Give women more options
No surprise (Daily Advertiser, May 13) that Wagga Women's Health Centre's manager Gail Meyer has announced the centre's membership of NSW Pro-Choice Alliance, led by the Women's Electoral Lobby, in a campaign to to decriminalise abortion. Ms Meyer said, in effect, rather than promoting real strategies for sexual and reproductive health for women, heat is being applied to Wagga MP Joe McGirr, whose personal opinion is Pro-Life.
In March this year, Opposition Labor Leader Bill Shorten and his Deputy Tanya Plibersek, who is on Emily's List (a radical pro-abortion group), pledged to overhaul the health system, with terminations in public hospitals. Under Labor, funding for hospitals would be based on whether they provide abortions.
This could cripple election promises to recruit more nursing staff, given that many would not want to be any part of hospitals doing abortions.
All this, along with other social changes such as Safe Schools-style programs, are examples of Cultural Marxism, fostered in our universities for decades to advance socialism.
Our education unions, education, law and health bodies are effectively controlled by radicals. These subversives can only gain more power under a Labor government.
Where is the strategy to give women more options than to feel the only way forward is to take the life of an innocent human being?
Not all the information
Ray's Reasoning (It's an apocalyptic vision of the world, May 14) refers to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems (IPBES) that he describes as a "bombshell" with "calamitous", "brutal" and "mind-boggling" predictions for our "battered and ravaged" world; no doubt for the edification of all of us who are a bit vague about what "apocalyptic" means.
Funnily enough though, your columnist has not actually clapped eyes on the report that he cites - no one has because the IPBES website notes that its 1500 pages will not be published until "later this year". Your columnist is, instead, quoting a media release which runs to a few slim pages.
In scientific terms a summary, a precis or an abstract might be expected to be closely linked to the elements of the full report - a press release, on the other hand, is a poor, distant, illegitimate cousin.
That's why there is no mention even one of the "million" species that he claims that the report says are "threatened" with extinction (surely a potential heart-string tugger were but one named) - because the IPBES media release is similarly schtum on such seemingly trivial detail. If toe-fungus dies out should we weep by the waters of Babylon?
As for the idea of "threatened" extinction of some species or other, one might note the continued falling primary vote for The Greens in NSW and reasonably predict their own "threatened" extinction within 10 years.
That conclusion, which I'm sure your columnist would vehemently oppose, uses exactly the same data projections and logic that he cites in his column about species extinction - except that he can't name any of those other species.