Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Initially introduced by the Greens, the NSW parliament passed the Abortion Law Reform Amendment Bill 2025 on Wednesday, 14 May.

The bill was significantly changed (amended). As a result, its effect will be far less evil than was intended.

This is a significant victory for the pro-life movement.

The Canberra Declaration offers our sincere gratitude to the brave MPs who spoke against this abortion bill and changed it into a far less evil one.

What Was at Stake

Originally introduced by the Greens, the Abortion Law Reform Amendment Bill 2025 sought to:

• Allow nurses and midwives to do abortions up to 22 weeks’ gestation,
• Force doctors, nurses and midwives who know abortion is murder to refer patients who want to abort their baby to someone who will do it (or lose their jobs),
• Allow the NSW government to force all hospitals (including Christian ones) to provide abortions or lose government funding (and therefore be forced to close), and
• End data recording on abortion procedures and outcomes (so no one will know what’s really going on).

What Was Preserved

Thanks to the prayers, advocacy, and persistent voice of thousands across NSW, including the courage of many MPs, the following evil measures were removed/changed before the final vote:

• Healthcare professionals will not be forced to refer people for an abortion (and so be involved in the process leading to the death of an innocent human being).
• Hospitals will not be compelled to provide abortions.
• Clarifying that abortion drugs can only be can prescribed up to 9 weeks’ gestation.
• Recording data on abortion procedures will continue. In fact, a pro-life move to increase transparency on abortion reporting was passed, meaning this part of the law is better than what it was before.

These are significant pro-life victories. Usually, every time a life issue is debated in parliaments, the pro-life position loses – and loses badly.

This time was different. As the Canberra Declaration’s co-founder Warwick Marsh put it, “Over the last four decades, I have never seen so many positive changes to a bill. Plus, passing an extra amendment to require better data recording on abortion is extraordinary. It gives hope for a brighter future.”

However, any increase in abortion access is a tragedy. More little lives will be lost as a consequence of the NSW parliament’s decision to pass this bill.

Liberal leader in the upper house, Damien Tudehope, expressed his grief with these words:

“I place on record that, in many respects, tonight is a tragic night for unborn children.

“For those who actually believe that life begins at conception and continues through to its natural end, any intervention to terminate that life by any person, and increasing of the number of persons who can administer lethal doses to unborn children, should never be celebrated as an advancement for the people of New South Wales.

“For those who believe in the sanctity of life, any steps to increase the cohort of people who can administer lethal injections and provide lethal drugs to terminate that life would be a tragedy for those unborn children.

“Although the bill passes, it should be done with sadness and shame.”

Abortion Drug Mifepristone Faces New Scrutiny

On the same day the NSW abortion bill passed the lower house, USA Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed he has tasked Marty Makary, the director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “to do a complete review” of mifepristone “and to report back” to him.

Kennedy’s commission is a result of a recently published study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The study found nearly 11% of women suffered a serious adverse effect from the abortion drug MS-2 Step. “It’s alarming”, Kennedy responded.

Multiple NSW parliamentarians referred to this latest research. Liberal MP Tanya Davies warned,

“A recent study reported an adverse event rate of over 10 per cent for women who access the abortion pill, with one in 20 requiring hospitalisation or a visit to an emergency department due to complications.”

She continued,

“Let that sink in.”

“This is not simply a process of taking a pill for a headache; this is medication that induces a miscarriage. It is a serious matter.”

With the bill passing the NSW Parliament, it appears these warnings have been ignored.

NSW Midwife: “I Cannot Prescribe Antibiotics”

The debate on the abortion bill raises the question on the medical appropriateness of nurses and midwives prescribing lethal pharmaceutical drugs.

In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, Midwife Karen Childs began,

“As a midwife, I cannot prescribe antibiotics, but this bill wants me to write scripts for the abortion pill.”

Childs continued,

“How does the midwife know the pregnancy’s gestation without an ultrasound? Why are we putting this burden on midwives? We are not the dumping ground for the government; we are there for the women and their families.”

Nurses and Midwives: Surgical Abortionists up to 22 Weeks?

The original bill gave the upper limit of nurses and midwives performing abortions up to 22 weeks’ gestation. This extensive timeframe up to the time foetal viability is very strange.

Why? Because the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)’s guidelines state that the abortion drug known as MS-2 Step (Mifepristone and Misoprostol) can only be administered to mothers up to nine weeks’ gestation.

For abortions after nine weeks, a surgical abortion is required. But nurses and midwives are not qualified to perform this kind of surgery.

The obvious question is: Why propose a law that states nurses and midwives can do abortions up to 22 weeks’ gestation, if they cannot medically do so?

The bill’s wording logically implied that it was designed to open the door for nurses, midwives and other health workers to become surgical abortionists in the future when the medical guidelines change.

Some politicians and media outlets have claimed this was ‘misinformation’. But even Dr Amanda Cohn, the Greens’ author of the bill, said,

“There are also concerns that the bill unintentionally permits nurses and midwives to perform surgical procedures well outside their scope of practice.

“I understand that if one read the Abortion Law Reform Act and this bill in isolation, one may believe that to be the case.”

This led Damien Tudehope to question, “One interpretation of the way the bill was initially drafted could potentially give a nurse practitioner the opportunity to participate in a surgical abortion or administer a medical abortion up to 22 weeks.”

Susan Carter raised the similar concerns, saying,

“The bill would usher in the prospect of unsafe care for women. It would permit nurses trained to care for women in the birthing process and bring new life into the world – and not trained to perform operations – to perform surgical abortions on women.”

“That is unsafe. In the name of increased access, it is a backwards step in health care for women… I cannot accept a bill that would be so damaging for women’s health.”

Opening the Door for Further Abortion Access

Despite denials to the contrary, the bill did lay a foundation for nurses and midwives to perform surgical abortion.

Revealingly, an amendment was proposed that made it clear that qualified nurses and midwives could only perform abortions up up to nine weeks.

However, it failed to receive majority support.

But an amendment that specified healthcare workers could only operate within the existing medical parameters (currently set as nine weeks by the TGA) succeeded.

Both amendments practically achieve the same outcome.

But the second succeeded, because in the words of Labor upper house leader Penny Sharpe, “That means if the TGA guidelines change in the future, we do not have to keep coming back [and change this law].”

Exactly.

All it will take for nurses and midwives to perform abortions up to 22 weeks is for medical regulatory bodies to change their guidelines and offer training pathways so that the “endorsed health practitioners” are now “qualified”.

Shining Lights in the NSW Parliament

The following is a public record of those who stood strong for life during the debate on this bill. These brave parliamentarians deserve our gratitude, encouragement and support.

Susan Carter MLC (Liberal Party)

“I do not believe that a 10-week-old fetus in the womb is a living human being; I know it is. Just as I know the Earth orbits the sun and gravity stops us from falling off the face of the Earth.

“I know that because it is scientific fact. Nothing has been added to any of us since our conception except food, water, time and hopefully love.

“It is remarkable to me that at 10 weeks, the foetus will be the size of an apricot.

“Many casual contacts may not even know that the mother is pregnant, but the child that she is carrying will have a recognisable face, a heart that beats, tiny fingers and toes, and even fingernails and toenails.”

John Ruddick MLC (Libertarian Party)

“The Hippocratic Oath of the Greeks, the gold standard in health care since the fourth century BC, does explicitly have doctors pledge, ‘I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.'”

NSW Parliament is debating a radical pro-abortion bill that tramples on freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

I spoke against the specifics of the bill and also spelt out the position of pro-life libertarians on the question of abortion.

Thank you @Cribbertarian for… pic.twitter.com/bJaQEz1Ddk

— John Ruddick MLC (@JohnRuddick2) March 26, 2025

“I had been of the view that life did not commence until the fetus had developed brain waves, which is six to eight weeks into the pregnancy. My view had been that the foetus could not feel pain until that point.

“But pro‑life libertarians challenged that approach via an appeal to reason. They asked, “If a law says it’s fine to abort a fetus prior to the formation of brain waves, then is it fine to kill the fetus five minutes before the brain waves form?” A law cannot decide at what moment brain waves form because it will be sooner in some fetuses and later in others.

“But, more significantly, the foetus is going to resemble something extremely similar right before or after any arbitrary line in the sand that a law decides is the moment a fetus can or cannot be aborted.

“The formula of asking “Well, what about five minutes before your legal definition? What about five minutes before brainwaves or five minutes before a heartbeat or five minutes before a trimester or five minutes before birth?” et cetera can be applied at every step of the pregnancy except for the moment of conception. If people oppose the idea of five minutes before, what about five days or five weeks before?

“Conception is the moment of extraordinary and unique transformation. It is the moment when something radically different appears from what was moments before. Conception is the transformative moment that begins everyone’s life journey. That is when we all begin to exist.”

Robert Borsak MLC (Shooters, Farmers and Fishers)

“An embryo and then a foetus is a baby from conception. We oppose the bill in its entirety.

“The bill does not increase access to health care; it expands the reach of ideology into medicine. It does not empower women; it removes safeguards for them. It does not respect diversity in New South Wales; it erases it in favour of one view, one model and one mandate.

“We have submitted a number of amendments for consideration to protect freedom of conscience, ensure public reporting continues, limit regulatory overreach and clarify vague legal terms that the bill leaves wide open.

“We do not believe the bill should pass. But, if it does, the least we can do is mitigate the harm. These amendments will not fix everything, but they might just save a little integrity in the process.

“The bill is not about good policy and it is not what good policy looks like. It is not what sound health care looks like and it is not what a respectful society looks like. It is what The Greens want for our society, and that is always destructive and monocultural.”

Chris Rath MLC (Liberal Party)

“Because of this divine creation, I believe in the intrinsic worth and dignity of all human life, from conception to natural death.

“None of us has the right to take away the life of another.”

Greg Donnelly MLC (Labor Party)

“I lay out that my position on termination, or abortion, is that I consider it always abhorrent and always involving the death of a human being, so I cannot in good conscience or in any circumstances support it.”

“All human life has intrinsic value and must be treated with dignity and respect. The right to life is an inalienable right that exists prior to the State and for every human being.

“To dismiss or somehow qualify this right strikes at the very essence of humanity.

“An intended pregnancy termination, from conception up to birth, has only one purpose and that is to end the life of an unborn human being.

“That human life, though obviously small—indeed, tiny—is nevertheless at its earliest stage of existence; it cannot be otherwise.

“Claiming that it is not is scientifically incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

“Whatever else may be occurring in that nine-month period between conception to birth, a human being is incontrovertibly growing and developing inside its mother.

“Be that as it may, our society—and the culture at large—with some significant success, has largely set aside the belief and acceptance of this truth, this reality.

“Tragically in my view, that has created a deep and unnecessary tension between the right of the unborn to their very existence as a human being and the health, welfare, life choices and wellbeing of its mother.

“This deep and unnecessary tension has had the practical effect of pitting the unborn human being against her or his mother. This pitting of one life against another based on a claim for superior rights of one over the other is not something new.

“For example, the Romans once deemed it a morally acceptable practice to abandon female newborns and babies to perish beyond the city gates if they were not wanted or deemed desirable.

“That practice within the Roman Empire was referred to as “exposure”.”

Tanya Davies MP (Liberal Party)

“The bill expands the provision of abortion and widens the net of those who may administer abortion.

“Instead, options for pregnant women should be expanded through a range of measures so that pregnant women do not feel that the only answer to any physical or mental concerns or issues is the ending of their unborn baby’s life.

“There must be access to a range of ongoing supports where physical and/or mental issues and concerns are met with the required treatment, monitoring and follow-up support.

“Such an expansion of support—the sharing of viable alternatives and options—never seems to find its way into these bills. The focus always seems to be simply on expanding access to abortion, not access to life advocacy, counselling, practical support and ongoing health care.”

“The administering of an abortion, regardless of at what stage and through what process, is a serious matter and may have physical and mental ramifications for the mother for decades.

“Some brave women have publicly shared their pain and regret on their choice to abort their baby. Clearly that is evidence enough that society needs to provide genuine options and support in response to the desires and wishes of those women.”

Dr Hugh McDermott MP (Labor Party)

“Some 22,000 abortions are performed in New South Wales per year. There is a fiction about what a pregnancy termination or abortion is. It is hidden behind untruths, including that, at the time of the abortion, the child is not real, and that it is only a group of cells and not a fully formed person. The truth is that life begins at conception. When an abortion is performed, a human life is terminated.”

“In the electorate of Prospect, I am proud to represent a very strong faith community. Prospect is home to one of the largest and most active faith communities in New South Wales, and I have received many letters—including in my mailbox at home—emails and phone calls about the bill over the past few months. I thank those members of my community for taking the time to share their perspectives with me.”

Anthony Roberts MP (Liberal Party)

“I made it clear then that there should be no debate on the sanctity of human life, and my view has not changed. While I recognise there are differences in what we are now debating, the life of the unborn remains the paramount issue. I am not going to support legislation that increases the number of people who can administer a procedure that takes a life.”

“I thank the many constituents who have contacted me directly about the bill, including those in support. The overwhelming majority have been against the bill. Even after the amendments in the other place last Thursday, the message has been to oppose the bill. As I said when I commenced my speech, I am not going to support legislation that increases the number of people who can administer a procedure that takes a life. I cannot support the bill.”

Julia Finn MP (Labor Party)

“Almost all the people who have contacted me opposed the bill—as was the case with the 2019 legislation. Some 500 people contacted me to oppose that legislation, while 12 people contacted me to support it. This is an important issue.”

Dr Joe McGirr MP (Independent)

“I believe in the dignity of life and the importance of respecting life for every individual, no matter the stage of their life. In the euthanasia debate I spoke of the sanctity of life. As a medical practitioner, I feel an even greater commitment to enhancing and preserving life.”

Monica Tudehope MP (Liberal Party)

“While no longer in the bill, I think it is worth calling out the egregious provision that attempted to remove the ability for doctors to act according to their conscience. It is ironic that we are being afforded a conscience vote, but they were not. But then this place often excels in irony.”

Mark Hodges MP (Liberal Party)

“I have considered the views of all members of my community who have contacted me. The majority were strongly opposed to the bill, which considers whether to extend the category of persons who may terminate life by means of medical abortion. We are told the bill increases access to health care. Many in our community would argue that the decision to terminate life could not be properly regarded as health care. Life commences at conception. As such, the bill considers the termination of life under the broad description of health care.”

Robyn Preston MP (Liberal Party)

“This is my conscience speaking, and I speak today on behalf of the thousands of women and men of all ages who need a voice. Under darkened skies last week, I stood on the steps of this Parliament and gave my support to many pro-life followers who had gathered to express their feelings of betrayal by the Minns Labor Government, which, before the 2023 election, had reached out to Christian faiths and said that it would represent their beliefs in Parliament.

“On that night, I was greeted by Archbishop Anthony Fisher and Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay, who reached out and shook my hand. There was an understanding amongst us that went beyond words. It was a look of trust, common values and a belief that what we stood for was right and just. We will not be silenced.

“I cannot speak without representing my community and the commitment they have asked me to deliver in my speech. I speak on behalf of those who have contacted my office. I thank them for reaching out and having the courage and conviction to express their beliefs and values.

“I speak on behalf of those who are pro life, Archbishop Anthony Fisher, Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay and all faith-based groups and individuals who have asked for me to be their voice.”

Thank Those Who Stood Strong

Those MPs who changed, spoke and voted against the bill and made it less evil than it originally was deserve our recognition of courage and gratitude. There are strong pro-abortion pressures from within the Labor and Liberal parties. Those who resisted this need our support.

Please write a hand-written letter, send an email or make a phone call to thank those who voted against the bill.

Wherever you live in Australia, these MPs need your appreciation.

Lower House (Legislative Assembly) MPs

20 members of the Legislative Assembly (lower house) voted against the bill.

Click the green button below to find their contact details on the NSW Parliament website.

Upper House MLCs (Legislative Council)

15 members of the Legislative Council (upper house) voted against the bill.

Click the red button below to find their contact details on the NSW Parliament website.

___

Image via Adobe.