Pieter Mourik Albury Choice- Who’s the Extremist?

Anna von Marburg

Anna von Marburg

by Anna von Marburg  17 September, 2013

Dear Pieter,

Andrew Bolt wrote today in the Herald Sun and referenced an article where you are referred to as a “creepy” abortionist.  My name is mentioned as being one of the people you call a “vulture.”  That article references  a piece you wrote about the people who pray and offer help in front of the abortion clinic as well as the libelous words attributed to me on that website.

You  portray those offering help in front of the Albury abortion house as extremist religious fanatics.  The fact is that we are peaceful, prayerful people who love these women and you know it.  We care enough about them and their unborn babies to offer them the help that the abortionist desperately does not want them to have.  The abortion doctors make big taxpayer funded dollars from abortion. Every woman and her baby who doesn’t show up because of our presence in front of that house is lost revenue.  Women are hurt by abortion.  Not a single credible study exists to show that abortion is beneficial to women.  Truckloads of studies show just how detrimental abortion is to women.  This is no surprise; the abortionist intentionally kills the woman’s unborn child.

Pieter,  you have  used your skills to improve the health of women and their babies as an obstetrician and gynecologist.  But you have also used your skills to abort many unborn human beings.   Apparently you are retired but you are still listed as working at Reproductive Medicine Albury.  You are a vocal  supporter of the abortion chemical, RU486, and  the Victorian Abortion Law Reform  which allows abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason,  even on perfectly healthy fetuses(babies).  On a local radio interview you affirmed that fetuses(babies) have no rights until they are born.  Our prima facie claim, which you and your pro-abortion comrades doggedly avoid, is that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. But first let’s talk about your initial claim used to distract from the real issue of what is happening inside the old house on Englehardt Street in Albury.

You claim:

The majority of Australians agree that women should have the right to access a legal
termination of an unwanted pregnancy (85%), compared to the minority of 8% who do not
agree with Australian law (Katherine Betts, People and Place vol. 12, no. 4 2004 page 22). All
of those protesting in Englehardt Street are included in this extreme minority of 8%.

First let me inform you that abortion is illegal in NSW.  Secondly, this does not mean that 92% of people share your extreme view that abortion should be allowed for any reason up until the moment of birth.  Far from it.

 An article in the Medical Journal of Australia shows that only 6% of Australians believe that abortion should be legal up until the moment of birth.  You are in this  6%.  If I am extreme at 8% what does that make you at  6%?

But there’s more.

The same article in the Medical Journal of Australia  showed that the majority of Australians believe that  a doctor should face professional sanctions for performing an abortion on a woman when she states that she cannot afford to raise the child or that she does not wish to have a child at that time.  The overwhelming majority of abortions in Australia are performed for these reasons at all stages of gestation. The majority of Australians do not support abortion for the reasons the fly-in Albury abortionist, Kathy Lewis, stated in the local newspaper. The majority of Australians believe that an abortionist performing an abortion for the reasons specified by Dr. Lewis should face professional sanctions.

In fact, when you look closely at this article in the Medical Journal of Australia, the majority of Australians do not support abortion on demand for any reason, at any gestation.  You have grossly overestimated your perceived support for abortion in Australia and in our beloved town.

The topic for my next post in response to your claims: “Albury Choice- Choice to do What?”



Victorian Abortion Law Reform:

Abortions can be performed up into the ninth month of pregnancy, making Victoria’s abortion laws among the most permissive in the world. A clause was inserted into the act that took away the conscientious objection of doctors and nurses who choose to perform late-term abortions.[7]

Christine Campbell added numerous amendments that were voted down. Parliament voted against:

Providing support/counselling for women. [8] Providing information on the health risks of abortion. [9] The right of healthcare workers not to participate in abortion or refer for abortion. [10] Banning late-term and partial-birth abortion. [11] Mandatory reporting of suspected child/teenage victims of sexual abuse when a suspected abuser takes them to an abortion clinic. [12] Notifying the custodial parent of a minor seeking an abortion. [13] Requiring abortion providers to administer an anaesthetic to the fetus. [14] Protecting the life of a child born alive after an abortion. [15] Providing legal protection for an unborn child seriously injured during an assault on the mother. [16]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.