Hey, we can say it

An attack has been made on the Australian media from the front page of Life Decisions International (LDI), whose domain name is the far more accurate fightpp.org (PP being the USA’s Planned Parenthood, the family planning organisation that offers comprehensive sex education and pregnancy services including abortion for those who choose it). The LDI are upset that somebody noticed an association between them and serial ministerial bungler Kevin Andrews.

Australian Media Shows No Regard For The Truth

It is not unusual for pro-abortion activists to use their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. But some in the Australian media are taking the practice to a whole new level. LDI has issued a response to an attack on an Australian lawmaker.

When we go to the response, the target of our media’s attack is made more explicit (the weird hyphenation of some words is in the original):

Australia Media Shows No Regard For Truth In Attack On Pro-Life Minister

WASHINGTON, D.C.–It’s nothing new. Pro-abortion activ-ists work with their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. The most recent vociferous attack is against the Honorable Kevin Andrews, a Member of the Australian Parliament and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

“It is obvious that some pro-abortion zealot was in the United States or was searching the Internet in an effort to find something that could be used to attack Mr. Andrews,” said Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions Interna-tional (LDI). “They eventually discovered that Mr. Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of our Board of Advi-sors. To pro-abortion activists, one may as well be a mem-ber of the Ku Klux Klan.”

In an article by pro-abortion apologists Kerry-Anne Walsh and Michelle Singer of Australia’s Sun-Herald titled, “Andrews in radical group that boycotts Disney,” Kevin Andrews is called an “adviser to a radical right-wing inter-national organisation that advocates economic boycotts to achieve social and political change.” In the very next sen-tence, Andrews is said to be “officially listed as a board member to Life Decisions International (LDI).”

“Talk about admitting a bias right off the bat,” Scott said. “LDI is called a ‘radical right-wing’ organization. We are later referred to as an ‘extremist body’.”

Right. A group of people that not only want to end all abortions but also target the practise of contraception in it’s entirety aren’t extremist at all! Note that whenever they are confronted they claim to be only against abortion, but a perusal of their press releases shows that they actually call any approach to sexuality other than chasitity part of an alleged “Culture of Death”. This includes instructions about Safe Sex procedures to help control STIs (they blame Planned Parenthood for changing the terminology from STDs to STIs as well, I’m not sure what nefarious goal that is meant to further).

LDI is part of the broader anti-contracepting movement which is allied to the anti-abortion movement. Because a majority of anti-abortion supporters see no moral problem with contraception per se, these anti-contracepting organisations tend to bury this agenda under layers of the usual emotive anti-abortion arguments. The opposition to all forms of contraception tends to be covert, because most people simply do not agree.

If the LDI are wanting to defend Andrews from the general impression of incompetence that flows from a perceived conflict of interest between his ministerial position and his position on the LDI board, implying that Andrews makes all his decisions without due consideration won’t be helping.

The writers suggested that Andrews should not serve in the Australian cabinet because he has a “conflict of inter-est.” After all, they suggest, he could have to “make deci-sions that affect companies boycotted by the extremist body he advises.”

“This is nonsense. We do not even send The Boycott List to Kevin and Margaret Andrews. And even if we did, the Minister would have to carry it around with him to know which corporations to target. Walsh and Singer cannot be serious!”

Yeah, whoever heard of a senior legislator and government executive office holder taking time out to for due diligence checks on matters of record before making a ministerial decision?

The response to the Australian media attention also asserts that Andrews and his wife have nothing to do with the policymaking of the organisation, because they are part of the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors:

“Kevin Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of LDI’s Board of Advisors,” Scott explained. “He has had ab-solutely no role in determining LDI policy or strategy. The listing of prominent lawmakers or business leaders on let-terhead in an advisory capacity is nothing new.” (emphasis added)

Here’s what the website says about the Board of Directors:

A respected Board of Directors establishes policy relating to life issues and fiduciary accountability. This talented group of volunteers actively oversees LDI activity in these areas. They ensure that LDI employs only the highest ethical standards. (emphasis added)

Interestingly, of the long list of names on the page detailing the members of the Board of Advisors/Board of Directors, the only two people identified as Hon. Advisors rather than Directors are Kevin and Margaret Andrews. This distinction may possibly be purely because they are the only non-North Americans on the Board, or it may be intended to provide a layer of plausible deniability as to their level of involvement in decision-making.

Like so many other recent matters, Kevin Andrews refuses to answer all the questions put to him. Way to continue to erode public confidence in the probity of the Howard Cabinet, Mr Andrews. Do keep up the good work.

Crossposted at LP

Categories: culture wars, ethics & philosophy, Politics, religion

Tags: , ,

3 replies

  1. This is really scary. We’ve so far managed to avoid this particularly brand of religious wingnuttery gaining a foothold anywhere left of Fred Nile, but to see a government minister getting involved with one of the hardcore American organisations…not a good sign. I’m glad the media seem to be running with it some.

  2. I think the hyphen thing is because the peo-ple they are trying to reach aren’t used to words of more than one syll-a-ble.
    You know, like those 1930s learn to read primers.

  3. Also, Andrews doesn’t seem to be very “honourable” when it comes to his behaviour towards the already born (and insufficiently anglo). You Australians all know who I’m talking about.

%d bloggers like this: