Are abortionists a protected species?

For years, women complained about their ill treatment at the hands of Sydney abortionist Suman Sood. The allegations included botched and incomplete abortions, failure to warn of abortion risks or to provide counselling or trained staff. The growing number of Sood’s victims described an uncaring doctor who ran a substandard practice with crowded waiting rooms, dirty beds and little or no follow up care. One patient described being repeatedly slapped after the termination.

There were also allegations the former owner of the Australian Women’s Heath Clinic in western Sydney tried to get extra money out of women and defrauded Medicare. But the Health Care Complaints Commission continued to sit on its hands, and Sood continued to perform abortions.

That was until Sood was prosecuted for administering abortion drugs to 20-year-old woman who was about 23 weeks pregnant. She went to her mother’s house, experienced labour pains and delivered a gasping baby boy into a toilet.

Sood was charged with manslaughter and performing an unlawful abortion. She was convicted of the latter. But a doctor who should never have been allowed near a pregnant woman again, was able to continue practicing. Last week, ahead of Medical Board hearings, she handed in her registration.

You would think those who claim to care about women would have demanded Sood be stripped of her licence earlier. You would think they might have seen fit to warn women against consulting such a dangerous person.

After all, the Australian Greens have information on their website which warns women off calling or visiting any of 60-plus pregnancy support agencies they label (pdf 44KB) as “deceptive” and likely to cause them harm.

And Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has her private members bill designed to expose and fine these groups for “misleading advertising”.

But while the witch-hunt against pregnancy support agencies continues, abortionists who leave women maimed, injured and psychologically traumatised are able to practice business as usual.

To be consistent, the Greens should have had a big warning on their website in flashing lights saying “Stay away from Dr Suman Sood!”

Although Sood has now downed tools, it’s not too late for Kerry Nettle to show she cares adding the names of other abortionists who have left women brain damaged, with lacerated cervixes, infection, suffering cardiac arrest and septic abortion - all actual cases.

Perhaps they could warn women off the Brisbane doctor at the Planned Parenthood clinic who left 16-year-old “Sarah” with a severed fallopian tube, a fist-sized hole in her uterus needing 200 stitches, a torn bowel and bladder and missed baby body parts still inside her?

Doesn’t look likely.

Meanwhile, the Greens give Children by Choice the big tick. This is the same agency that referred Sarah to her near-death experience. The Greens attack community based non-profit groups, which have helped countless women, while letting abortionists who turn women’s insides inside out get off scot free.

Why is there such silence about Sood and others like her? Why is it that the activities of pregnancy support agencies deserve strict regulation while horrendous cases of maltreatment of women by abortion providers go un-noted?

A lot of time would have gone into putting Kerry's list together. But it seems it’s not worth adding an alert for women about abortion doctors who could injure them.

And if an abortion clinic advertises itself as providing safe abortion and it injures women, should it be allowed to keep advertising in the same way? Where’s the Bill on that?

If the Greens really think “Genuine Pregnancy Counselling [is] A Right For All Australian Women” why don’t they say anything about the deception and pressure applied to pregnant women by those with a vested financial interest in selling abortion?

Often there is no counselling at all, as came out in Senate committee hearings on the Stott Despoja bill. Many clinics provide a same day service - walk in, abort, walk out. No opportunity to explore issues likes relationship and financial pressures, to look at alternatives and sources of support.

Some clinics even charge women extra for counselling if they decide to keep the baby and not have it terminated. Others charge over the scheduled fee, telling women to bring “$200 to 300” cash to cover “the gap” when there is no gap.

Kate Mannix (who supports the bill) told the Senate committee that it is “insulting and degrading to mislead a person in a state of extreme distress into believing they will receive counselling which is impartial”. The women who contributed to my first book Giving Sorrow Words, agree.

Cathy from Sydney: “No options were presented to me. She [family planning counsellor] said I was stupid to get pregnant and as I was 18 and at university she ‘presumed I wanted an abortion’. Her negative and unsupportive attitude is something I will always remember ... I don’t remember making the decisions just that this is what I was expected to do …”

Sam from Melbourne, “I had to stumble through a system which was not supportive of my emotional needs … At no stage did [they] discuss the alternatives, or the procedure, possible effects or how I felt ….”

Pro choice campaigner Marie Coleman told the Senate committee “there are some absolutely shabby [termination services] that we could all be deeply mortified about …”

If only that mortification could be turned into action and she and her friends did something about exposing these clinics.

Anyone concerned about abuses of women’s health and lack of care, should look first at the anti-woman activities of abortion providers.