Global Abortion

Here is very sad article. I pray our nation never comes to this, but with this upcoming election we can't know for sure that it won't. Remember that Barack Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act which has been called "the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress." The FOCA is a bill that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, strike down restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and nullify virtually every state and federal law or policy that would in any way "interfere with" access to abortion, including parental notification laws. Please vote and pray!

Proposed abortion laws threaten doctors' rights By Eamonn Mathieson

The Legislative Council should reject this legislation and the legislators should return to the drawing board and start again. (ABC TV)

The anti-conscience clause in Victoria's new Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 is extreme and unprecedented. Even the ACT, which has the most liberal abortion legislation in the country, includes a provision to safeguard the rights of health professionals to refuse to participate in abortions.

This extraordinary attempt by pro-abortion legislators to coerce health professionals to participate in the taking of human life is an unconscionable attack on their human rights.

Under this proposed legislation many health practitioners will find their practices under threat if they are unwilling to advise or perform an abortion or refer for abortion. The right to conscientious objection by professional health practitioners in the state of Victoria will be severely curtailed.

Such a provision is contrary to the codes of ethics of the AMA, the Royal Australian College of Nursing and the National Health and Medical Research Council. It is also in breach of section 14 of Victoria's Charter of Human rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

This misguided and unethical provision reflects how poorly drafted this legislation is. It relies on the false premise that "abortion is just like any medical procedure". Only euthanasia and medically assisted executions share the same intent and objective: the direct taking of human life. It bases its framework on an incorrect definition of abortion. It defines abortion as "intentionally causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy". This is incorrect. This would include inducing a live birth prematurely for serious health risks and the management of ectopic pregnancies. This flawed definition enables the creation of the clinical fiction of "emergency abortions". And it is this misleading category that gives the apparent justification to the coercion of health professionals to participate in abortions.

The management of complicated and life-threatening obstetric cases does not necessitate the direct and active killing of the unborn. The indirect and unintended loss of life of an unborn child in early pregnancy resulting from the management of serious maternal health risk is not an abortion per se. And attempting to deliver a live birth late in pregnancy is always the safer option in emergency or high risk situations. Suicidal risk for a pregnant woman is a psychiatric emergency, not a surgical or abortion emergency. In almost all clinical situations the management of maternal health risk need not involve the consideration of an abortion.

In this way, despite claims by legislators their legislation does not reflect a competent grasp of the realities of current clinical practice.

Regarding the rights of doctors to refuse to participate in the process of abortion by refusing to refer "to another whom the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion". The legislation relies on the mistaken advice given by the VLRC that Victoria would be following a precedent in the United Kingdom. This is just one of several incorrect and misleading recommendations given by the VLRC which have gone unchallenged. It reveals the flawed process in which VLRC recommendations are not open to public scrutiny and expert criticism following their release and prior to legislation being framed around it.

Only last week a UK doctor received confirmation from the General Medical Council that he was acting according to professional medical rules by conscientiously objecting to participating in abortions through referral.

The issue of objecting to referral for abortion seems to confound some people. If the word 'abortion' was substituted with 'euthanasia' or 'female circumcision' it is perhaps easier to see the issue. If these practices were legal and the state compelled doctors to refer, despite their conscientious objection and against their clinical judgement, to known 'euthanasists' or 'genital mutilators' the issue of participation is perhaps more evident.

This point was made in a recent letter by AMA president Dr Doug Travis to Premier John Brumby:

The Bill infringes the rights of doctors with a conscientious objection by inserting an active compulsion for a doctor to refer to another doctor who they know does not have a conscientious objection. Respect for a conscientious objection is a fundamental principle in our democratic country, and doctors expect that their rights in this regard will be respected, as for any other citizen.

It was also a point made recently in Ontario, Canada, when an attempt to override doctors' rights to conscientiously object was defeated. Rabbi Reuven Bulka stated, "Referring is just a way of sloughing off your responsibility ? If you're opposed to these things, referring is the same as taking part in the evil."

Not only should the state protect the lives of its citizens, it should also protect the rights of health professionals not to participate in killing against their will. The Legislative Council should reject this legislation and the legislators should return to the drawing board and start again.

Dr Eamonn Mathieson is an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group.

God Save The Unborn & Our Nation, Pastor Phillip