Displaying items by tag: Reproductive Health

In the last week, a major debate has restarted in New South Wales about abortion. Most of the commentary however, begs the question and dances around the central issue. The real issue, is not doctors conscience rights, certifying consultants, or whether carrying out an abortion at 39 weeks is too late. It is not a political debate about whether the Berejiklian Government is riding roughshod over the Liberal Party's voter base. The real debate is over whether killing unborn humans as acceptable.

European nationalist parties have tended to sound pro-life and pro-family in order to gain power, but they have been unwilling to put an end to international European advocacy for abortion and LGBT rights.

In an important decision on free speech issues, the High Court of Australia, in its decision in Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11 (10 April 2019), has upheld the validity of laws in Victoria and Tasmania prohibiting communication about abortion within 150m of an abortion clinic. The decision may have serious implications for free speech about other issues on which religious believers have deep-seated convictions contrary to the general orthodoxy of modern Australian society.

Almost ten years to the day after Victoria created the most liberal abortion laws in the world, Queensland has followed suit and decriminalised abortion there. While many thought the change was a foregone conclusion due to the reigning Labor government's self-avowed love of baby-killing, there was hope that the law could be voted down by the many pro-life parliamentarians, notably from the LNP. But the final vote was 51 to 41 in favour of abortion law reform. Three LNP members crossed the floor to vote for the bill: Tim Nicholls, Jann Stuckey and Steve Minnikin. Remember those names. This law passed despite months of intense campaigning from pro-life groups and individuals, including many fora held to educate voting MPs about the reality of abortion.

The latest QLD abortion law reform effort was introduced on 22 August 2018, by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Yvette  D'Ath. This is the third such attempt to decriminalise abortion in the state in recent years. Organisations and individuals, including medical professionals, counsellors, and members of the public made submissions to a government-appointed committee, which will evaluate them and release a report on October 5th. The bill will then be debated in mid-October.

Abortionist Leah Torres is no stranger to controversy. She has a huge following on twitter and actively advocates for abortion, while educating - according to her personal brand of science - on the dangers of pregnancy. Last week, she drew heavy criticism from within and without the pro-life community for her comments about her abortion technique: "You know babies can't scream, right? I transect the cord first so there's really no opportunity. If they're even far enough along to have a larynx." Although like many others, I concluded that Torres was referring to the vocal cords, she says she was actually referring to the umbilical cord. [See Dave Pellowe's article and interview with Leah Torres here.] And, while umbilical cord transection is a technique that is sometimes used for second-trimester abortions, it has mixed outcomes for mothers. In any case, it seems irrelevant which cord is being cut: umbilical, vocal or spinal; for the abortionist, they all lead to the result they're after: a dead baby.