Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Pro-life South Australians are disappointed at the bill’s defeat but have vowed to keep fighting for the unborn.

Following three hours of lively debate in South Australia’s Upper House, the Hon Ben Hood MLC’s Live Births Bill suffered the narrowest of defeats Wednesday evening, being voted down 10-9.

The bill had yet to be introduced into the Lower House.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Mr Hood defended his decision to introduce the private member’s bill and his motivations for doing so. Explaining he had played “a straight bat”, Hood “utterly, utterly den[ied] any suggestion that I would do this as a politically motivated piece of legislation.”

“This is something that is on my heart. This is something that hundreds of people in South Australia have spoken to me about. This is something that I want to do because it is right and it is just.”

He then put on the public record the personal attacks he has faced.

“There have been death threats. There has been a litany of false claims made against me personally, against this bill and against those who would support it.”

Opponents of the bill claimed that there were instances where a third-trimester abortion (involving a lethal injection causing foeticide) was medically necessary to save the mother’s life. This is one of the claims Hood states is false, saying, “Regarding the claim of medical necessity, I have heard time and time again that foeticide is something necessary to protect the health of the mother.”

“Despite these claims, not a single example has been provided where killing a viable baby after 28 weeks is required to save the mother’s life. That is because there is no medical condition where foeticide is essential at this stage. In fact, performing foeticide adds unnecessary risk to the mother.”

Large Crowd at Second Pro-Life Rally

The bill’s failure disappointed South Australian pro-lifers. The night before, over 2,000 of them had gathered on the steps of Parliament House to voice their support for the legislation for the second time within three weeks.

A sea of pink and blue balloons hovered over the crowd, held by children who also blew bubbles at the family-friendly rally. Chants of “Let them live” filled the airspace, with Tuesday’s 15 October rally noticeably larger than the previous one on Wednesday 25 September.

The hopeful crowd was told they were only one vote short of securing the majority required for the bill to pass the Upper House. Despite every effort, the situation hadn’t changed by voting time the following day.

‘Devastating’: Live Births Bill Falls Short by One Vote

Ashlyn Vice, SA Director of the Australian Christian Lobby, called the vote a “devastating outcome”, and lamented that the result means “more South Australian babies will be needlessly born dead when they could have been safely born alive”.

Love Australia expressed that they were “bitterly disappointed” at the outcome, but also “heartened by the close margin” which suggests that “years of advocacy are making a difference”.

If passed, the bill would have ensured that babies in the third trimester were delivered alive through the induction of early labour in circumstances where the mother was seeking to end her pregnancy.

Under South Australia’s current pro-abortion regime, third-trimester babies slated for abortion are given a lethal injection of potassium chloride into the heart, delivered stillborn, and disposed of as medical waste.

Since SA’s new laws came into effect in 2022, 45 viable, healthy and fully formed babies have been killed who could have been delivered alive and adopted.

Current SA Health practice guidelines confirm that babies born at 28 weeks have a 96% chance of surviving outside the womb.

The message to the state’s pro-abortion lobby and the SA Government, as articulated by Vice, is to “answer this simple question: When it comes to the abortion of fully formed babies: ‘Why must the baby die?’”

“To date, no medical advice has been able to answer this simple question”, she maintains.

A Betrayal of the Pro-Life Cause?

On the heels of the debate, accusations quickly spread on social media that Dennis Hood MLC, one of the bill’s staunch proponents, betrayed the pro-life cause by ensuring the bill’s defeat.

Dennis Hood was the first to speak in favour of the bill saying, “It will come as no surprise to members of this place that I rise to support this bill, and I do so wholeheartedly.”

The former Family First member also defended Ben Hood from accusations that the motivation for the bill was political or insincere. Consequently, he argued there was no damage to Ben Hood’s reputation, saying, “I do not think this has damaged the standing of the Hon Ben Hood in our party at all; if anything it may have enhanced it.”

Nevertheless, Dennis Hood’s decision to “pair” his vote with abortion proponent Michelle Lensink MLC left many perplexed.

It has since been clarified that his decision to pair with Ms Lensink (a process by which both of their conflicting votes would be nullified) was to prevent her from travelling to Parliament House late at night while she is undergoing cancer treatment.

Ms Lensink had previously extended the same gesture to Mr Hood when he was being treated for cancer, and he had vowed to return the favour.

In an email to supporters, Love Adelaide provided further background to the situation:

We know many of you are disappointed with the pairing arrangements last night. This is a common and accepted practice that allows the parliament to function well.

Often in votes, members are “paired”. This means that one yes vote and one no vote sit out from the vote so that the margin accurately reflects the will of the parliament. A pair can be granted for sickness (as it was in this case), official business or many other reasons.

The bill would have been defeated even if the pair had not been in place. There are three “readings” in a bill. Each reading has its own vote. The vote at the first reading is perfunctory and always passes. It’s the introduction of the bill. The second reading is the main debate. If it passes the second reading vote, the bill moves into committee where each clause is debated one after the other. After completing the committee stage, the bill is then read a third time before a final vote. Last night’s vote was the second reading vote. Had the bill passed this vote, it would have gone into committee. At this point, our opponents would have talked and talked until Michelle Lensink, who is sick with cancer, was able to get into the parliament. The bill would then have been defeated in the third reading vote.

Love Adelaide added that “unity [in] the pro-life movement is very important as well as our Christian witness to those who we disagree with.”

“We are to never back away from the truth while remembering to extend the love of Jesus to win their soul.”

The organisation added that “instead of focussing on this, we intend to concentrate on the 11 people who did not support the bill.”

Continued Growth and Engagement of the Pro-Life Movement

Having failed to pass the Upper House, Ben Hood’s Live Births Bill 2024 will not become law. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the extensive media coverage on the topic, this issue will not disappear.

That the bill failed by the slenderest of margins reveals how close the contest was.

Despite the defeat, Love Adelaide expressed, “We only need to change one mind [of the 11 who opposed the bill], and this bill will pass through the upper house”.

Similarly, Professor Joanna Howe, an architect of the bill, stated, “We will not stop fighting until these babies are born alive.”

Record of Voting

Voted for the Bill

Name	Party
Nicola Centofanti	Liberal
Sarah Game	One Nation
Heidi Girolamo	Liberal
Laura Henderson	Liberal
Ben Hood	Liberal
Jing Lee	Liberal
Tung Ngo	Labor
Frank Pangallo	Independent
Claire Scriven	Labor

 

Voted Against the Bill

Name	Party
Connie Bonaros	SA Best
Emily Bourke	Labor
Mira El Dannawi	Labor
Tammy Franks	Greens
Justin Hanson	Labor
Ian Hunter	Labor
Kyam Maher	Labor
Reggie Martin	Labor
Robert Simms	Greens
Russell Wortley	Labor

 

Paired

Name	Party
Dennis Hood (would have voted for)	Liberal
Michelle Lensink (would have voted against)	Liberal

___

Photo courtesy of X/Dr Joanna Howe.