Coercion is more than just overt pressure

Coercion is more than just overt pressure

This is the second part of a briefing paper prepared by Debbie Garratt of Real Choices Australia. The first part critiques a recently-released draft White Paper from Marie Stopes Australia, which deals with the topic of Reproductive Coercion. Click here to read part 1.

The majority (>95%) of terminations in Australia occur for psychosocial reasons including not having enough resources, whether financial or material, not feeling able to cope with a baby due to age or lack of support, fears about the impact of pregnancy and parenting on other life choices, as well as consideration for the needs of other people a woman cares for.

Abortion advocates cite such reasons, among others, as supporting the need for abortion, yet in reality abortion offers surgical or medical solutions to social and relational problems, meaning women are forced to decide between their social/economic wellbeing and the continuation of a pregnancy. The power of this subtle form of coercion becomes even more insidious for post- abortive women who experience regret, suffering or mental health problems following abortion as the discourse convinces them they made a real choice to terminate and therefore carry full responsibility. Post-termination counselling offered by abortion advocacy organisations are generally geared toward ensuring the right to abortion is upheld and therefore reframing the woman’s experience toward understanding that she made an autonomous and free choice, regardless of her internal experience.

The dominant discourse is strongly abortion advocating, upholding abstracted rights as an ideal. Aspects of the discourse that contribute to its manipulative and coercive nature include alarmist statements, disinformation and the censorship of dissenting voices, regardless of the veracity of facts the latter present. The pervasive effects of the dominant discourse contribute to an environment where continuing a pregnancy is framed as a burden and parenting is experienced as an unsupported journey.

Alarmist, incorrect statements that abortion is anywhere from 14 – 100 times safer than childbirth feed into fears many women may have about birth, and are more like soundbites for abortion marketing. The same is true of alarmism inherent in statements that women will die without abortion access and that abortion access is the only way in which women can achieve ‘true’ equality.

Coercion exists in the absence of information

Pregnancy termination is a surgical or medical procedure, and therefore governed by guidelines for all other surgical or medical procedures. If abortion provision was practised according to guidelines for other health care it would not be necessary to address whether women are screened for coercive factors, as this should be considered a standard aspect of informed consent practise. Such practise includes that women have a full understanding of the risks and benefits of each option, that they understand and can access the full range of options, and that they are freely consenting. The fact that women are citing coercion as a factor in terminations they have undertaken is a sign that effective and expected screening and informed consent for pregnancy termination is falling short of that expected. Given the highly contentious nature of abortion, it would not seem unreasonable to hold such processes to a higher standard than those for other procedures, yet the opposite appears to be true in practise.

Post-abortive women who have sought counsel or advice through our service often describe very limited and inadequate processes of consent including:

  • Group sessions, whereby they were given information and the opportunity to ask any questions only in a group context,
  • Only seeing the doctor when they had already been prepped and ready for surgical termination,
  • Being asked ‘is this what you want?’ as the only checking in with their wishes,
  • Being ‘counselled’ in the presence of a pressuring partner, and
  • Being given misinformation about the effects of mifepristone and their ability to withdraw consent and discontinue a medical abortion procedure.

Coercion exists in the walk-in – walk-out nature of abortion provision. Most private abortion clinics operate on a walk in walk out model, whereby a woman phones to make an appointment and is scheduled for termination during the same appointment where she may also receive information and/or counselling. Abortion advocates argue vehemently against alternatives such as ensuring at least two appointments with an opportunity between them to fully consider options, citing the added burden on women of two visits. This is in spite of the fact that there are no other invasive surgical procedures such as termination that can be accessed on the day of request using such a model.

 

Coercion exists in labelling doctors who object to abortion as untrustworthy

When laws exist that state that a doctor who does not agree with abortion, whether for religious, ethical or medical reasons, cannot be trusted to provide accurate information about abortion, abortion discourse becomes the sole domain of those more concerned with ‘rights’ than with women themselves. When AMA guidelines advise doctors with a conscientious objection to end consultations with women considering pregnancy options, but then suggest that abortion providers may still decline abortion based on a woman’s individual circumstances, the only conclusion is that one group of doctors is untrustworthy.1

Censorship within abortion discourse not only affects those who disagree with abortion, but also those who support abortion access, but still feel pressured to withhold information, use certain words, or in some way encourage abortion due to fears of impeding rights.2 Such internalised censorship means that women have few sources of information about the potential of adverse impacts on their physical or mental health or their relationships. It also means they may view with suspicion any information, no matter how accurate, regarding adverse impacts of abortion.

Coercion exists in the absence of alternatives information

Abortion advocates frequently disparage supportive services established to provide women with material aid, emotional support and decision-making counsel, purely on the grounds of ideology. Where centres exist that offer to meet the identified needs of women, such as material aid, financial resourcing, emotional support, such information should be provided to women in order to provide them with alternative options. Yet, not only do these referrals not happen, but abortion advocates work to discredit and undermine the essential work undertaken by them to support women.

Key Recommendations

  1. It is essential that coercion to terminate be seen as a phenomenon in its own right, not packaged and hidden in euphemisms such as ‘pregnancy outcome control’. The consequences of coercion to terminate are hugely significant on the lives of women and add considerably to the burden of mental health and other emotional issues that they experience.
  2. Research on, and education about, coercion to terminate should be a priority at a time when the discourse is rapidly working to further reduce access to necessary supports for women, through legislation and ongoing censorship.
  3. Access to independent (not provided by abortion providers) information about, and access to supportive services for women to continue a pregnancy needs to be strengthened and such services need to be more effectively resourced.

1 Australian Medical Association: Conscientious Objection Policy document: June/July 2013

2 Martin, LA., Hassinger JA., Debbink M. and Harris, LH. (2017). Dangertalk: Voices of abortion providers. Social Science Medicine, July (184). Pp. 75-83

 

Click here to read the first part of the briefing paper: Reproductive Coercion: Coercion to Terminate a Pregnancy

Debbie Garratt

Debbie Garratt

Click here to read more about Debbie Garratt

%d bloggers like this: