Last year in their quarterly journal, “Sexual Health”, (2007, 4, 219-221) the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published a guest editorial by Jo Wainer entitled “Abortion and the full humanity of women”. Jo Wainer, widow of abortionist Bertram Wainer of the East Melbourne abortion clinic, is an ardent advocate for abortion rights. Charles Francis sent a response, but the CSIRO editors said he had to comply with their publishing guidelines for scientific manuscripts. Painstakingly, Charles complied with the guidelines, but his response was still rejected; he was not given the privilege of a “guest editorial”. It is curious that the CSIRO which has a good reputation for scientific research should publish an editorial which had little science but much advocacy for abortion, and which included criticisms of Irish Catholicism and fundamental religions, and implied that women were not fully human unless they had access to abortion. Charles’ response to Jo Wainer is below.

Abstract: Although abortion is often referred to as a health service, it provides no health benefits to women and frequently causes physical and mental health problems including a risk of suicide.Women are often pressured by others to have abortions which are not their choice. Legalising abortion will enable more coercion. Many medical risks of abortion such as pyschiatric damage, the increased risk of breast cancer, and cerebral palsy for infants in subsequent births are now well established.There is no proper monitoring of abortion services and a full governmental inquiry into the abortion industry is needed to prevent the damage it does.

Last year in their quarterly journal, “Sexual Health”, (2007, 4, 219-221) the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published a guest editorial by Jo Wainer entitled “Abortion and the full humanity of women”. Jo Wainer, widow of abortionist Bertram Wainer of the East Melbourne abortion clinic, is an ardent advocate for abortion rights.

Charles Francis sent a response, but the CSIRO editors said he had to comply with their publishing guidelines for scientific manuscripts. Painstakingly, Charles complied with the guidelines, but his response was still rejected; he was not given the privilege of a “guest editorial”. It is curious that the CSIRO which has a good reputation for scientific research should publish an editorial which had little science but much advocacy for abortion, and which included criticisms of Irish Catholicism and fundamental religions, and implied that women were not fully human unless they had access to abortion. Charles’ response to Jo Wainer is below:

In her article “Abortion and the full humanity of women” Jo Wainer categorizes abortion as a “health service”. This description of abortion as a “health service” is widely used by abortionists, abortion clinics and radical feminists; however most abortions today have nothing to do with women’s health. Advances in medical science make it rare to have a pregnancy which constitutes a serious danger to a woman’s life or health. There is now abundant evidence that abortions performed for mental health reasons are likely to do women more harm than good.(1)

A number of studies have shown a significant association between induced abortion and subsequent drug and alcohol abuse. (2) Other studies have also shown a much higher risk of suicide compared to women who carried to term. The recent suicide of artist Emma Beck in the UK is a stark example (Telegraph, UK.COM 24/2/08)). One study in Finland reported a 650% higher risk of suicide following an abortion. (3,4)

Approximately 18,000 abortions are performed in Victoria each year, but very few of them would be lawful under the Menhennitt ruling (1969). After that ruling, however, the abortion industry in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia flourished. Provided an abortionist was medically qualified, no questions were asked. These abortions are performed in an attempt to solve social problems, not health problems.

Social problems need to be resolved by the State. Medical practitioners have an express duty not to perform any operation unless first satisfied that it is in the best medical interests of the patient.

Jo Wainer asserts that the failure to provide women with unrestricted access to abortion constitutes an interference with their humanity. She provides no explanation as to why a woman’s absolute right to terminate the life of her unborn child is essential to her humanity.

Professor Philip Ney in his book, “Deeply Damaged” (5) has indicated how abortion damages the relationship of women with their partners and with children they have or may have in the future. Such relationships form an important aspect of women’s humanity.

The proposition that the legalisation of all abortion places “the responsibility and authority to make the decision with the woman” does not accord with reality. In the US the legalisation of abortion enabled husbands, partners and family to apply pressure to women to have abortions which were not their own choice. As a trial lawyer who acted for a number of women damaged by abortions it has been my experience that some of these women did not themselves want the abortion but were coerced by other people.

The legalisation of abortion will enable even greater pressure to be applied. Husbands, partners and family will be able to argue that there is nothing wrong with abortion because it has the full approval of the law. This coercion is now well recognised in the United States as a serious problem.

A survey conducted by the prestigious Elliot Institute, www.afterabortion.org found that 64% of women who had abortions felt they were pressured by other people to have the abortion, and more than 80% said that had they been properly counselled they would not have had the abortion. Eight states in the US have anti-coercion Bills pending; Idaho is the first state to have enacted its Bill: www.SilentNoMoreAwareness.org (6)

In discussing Candy Broad’s proposed Bill, Jo Wainer says the Victorian Parliament will have the opportunity to consider access to safe and legal abortion, but abortion is never safe and will not be safe in the future. Even the late Dr Peter Bayliss who was widely acclaimed as a very highly skilled abortionist, had his share of disasters, which included one death and a woman who, after her abortion, was left in a permanently unresponsive state.

The medical risks of an abortion are now becoming increasingly well known and documented. In the US a number of states have passed legislation which requires an abortionist to counsel patients on the medical risks and to provide a document setting out the risks. The required documentation under Texas law identifies fourteen of the known medical risks.

The best established risk is psychiatric damage. The Elliott Institute has estimated that more than 10% of women suffer serious and prolonged psychiatric damage requiring treatment. This issue has been incisively explored by psychologist Anne Lastman in her book “Redeeming Grief”. (7) Since 1996 Anne has treated more than 1,000 patients mainly women, but some men also.

Charles Francis, AM, QC, was a barrister and former Victorian state MP.