25 Mar 2008, Comments Off on Crawling out of the woodwork

Crawling out of the woodwork

Author: Helen

You might remember that I blogged last year on the possibility that the Victorian government might vote to decriminalise abortion. Well, of course the move was brilliantly undermined by the minister Bronwyn Pike and conservative laborites, who hinted darkly that nonstop abortion parties! might result if this kind of hussy-enabling legislative change was allowed to go through. So the State government did what they always do when they don’t want to make their minds up about something: commissioned another study.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission is due to present its report on March 28 or shortly afterwards. So, guess what has come crawling out – right on cue?

Women have contacted Women’s Health West to complain about an abortion pamphlet they recently received in the post.
An anti-abortion group called the Tell The Truth Coalition included graphic images of foetuses, sent in an envelope addressed to the “adult householder: viewer discretion advised”.
Footscray resident Sally Camilleri said the ambiguous warning left her feeling violated and tricked.
“This group should have indicated who they were on the front of the material, so I could have chosen not to open it,” she said.
…A blog on the Tell The Truth Coalition website, purportedly written by a Ronald Van Wegen, said the pamphlet was delivered to hundreds of thousands of homes.
“Though some were offended by the graphic photos of dead children we also know that many were pleased that the truth was finally being shown,” the blog said.

Apparently the Tell the Truth Coalition has a website, but I’ve been unable to find it, and my google-fu is fairly good. One thing I do know, however, is that serial forced-birther and pest Marcel White (familiar to readers of Suki and the sadly departed Flute) is behind it, according to these reports.

The good news is that the citizens are frothing at the mouth with rage at the pamphleteering fruitcakes, so the campaign has backfired bigtime, but I am sure they have additional stupidity in the pipeline to unleash on the media around March 28. Time to get your letter-writing fingers flexed, my pretties, and if you happen to get one of these charming pamphlets in the mail, remember to mention it to the Advertising Standards Bureau at administration@adstandards. If there’s a return address, put them in an envelope and send them back with no stamp – to be paid for by the recipient.

Comments (0)

  • Oz Ozzie says:

    What is the law at the moment? My wife has had a number of terminations – absolutely completely against our will, due to non-viable pregnancies – but while the lack of viability was clear to us, my opinion is that it wouldn’t have been clear in court. So I had rather concluded that the law is fairly permissive at the moment. An opinion re-inforced by the stupid campaign referred to…

  • Helen says:

    OO, if you click on the Victorian Reform Commission link in para 2, you can the “Law of Abortion Information Paper (PDF). It’s a very useful resource.

    I’m very sorry to hear about the non-viable pregnancies, that must have been absolutely hellish to go through both for your wife and for you.

  • Helen says:

    er. “can download”

  • marymary says:

    Thanks for the heads up, ready to letter write!!! I’m a bit oblivious at times, but I didn’t realise Bronwyn Pike was on the conservative side.

  • Helen says:

    Thanks Bluemilk!
    Marymary, Pike sounds very conflicted on Abortion. Here’s a quote from the linked article:

    Ms Pike, who is strongly pro-choice and supports decriminalisation, said the model in Ms Broad’s bill could mean “open slather” and “basically creates abortion on demand”. She said she did not believe the bill would pass in its present form, as it removes abortion from the Crimes Act but “doesn’t replace it with anything”.
    “I’m very committed to wanting to have an improvement of the situation, but I don’t believe this is an improvement and I don’t believe this bill will pass. Not in its current form,” she said.
    “We need to get rid of the crime but we need to put something into the Health Act to provide a framework and to provide guidance for the community and for the clinicians around the circumstances for abortion.”

    So she’s “pro-choice” and she’d like abortion to be removed from the crimes act but that should be “replaced with something”? In other words, we can’t trust women and their doctors to make the right decisions, so we have to provide some other barrier, otherwise they’ll be merrily abortin’ away, every day, on every street corner- OMG no-one will ever even give it a second thought anymore!!1!1! Anyway, that’s how it comes across to me. Doesn’t make sense, and a “pro-choicer” who isn’t really that pro-choice is not going to convince the opposition, I would think.

  • lauredhel says:

    The website is at tellthetruth dot org dot au. Trigger warnings, but no graphics on the homepage at this stage (I can’t guarantee it will stay that way of course).

  • Sabina says:

    What is this ridiculousness about “abortion on demand oh noes!!1!” anyway? Isn’t that the whole point – that if a woman decides she doesn’t want to continue with a pregnancy, for whatever reason, then she is free to make that choice, and to act on it? They make it sound like a McDonald’s drive-through, for goodness’ sake.

  • Helen says:

    Exactly, Sabina, that’s the point I was trying to make only you managed to express it more concisely 😉

  • derrida derider says:

    Hmm, my reading of that passage by Ms Pike is that her judgement is that abortion-on-demand is not politically possible at the moment and attempting to get it will just cruel any attempt to get a more permissive abortion law. IOW she doesn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

    She may be right or wrong in that judgement, but it’s not grounds for considering her conflicted or a hypocrite.

  • Laura says:

    We got that letter. I opened it thinking it was readers’ digest or something. I was walking to the train station and I had to stop and catch my breath – I was so, so angry that some anonymous coward would dare to put something so perverted into my letterbox. I wanted to send it to Jenny Macklin (local member) with a very angry covering letter but I showed it to Dorian when I got home and he tore it up, just as angry as I had been. I was very pleased to read in various places that the stunt had backfired on the perpetrators.

  • Helen says:

    DD, Pike was quoted thus:
    Ms Pike, who is strongly pro-choice and supports decriminalisation, said the model in Ms Broad’s bill could mean “open slather” and “basically creates abortion on demand”. She said she did not believe the bill would pass in its present form, as it removes abortion from the Crimes Act but “doesn’t replace it with anything”.

    I’m saying that she may feel she is strongly pro-choice, but somehow she is squicked by “abortion on demand” which will lead to “open slather”, so something (not specified) has to be put there as an additional hurdle. I agree that the unspecified hurdle/s could be partly to appease the catlicks, which goes with your interpretation, but the interview comments seem to indicate clearly that Pike doesn’t trust women to do the right thing and is expecting frivolous aborting to ensue unless the criminal charge is replaced with… you know, something.

    Which is kind of pro choice, but not strongly pro choice. I’d say “kind of weakly and not very well thought-through pro choice.”

  • […] You might remember a discussion on the Cast Iron Balcony about the panty-sniffing godbag scum who recently did a large letter-drop of graphic material advocating forced pregnancy as policy. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.