The proposed bill to legalise abortion in Victoria is before the Legislative Council (the Senate). It’s been described by its opponents as being at the extreme end of ‘pro-choice’ legislation. I agree.

Here’s a link to the bill on the Victorian Parliament site (PDF docs). It’s a bit confusing how it’s laid out at first.

The first two docs are the initial bill, the ‘Introduction Print’ is the bill, and the ‘Introduction Print Explanatory Memorandum’ explains the aim of the bill and the legal context.

The first table, ‘First House Details: Legislative Assembly’, shows what happened in the lower house. There were a number of suggested amendments by various representatives. These amendments included things like removing the requirement for someone who conscientiously objects to have to refer the women seeking an abortion to another medical practitioner who they know does not have a conscientious objection, as well as providing protection from discrimination for people who have such an objection.

Also, there was the suggestion that the medical practitioner should be required to consult a board of health professionals, rather than just one other practitioner before performing an abortion on a foetus under the age of 24 weeks.

The bill was passed without amendment. That’s bad.

The second table, ‘Second House Details: Legislative Council’, refers to the current debate, in the upper house. Thus far, suggested amendments have included a prohibition on partial birth abortion, so that a foetus who survives an abortion must be afforded all the rights of child, as well as the requirement for medical practitioners to take all reasonable steps to minimise the pain of the foetus during an abortion.

The whole thing is bizarre. Here are some reasons why.

First, in considering whether an abortion (pre-24 weeks) is appropriate, the doctor must have regard to:

… the woman’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances.” (Clause 5 line 23, italics mine)

Good luck with that.

Second, and more problematic:

(1) If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion. (Clause 8 line 6, italics mine)

This is a nightmare. If I’m a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion, I’m required by law to do something my conscience tells me I can’t do: give the women the name and number of someone who will end up performing an abortion on her baby.

The suggested amendment that doctor be given the option to refer the women to a health department approved family planning centre was rejected in the lower house.

Third, and I’m not sure what to make of this one:

(3) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. (Clause 8, line 22)

We’re not talking about a conscientious objection to giving a blood transfusion here. This is abortion, which many millions of people around the world now and through history have thought is abhorrent. If the state is going to legislate that it’s legal, that’s one thing, but here they are attempting to legislate to make objecting doctors commit what they consider to be murder.

Now of course, they can’t actually make a doctor perform an abortion. Good conscientious objection always accepts there may be serious legal consequences for disobedience.

If the bill passes the upper house, I hope it’s overturned by the courts when the first doctors start going to prison. And doctors will, many are already making their views known.

Doctors in Conscience Against the Abortion Bill is a group set up to oppose the bill, with 206 Victorian doctors signed up in the last three days. Here’s their position statement:

We are a newly formed group of Victorian doctors from a range of medical specialities, with diverse backgrounds, representing various faiths and none. We call upon the Victorian government to reject the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008.

We consider the proposed legislation to be poorly framed and unnecessarily coercive. It is based on false premises, incorrect definitions and is not reflective of current clinical realities nor is it supportive of vulnerable pregnant women.

Read their full statement here (82KB PDF).

If you’re a Victorian resident, write to your senate member and ask them to oppose the bill. Find out who he or she is here.

I’m going to continue to pray that this bill gets smashed on the floor of the upper house. If there are other substantive things non-Victorian residents can do, let’s hear them.

Some theoretically related posts:

1. Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen And by ’survivor’, I don’t mean she survived having an abortion. This is powerful, powerful...
2. Abortion Wow. Adele Horin is pushing so hard for abortion here, it’s almost satire. I agree...
3. Report on Aid to Burma My new friend Jono Flegg, who offered to assist with getting aid into Burma, from...