What thrills Leslie Cannold?

Apparently “proper process” so that women can make abortion decisions about how they will abort their babies is what thrills Leslie Cannold.  Cannold is a glued-to-it abortion protagonist, and like a pit bull terrier without the lipstick, won’t stop pushing for the “right” of women to pay someone to remove their babies from their wombs.  According to Cannold, the less they have to pay — and the more we taxpayers have to pay — the happier she is, in fact, “thrilled” according to this report

The federal government, led by EMILY’s List member Julia Gillard, is “expected to agree” to the subsidising of the abortion drug RU-486, the report states.  This means that for a cost or around $11.80, even a minor will be able to ‘afford’ to use this means to kill their baby.

Reported adverse effects in Australia run at 830 currently, but remember, these are only those that have been reported.  How many other women and young girls haven’t notified their doctors?  To date there is one recorded death in Australia directly linked to RU-486 (which took two years to come to light!), but how many have really occurred?  If a woman has a surgical abortion and haemorrhages to death, the cause is not recorded as“haemorrhage due to abortion” but merely as “haemorrhage” which totally misconstrues the true reason.

It is highly unlikely that the ‘reason for death’ will be noted as “haemorrhage/complications/infection due to abortion drug RU-486” thereby skewing the real reason for any deaths that will occur.  We state “will occur” with intention as these deaths have occurred and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to occur, sad as that may be.

The push for this evil drug is from Marie Stopes International, an UK-originating abortion organisation whose founder was a self-professed nymphomaniac who found ‘coloured’ people to be abhorrent, along with large families, people with poor vision, and a whole realm of other normal people that she felt didn’t fit her version of normal!

MSI state women could be “traumatised” without a cheap and easy-to-obtain method to abort their babies, conveniently not mentioning how much more trauma these women will experience after their abortion!  Their life becomes divided into two segments — 1. Before my abortion, 2. After my abortion.

Cannold states that women “will have a choice about which procedure they choose” as they now won’t be “constrained by a financial consideration” but is she going to advocate for them to be told what that choice will involve?  That with RU-486, their babies will starve to death due to the effect of the first drug which shuts down the food (nutrients) source for the baby?  That the second drug will then start their wombs contracting to expel their babies and that they will deliver their dead baby at home, into the toilet, in their bed, or perhaps in their bedroom?  That their homes, their sanctuaries, will become the tombs for their babies?  And possibly their tombs as well?

The fascinating statement by the World Health Organisation (in the article) states that there is “less chance of death and infection” than with a surgical abortion – this is blatantly wrong!  South Australia is the only state in Australia that keeps statistics on abortion, how they are done, the negative outcomes (if they are reported!) etc.  The findings in that state have shown an overwhelming increase in further ‘fix-up’ treatment/hospitalisation needed after RU-486 abortions!  If these are the results found in SA, there would be no reason to think that results would be different anywhere else!  

Women deserve better than abortion!