Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

SUBMISSION:
Universal Access to Reproductive Healthcare
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed is a copy of our submission in response to the Inquiry into Universal Access to Reproductive Healthcare. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to contribute our perspective on this critical issue.

We maintain that abortion violates a human’s right to life (see our “Premise” section below). Consequently, it is crucial that women experiencing crisis pregnancies are provided with real choices and support so that they do not feel pressured into having an abortion. We want to protect, support, empower and care for women, while ensuring that unborn babies are afforded their most basic right—the right to life.

The Canberra Declaration is a community of caring Australians who have a vision for a better Australia where everyone can enjoy the prosperity, peace and freedom that come from the revitalisation of the Judeo-Christian values that formed the foundation of Australia.

Along with our over 90,000 signatories, we at the Canberra Declaration implore you to consider ways to better empower women to be able to make the choice to protect the life of their unborn children. We believe that abortion is a grave evil and that as a society we should do all that we can to provide women experiencing unplanned and difficult pregnancies with the ability to carry their babies to full term.

Thank you for taking the time to review our submission.

Yours sincerely,

Warwick Marsh, Co-Founder and Co-Drafter, Canberra Declaration
Alison Marsh, Co-Founder, Canberra Declaration
Kurt Mahlburg, Research & Features Editor, Canberra Declaration
Jean Seah, Managing Editor, The Daily Declaration
Cody Mitchell, Contributing Editor, The Daily Declaration
Kym Farnik, Prayer Coordinator, Canberra Declaration

~~~

Executive Summary:

Given the premise that abortion is a procedure that violates a human’s right to life (see below), it is crucial that women experiencing complicated or unplanned pregnancies are provided with real choices, information and support so that they do not feel pressured into having an abortion. Consequently, we urge the Inquiry to investigate the availability of adoption and Pregnancy Crisis Centres (PCCs), particularly in remote and rural areas. Moreover, this submission argues that abortion practices that are predicated on discrimination (such as sex-selective terminations or abortions because of disabilities) are particularly abhorrent. We also strongly urge the Inquiry to ensure that babies born alive following an abortion are provided with proper care. Any practices that remove, ignore, or fail to fully enshrine basic human rights to palliative care and, where relevant, life-saving treatment are unacceptable.

Premise: Abortion violates the human right to life:

The fact that abortion takes a human life (or the life of a human being[1]) is not controversial. In fact, high-profile abortion activists have explicitly admitted this.[2] As a 2018 doctoral study found, 95 per cent of biologists agreed that “a human’s life begins at fertilization”.[3] As Nancy R. Pearcey puts it, “due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human: biologically, genetically, scientifically human”.[4] Even Peter Singer, the controversial Princeton ethicist, appears to tacitly admit that “the life of a human organism begins at conception”, although he argues that being “a member of the species Homo sapiens” does not entail “personhood”.[5]

Encyclopedia Britannica states the following of a human embryo: “… the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus.”[6] According to Merriam-Webster, an “Embryo” is defined as “the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception”, and a “Fetus” is defined as “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth”.[7] There is no question: an unborn embryo or foetus is a living human being.

It is also true that abortion results in the ending of the life of this human being. Again, in Merriam-Webster, abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus”.[8] Similarly, the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand define termination of pregnancy as “the term used to describe deliberate ending of a pregnancy with the intention that the fetus will not survive”.[9] Therefore, an abortion procedure results in the ending of a human life. As shown above, the debate over abortion no longer concerns whether an embryo or foetus is a human life. This is a settled question. Rather, the question is whether all human lives are endowed with “personhood” and, hence, are equally worthy of the right to life.[10] The question is put well by Patrick Lee, “What’s at stake in the abortion debate is precisely what was at stake during the nineteenth-century debate about slavery: Where do we draw the line between beings we can simply use for our own purposes and discard when inconvenient, on the one hand, and beings who have fundamental rights, who deserve our respect and protection, on the other?”[11]

Despite the disturbing insistence of some that not all human beings are equally deserving of the right to life, this question is easily settled from a human rights perspective. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[12] Moreover, human rights are understood to be universal and applicable to every human being, as the preamble of the UDHR makes explicit: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.[13] The logic followed by Princeton legal scholar Robert P. George and bioethicist Patrick Lee in their paper on human embryo research would also apply to the case of abortion.[14]

Consequently, based on the points established above, we can accurately state the following:

1. Abortion ends the life of a human being. (This is a scientific fact.)
2. All human beings have a fundamental right to life. (As acknowledged by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)[15]
3. Therefore, abortion violates a fundamental right to life.

Relevance of this Submission to the Terms of Reference:

This submission relates primarily to the following portions of the Terms of Reference (ToR):–

• Preamble. “… universal access to sexual and reproductive health information, treatment and services that offer options to women to empower choice” (emphasis added)
• b. “cost and accessibility of reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy care … across Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas” (emphasis added)
• d. “best practice approaches to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including trauma-informed … appropriate service delivery”
• e. “sexual and reproductive health literacy”
• i. “any other related matter.”

Key Observations for the Senate Inquiry into Universal Access to Reproductive Healthcare:

• Women need to have information available to enable them to make the best decision for themselves and their babies. (Preamble, d., e.)
• Women need to know that they are supported no matter the difficulty of their situation—they need to have the ability to pursue alternatives to abortion, like adoption. (Preamble, b., d., e.)

• The ready availability of adoption as an alternative to abortion for women in crisis pregnancy situations needs to be considered. (Preamble, i.)

• The role that Pregnancy Crisis Centres play in providing support, information and life-affirming alternatives to abortion should be acknowledged. Consideration should be given to the resourcing of these centres—this should be at least equivalent to funding provided to abortion centres. (Preamble, b., d.)

• The right to equal care and support should be provided to babies born alive as a result of a termination of pregnancy. (d., i.)
• Freedom from discrimination because of gender or disability in abortion procedures should be recognised and enshrined in legislation. No baby should be terminated because of his or her gender or disability status. (d., i.)

1. Empowering Real Choice for Women

The Inquiry seeks to investigate “… universal access to sexual and reproductive health information, treatment and services that offer options to women to empower choice” (preamble). The tragic reality is that women are often coerced or pressured into having an abortion.[16] This is particularly evident in the case of sex trafficking, where domestic violence is often used to compel women to have abortions.[17] But this is not a situation confined to the trafficking industry. A 2017 study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that almost three-quarters (73.8%) of women with a history of abortion admitted that they had experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to abort their unborn babies.[18] As the Population Research Institute points out, “The findings suggest that coercive treatment of women by pressuring them to choose abortion is widespread and deeply ingrained in many communities across the country.”[19] A recent independent review into the Hawthorn Football Club in Australia found similar shocking allegations.[20] According to the ABC’s Russell Jackson, “One former player alleges he was urged by coaches to encourage his partner to terminate their pregnancy for the sake of his career.”[21]

Sadly, there is widespread misinformation in the Australian community about the reasons women procure late-term abortions.[22] Many believe that late-term abortions are always—or almost always—conducted for serious congenital abnormalities or when the mother’s life is at risk, and high-profile politicians and academics have asserted as much.[23] However, this is untrue. In Victoria, 44 per cent of late-term abortions (between 2010 and 2020) were conducted for psychosocial reasons (rather than for congenital abnormalities).[24] In 2011 alone, eleven babies older than 28 weeks were terminated for psychosocial reasons.[25] The oldest was 37 weeks old.[26] Babies are considered viable at 24 weeks (with a 60–70 per cent chance of survival).[27] According to guidance from the University of Utah, babies born at 28 weeks have an 80–90 per cent chance of surviving and a low (10 per cent) chance of developing long-term health problems.[28] Babies born at 34 weeks have “the same long-term health outcomes as babies who are delivered at full term”.[29] And yet, children at this age, and much earlier, are being terminated when there is no risk to the mother’s life and no congenital abnormality involved (let alone a serious one). These statistics suggest that women are not being provided with adequate support or information about life-affirming alternatives to abortion.

If women are to have a real “choice” in this matter, they must have 1) awareness of the options available to them (information), and 2) the ability or power to choose those options (support). Without both information and support, women cannot be said to be in possession of real “choice”. Abortion is only one option, and as outlined above, it is an option that results in the violation of a human being’s right to life. Hence, women with difficult or unplanned pregnancies must be provided with all the relevant information. Unless they are provided with full information about all the options available to them (including adoption and other life-affirming alternatives), women will be uninformed and, consequently, cannot be said to be giving informed consent to having an abortion. Women in this situation must be provided with accurate information about the consequences of abortion and the alternatives to termination. Moreover, they must be supported to pursue the avenue that is best for both them and their unborn child. Only then can we really claim to be “empowering choice” for women.

2. The Availability of Adoption and PCCs for Women

Two potential mechanisms for empowering choice for women are adoption and Pregnancy Crisis Centres (PCCs). At present, adoption is a long and costly process. According to Pregnancy, Birth & Baby, the median time for an intercountry adoption was 3 years and 4 months in 2020-2021.[30] However, the process can also be long and complicated within Australia. Including intercountry adoptions, just 334 adoptions were finalised in Australia in 2019-2020 and 264 in 2020-2021 (down 63 per cent over the past twenty-five years).[31] The 2020-2021 figures are the lowest on record.[32] In contrast, an average of 448 late-term abortions per year were conducted in Queensland and Victoria alone (between the years 2010–2020).[33] There is a huge need for adoption to be readily available as a life-affirming alternative to abortion in Australia. While regulations for the health and safety of children are essential, we urge the Inquiry to consider ways to make adoption options easier.[34]

A much-underacknowledged and misunderstood support mechanism for women in difficult pregnancies is Pregnancy Crisis Centres, which ensure that women are informed, supported and provided with life-affirming alternatives to abortion. In the USA, services provided by PCCs include “pregnancy tests, options consultation, sexual risk avoidance education, parenting and prenatal education, ultrasound and medical services, community referrals, and material support”.[35] Despite misinformation from the abortion industry, PCCs in the USA have provided invaluable and caring services to millions of women in crisis pregnancies and have saved communities an estimated $161 million USD.[36]

According to one report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute,

The depth and breadth of life-affirming pregnancy centers today are impressive. Half a century ago, free pregnancy tests, options consultation, and material assistance represented the core client services available. An ever-increasing array of vital services, including medical services, are now offered at no cost to clients. Client privacy and confidentiality remain foundational in service provision as well, fortified by provider integrity and honesty in care. While excellence in care for women, moms, and babies continues, increased support is being provided to men and dads to strengthen family well-being.[37]

In Australia and around the world, PCCs provide vital pre- and post-abortion services to support women dealing with crisis pregnancies.[38] They are a critical life-affirming and supportive alternative to abortion. Consequently, the Inquiry should consider the accessibility of both adoption services and PCCs in Australia, particularly in remote and regional areas.

3. Equal Right to Care for Babies Born Alive

Between 2010 and 2020, 724 children were born alive and left to die in late-term abortions in Queensland and Victoria.[39] In Queensland, the annual number of post-birth deaths following an abortion is increasing.[40] In 2019, nearly a quarter (24.6%) of all neonatal (or post-birth) deaths had “termination of pregnancy” listed as the “Main condition”.[41] In Victoria, the number of deaths “peaked between 2011 and 2014 (with an average of 43.5 babies losing their lives each year during that period). A sharp decline in 2015 was followed by a gradual increase in 2019 and 2020. The average number of deaths per year in Victoria is higher than that in Queensland (36 per year compared with 30 per year).”[42]

Tragically, as Associate Professor Joanna Howe (University of Adelaide) points out, at present, babies in this situation in Queensland and Victoria have no legal rights, including rights to palliative care or, where relevant, life-saving medical treatment.[43] In fact, the Queensland Termination of Pregnancy Guidelines state the following: “… if live birth occurs … do not give life-sustaining treatment … document date and time end of life occurs.”[44] This is an unacceptable state of affairs in a democracy that ostensibly promotes human rights.

Thankfully, Australian legislators have recognised the need to protect the rights of babies born alive. On 30 November 2022, a bill was introduced into the Senate that aims to give full legal protection to babies who are born alive following an abortion.[45] According to the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, it would seek “to enhance Australia’s human rights protections for children by ensuring that all children are afforded the same medical care and treatment as any other person, including those born alive as a result of a termination”.[46] While some have sought to cast doubt on whether babies really are born alive or whether the legislation is necessary, the fact remains that babies born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion deserve the same rights as any other children.[47] Senators Antic (LP, SA), Canavan (LNP, QLD) and Babet (UAP, VIC) have cosponsored the Bill.[48] A number of legislators have indicated that they are, at a minimum, sympathetic to the move, including former Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Barnaby Joyce (NP, NSW), senators Davey (NP, NSW) and O’Sullivan (LP, WA), and Nationals MP Hon. Henry Pike.[49]

The Bill is a sensible and compassionate response to what is a heartrending problem. We urge the Inquiry to recommend the passage of the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022.

4. Sex-Selective Abortions and Disability Discrimination in Termination

The final point this submission wishes to address is the terrible discrimination that occurs through abortion practices in Australia. Shockingly, a survey commissioned by Down Syndrome Australia found that 9 in 10 unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome had their lives terminated.[50] Even more disturbingly, it found that “[n]early half of the parents surveyed felt pressure from health care providers to terminate their pregnancy.”[51] In 2017, many were horrified to hear that Iceland had almost completely eliminated Down syndrome through termination of pregnancy procedures.[52] In that country, it is mandatory for doctors to offer women a prenatal test.[53] Between 80 and 85 per cent of women take the test, and of the babies diagnosed with Down syndrome, nearly 100 per cent have their lives terminated.[54]

It is difficult to imagine how to justify these statistics when people with Down syndrome almost always experience a high quality of life and enjoy a high level of happiness. A 2011 study examined the self-perceptions of Down syndrome people, concluding that “the overwhelming majority of people with Down syndrome surveyed indicate they live happy and fulfilling lives.”[55] Despite misconceptions that raising a Down syndrome child will adversely impact parents or siblings, studies have shown that families with Down syndrome children have lower divorce rates[56] and that there are no adverse developmental effects on the siblings of children with Down syndrome.[57] There is no excuse for the kind of discrimination that would see Down syndrome babies losing their lives through termination of pregnancy.

Unborn girls also experience discrimination through abortion practices around the world. According to the United Nations, China and India have a particular problem with “female foeticide”.[58] In Australia, too, a disturbing 2015 SBS investigation found “higher numbers of boys than girls being born in some ethnic communities”.[59] Moreover, a 2018 population-based study, which some activist groups tried to dismiss, “found indications that prenatal sex selection is taking place in Victoria”, despite the fact that it is technically illegal.[60] Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that genocide includes “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.[61] Around the world—and to an unknown degree in Australia—girls are being selectively killed in the womb and oftentimes the jurisdictions’ abortion regulations permit this kind of discrimination.

While abortion is fundamentally unjust—in that it ends the life of a human child—it is even more shocking that babies are being terminated simply because they are girls or because they have been diagnosed with a disability. We urge the Inquiry to consider these points.

Conclusion:

This submission has raised concerns relevant to a number of points within the Terms of Reference. Firstly, we have noted the importance of women in crisis pregnancies being provided with accurate information and adequate support to enable them to carry their babies to full term. Secondly, we have highlighted adoption and Pregnancy Crisis Centres as crucial and positive life-affirming alternatives to termination of pregnancy—and they are alternatives that need more support. Thirdly, we have pointed to the appalling reality that babies born alive post-abortion have no right to equal treatment in Australian law. We urged the submission to recommend the passage of the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022. Finally, we outlined several examples of unacceptable discrimination in abortion practice in Australia today.

~~~

References

[1] We deliberately use the term “a human life” rather than “human life” to clarify that we are speaking of the life of a human being rather than merely of biological human “life” (such as is possessed by particular parts of a human being). See Dianne N. Irving, “When does a human being begin? ‘Scientific’ myths and scientific facts,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 19, 1999, archived on https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html, accessed 12 December 2022.

[2] Brönte Remsik, a third-year Ph.D student studying Osteopathic Medicine, admitted the following during an informal debate with conservative commentator Michael Knowles: “The embryo is human. That’s, that’s not within question; it is a human embryo; it is a human foetus—”, The Daily Wire, YouTube, 16:53, https://youtu.be/yiNW84kJy_k?t=1013, accessed 12 December 2022. For the context of the conversation, see from 15:40: https://youtu.be/yiNW84kJy_k?t=940. In another conversation, Remsik admitted that abortion ended “a non-autonomous life”, while justifying it by appealing to a right to autonomy: YouTube, 3:20, https://youtu.be/NSDzWUwa9Ng?t=200, accessed 12 December 2022.

[3] “Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).” Steven Jacobs, “Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’”, 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3211703 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3211703, accessed 8 December 2022; see also J.K Findlay, et al., “Human embryo: a biological definition”, Human Reproduction, vol. 22, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del467, accessed 12 December 2022 and a compilation of quotations from scientific literature: Anon. “Life Begins at Fertilization”, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html, accessed 12 December 2022.

[4] Nancy R. Pearcey, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, & Meaning, Nashville, B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 53-55.

[5] Peter Singer, “The Sanctity of Life”, Foreign Policy, 2005, https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-sanctity-of-life/, accessed 12 December 2022. Singer’s sentiment stands in direct contradiction to human rights narratives which have (as shown below) recognised the fundamental equality of “all members of the human family” (UDHR) regardless of race, gender, development, or any other variable.

[6] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “embryo.” Encyclopedia Britannica, November 22, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/science/embryo-human-and-animal, accessed 12 December 2022, emphasis added.

[7] “Embryo”, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embryo , accessed 8 December 2022, emphasis added; “Fetus”, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus, accessed 8 December 2022, emphasis added.

[8] “Abortion”, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion, accessed 8 December 2022, emphasis added.

[9] Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand, Clinical Practice Guideline for Care Around Stillbirth   and Neonatal Death, Third Edition, March 2018, https://ranzcog.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Clinical-Practice-Guideline-for-Care-Around-Stillbirth-and-Neonatal-Death.pdf, p. 7, accessed 8 December 2022.

[10] “The fields of biology, medicine, and embryology have described the developmental milestones of humans throughout gestation in great detail. It is less clear as to when humans are recognized as people, persons, or beings with rights that are protected by legislation.” John Janez Miklavcic and Paul Flaman, “Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus”, The Linacre Quarterly, 2017, vol. 84, pp. 130–144, https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1299896, accessed 12 December 2022; Robert P. George, “A Distinct Human Organism”, NPR, 2005, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703, accessed 12 December 2022.

[11] Patrick Lee, “Human Embryos are Human Beings: a Scientific and Philosophical Case”, The Public Discourse, 2019, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/56416/, accessed 12 December 2022.

[12] Article 3, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, accessed 8 December 2022.

[13] Preamble; see also Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, accessed 8 December 2022.

[14] “If, as we believe, human embryos are human beings who deserve the same basic respect we accord to human beings at later developmental stages, then research that involves deliberately dismembering embryonic humans in order to use their cells for the benefit of others is inherently wrong.” Robert P. George and Patrick Lee, “Embryonic human persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research”, EMBO Reports, vol. 10, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.42, accessed 12 December 2022.

[15] See also Robert P. George’s argument for the “equal moral status” view of human rights: “The principle to which I subscribe is one that says that all human beings are equal, and ought not to be harmed or considered to be less than human on the basis of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency.” Feature, “Debating the Moral Status of the Embryo”, Harvard Magazine, 2004, https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2004/07/debating-the-moral-statu.html, accessed 12 December 2022.

[16] Colin Lecroy, “Hidden Abuse of Women: Coerced Abortions”, National Review, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/forced-abortion-coerced-women-pregnancy-economic-pressure-pro-life-help/, accessed 12 December 2022.

[17] For example, Laura J. Lederer and Christopher A. Wetzel, “The Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking and Their Implications for Identifying Victims in Healthcare Facilities”, Annals of Health Law, vol. 23, 2014, http://www.globalcenturion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Health-Consequences-of-Sex-Trafficking.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022.

[18] Priscilla K. Coleman, et al., “Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion: A Qualitative Synthesis of Their Experiences”, Journal of America Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 22, 2017, p. 115, https://www.jpands.org/vol22no4/coleman.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022. See also, Anon. “Forced Abortion in America”, http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/docs/ForcedAbortions.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022.

[19] Jonathan Abbamonte, “Many American Women Have Felt Pressured into Abortions, Study Finds”, Population Research Institute, 2018, https://www.pop.org/many-american-women-felt-pressured-abortions-study-finds, accessed 12 December 2022.

[20] Dan Butler, “Coaches take leave following ‘harrowing’ allegations of First Nations AFL players’ treatment”, SBS NITV, 2022, https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/coaches-take-leave-following-harrowing-allegations-of-first-nations-afl-players-treatment/aguo2q2o6, accessed 12 December 2022.

[21] Russell Jackson, “Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination”, ABC News, 2022, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/alastair-clarkson-and-chris-fagan-named-in-hawks-review/101452320, accessed 15 December 2022.

[22] For example, comment by @The_Carrier_Pigeon on 9^th December 2022: “For f*** sake. If you think a late term abortion happens for ANY other reason than a fatal pregnancy, you are a dumb c***. So f*** off.” Also, in response to the following comment by @reaper_mucchan on 9^th December 2022—”The statistics make it very clear that the vast majority of post-21-week lethal abortions are performed on healthy fetuses carried by healthy people.”— @doritogoblin (9^th December 2022) wrote the following: “Sorry where are you reading this info. Legislation says otherwise. There is cap on how many weeks and the only exception is if the foetus isn’t viable or the pregnancy is lethal. Do proper research”. Also 8^th December by @raineerainbow: “for a baby to be terminated late something is medically wrong with the child already it shouldn’t even be called an abortion 😕”. TikTok Video, https://www.tiktok.com/@the.australian/video/7174326144215289090, accessed 13 December 2022.

[23] As the former South Australian Attorny-General stated, “The need for a termination at this time is invariably tragic, usually necessitated by a foetal abnormality only capable of being diagnosed after 20 weeks. Possible amendments to restrict access to termination beyond which two doctors assess as medically appropriate is only an exercise in sanctimony.” Vickie Chapman, “Vickie Chapman: The Bill will Remove Abortion from the Criminal Law, Regulate it as the Health Procedure it is, and Remove Outdated, Inequitable Barriers”, The Advertiser, 2021, https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/vickie-chapman-the-bill-will-remove-abortion-from-the-criminal-law-regulate-it-as-the-health-procedure-it-is-and-remove-outdated-inequitable-barriers/news-story/9ac3ce8d2719ffc3c30f15bbe0052c82, accessed 13 December 2022; see also the comment by Professor Euan Wallace, “Late terminations were only carried out when the fetus had a lethal congenital abnormality”, Lucy Battersby, “Doctors Urge Victorian Parliament to Vote Down Abortion Bill”, 2016, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/doctors-urge-victorian-parliament-to-vote-down-abortion-bill-20160524-gp2vlw.html, accessed 13 December 2022. Compare the restrictions in each state: “Abortion”, HealthDirect, https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/abortion, accessed 13 December 2022.

[24] 1677 out of 3776 late-term abortions conducted were for psychosocial reasons: Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paedatric Mortality and Morbidity, Victoria’s Mothers and Babies: Victoria’s Maternal, Perinatal, Child and Adolescent Mortality Annual Reports, 2010-2020.

[25] Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paedatric Mortality and Morbidity, Victoria’s Mothers and Babies: Victoria’s Maternal, Perinatal, Child and Adolescent Mortality Annual Reports, 2011 (see Table 6.20b), p. 141.

[26] Ibid.

[27] University of Utah Health, “When is it Safe to Deliver your Baby?”, 2022, https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php, accessed 13 December 2022.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Pregnancy, Birth & Baby, “How does adoption work?”, 2022, https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/how-does-adoption-work#how-long, accessed 8 December 2022.

[31] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, “Adoptions Australia 2019–20”, 2021, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adoptions/adoptions-australia-2019-20/summary, accessed 8 December 2022; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, “Adoptions Australia 2020–21”, 2022, https://doi.org/10.25816/ym2f-ty54, accessed 12 December 2022.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Queensland Health, Queensland Government, Perinatal Annual Reports for 2010–2020, Table 10.13 (in each report); Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paedatric Mortality and Morbidity, Victoria’s Mothers and Babies: Victoria’s Maternal, Perinatal, Child and Adolescent Mortality Annual Reports, 2010-2020.

[34] Patricia Fronek, “Explainer: how hard is it to adopt in Australia?”, The Conversation, 2018, https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-hard-is-it-to-adopt-in-australia-92826, accessed 12 December 2022; cf. #THRIVE National Permanency Conference, “Adopt Change National Recommendations Paper”, Adopt Change, 2022, https://www.adoptchange.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AC_National_Recommendations_2022_1.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022.

[35] Pregnancy Center Service Report, Third Edition, “A Half Century of Hope, A Legacy of Life and Love”, Charlotte Lozier Institute, 2018, p. 11, https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/A-Half-Century-of-Hope-A-Legacy-of-Life-and-Love-FULL.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022.

[36] Ibid, p. 8.

[37] Ibid, p. 10.

[38] LifeChoice, “Pregnancy Support”, https://lifechoice.org.au/pregnant/, accessed 12 December 2022.

[39] Queensland Health, Queensland Government, Perinatal Annual Reports for 2010–2020, Table 10.13 (in each report); Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paedatric Mortality and Morbidity, Victoria’s Mothers and Babies: Victoria’s Maternal, Perinatal, Child and Adolescent Mortality Annual Reports, 2010-2020. For a breakdown of the statistics, see Cody Mitchell, “Are Babies Really Being Born Alive Post-Abortion? Here Are the Data”, The Daily Declaration, 2022, https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2022/12/12/babies-born-alive-post-abortion/, accessed 12 December 2022.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Dr Joanna Howe, TikTok video, https://www.tiktok.com/@drjoannahowe/video/7171721476171730177, accessed 12 December 2022.

[44] Queensland Health, “Queensland Clinical Guidelines: Termination of Pregnancy”, 2022, https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/735293/g-top.pdf, accessed 1 December 2022.

[45] Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 (Cth), http://aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1359, accessed 1 December 2022.

[46] Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 (Cth), Explanatory Memorandum, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/s1359_ems_dca7baf6-5e9e-4ade-8376-f0a2c4d9d202/upload_pdf/EM_22S16.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf, accessed 8 December 2022.

[47] The Australian, TikTok video, https://www.tiktok.com/@the.australian/video/7174326144215289090, accessed 12 December 2022. See Professor Joanna Howe’s response here: TikTok video, https://www.tiktok.com/@drjoannahowe/video/7174689305858723073, accessed 12 December 2022.

[48] Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 (Cth), http://aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1359, accessed 1 December 2022.

[49] Sarah Ison, “Political push to ‘protect’ babies born alive after abortion”, The Australian, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-oz/news/political-push-to-protect-babies-born-alive-after-abortion/news-story/a6fa6d5e922ae894793939d332557324, accessed 12 December 2022.

[50] Anon. “We all have a lot to learn”: Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: A discussion paper, Down Syndrome Australia, 2021, p. 3, https://www.downsyndrome.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DSA_Prenatal-Screening-Experiences.pdf, accessed 8 December 2022.

[51] Anon. “We all have a lot to learn”: Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: A discussion paper, Down Syndrome Australia, 2021, p. 4, https://www.downsyndrome.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DSA_Prenatal-Screening-Experiences.pdf, accessed 8 December 2022; see also, ABC News, “Families feel pressured to terminate pregnancies after Down syndrome found in prenatal screening”, 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-08/pressure-mothers-feel-about-babies-with-down-syndrome/100521094.

[52] Julian Quinones and Arijeta Lajka, “‘What kind of society do you want to live in?’: Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing”, CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/, accessed 12 December 2022.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid. For more on the story, see also Alexandra DeSanctis, “Iceland Eliminates People with Down Syndrome”, National Review, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report/, accessed 12 December 2022; Jeanne Mancini, “People with Down syndrome are happy. Why are we trying to eliminate them?”, The Washington Post, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/24/people-with-down-syndrome-are-happy-why-are-we-trying-to-eliminate-them/, accessed 12 December 2022; Fox News, “Patricia Heaton blasts CBS over report about Iceland’s Down syndrome abortion rates”, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/patricia-heaton-blasts-cbs-over-report-about-icelands-down-syndrome-abortion-rates, accessed 12 December 2022.

[55] Brian G. Skotko, Susan P. Levine and Richard Goldstein, “Self-perceptions from People with Down Syndrome”, American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 155a, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.34235, accessed 12 December 2022.

[56] Anon. Global Down Syndrome Foundation, “Down Syndrome Misconceptions vs. Reality”, https://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/about-down-syndrome/misconceptions-vs-reality/, accessed 12 December 2022; Richard C Urbano and Robert M Hodapp, “Divorce in families of children with Down syndrome: a population-based study”, American Journal of Mental Retardation, vol. 112, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2007)112[261:difocw]2.0.co;2, accessed 12 December 2022.

[57] M Cuskelly and P Gunn, “Adjustment of children who have a sibling with Down syndrome: perspectives of mothers, fathers and children”, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, vol. 50, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00922.x, accessed 12 December 2022.

[58] Pallavi Jain, “Female foeticide in China and India”, SBS Radio, https://www.sbs.com.au/radio/fragment/female-foeticide-china-and-india, accessed 12 December 2022; Gautam N Allahbadia, “The 50 million missing women”, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 19, 2002, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455548/pdf/10815_2004_Article_375546.pdf, accessed 12 December 2022.

[59] SBS News, “Could gender-selective abortions be happening in Australia?”, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/could-gender-selective-abortions-be-happening-in-australia/titrb4ckz, accessed 8 December 2022.

[60] Kristina Edvardsson, et al., “Male-biased sex ratios in Australian migrant populations: a population-based study of 1 191 250 births 1999–2015”, International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 47, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy148, accessed 12 December 2022. For attempts to sideline the study, see HRLC, “Explainer: Responding to abortion and sex selection claims”, https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2019/8/15/explainer-responding-to-abortion-and-sex-selection-claims, accessed 12 December 2022. Of course, more research is required; however, the indications as found in the study need to be taken seriously, which the HRLC failed to do. For example, the paper concluded that “systematic discrimination against females starts in the womb.” Even the possibility of such discrimination taking place in Australia should be investigated rigorously, not dismissed in the name of abortion rights. Moreover, the study’s lead researcher also noted that the indications were not unique to Australia. Similar results were found in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. See Anon. “Gender bias leads to more male births”, La Trobe University, 2018, https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2018/release/gender-bias-leads-to-more-male-births, accessed 12 December 2022.

[61] United Nations, “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, Article 2, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html, accessed 12 December 2022.

___

Photo by Polina Tankilevitch.