should be no question about this. It's time to bring Qld law into the 21st century.

Whatever the shortcomings of the committee system, the Committee's recommendations on this legislation are spot on - the Bill should be passed and all MPs should have a conscience vote."

Surely the biggest 'shortcoming' of this committee was its absolute prejudice.  It is outrageous that politicians can be so brazen about their positioning on an issue and still be the ones tasked to read, absorb, and report back to parliament on public submissions.  When such ideological positioning is not only accepted, but also drives the information that is even made available for the development of legislation, the agendas become very clear.

Here is one of the more  highly censored submissions.   I have made comments to show what has been blacked out.  Such things include accurate statements about abortion procedures, names of TV shows, words like 'coat hanger', medically accurate drawings of abortion procedures and links to references used within the submission.

Whether you agree with abortion or not, there must be a higher standard of ethics and responsibility adhered to when considering such major change to law and standards.

When one of Queensland's own abortion providers directly gave her testimony to the committee admitting that she would perform an abortion on a knowingly coerced women and not one committee member questioned this, it was no surprise that this legislation  passed, leaving women with fewer actual choices and no pathway off the abortion conveyor belt.

 

Abortion Coercion

Copy for printing and distribution HERE

Briefing Paper: Reproductive Coercion: Coercion to Terminate a Pregnancy  July 2018

Marie Stopes, one of Australia’s biggest abortion providers recently released a draft White Paper entitled Hidden Forces: Shining a Light on Reproductive Coercion.   As expected from an organisation heavily invested in marketing and delivering abortion services the paper has a very strong emphasis on coercion related to continuation of pregnancies with coercion to terminate barely warranting a mention.

In a culture where abortion advocacy is the dominant force the majority of published literature on reproductive coercion is biased toward coercion related to contraceptive sabotage and pregnancy continuation.   It is no surprise therefore that the literature drawn on in the references to the White Paper rarely addresses coercion to terminate.  For the most part coercion to terminate is no longer differentiated from coercion to continue a pregnancy, both being lumped together under the tidy label of ‘pregnancy outcome control’.   

The White Paper spends a lot of time within its 50+ pages lamenting a lack of clear definition of coercion.  I suspect this will remain a long-term problem as abortion advocacy organisations seek definitions that meet their ideological objectives of keeping abortion positively framed.  Acknowledging abortion coercion becomes hugely problematic for such groups, especially when coercion in these circumstances must also include many of the reasons that the majority of women seek abortion.  

Most abortions occur in the setting of women lacking necessary resources to continue a pregnancy, whether these are practical, economic, relational or supportive.  When this is combined with subtle or overt coercion by other people, and by a dominant discourse that offers abortion as a solution for these social inequities, it seems very obvious that coercion toward abortion must be significant.  

With leading abortion advocates and providers denying the existence of the dozens of women who change their minds every year after commencing medical abortions, we have a baseline for how such ideologues view the existence or prevalence of coercion to terminate.   ‘These women simply don’t exist’.  

While ignoring the prevalence of coercion toward termination, the White Paper makes a giant leap when it labels the Federal Government’s 2006 pregnancy support counselling scheme a form of reproductive coercion because it doesn’t allow abortion provider counsellors to access the Medicare rebate for counselling.  They suggest that abortion providers, who only receive payment if a woman proceeds to abortion, demonstrate no bias in decision making counselling and should therefore have access to the payment.  Such counsel should form part of any medical or surgical informed consent process without the requirement for added funding to do so. 

It is also interesting to see the way in which abortion advocates perceive threat from  the very few, mostly unfunded and volunteer driven pregnancy support services which offer support for women who would choose to continue a pregnancy.  In spite of the fact that not all of these services have a religious basis, and many of them are volunteer staffed by qualified professionals, they are deemed to be incapable of providing accurate information without bias.  In fact they further suggest, in the absence of any evidence, that such services can inflict psychological harm on women. 

There is a very interesting statement made in the midst of this section, in relation to pregnancy support counselling services:   ‘In no other sector can such unregulated practises occur without legal ramifications.”   I would argue that in no other sector of health care can women demand a medical or surgical procedure for no reason other than that they want one, and doctors be forced to provide access to it either directly or indirectly.   Of course the preference within this White Paper is that no doctor ever be allowed a conscientious objection to abortion because this is also a form of reproductive coercion.    Apparently women are autonomous, intelligent decision makers who don’t need help or support in deciding whether abortion is right for them, but if they happen to come across a doctor who doesn’t provide them with an immediate referral, they may be forced to ‘continue a pregnancy against her wishes or seek abortion at a higher gestation’.  

While Marie Stopes is being encouraged to take this process of investigation into reproductive coercion forward, it is prudent to note their own record of ignoring any pressures toward abortion from their 2008 survey entitled Real Choices.    In their questions on why women resolved their unintended pregnancies in particular ways, parenting, adoption, abortion, their response options reveal exactly what they are looking for. With multiple options to choose ‘feeling pressured into’ for questions on resolving an unintended pregnancy by parenting or adoption, not one option was provided for a woman to say she was pressured to abort.  This alone typifies abortion advocates’ interest in abortion coercion and the reasons why it is vital that we now highlight the very real and very prevalent experiences of women pressured to terminate.   For this reason, this paper deals only with reproductive coercion related to pressure to terminate.

Coercion is more than just overt pressure

The majority (>95%) of terminations in Australia occur for psychosocial reasons including not having enough resources, whether financial or material, not feeling able to cope with a baby due to age or lack of support, fears about the impact of pregnancy and parenting on other life choices, as well as consideration for the needs of other people a woman cares for.

Abortion advocates cite such reasons, among others, as supporting the need for abortion, yet in reality abortion offers surgical or medical solutions to social and relational problems, meaning women are forced to decide between their social/economic wellbeing and the continuation of a pregnancy.   The power of this subtle form of coercion becomes even more insidious for post-abortive women who experience regret, suffering or mental health problems following abortion as the discourse convinces them they made a real choice to terminate and therefore carry full responsibility.   Post-termination counselling offered by abortion advocacy organisations are generally geared toward ensuring the right to abortion is upheld and therefore reframing the woman’s experience toward understanding that she made an autonomous and free choice, regardless of her internal experience.

 The dominant discourse is strongly abortion advocating, upholding abstracted rights as an ideal.  Aspects of the discourse that contribute to its manipulative and coercive nature include alarmist statements, disinformation and the censorship of dissenting voices, regardless of the veracity of facts the latter present.  The pervasive effects of the dominant discourse contribute to an environment where continuing a pregnancy is framed as a burden and parenting is experienced as an unsupported journey.

Alarmist, incorrect statements that abortion is anywhere from 14 – 100 times safer than childbirth feed into fears many women may have about birth, and are more like soundbites for abortion marketing.   The same is true of alarmism inherent in statements that women will die without abortion access and that abortion access is the only way in which women can achieve ‘true’ equality. 

Coercion exists in the absence of information

Pregnancy termination is a surgical or medical procedure, and therefore governed by guidelines for all other surgical or medical procedures.  If abortion provision was practised according to guidelines for other health care it would not be necessary to address whether women are screened for coercive factors, as this should be considered a standard aspect of informed consent practise.  Such practise includes that women have a full understanding of the risks and benefits of each option, that they understand and can access the full range of options, and that they are freely consenting. The fact that women are citing coercion as a factor in terminations they have undertaken is a sign that effective and expected screening and informed consent for pregnancy termination is falling short of that expected.    Given the highly contentious nature of abortion, it would not seem unreasonable to hold such processes to a higher standard than those for other procedures, yet the opposite appears to be true in practise.  

Post-abortive women who have sought counsel or advice through our service often describe very limited and inadequate processes of consent including:

  • Group sessions, whereby they were given information and the opportunity to ask any questions only in a group context,
  • Only seeing the doctor when they had already been prepped and ready for surgical termination,
  • Being asked ‘is this what you want?’ as the only checking in with their wishes,
  • Being ‘counselled’ in the presence of a pressuring partner, and
  • Being given misinformation about the effects of mifepristone and their ability to withdraw consent and discontinue a medical abortion procedure.

 Coercion exists in the walk-in – walk-out nature of abortion provision.

Most private abortion clinics operate on a walk in walk out model, whereby a woman phones to make an appointment and is scheduled for termination during the same appointment where she may also receive information and/or counselling.   Abortion advocates argue vehemently against alternatives such as ensuring at least two appointments with an opportunity between them to fully consider options, citing the added burden on women of two visits.   This is in spite of the fact that there are no other invasive surgical procedures such as termination that can be accessed on the day of request using such a model. 

 Coercion exists in discrediting doctors who object to abortion as untrustworthy

When laws exist that state that a doctor who does not agree with abortion, whether for religious, ethical or medical reasons, cannot be trusted to provide accurate information about abortion, abortion discourse becomes the sole domain of those more concerned with ‘rights’ than with women themselves.  When AMA guidelines advise doctors with a conscientious objection to end consultations with women considering pregnancy options, but then suggest that abortion providers may still decline abortion based on a woman’s individual circumstances, the only conclusion is that one group of doctors is untrustworthy.[1] 

Censorship within abortion discourse not only affects those who disagree with abortion, but also those who support abortion access, but still feel pressured to withhold information, use certain words, or in some way encourage abortion due to fears of impeding rights.[2]  Such internalised censorship means that women have few sources of information about the potential of adverse impacts on their physical or mental health or their relationships.  It also means they may view with suspicion any information, no matter how accurate, regarding adverse impacts of abortion.

 Coercion exists in the absence of alternatives information

Abortion advocates frequently disparage supportive services established to provide women with material aid, emotional support and decision-making counsel, purely on the grounds of ideology.  Where centres exist that offer to meet the identified needs of women, such as material aid, financial resourcing, emotional support, such information should be provided to women in order to provide them with alternative options.   Yet, not only do these referrals not happen, but abortion advocates work to discredit and undermine the essential work undertaken by them to support women. 

Key Recommendations

  1. It is essential that coercion to terminate be seen as a phenomena in its own right, not packaged and hidden in euphemisms such as ‘pregnancy outcome control’. The consequences of coercion to terminate are hugely significant on the lives of women and add considerably to the burden of mental health and other emotional issues that they experience.  
  2. Research on, and education about, coercion to terminate should be a priority at a time when the discourse is rapidly working to further reduce access to necessary supports for women, through legislation and ongoing censorship.

Access to independent (not provided by abortion providers) information about, and access to supportive services for women to continue a pregnancy needs to be strengthened and such services need to be more effectively resourced.

[1] Australian Medical Association: Conscientious Objection Policy document: June/July 2013

[2] Martin, LA., Hassinger JA., Debbink M. and Harris, LH. (2017). Dangertalk: Voices of abortion providers. Social Science Medicine, July (184). Pp. 75-83

 

« Older posts

© 2024 Debbie Garratt

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑