This summary highlights the dissemination of misrepresentation and disinformation concerning abortion-related topics made by Dr Joanna Howe, a Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide with a Doctorate in Philosophy.

A Summary of the Document “Misrepresentation and Disinformation by Dr Joanna Howe“.

The document by Georgia Davies-Thain critically examines the actions and claims made by Dr Joanna Howe, a Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide, highlighting the dissemination of misrepresentation and disinformation concerning abortion-related topics. Below is a summarised overview of the key concerns outlined in the document:

1. Abortion Data Misrepresentation: Dr Howe allegedly misused abortion data, including claims about “45 healthy and viable babies” terminated under the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, which are not supported by reports from the SA Abortion Reporting Committee.
2. Rights and International Law: Dr Howe’s interpretation of Article 6 of the ICCPR is challenged, as she suggests rights for unborn foetuses, contradicting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which confers rights post-birth.
3. Medical Necessity: The document refutes Dr Howe’s claim that abortion is never medically necessary, citing authoritative bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that recognise abortion as essential in certain medical scenarios.
4. Legal Implications of Miscarriage: Contrary to Howe’s assertions, there are documented instances, such as in El Salvador, where women have faced legal action following miscarriages.
5. Safety of Medical Abortions: Dr Howe’s views on the dangers of medical abortions are contradicted by research indicating their significant safety compared to many regular medications.
6. Sex-Selective Abortions: Dr Howe’s portrayal of sex-selective abortions in NSW is seen as exaggerated, with actual occurrences being much lower than her claims.
7. Misleading Data in WA and Victoria: The conflation of late-term abortion statistics with general abortion data by Dr Howe is highlighted as misleading and opposing to abortion reform.
8. Public Opinion on Legal Abortion: Dr Howe is noted for selectively interpreting public opinion surveys, ignoring the broader support for legal abortion when considering comprehensive data.
9. Pressure to Abort Due to Down Syndrome: Dr Howe’s claims about medical personnel pressuring abortions in cases of Down syndrome are criticised as overstated.
10. Human Rights Law Misinterpretation: Dr Howe’s interpretation of Article 6 of the ICCPR is inconsistent with international human rights standards, which do not attribute the right to life to foetuses in the womb.

The document concludes by stressing the need for accountability and accuracy in public discourse, advocating for fact-based policy discussions. Such a critique underlines the complexity and nuances involved in abortion discourse and emphasises the importance of relying on factual and well-supported data to shape public policy and opinion.

To foster informed dialogue and advocacy, this summary encapsulates the central points addressed in the document. To provide a deeper understanding, they have also been explored further below.

THE EXTENDED EDITION:

Let’s dive deeper into each of the ten key points regarding abortion rights and laws:

1. Misrepresentation of Abortion Data:
   • Detail Expansion: Professor Joanna Howe’s assertion that “45 healthy and viable babies” were terminated under the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 is critically flawed. The 2022 and 2023 SA Abortion Reporting Committee Annual Reports, specifically tables 6a and 6, do not substantiate claims regarding foetal viability. The reports focus on procedural data without explicit medical context concerning foetal health or viability.
   • Additional Context: Viability is complex and involves factors beyond gestational age, such as physiological and developmental markers. Howe’s oversimplification misleads the public about the medical realities of late-term abortions.
2. Balancing Foetal and Maternal Rights:
   • Detail Expansion: Howe’s interpretation of Article 6 of the ICCPR as conferring rights to foetuses is a misapplication of international human rights law. The ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were created to confer rights at birth. The document underscores the precedence of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which guides treaty interpretation aligned with these foundational documents.
   • Additional Context: This misinterpretation risks setting back women’s rights by misapplying legal standards never intended for foetuses in utero.
3. Medical Necessity of Abortion:
   • Detail Expansion: Numerous medical authorities have refuted claims that abortion is never medically necessary. Medical interventions, including abortion, are crucial for situations such as severe pre-eclampsia or life-threatening foetal anomalies. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists explicitly acknowledges the necessity of abortion to preserve maternal health and life.
   • Additional Context: Misrepresenting medical facts undermines healthcare providers’ ability to deliver critical, life-saving care and may influence policy detrimental to women’s health.
4. Legal Consequences of Miscarriage:
   • Detail Expansion: Despite Howe’s assertions, evidence from countries like El Salvador illustrates the harsh legal consequences women face post-miscarriage in jurisdictions with stringent abortion laws. These precedents highlight the perilous path of criminalising reproductive outcomes without due consideration.
   • Additional Context: Such legal frameworks often fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary pregnancy losses, leading to unjust prosecutions and profound human rights violations.
5. Safety of Medical Abortions:
   • Detail Expansion: Contrary to Howe’s claims, medical abortion remains notably safe, with extensive research corroborating its efficacy and low complication rates. The FDA, alongside numerous global studies, confirms the safety of medications like Mifepristone, challenging any narrative suggesting heightened risk.
   • Additional Context: Scare tactics surrounding medical abortion can deter individuals from safe procedures, resulting in increased reliance on less regulated and potentially harmful alternatives.
6. Sex Selective Abortions:
   • Detail Expansion: Howe’s misrepresentation of the prevalence of sex-selective abortions in NSW, based on skewed interpretations of health surveys, misleads public discourse. The document emphasises the ethical and cultural implications of sex-selective abortion narratives, which are frequently sensationalised.
   • Additional Context: Accurate data interpretation is crucial in addressing and preventing culturally biased practices without propagating unfounded claims.
7. Abortion Data Misrepresentation in WA and Victoria:
   • Detail Expansion: Howe’s narrative conflates late-term abortion data with aggregate statistics to bolster her stance against abortion reforms. The document corrects these inaccuracies by presenting comprehensive data, illustrating the predominant medical justifications for late-term procedures.
   • Additional Context: Misleading data interpretations can sway legislative decisions, impacting reproductive rights policies at critical junctures.
8. Support for Legal Abortion:
   • Detail Expansion: Howe selectively interprets IPSOS poll data to falsely portray limited public support for abortion. The document highlights broader survey results, demonstrating significant support for legal abortion across various circumstances, countering Howe’s narrative.
   • Additional Context: Public opinion polls, when contextualised accurately, offer vital insights into societal attitudes toward reproductive rights, influencing policy and discourse.
9. Pressure to Abort Due to Down Syndrome:
   • Detail Expansion: Howe’s claims regarding coercion in abortion decisions related to Down syndrome lack nuanced interpretation of survey data. The document contrasts Howe’s statements with actual findings, which depict a more complex landscape of parental experiences.
   • Additional Context: The misrepresentation of such sensitive issues can exacerbate stigma and distress among affected families, necessitating careful, fact-based dialogue.
10. Misinterpretation of Human Rights Law:
    • Detail Expansion: Howe’s use of Article 6 of the ICCPR to argue against abortion rights disregards the extensive legal frameworks affirming postnatal human rights. The document meticulously outlines customary international law and treaty negotiations, reinforcing the conferral of rights post-birth.
    • Additional Context: Misinterpretations pose significant threats to established human rights norms, undermining decades of progress in gender equality and reproductive autonomy.

This summary serves as a basis for discussions and fact-checking, aiming to address and counter public misinformation effectively.