Abortion in Australia

Written by Mishka Gora - MercartorNet.

Used with permission.

Tasmania may be small, but it will punch far above its weight on the world stage in shutting down protests against abortion if a new bill is passed.

Tasmanians learned on Friday, International Women’s Day, that abortion is to be decriminalized. This left many confused. Some took it to mean that abortion is currently illegal; others wondered if the State Government had somehow “lost” the amendments to the criminal code that legalized abortion, at any stage of gestation, in 2001.
 
Abortion has effectively been legal in Australian states for more than 40 years, although it has remained in the criminal code. The number of prosecutions in all that time can be counted on one hand. So why the sudden enthusiasm for decriminalization?
 
Because the real aim of the Labor-Green coalition which is running Tasmania is to criminalize abortion dissent . With only two weeks for the public to respond, the Health Minister, Michelle O’Byrne, has drafted what may be most draconian abortion law anywhere.
 
The neighbouring state of Victoria decriminalized abortion in 2008. Ms O’Byrne says that this is the model for her bill. But the Victorian bill contains no penalties for conscientious objectors; the Tasmanian bill does. The Victorian bill doesn’t mention counsellors; the Tasmanian bill threatens counsellors with jail. The Victorian bill doesn’t mention protests; the Tasmanian bill threatens protesters with jail.
 
If this bill passes, a part-time volunteer counsellor for an organization supporting pregnant women could be jailed for a year and fined up to A$65,000 if she refuses to refer a woman to a place where she can get an abortion. The bill’s definition of a counsellor includes anyone who gives “advice or information relating to pregnancy options” and “whether or not for fee or reward”. Overnight, all agencies which disagree with abortion will be forced to shut down.
 
Medical practitioners will be obliged under threat of a $65,000 fine to make referrals if they have a conscientious objection. To anyone who believes that an unborn child has a right to life making a referral means cooperating with evil. The proposed laws are coercing participation in the overall process of abortion procurement.
 
Nurses who refuse to participate in abortions could be fined $65,000.
 
The right to peaceful protest will also be shut down. The bill imposes a 300-metre-wide exclusion zone around abortion clinics. The maximum penalty is 12 months in jail and a $65,000 fine.
 
In the heart of the Hobart CBD a dingy, anonymous-looking building houses an abortion clinic. The exclusion zone incorporates not only four major thoroughfares (where protests and parades have traditionally taken place) but also Hobart’s busiest Catholic church and the Anglican cathedral. A priest preaching against abortion in his own church, or participants in a prayer vigil, or someone wearing a pro-life T-shirt while walking through the city, or a photographer taking candid shots of street life could all be arrested. In Launceston, the other major city in Tasmania, the exclusion zone includes part of a Catholic hospital and a major park.
 
To make matters worse, the prohibited activity includes intimidating, protesting or photographing, and “any other prescribed [sic] behaviour”. The sloppy wording, in combination with an open-ended section on regulations, could be used to punish innocent activity.
 
The Health Minister has been quite disingenuous about the scope and purpose of her bill in her statements to the media. She has mentioned none of these tyrannical measures and has given the public a mere two weeks to respond to one of the most far-reaching pieces of abortion legislation ever proposed anywhere.
 
What about doctors and nurses?
 
Although not required to perform abortions in normal circumstances, doctors and nurses are placed under a “duty to treat” if a pregnant woman is deemed to be at risk of serious injury. This means that doctors who believe it is best to treat the symptoms arising from pregnancy or to terminate the pregnancy via caesarean section or induction rather than an abortion would be forced to directly destroy a human embryo or foetus against their conscience and better judgment. It also means that Catholic hospitals will be required to offer abortion as a treatment option.
 
Sloppy drafting in the bill creates a range of potential problems. It extends the time that an abortion may be procured without specialist consultation to 24 weeks. This means that surgical abortions will not require a surgeon, thus decreasing the safety of the procedure.
 
The section protecting medical practitioners could, furthermore, be interpreted to allow abortions against a woman’s consent if it is deemed “for the woman’s benefit”. Termination has been so vaguely defined that the medical procedures of induction and caesarean section are included, potentially making elective caesareans technically illegal.
 
The removal of Section 165 of the criminal code (which applies to circumstances other than abortion) opens a can of worms. It removes the protection for anyone (other than doctors) administering first aid to a pregnant woman in good faith; it abolishes the reduced charge of infanticide for women suffering from post-natal depression; and it replaces the words “death of a child before birth” with the dehumanising euphemism “pregnancy termination”, even though the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 requires notification of stillborn children (which includes an aborted foetus after 20 weeks) and their cause of death.
 
The spectre of “backyard abortions” has also been raised. The bill specifies that a woman who performs an abortion on herself is not guilty of a crime or any other offence. This means that abortions outside of the requirements laid down in the Reproductive Health Act, ie, unlawful abortions, will nevertheless be lawful for women self-administering an abortion, even though they may have no medical qualifications.
 
This inconsistency, deeming anyone who performs an abortion other than a doctor guilty of a criminal offence except if that person happens to be the pregnant mother, creates a dangerous temptation for desperate pregnant women and sets an alarming precedent.
 
The reasons behind this new legislation are also worrying. It is clearly aimed at allowing terminations on grounds that are not apparent prior to 12 weeks. Indeed, the Health Minister cited genetic abnormalities at the 20-week mark as a motivation for the change. This is blatant discrimination, and it sends the message that discrimination on such grounds as gender or disability is socially and legally acceptable. An accompanying information paper also blurs the distinction between abortion and contraception, extending the right of choosing when to reproduce (or not) to include abortion (which unlike contraception takes place after reproduction has occurred).
 
Tasmanian legislators are being offered a choice between abortion at any stage and abortion at any stage plus criminalizing dissent. The minister wants to make abortion a health matter, not a criminal matter. But she wants to achieve this at the expense of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and common sense. After all, if it is a crime to perform an abortion without medical qualifications or a woman’s consent, shouldn’t it be in the criminal code? The law as it stands is quite sufficient, and to alter it is nothing less than tyrannical.
 
Mishka Gora is a Tasmanian writer specialising in matters relating to war, conscience, and the former Yugoslavia. She is the media representative for Human Rights for the Unborn – Tasmania.

What can you do?

Please respond - send an email to public.health@dhhs.tas.gov.au opposing the proposed abortion laws in Tasmania.  Submissions close on March 22, so please act quickly!

Say that you oppose the proposal because it would:

• allow abortion of babies who are capable of being born alive.
• legalise the brutal partial birth abortion method (banned in the U.S)

• remove the protection of the law from all unborn children in Tasmania right up to birth.
• not provide any support for women who are under pressure to abort from partners or others. Women coerced in this way may regret their abortions for the rest of their lives.
• force all health professionals to facilitate abortion - or be fined up to $65000. It robs them of freedom of conscience.

Related articles:

ACL's Dan Flynn on proposed changes to abortion laws in Tasmania here

 

21 January 2013 , 10:08 AM by Sally Rope  

"It was the longest sentence ever imposed on an Australian right to Life Activist
 
Brisbane family man Graham Preston, a father of seven children, was arrested by police on Wednesday May 2 last year for refusing to pay accumulated fines of $8,000 for previous charges related to his activities.
 
Graham is a social activist - not over the environment or coal mining but over pregnancy terminations. Abortion.
 
Graham would sit down in the entrance of medical clinics. He was released from prison in the lead up to Christmas. He came in to talk to Steve about his motivations..."

Download Graham's interview here

The Blaze (Feb 27, 2012) has reported that "Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn".

The two ethicists are Alberto Giubilini, working with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva (at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics) at the University of Melbourne. They write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The article says that they "are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

Giubilini and Minerva also "do not agree with the term 'euthanasia' for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns."

They also state that "The circumstances, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life". The example they go on to give is in the case of a baby with Downs Syndrome: "while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

The article goes on to say that "Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood" and that "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

They do not comment on when the baby becomes a "person".

The National Catholic Register highlighted that the two ethicists position "is almost pro-life in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”.  

Life Network Australia supports their statement: "The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand".

 Is it really any wonder we have arrived at this alarming discussion?!

Given that: Babies can now be legally aborted up until birth in Victoria; that the state government continues to ignore the plight of babies being born alive (after "failed abortions") and left to die; and the inaction of the vast majority who know about this but do nothing - it was only a matter of time.

If we have any hope of preventing live babies from being killed on demand in Victoria and Australia, now is the time to act to wind back the current abortion laws, which already allows for infanticide (babies who survive failed abortions - as recorded in the Victorian Health Department's own 'Infant mortality and morbidity' Reports).

Again I urge you to please contact:

 Vic Premier, Ted Baillieu ted.ballieiu@parliament.vic.gov.au  

Health Minister, David Davis david.davis@parliament.vic.gov.au and politely ask them to change the law to reinstate protection for babies and their mothers.

Please also get involved with a pro life organisation of your choice and with pro life action (see the LNA website for ideas) to fight against this cruel abuse of our unborn (and born) - and their mothers. 

While some might argue that this would never be allowed to happen, who would ever have thought abortion up until birth would? And yet, here we are...the conversation has begun!

Related article by Bill Muehlenberg - comments welcome: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13312 

Andrew Bolt's blog: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/on_lawfully_killing_small_babies/

 Sydney Morning Herald: http://whadu.com/?q=sydney+morning+herald+abortion+birth 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8428050/melbourne-abortion-author-gets-death-threats

 

 

It would seem that the 'cart is before the horse' when it comes to abortion legislation and that some of our medical "experts" in Australia are just a little too passionate about late term abortion than the public are aware or likely to approve of.
 
One in particular, Dr Lachlan De Crespigny, has quite the abortion portfolio! Featured in media reports about late term abortion, his claims, research and practice have gone relatively unchallenged and have not been given the scrutiny required.

Dr. De Crespigny is perhaps best known for his involvement in the abortion of a 32 week old baby girl, Jessica Jane, that had suspected dwarfism.  Endeavour Forums Babette Francis wrote about how this late term (and illegal) abortion influenced the 2008 decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria.

To say that this case caused outrage from the community would be an understatement. Andrew Bolt's coverage of this story in the article 'We kill Babies'  has resulted in a surge within the pro life movement (including the beginning of LNA!). 
Incredibly, some media outlets now sympathise with Dr De Crespigny for the scrutiny he faced over the abortion of Jessica Jane (who "did not appear to be so small afterall")!

Many attribute the change of legislation in Victoria to the 'Jessica Jane' case - which became about the protection of doctors like Dr. De Crespigny, who perform late term abortions. It did not appear at all to be about the health and welfare of women and their babies (which was evident in the amendments designed to offer women and babies at least some protection - that were all outrightly rejected by the Brumby government). 

Dr De Crespigny's reach is not limitted to Australia. An article by Michael Cook, (Oct, 2009, republished June, 2011) stated that in Britian, "studies have shown that about 92% of women who are told that their child will have Down syndrome go on to have a termination". In his writing in the blog of 'Oxford University's Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics', Lachlan de Crespigny says that "this is not a bad thing", although he "acknowledges that Down syndrome children often have sunny dispositions"!!
Dr De Crespigny stated that "Few people choose to have a Down syndrome child. It is hard to find adoptive parents for a DS child. Couples with a previous DS child usually have prenatal testing to minimize the risk of having another disabled child and they proceed to abortion of an affected fetus." He also said that "risk-free prenatal tests should be celebrated". Dr de Crespigny is described in the article, as "a distinguished Australian expert in prenatal testing".  

While the notion of aborting babies with disabilities is abhorrent to many of us, it seems that Dr. De Crespigny and his colleague Prof Julian Savulescu may have used examples of terminal illnesses to justify all late term abortions to the public- even if many of these babies are, in fact, healthy.

In Australia, an article by David van Gend reveals that Dr Lachlan De Crespigny  made the claim that late term abortions are done "for major problems as a last resort", and they gave the example of an abnormality of a baby's heart. However, at the time that they made this claim, the data from the Health Department's 2005 survey of perinatal deaths revealed a very different story.

According to the Herald Sun, it showed that: ""The majority of late abortions were for psychosocial reasons, not fetal abnormality" and that  "At 23-27 weeks of pregnancy, when other premature babies are being cared for in the hospital nursery, the records for 2005 show that 108 healthy babies were terminated for psychosocial reasons, which is five times as many as those terminated for congenital abnormality."
Mr. van Gend said that "abortion for psychosocial reasons is by far the biggest single cause of "stillbirth" in Victoria" and that "In 2005, the deliberate ending of these healthy lives accounted for one in every three stillbirths".
He also asked the question: "Is late abortion merely a tragic response to grave fetal abnormality or risk to the mother's life?", then responded: "No. Late abortion is done for any reason that sufficiently stresses the parents and its numbers are climbing fast." Another Herald Sun article reported that in 2005, 180 late term abortions were performed for 'psycho social' reasons.
The argument provided by Dr De Crespigny to convince the public, is inconsistent with state government statistics.

Louise Mulligan  reported a 600% increase in late term abortions, at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, since the decriminalisation of abortion in 2008. Ms Mulligan consulted with Dr De -Crespigny and provided a comment from him in her report. Ms Mulligan repeated his earlier claim that the majority of these late term babies were aborted because they "were going to die anyway or have a devastating disability." 
We do not have Victorian Department of Health's report to refute this information, but given the unreliability of this claim previously, it can certainly not be accepted 'as Gospel'.   
   
Dr De Crespigny and Prof Julian Savulescu were also authors of a survey about late term abortion, the results of which were published by the Australian Medical Association and in newspapers all around Australia. This research claimed that Australians support the decriminalisation of late term abortion. Life Network Australia critiqued the survey, which raises many questions.

One might reasonably ask "Why do Dr. De Crespigny and Professor Prof Julian Savulescu appear to have such a vested interest in / passion for late term abortion?"  This commitment (to abortion up until birth) is enough to send chills down ones spine - not unlike those I felt when watching 'Silence of the lambs'.  

Then there are the babies being born alive and left to die on shelves or thrown into a bucket of -formaldehyde.  Indeed this situation is playing out as quite a horror story! The rhetoric of  "between a woman and her doctor" and "my body my choice" is grossly inadequate and inappropriate.

The Health Department's current report on infant mortalitity and morbidity was supposed to be released at the end of 2010. Given the 600% increase in late term abortions at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, we anticipate the information with dread. When asked about the delay, MP Bernie Finn said that the ALP government (who was in power at the time) did not want the public to know what has happened in Victoria.
We are awaiting greater transparency from the new Liberal Goverment of Victoria.
Life Network Australia has submitted an FOI request for this report and are currently pursuing the ombudsman to appeal the recent rejection (of the FOI request).

It would appear that medical experts and research that Australians depend on and trust are not objective, transparent or reliable when it comes to abortion.
The downward acceleration of abortion legislation has resulted from a lack of transparency from health departments, research based on questionable surveys (by doctors seemingly 'hell bent' on late term abortion) and a media more than happy to publish their claims without any objective assessment.
Australian babies must be protected from such bias and incompetence - their lives depend on it!