Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Katy Gallagher, the misogyny card and abortion rights

By Masquara - 2 July 2013 38

In the context of the new RU480 legislation, The Project on Channel 10 has just screened the story of a young Canberra woman who was recently refused medical treatment (morning after pill) by publicly funded Calvary Hospital. She was also refused a referral to an alternative doctor.

Katy Gallagher has been playing the “Gillard sisterhood” card for a while now (including playing the “victim of misogyny” card herself on 7.30 last week). As she is a paid-up member of the Gillard “abortion rights” sisterhood, isn’t it time Katie stood up for reproductive rights, and insisted that publicly funded hospitals offer contraception and abortion services?

So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it? 

Katy?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
38 Responses to
Katy Gallagher, the misogyny card and abortion rights
howeph 3:15 pm 02 Jul 13

chewy14 said :

FioBla said :

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny. You’re really reaching here.

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

So… lemme get this straight. Right wingers are usually going on and on about abortion being legal. God forbid it’s tax-payer-subsidised through Medicare. But… a hospital that *refuses* to participate in these subsidised-by-government services, is criticised because… it “receives buckets of public $”. Oh wait.

>So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it?

No. Just means that it’s subsidised.

Face it… Calvary doesn’t provided a lot of services. No orthopaedics, no neurosurgery, not a trauma hospital. Until recently no MRI. No ERCP. No cardiac catheterisation. No paediatric admissions. Oh yea, no contraceptive/termination services. Whoa. Everyone get on the free misogyny bus.

What does this have to do with Calvary anyway? There are plenty of doctors out there who do not work for Calvary. Some who choose not to participate in various subsidised programs. e.g. the methadone program.

(Atheist, not a Calvary employee, safe-legal-rare).

Masquara return to form!

+1. There’s no reason that accepting public money to perform certain medical procedures means that you automatically have to provide all medical procedures.

+1 From me too.

I am very much pro choice, but just because an institution is receiving significant public funding it does not follow that the institution should be forced to give treatment that it rejects on ethical grounds (whether I, or anyone else, agree with those ethical grounds or not).

It would be a different story if there wasn’t free and readily available access to these services elsewhere. In such a hypothetical case it would be the governments fault for not making those services available either in the contract that it negotiated with the hospital or via some other means.

Jim Jones 2:53 pm 02 Jul 13

Masquara said :

FioBla said :

[
No… did not hear/watch. It’s the first time I’m hearing of a drug called RU480. You have the upper han since since you watched the speech and are allowing Julia Gillard to dictate your argument.

Perhaps you should have read the OP and googled RU480 before you jumped into the discussion? This makes it appear you were internet stalking and not interested in the issue being discussed.

As opposed to raising the issue with the sole purpose of using it as a stick to beat your political opponents?

howeph 2:47 pm 02 Jul 13

Masquara said :

FioBla said :

[
No… did not hear/watch. It’s the first time I’m hearing of a drug called RU480. You have the upper han since since you watched the speech and are allowing Julia Gillard to dictate your argument.

Perhaps you should have read the OP and googled RU480 before you jumped into the discussion? This makes it appear you were internet stalking and not interested in the issue being discussed.

Is RU480 the same as RU486?

Monomyth 2:44 pm 02 Jul 13

Hi guys. My name is Ainslie, the girl who was in The Project’s story. I would like to clarify that I was after the Morning After Pill and not the abortion pill. I was unaware my story would be used in conjunction with a political action (RU486). I was not after a ‘termination of pregnancy’ as stated in the news piece, I was after not falling pregnant and I believe the distinction should be made.

My position was, and always has been, that if you have decided to pursue the medical profession you should NOT be allowed to decide who you do, and do not, treat.

Masquara 2:34 pm 02 Jul 13

FioBla said :

[
No… did not hear/watch. It’s the first time I’m hearing of a drug called RU480. You have the upper han since since you watched the speech and are allowing Julia Gillard to dictate your argument.

Perhaps you should have read the OP and googled RU480 before you jumped into the discussion? This makes it appear you were internet stalking and not interested in the issue being discussed.

Deref 2:14 pm 02 Jul 13

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

It’s not grubby- it’s a bloody disgrace. Heads should roll.

chewy14 1:29 pm 02 Jul 13

FioBla said :

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny. You’re really reaching here.

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

So… lemme get this straight. Right wingers are usually going on and on about abortion being legal. God forbid it’s tax-payer-subsidised through Medicare. But… a hospital that *refuses* to participate in these subsidised-by-government services, is criticised because… it “receives buckets of public $”. Oh wait.

>So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it?

No. Just means that it’s subsidised.

Face it… Calvary doesn’t provided a lot of services. No orthopaedics, no neurosurgery, not a trauma hospital. Until recently no MRI. No ERCP. No cardiac catheterisation. No paediatric admissions. Oh yea, no contraceptive/termination services. Whoa. Everyone get on the free misogyny bus.

What does this have to do with Calvary anyway? There are plenty of doctors out there who do not work for Calvary. Some who choose not to participate in various subsidised programs. e.g. the methadone program.

(Atheist, not a Calvary employee, safe-legal-rare).

Masquara return to form!

+1. There’s no reason that accepting public money to perform certain medical procedures means that you automatically have to provide all medical procedures.

dungfungus 1:07 pm 02 Jul 13

Somehow, I know this will be Tony Abbott’s fault.

BTW, is John Mackay retiring from the Calvary board as well?

FioBla 12:57 pm 02 Jul 13

Masquara said :

FioBla said :

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny.

Except, FioBla, that it was Julia Gillard’s “men in blue ties” speech that placed RU480 very firmly at centre stage holding hands with Misogyny. Didn’t you hear about it (blanket coverage on all media)? It was briefly proudly posted onto Gillard’s website (it was removed immediately after the spill, but you can find it on Youtube).

No… did not hear/watch. It’s the first time I’m hearing of a drug called RU480. You have the upper han since since you watched the speech and are allowing Julia Gillard to dictate your argument.

Masquara said :

Re Calvary’s “narrow range of services” – you are being both disingenuous and dishonest here. Calvary’s policies on reproductive rights are squarely based in Catholic religious beliefs. They don’t belong in the public health arena.

Yes they are based on Little Company of Mary’s Catholic beliefs. And…? So…?

Is there a law they are violating? If so… bring it.

Thumper 12:50 pm 02 Jul 13

Whatever happened to riding a horse bare back as in Puberty Blues?

Masquara 12:43 pm 02 Jul 13

FioBla said :

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny.

Except, FioBla, that it was Julia Gillard’s “men in blue ties” speech that placed RU480 very firmly at centre stage holding hands with Misogyny. Didn’t you hear about it (blanket coverage on all media)? It was briefly proudly posted onto Gillard’s website (it was removed immediately after the spill, but you can find it on Youtube).
Re Calvary’s “narrow range of services” – you are being both disingenuous and dishonest here. Calvary’s policies on reproductive rights are squarely based in Catholic religious beliefs. They don’t belong in the public health arena.

gentoopenguin 12:33 pm 02 Jul 13

I used to work at a medical centre in Sydney back in my student days. Management would roster on doc who was a born-again Christian every Monday morning, despite this been the busiest time of the week for morning after pill requests. Young women would come in after the weekend partying and leave red-faced and upset. We received so many complaints and it was frustrating to stand by and watch these women being humiliated for no good reason.

It’s disheartening to see that 15 years on this is still happening. Doctors are there to treat, not judge. If they really want to help young women like this then counsel them in contraceptive options and encourage protected sex, i.e a condom doesn’t just stop babies.

FioBla 12:29 pm 02 Jul 13

What a grab bag of arguments. The morning after pill has little to do with RU486 (even “in the context of“). Or misogyny. You’re really reaching here.

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

So… lemme get this straight. Right wingers are usually going on and on about abortion being legal. God forbid it’s tax-payer-subsidised through Medicare. But… a hospital that *refuses* to participate in these subsidised-by-government services, is criticised because… it “receives buckets of public $”. Oh wait.

>So, now that RU480 is on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will Calvary be required to prescribe it?

No. Just means that it’s subsidised.

Face it… Calvary doesn’t provided a lot of services. No orthopaedics, no neurosurgery, not a trauma hospital. Until recently no MRI. No ERCP. No cardiac catheterisation. No paediatric admissions. Oh yea, no contraceptive/termination services. Whoa. Everyone get on the free misogyny bus.

What does this have to do with Calvary anyway? There are plenty of doctors out there who do not work for Calvary. Some who choose not to participate in various subsidised programs. e.g. the methadone program.

(Atheist, not a Calvary employee, safe-legal-rare).

Masquara return to form!

Chop71 12:12 pm 02 Jul 13

Affirmative Action Man said :

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

..and their cash from Canberra

Katy could have sent the poor girl (who was refused service) to TCH Emergency where she would have been seen in exactly 30 mins… this figure may or may not be believable.

Affirmative Action M 12:03 pm 02 Jul 13

Its pretty grubby that Calvary receives buckets of public $$ but won’t have a bar of IVF or termination services. Sadly they take their orders from Rome.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site