Has the Tell the Truth Coalition has reared its ugly head again?

Maybe, maybe not. The US style scare tactics are similar, I wonder if Trevor Grace, who has put 'election campaign' posters up, has started to deliver pamphlets yet?

I wonder if Trevor Grace is using public money for his 'campaign'? It seems to me that any reasonable person would know that a graphic anti-abortion campaign is a sure fire way not to get elected. Then again, it also seems to me that running for a seat with public money is a great way to get publicity for your anti-choice campaign. Just sayin'

Unfortunately the website does not have forums for discussion, but if anyone reading this has had a termination in SA could they please fill out their questionnaire. Might provide some balance. The questionnaire does require that you give personal details so... not that I would encourage anyone to lie... but fake addies if you feel that it's none of their business who you are. My favourite fake addy is:

1 MyPrivacyPolicy Drive, YouDon'tNeedToKnow, Vic 3000

Usual warnings about graphic photos apply. Site is filled with the standard lies.

http://abortSA.com

Interestingly enough, they are whois savvy with the domain name registered to... um... no one in particular. However, it does seem that you can send that no one in particular an email or post something to their Post Box. It appears that this kind of Domain Privacy is becoming the norm these days.

What's weird is that if Trevor Grace has boldly associated himself with abortSA.com then he shouldn't have anything to hide from a whois search.

So whois hiding??

I strongly suspect that some digging might produce some familiar names, however, I don't have time to dig, I have to get back to work!

omain Name.......... abortsa.com
Creation Date........ 2008-10-14
Registration Date.... 2008-10-14
Expiry Date.......... 2018-10-14
Organisation Name.... abortsa.com
Organisation Address. P O Box 59
Organisation Address. Collins Street West
Organisation Address. Melbourne
Organisation Address. 3000
Organisation Address. VIC
Organisation Address. AU

Admin Name........... Admin PrivateRegContact
Admin Address........ P O Box 59
Admin Address........ Collins Street West
Admin Address........ Melbourne
Admin Address........ 3000
Admin Address........ VIC
Admin Address........ AU
Admin Email..........
Admin Phone.......... +61.386242485
Admin Fax............

Tech Name............ TECH PrivateRegContact
Tech Address......... P O Box 59
Tech Address......... Collins Street West
Tech Address......... Melbourne
Tech Address......... 3000
Tech Address......... VIC
Tech Address......... AU
Tech Email...........
Tech Phone........... +61.386242485
Tech Fax.............
Name Server.......... ns32b.ssggrp-wc.com
Name Server.......... ns32a.ssggrp-wc.com

Tell the Truth Coalition's website is now home to a web page builder.

I was conscientiously checking that recently used exit links still worked on Emervents when I discovered that the Tell the Truth Coalition's website http://www.tellthetruthcoalition.org.au/ is now home to a no-brand Website Builder.

So sorry to anyone who has been clicking on links to their website only to get a refreshing blast of white screen.

If one clicks on the "Start Building!" button one gets redirected to http://www.tellthetruthcoalition.org.au/sitebuilder.php and everything hangs.

My more paranoid persona wonders whether my IP address is being collected in the interim and added to a list of all those who would still investigate them.

Ah well, I'm sure I made their list last year...

On another note, Ron van Wegen has made his blog available to invited readers only so the links to his blog (http://australianprolifeconference.blogspot.com) will probably not work either.

Personally I'm very pleased to see that his internet presence has shrunk somewhat.

Wow, someone has really done their homework on the Tell The Truth Coalition!

For those of you still interested in the Tell The Truth Coalition, this makes extremely interesting reading. Someone called Brian from unbelief.org has done some homework on the members including our favourite ol' Ron van Wegen.

Tell The Truth are on TV now

Thanks to a heads up from a reader I discover that Tell the Truth are televising their misinformation.

At ten to twelve this morning channel nine aired an add from the Tell the Truth Coalition.

You can view it here. Click on the "Life" TV commercial. Note that there are NO women pictured. Even when the voice over, full of syrupy concern, says that the new laws will not protect women, the picture is of a pregnant belly hugged by a child. The woman, as usual, is portrayed as an incubator (if she could be said to be portrayed at all). Also note that the written component of the add is from the viewpoint of the foetus: "My heart, my limbs..". As usual, the foetus is portrayed as something that is capable of a viewpoint. The sentient cows most of us consume regularly have viewpoints, a foetus is not capable of a viewpoint until months after birth, that is, after it has become a baby. Also note the church organ background music (I thought of dracula, anyone else?)



Seen it? Let's see what ol' Ronny would have you believe this time. (I'm sorry if this is a bit rough, it's late...)

"3 Weeks My heart is beating."

The general consensus of my texts (below) is that it begins to beat at four weeks. The heart begins to develop at three weeks.

"7 weeks I have fingerprints."

No, no and no no no. Finger and foot prints begin forming at week 16 according to Visible Embryo. According to MedlinePlus they are not forming until week 24. They are not set in stone until much later. At 7 weeks PADS form on the hands. These are bumps that eventually become fingerprints, but fingerprints they are not indeedy. No no no no no.

"12 weeks My limbs and organs have formed."

Not this again... here, I'll just cut and paste from the last time with a few edits...

As I am doing a thesis on foetal pain I knew immediately that this is patently untrue. For example, skin keratinisation (where the skin becomes more like skin on a full term baby) does not begin until week 16, thalamocortical structures in the brain (important connections for pain perception) are not laid down until 26 weeks, 22 at the very earliest. Scalp hair patterning begins at 16 weeks, bone formation (calcification of bones) begins at week 14. Limbs do not reach their final relative proportions until week 17, and the uterus in females is not complete until week 18. So, the skeletal structure is yet to ossify (or become hard bones), the foetus might have nerves but the central nervous system has barely begun to resemble that of a full term baby. The 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails, hair, certain reproductive organs, skin as we know it, functioning lungs…. … I could go on, but I think I have made my point. This sentence is, again, incorrect and emotive. The idea is to paint a picture of a miniature fully formed baby at 12 weeks. If it were truly equivalent to a baby, we could put it in a pram and walk it around the block.

"I am a human being."

This can be a tricky one. A foetus is human and alive, no doubt about either. (Yey! They got something right!) However, conscious? Nope. Sentient? Not until at least week 26. Self aware with desires and interests? Not until some months after birth. It is my position that a human being in the foetal state should not have rights that trump the rights of a human being in the adult state. These rights include the right to refuse to lend your body to save the life of another. For example, it is possible for most of us to live with only one kidney. Yet we do not make our citizens hand over their second kidneys in order to save another citizen's life. In our society we get to choose whether or not to use our bodies to help other people to live. Women must be able to choose whether or not they will use their bodies to turn a potential human life into a fully fledged human life.

"I need your protection."

Now this last one made me spit out my rather yummy Red Back beer. What do they think happens to unwanted babies? What do they think would happen to 30,000 extra unwanted babies in Victoria per year? There are plenty of CHILDREN out there already who need protection from their own PARENTS (350,000 reports of child abuse in Australia per year for those who did not watch Andrew Denton...). Anti-Choicers want to make more of these miserable beings? Argh! I have no more words...

Now for the dialogue:

"Human life is precious."

Uhuh. It's weird that given the preciousness of human life we're so keen to keep a thriving military and tolerate a third world in our own back yard. Next?

"Yet the Victorian Government is considering removing all legal protection for children until the moment of birth."

Note the use of the word "children" and the assumption, that I mentioned in a previous post, that women are satanic harpies who will willy nilly demand abortions the moment they go into labour. Also the assumption that the current situation is protective.

"This will not help protect children..."

Okeee, I didn't think it was supposed to. Or did I miss something? Actually, I've just realised that freely available abortion does protect children. It protects them from poverty, overcrowding, and the pain of being blamed for the unhappiness of their parents and consequently being abused or killed.

"...or women."

Notice that we're an afterthought?

"Say NO to legalising abortion in Victoria."

*sigh* because keeping it illegal was doing a great job of protecting the children wasn't it?

I've had enough. Sorry peeps, it's 1am and hours past my bedtime. This post will probably end up being edited for clarity tomorrow... refs below.





An atlas of human prenatal developmental mechanics : anatomy and staging, by Jan E. Jirásek, London : Taylor & Francis, c2004
The developing human : clinically oriented embryology, by Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud. 7th ed, Philadelphia, Saunders, c2003.

Letter to The Age re Tell the Truth claims

Dear Editor,

In Michael Bachelard’s article “The Gloves come off in battle over abortion” he quotes Mr Waardural of the Tell The Truth Coalition as saying that Mr Ron Van Wegen was “a bit less active now”. Given that a pamphlet authorised by Mr Van Wegen was recently distributed in the Ballarat area, one could say the man remains very active indeed.

Also in the article, Right to Life Australia spokesperson Marcel Smith claims that there is no formal link between Right to Life Australia and the Tell the Truth Coalition. Perhaps Mr Smith could have mentioned that the initial Tell the Truth website (tellthetruth.org.au) was registered by Margaret Tighe of Right to Life Australia. Soon after the March leaflet campaign by Tell the Truth, the website disappeared (noted by me on March 31st) and was replaced by tellthetruthcoalition.org.au which is registered by Mr Ron Van Wegen (noted by me on April 5th). So, though there are no formal links, it seems that Right to Life Australia was initially supportive of the Tell the Truth campaign.



The report of recent pamphlet distributions:
http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/girl-finds-graphic-antiabortion-leaflet/1254733.aspx

The new pamphlet with Mr Van Wegen’s authorisation and the same phone number as the last leaflet from the Tell the Truth Coalition:
http://tellthetruthcoalition.org.au/media.php?topl=3

A simple “whois” search on the domain names above will confirm the truth of my claims. The timing of the change of domain was noted on my meager weblog:
http://emervents.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-is-tellthetruthorgau.html
http://emervents.blogspot.com/2008/04/has-margaret-tighe-withdrawn-her.html

Tell the Truth Coalition are at it again with exaggerations and lies

There have been more than a few hits on this blog through google searches for the Tell the Truth coalition. Here's why. With the Abortion Law Reform Bill to be debated in parliament soon it looks like the leaflet drops have started again. This article says the new leaflets were distributed in Ballarat, and it indicated that these leaflets differed from the first lot in March, depicting graphic images of partial birth abortions.

*sigh*

They are now acting in direct contravention of the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau ruling. Maybe they've received legal advice? Maybe they think that foot-soldiers for god are above the law? At any rate, this warranted some investigation, so here goes:

I just visited the Tell the Truth Coalition website and it's new and improved with the rather confused message that decriminalising abortion will give you no rights.

Most interestingly, the new leaflet seems to be on their website and old Ron Van Wegen (readers from March will remember him as the guy who accused me of possessing many unsavory character traits) seems to have authorised it as well as written it. The mobile number they ask you to call for their media contact is the same as the one on the pamphlet I received in March.

I could not find any reference to Ron's Blog (which has not been updated since July) on the website. Perhaps he is afraid of the kind of response he received last time? In March, many, many people were able to use his site as reassurance that they were not alone in their outrage. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want a repeat of that kind of social solidarity.

Anyway, this new leaflet does not contain any photos that I would have thought were offensive or graphic, so they have probably not violated the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau ruling. The partial birth abortion is diagrammatic, with the usual depiction of the woman as merely a vessel for baby. In other words, there was no woman in the pictures. ("Heaven forbid we remind folks that there is a woman involved!!")

The leaflet does, however, contain the usual exaggerations and outright lies:

a) Ron does not mention that most of parliament seems to be considering Option B and says that the new laws will legalise "all abortions up until the moment of birth". This panicky statement made me laugh, birth does not occur in a "moment". Can you imagine a woman in labour deciding she needed an abortion NOW!?? Jeepers. A big red cross in the sanity stakes for use of dramatic language Ron. But seriously, he betrays a view of women as satanic harpies who would carry a baby for nine months then abort on a whim. It's so sad that he is not alone in this view.

b) "Punish medical staff who refuse to co-operate in an abortion." If anyone can find the bit in the legislation that says non-participation in an abortion will be a crime, please, point me to it. I have not heard of it. There HAS, however, been talk of the possibility of medical staff being discriminated against if they refuse to participate in abortions - discriminated against in the sense that they will not be employed by institutions who perform abortions. Ron is again, guilty of exaggeration to the point of falsehood.

c) "Deny legal protection to women being coerced into having an abortion." This one would be hilarious if it weren't for the gravity of the situation. Women have always had legal protection against coerced abortions, at least as far as the actual procedure is concerned. All she has to do is say she does not want one and the abortion becomes assault if it commences. Women who are coerced into unwanted abortions are made victims by their families or lovers way before they get to the clinic door. The new law will neither decrease nor increase their vulnerability.

d) "Allow violent offenders to end the life of an unborn child without murder or manslaughter charges." Do I really need to say anything here? To the best of my knowledge, the Child Destruction laws will remain mostly intact. So violent offenders who attack a woman with the intent of killing the foetus will still be prosecuted under that law. We also had laws against violence itself last I heard, it's not as though violent offenders will go unpunished.

e) As for "Do you want the Victorian Government to legalise Partial Birth Abortion?" Partial birth abortion has never been illegal here. The new bill will not affect the legality of partial birth abortions.

Seriously, I hope people DO write to their MPs saying "I heard you are going to legalise partial birth abortions!!!" and, "Now women who are being coerced into having abortions will have no legal protection at all!!!" Because they are going to sound like crazies who do not have the faintest idea about what is really going on.

Ron seems to have a loose grip on reality too. It's a shame he has enough funding to print leaflets. I note, however, that the Tell the Truth Coalition does not seem to have the numbers to fund or deliver leaflets Victoria-wide. This says a great deal about the number of crazies out there, that is, that there seem to be fewer crazies than sane people.

Those of you who have read this far might be interested in my other posts on the Tell the Truth Coalition, particularly this one on Pro-Life Lie Dissemination Tactics.

*sigh* I was wrong. Tell The Truth is UP.

I forgot that it had changed its address and changed ownership. See this post for all the details...

Oh, and just in case anyone finds their website, the picture they say is of a foetus in the mother's womb is not in a womb. That foetus is dead. It is still impossible to get a picture of a live foetus with that kind of clarity.

Here is an interview with the guy who pioneered the techniques used for creating crystal clear images, Lennart Nilsson. He also pioneered the use of endoscopes to take pictures of live foetuses, however, the ones I've seen still lack the clarity obtainable when the foetus is removed from the mother.

I really need to sleep, I haven't slept properly for days... perhaps tonight is the night?

Tell the Truth Coalition - pamphlet update.

I'm sorry this took so long to post, I wanted to do it PROPERLY, which is BAD because it means that I put it off. So now I am going to do it ROUGHLY.

I received some feedback from one of the plethora of people I wrote to on that occasion (I don't know who because I'm not looking for the letter - that would be doing things PROPERLY). What I do know, is that they said that after the complaint was upheld by the Advertising Standards Bureau the matter was referred to the Victorian Police Crimes Theme Desk.

Now I have no idea what that desk does. Finding this out was part of doing it PROPERLY. However, if I wait until my desk is clear no one will know this at all. Perhaps, given that abortion is in the news again, some of my lurkers from the old days will come back for a squiz and they will know. I tried to find out using a cursory google search, and there are at least three theme desks, but none of them seem to be general, or in a category which would cover the Tell the Truth Coalition leaflet drop. It wouldn't come under organised crime or gambling, for example.

So, there it is, the latest. Sorry that it's not the pinnacle of informed perfection that I wanted it to be, but it's better than nothing! I dropped in on Ron's "Pro-Life Conference" blog the other day. He's all alone, barking at the moon. Just like me!

I like to think that I'm not quite as mad, but that's a matter of opinion.

The Advertising Standards Bureau and Tell The Truth

Thanks to Shell for letting me know about this.

The Advertising Standards Bureau has issued a media release about the pamphlet distributed by the Tell The Truth Coalition.

Nice to know that it was discussed. I'd like to know how it will be dealt with now though.

The unbelievable Gabriel Mercy

Just for the fun of it (and to learn more about Latin) this is the response I wrote to Gabriel Mercy's third comment on this post of Ron's. Gabriel said that foetus meant "little one" in Latin. I just couldn't let that one past:

Speaking of twaddle.

In Latin it is "fetus".

It means, when used as an adjective: "pregnant" or "newly delivered". Figuratively it means "productive" or "full of".

When used as a verbal noun, or noun:
"breeding, bearing, producing; brood, young; fruit, produce". Figuratively - "production".

That was from my Latin dictionary at home. Three web translators also failed to come up with "little one". Where do you get your information, Gabriel? Once again, nowhere credible.

Gabriel you sound as though you have been getting your information from a pulpit since infancy. I think I may speak for Stephen when I say we get our information from rather more, um, "provable" or "reliable" sources.

I speak for myself when I say that abortion cannot be depriving a person of life when there was no person to be deprived. As far as the foetus is concerned, there is no "point of view" to be had.

Your views, that a fertilised egg has a "sacred" right to life, and that we humans do not have the knowledge or wisdom to determine who is to be put to death, betray the fact that your views have a religious premise.

There are no facts in your views just as there are no facts in your "innocent prolifer" anecdotes or Latin definitions.

Has Margaret Tighe withdrawn her support for Tell The Truth?

The link to the Tell The Truth Coalition website has returned on Ron's blog, only this time with a new domain name (I'm not providing links in this post, sorry, as I don't want to increase the site's Google ranking).

Because I couldn't help myself, I did a whois on the new address.

Where the old web address was registered by Maraget Tighe of The Right to Life Australia Inc., the new registrant is Ron van Wegen himself.

I asked my hubby to have a look at tellthetruth.org.au when it first went offline and he said the domain name was still registered, it had just been turned off so that no one could access it (in non-geek speak).

Since the original domain name is still available, does that mean that Ron and Margaret have had a falling out over methods? It's possible. The public outrage caused by the use of US scare tactics in Australia might have made Margaret Tighe want to keep the Tell The Truth Coalition at a good distance from The Right to Life Australia Inc.

Also, one cannot help but notice that though Right to Life Australia has an ABN, the Tell The Truth coalition does not. Does this mean it is not a registered non-profit organisation? In other words, though Ron says the group consists of thousands of ordinary Australians, its possible that it could be what it looks like. Enough people to deliver a few thousand leaflets and a couple of bloggers.

Porky Pies on the AustralianProLifeConference Blog?

After I quipped in my abortion story (a comment on this post) that I was relieved not to be physically assaulted I was immediately accused of slander and asked to proved evidence of ProLife violence (because Peter Knight, who shot someone, was not a ProLifer, apparently). So I checked the newspapers and came up with:

In July 2006 Johnathon Stack, 70 was charged with making threats to kill, using threatening language in public and threatening to cause serious injury. This was at the abortion clinic where the security guard was shot.

I was roundly ticked off by Ron for not providing evidence that he had been proven guilty.

*sigh* Personally, I didn't think the police were called for hymn singing, but never mind.

Also, a certain Gabriel mercy, who has at least managed to be mostly civil, wrote:

"I happen to know all the details of that incident and the charges, which were dropped, were a complete and utter fabrication."

and

"Of course, the papers didn't report on the assault of poor old John Stack by a thug of a guard who knocked him to the ground three times. John was trying to hang on to a banner which had been snatched by a female. The case went to court as a civil action (the police refused to take action, even though the victim was bruised and bleeding) and the assault by the guard was found proved. Did the newspapers report it? Don't make me laugh!"

Ok, I thought, lets see if we can find out if ol' John Stack was convicted, and whether he instigated civil proceedings.

So I wrote to the Magistrates Court, who wrote back the very next day.

The charges were not dropped as she said, and the Herald Sun did not lie.

There was, however, no recorded conviction as both the prosecution and the defense agreed to a Diversion Program. To quote them: "Mr Stack was placed on, and successfully completed, a
Diversion Plan for a charge of 'use threatening words in a public place'. The matter was discharged (Diversion completed) on 20 August 2007."

The letter did not mention a civil proceeding at all, though I asked. I am thinking of writing again to ask them specifically but strongly feel that it might be a waste of time :-(

The fact that John Stack was dealt with under the Diversion Program does speak in his favour as it meant that he was either a first offender or considered likely to benefit from participation.

However, Gabriel Mercy's statements on the matter do not speak in her favour. At least as far as her credibility is concerned. Let's be generous and say the grandmother's memory is a little hazy shall we? So sad, she was one of the polite ones too.

Yikes, I've reallly made Ron cross! Is this libel?

It's possible that some of the names he called me would constitute libel. That is, if I had any community standing, which, cheerfully, I do not.

My reply follows:

Jeepers Ron. Relax.

Yes, all the Australian papers for the last ten years. If you have subscribed to NewsText, you would know that you can select a personalised list and do it with one search.

NewsText is free to subscribe to, so I hope that didn't hurt your unemployed pocket too much.

I have no idea where you got the figure of $17.50 from. Articles cost $1.75 each, but as a mother of two with only one member of our family earning money, we literally watch our pennies. So no, I didn't do an extra search to find out whether he was convicted. You asked for evidence, I provided. True, it could have been better, but I figured that people don't call the police because some guy is singing hymns at the front door.

He may not have been convicted as you say, however, he was definitely arrested. And if Gabriel Mercy is to be believed, he may have been a self proclaimed ProLifer but not one of your lot.

I care very much about the truth Ron, it's why I'm here. It's what angered me about your pamphlet in the first place.

On the subject of truth, perhaps you could answer some of my questions? No need for you to be as vindictive as you accuse me of, surely?

By the way, (will you take a personal conversation with an editor at the Herald Sun as evidence? or should I have something in writing with a wax seal?) I don't know that it's true that ProLife activity would necessarily make the front page. The letters editor told me that they didn't want to give you (ProLife movement) too much attention as it would only encourage you. That's why the leaflet news landed on page ten and they didn't allow too many letters or opinion pieces.

You may have noticed that The Age ignored you altogether.

I didn't slander anybody Ron. If the Herald Sun legal team passed it, I think I'm safe. I have more evidence for a nasty incident than you have evidence that he is a "good man". Unless you know him personally?

As for slandering a "particular ProLifer" I didn't do that either. I passed on a story told to me while mentioning no names, which is exactly what you did with your list of "abortion risks" on your leaflet. What's good for the gander...

I have at all times striven for truthful communication when writing on this blog.

You moderated out a post that I wrote to Angela correcting a mistake about the Johns Hopkins cases where my tired brain muddled a few different precedent setting cases regarding infant palliative care, and you constantly twist my words and quote me out of context.

Given your less than polite responses to me, and your refusal to back up your own claims (answer my questions - please!) it is a wonder I bother with the truth at all, as I doubt it would make the slightest difference to your attitude.

As for posting on my blog??? You can't have used your real name. I moderate out abusive trolls, just as you do, so if the letter was abusive and unconstructive it would have been deleted. Obviously I cannot undelete them to show you. The initial flood has stopped, but if I get any more I will post them as you request.

Please provide the names of two ProLifers that I have slandered along with what I accused them of. Slander has to be an untruthful oral statement about a particular person that harms their reputation. Good luck with that one.

*sigh* and as for this: "And born babies can't survive without total care either. So we can kill them too I guess. You've already said so elsewhere haven't you?"

Babies that are already born can survive under someone else's care, Ron. That's my whole point, until it can survive outside the mother it's not a separate individual baby. If the mother dies before the foetus is mature enough, no amount of prayer or wishful thinking on anybody's part will make it a baby. At twelve weeks (for example) it's not a baby, it's a part of the mother.

As for infanticide I have already said elsewhere that yes I think it is appropriate for parents to decide that in VERY SPECIFIC instances.

I am beginning to think that any dialogue is impossible. We are obviously from different worlds. This is possibly because of my atheist upbringing (I reject atheism btw, not that you asked) and secular group of friends.

I have not heard stories of regretted abortions because people I know who have had one don't regard a pre twelve week foetus as a separate conscious individual with rights. However, maybe if I had been brought up in a religious community and taught that life is sacred from conception my friends would have been different, and my feelings and any stories I heard would have been different.

Then again, I may have done bioethics and changed my mind, just as I did metaphysics and changed my mind about god. Who knows?

One thing is true. It's very difficult for people with radically different belief systems to politely converse, don't you think?

I'm going to work on some of Angela's stuff now. Brind, here we come.

Kind regards,
Emervents

Ron remembers his conception....

WARNING: Ron is at it again with the graphic pictures, if you don't want to see it, don't go to his website.

... and just before I go to bed, the bit in red, below has been added to the "About Me" section of Ron's website. It's just too hilarious.

"ABOUT ME
(Photo of Ron and friend in a boat.)
RON VAN WEGEN
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
I remember my conception."

In my deliriously tired state I want to shout, "It's a miracle! A man who remembers being conceived! Praise the lord!"

I'll settle for laughing on the inside. Does he want people to take him seriously?

Stupid question.

The only reason I hang around there is in hope that the ProChoice commentary will continue to be added to the mix. So the uninitiated will at least be exposed to another point of view.

It's keeping me up rather late though :-( never mind. All worth it.

Where is TellTheTruth.org.au ????

I tend to link to the Australian ProLife Conference blog via Tell The Truth just to see if it's changed and this morning it did not exist!

Also, links to Tell The Truth have been removed from Ron's blog. What happened?

Commenting on Andrew Bolt's Blog? Who'd have thought?

I supported Stephen's (btw you rock) comments on Andrew Bolt's blog. You have to dig a bit to find Ron's piece and the few comments below. It certainly didn't make the same impact as the letter drop.

As far as I know, this attempt to regain publicity for his blog has failed. No new posts have appeared on his AustralianProlifeConference blog, but that could be because he hasn't got around to moderating it yet.

At least I know he won't be getting any publicity from this site... no readers! :-)

Tell The Truth tries to revive its dying blog...

By the looks of Ron's last post it looks like Ron needs a way to revive his dead blog that doesn't involve a leaflet drop. I wonder if it will work?

I'm sure he'll get a sympathetic ear with Andrew Bolt's readers, perhaps that was what he was missing on his own turf?

Where are all the pro-lifers at the "Pro-life Conference"? Why aren't they all "conferring"?

Ron doesn't represent the Tell The Truth Coalition?

UPDATE 30/9/08 For those of you interested in reading more about the Tell The Truth Coalition, try my more up to date posts.
_______________________________

This has suddenly appeared on the Tell The Truth blog:

"The views expressed
on this site are not
necessarily those of
the Tell the Truth
Coalition."

Could it be people like me they refer to? Or Ron? One wonders if Ron has had a quiet ticking off....

Alas! Moderated out of TellTheTruth?

I don't think Ron can handle the truth.

Dear Ron has held me up as a target for abuse as a baby killer and switched on comment moderation. So far he has not published my responses.

Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, he might be busy.

If it's a serious block I suppose there is nothing to stop me responding here!! :-)

Tell The Truth and Pro-life lie dissemination tactics

Some one told me to condense the letters to MPs to 800 words. So I did:

On the labour day weekend Right to Life Australia started a campaign called “Tell the Truth”. Or rather, they delivered pictures of dead foetuses to peoples’ homes. The distress caused to anyone who recently lost a pregnancy is bound to be immense. What most disturbed me, however, is the thought of anyone reading the material and accepting it at face value, particularly a woman in the middle of a life changing decision. My background in foetal development and an interest in mass communication techniques allowed me to see the leaflet in a rather different light to my friends. My friends saw pictures they never want to see again. What I saw was pro-life propaganda masquerading as informative and helpful information. This is what I saw:

Five out of six sections of their leaflet have “DID YOU KNOW?” emblazoned in white across the top. This implies that they have knowledge to impart, knowledge that you need; “DID YOU KNOW?” prepares the reader’s mind the facts for to follow. Facts like this: “Every week in Victoria enough children to fill a primary school are aborted.” Did you think of your local primary school? How many children attend? Do you think it matches the number of abortions in Victoria per week? How would you know?

The primary school comparison is more emotive than factual. The idea is not to impart knowledge as implied by the “DID YOU KNOW?” heading, the idea is to aid the pro-life cause by planting a picture of a school’s worth of dead children in your mind. However, and this is the scary part, you were subconsciously prepped for knowledge by the heading. You would feel you know that a primary school’s worth of children are aborted each week in Victoria. Yet in reality you would know nothing of substance. Under interrogation – exactly how many abortions? – the knowledge illusion fades.

The use of primary school imagery is significant. For the pro-life movement, the more child-like the foetus appears, the easier it is to make their claim that abortion is the murder of a child. The next quotes attempt to make the foetus child-like by exaggerating foetal development and capacities. The grains of truth amidst the exaggerations were obvious to me, but not to someone with no exposure to foetal development.

“DID YOU KNOW?” “Unborn babies have all their organs and body features present by eight weeks.” “By between 7 and 12 weeks gestation the heart has been beating for weeks…fingerprints are evident and taste buds and teeth are beginning to form. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves and circulation.” “At 11 weeks you were able to swallow, digest, urinate, sleep, dream and taste.”

As foetal development forms part of my studies I knew immediately that most of these claims were exaggerated. The foetus is not as developed as they claim and that an 11 week foetus sleeps, dreams and tastes is pure conjecture. These quotes promote the idea of a tiny fully formed baby capable of mature human acts such as tasting and dreaming; the reference to the reader (“DID YOU KNOW?…you were able to…”) makes it personal.

Sadly, these quotes neither accurately inform nor encourage rational thought. By describing the foetus in this way, they portray a mental image of a fully formed, mentally active baby at only 11 weeks gestation. This emotive mental picture is factually wrong. If it were truly equivalent to a baby or child, we could put it in a pram and walk it around the block.

“There are many psychological and physical risks for women who have had abortions...” We now have the list of risks under the trust inspiring “DID YOU KNOW?” banner. These “risks” are reported by women that the authors of the leaflet have counselled after an abortion. Note - not doctors, or epidemiologists, but women who have undergone a termination. Now, I know that these reports from women do not constitute abortion risks. I know, and my educated friends know, that these are abortion anecdotes. So, while they are gloomy and possibly true, they are not risks.

I know this, but does the teenage daughter of immigrants who lives near me know the difference between a medically established risk and a story? Will she be media savvy enough to see that the authors of the leaflet have a clear agenda? Maybe, maybe not, and the thought that she might use this propaganda in place of accurate and impartial information sickens me.

There are many other errors and insinuations in the leaflet that unfortunately I don’t have room for here. In my humble opinion, the leaflet is propaganda that employs misinformation, exaggeration, one-sided anecdotal evidence and shocking pictures to persuade others that abortion is the murder of a child and dangerous for women. It makes a mockery of the idea of informed choice. The only way to correct this misinformation and contain the damage is to deliver another round of information by the same route; make it approved by the relevant government and medical bodies, make it medically accurate and above all, impartial.