…but only through a statistically invalid research survey – with the results reported in parrot fashion by a compliant media.

Do you remember the days when reporters worked as investigators rather than simply repeating information fed to them by others? When they actually critically examined information before publishing it rather than gullibly accepting it and putting it in print? When they reported information in an unbiased way (or at least in a less overtly biased way!)?

I do.

And so I can tell you that Josh Zimmerman is no investigative journalist. He fits into the category of reporter who gullibly accepts information rather than critically examining it first. Mind you, he works for the West Australian so his ability to investigate might be severely restricted I suppose, because the West Australian is a decidedly left wing, pro-abortion rag.

In any case he has written an article published in the West Australian on 10th June 2023 – an ‘EXCLUSIVE’ no less, titled Sweeping abortion reforms get a tick

– in which he reports on the results of a survey authorised by Amber Jade Sanderson. This so-called survey was supposed to have been designed to determine the community’s views on updating the ‘outdated’ abortion laws in Western Australia.

It is – or should have been – a really important document because our current state government is going to use it to justify changing the current abortion laws in some very radical ways.

If Zimmerman was an investigative journalist, and if he was given free rein to investigate, and if he could just control his bias for a little while, he might have looked at the research instrument – the survey – and realised that it is a hopeless instrument. Now Sanderson is going to say that the sample size was really big (76000) so it must represent the views of the majority of people in Western Australia, right?

Of course there are people who will believe her without questioning the validity of her assertion, but Sanderson herself is no fool so she must know the survey is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is so full of errors, has such built in bias and is so lacking in valid response options that it can’t be said to be representative of anything.

Yet Sanderson, who is a WA Minister not just an elected MP, is going to argue that the government is now fully justified in ramming through abortion legislation that will even force doctors who don’t agree with the killing of children through abortion to either still perform the grisly act themselves or immediately refer the mother to someone who will.

That legislation will allow the ‘general’ abortion limit to be raised to twenty four weeks gestation, even though we know that a child is viable (will survive on its own outside its mother’s womb) at twenty two weeks.

That legislation will not even cause the child to be given pain killing medication before it is ripped apart in a horrible act of murder.

That legislation will not consider how the mother will suffer for the rest of her life as a result of her decision to end the life of her child.

You may recall that Sanderson was the author of the report into Euthanasia a year or two ago. That document was so biased – even in the title – and so unrepresentative of the public submissions – that I suppose we should be used to this state government basing legislation decisions on garbage.

Sanderson is backed by Sue Ellery – no surprise there – who thinks there should be no obstacles to safe, private and dignified abortions. Abortions? Dignified? Give me a break. Tell that to the baby. In fact, Sanderson is backed by most of the MPs currently in Parliament with McGurk and Kelly prominent amongst them, most of whom are Labor members. That said, they are still being given a conscience vote on the issue, which is more than the legislation will give a doctor who doesn’t want to refer a woman to someone who will take the life of her child.