Right: Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart. Victorian Catholic bishops, in a pastoral letter, inferred that any new law on abortion would be, in the end, accepted as morally, as well as legally correct. The letter said that people would begin to think that, if abortion were allowed under the law, then it must be right.Arguments against making abortion legal in Victoria
1. The new bill legalises late-term abortion
There is concern that the new bill, in specifying that abortion can take place up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy has legalised late-term abortion. Under the terms of the Bill any woman may have an abortion on request, without having to demonstrate cause, up to when the pregnancy has advanced to six months.
This is concern at this because many in the community believe that abortion six months into a pregnancy is too late. This objection is based largely on viability. It is now possible to sustain the life of babies born at 24 weeks; therefore, to deliberately end the life of an unborn at this stage of development seems morally problematic to many.
The former deputy leader of the Liberal Party and the former federal treasurer, Peter Costello, has stated, 'I can't believe that there is a proposal to make abortion legal as a matter of course up to 24 weeks, when babies are born at less than 24 weeks. We will have a situation in this country when in one part of a hospital babies will be in humidicribs being kept alive and in some other part it will be legal to be aborting them.'
Costello has argued further, 'It should be looked at more both as a conscience issue and as a medical issue simply because it is possible to keep babies alive today at a very young age.'
There is further concern that under the Bill an abortion may be acquired after six months and apparently up to full term if two medical practitioners 'reasonably believe that the abortion is appropriate', with regard to 'all relevant circumstances and the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances'.
The Bill does not disallow partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion occurs at or near term when a foetus is partially removed from the womb and then killed. At the time of writing this outline, the Bill had passed through the Legislative Assembly unamended. Amendments to prevent partial birth abortion were rejected.
2. The Bill does not allow freedom of conscience to medical practitioners who oppose abortion
Under the terms of the abortion reform Bill a doctor who has moral objections to abortion would generally be able to refuse to perform an abortion if requested; however, he or she would have to refer the patient to another doctor who would perform the procedure. The bill also requires that where the woman's life is judged at risk through a continued pregnancy, any doctor can be obliged to perform an abortion.
There are those who believe that this bill is an attack on doctors' right to act in accord with their conscience.
Patrick Giam, the Australian Catholic Students Association (ACSA) Media Officer, has claimed, 'Not only does this Bill attack the right to life, which all unborn children deserve, it also attacks doctors' freedom of belief. Even where doctors may have reasoned moral views against abortion, this Bill forces them to assist women to procure abortions and in some cases even perform it themselves. This is a deplorable attack on the freedom of our medical professionals.
Even the AMA Code of Ethics does not require a medical practitioner to refer a woman seeking abortion to another practitioner. This obligation in the Bill will compromise the ability of our doctors to act in a professional and morally responsible manner.'
Similarly, bioethicist, Nicholas Tonti Filippini has stated, 'Under Victoria's new Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 , many Catholic health practitioners and institutions 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 has been severely curtailed.
The Bill (section 7) extends the practice of abortion to permit a registered pharmacist or registered nurse who is authorised under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to supply a drug or drugs may administer or supply the drug or drugs to cause an abortion in a woman who is not more than 24 weeks pregnant...
Under section 8, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and psychologists would have to refer for abortion if they were unwilling to advise or perform an abortion. Catholic institutions who require their health professionals to abide by their code of ethics will find it difficult to maintain their codes of ethics if the Bill is passed and professionals engaged in the institutions are obliged by law to perform or to refer for abortion.'
3. The Bill does not require counselling for pregnant women seeking abortion nor require other support provisions
Under the terms of the Bill, there is no requirement for a woman seeking an abortion to receive information or counselling. There is no provision for a cooling-off period, nor any restriction on where terminations can be performed. There are those who are concerned that this does not acknowledge the seriousness of the decision to have an abortion, nor the potentially harmful physical and psychological effects an abortion can have on a woman.
Bioethicist, Nicholas Tonti Filippini, noted with concern that the Law Reform Commission report, which the Victorian Government drew on in drafting its Bill, also rejected 'requirements for making counselling available, seeking an independent medical opinion, reporting adverse events or restricting abortion to places that have adequate facilities for a major surgical procedure.' Tonti Filippini's concern was that the potential adverse effects of abortion on women were being minimised and that there is not even a process in place for recording such adverse events.
Referring to the Law Reform Commission's report and by extension the Victorian Government's Bill which draws on it, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, has also noted, 'The Commission's Report fails to address the gravity of the decision for a woman and the adverse effects of abortion. The Commission's Report completely fails to address the needs of a woman in the predicament of an unexpected pregnancy for support and the opportunity to discuss the issues with someone who is supportive of her and independent.'
4. The Abortion Law Reform Bill is not necessary
The Victorian Health Minister, Daniel Andrews, has stated that the Abortion Law Reform Bill was intended only to remove abortion from the Crimes Act. The minister has claimed, 'By clarifying the law in this area, we are not intending to expand the extent to which terminations occur, or restrict access to services.' Critics have claimed that if all the Bill is intending to do is to maintain the status quo with regard to access to abortion than it is not necessary.
No one has been prosecuted in Victoria under the ant-abortion Crimes Act provisions for 21 years. It is estimated that some 20,000 abortions are performed in Victoria annually and that one in three Victorian women have had an abortion at some point in their lives. Given the extent of the use of abortion and the lack of criminal prosecutions it has been claimed the Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Bill is simply not necessary. Indeed there are those who claim that when dealing with complex moral issues the law is simply too blunt an instrument and reformed or not we do not want our abortion practice determined by legislation.
Those who hold this view tend to argue that a society is better to have conservative legislation modified by more lenient judicial rulings and to have its practice shaped by medical practitioners actually responding to the circumstances of individual women. This is the situation that pertains in Victoria, where, as a famous pro-abortion campainger, Jo Wainer, has noted, 'The law has been ignored by the Federal government because Medicare refunds medical fees for abortion, by the State government because public hospitals provide abortion services and the Department of Human Services regulates the day procedure centres, and by medical colleges such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists because they have a policy on their web site supporting their members who provide this service.' Wainer argues that where a law is being ignored it should be abolished; others have argued that where it is ignored it does not need to be changed.
5. The Bill is more liberal than current arrangements and would normalise abortion
In Victoria, under current arrangements, a woman seeking an abortion has to have the support of her doctor that the procedure is necessary for her physical or psychological welbeing. Under the Abortion Law Reform Bill abortion would be available on request up to 24 months gestation. There are those who see this as a significant liberalisation and likely to lead to an increased number of abortions in this state.
Under the Abortion Reform Bill, any woman who wants an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy will be able to lawfully get one. Such abortions will be regulated 'like any other medical procedure', Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand, who is sponsoring the Bill, told Parliament. 'Abortion where the woman is 24 weeks pregnant or less will be a private decision for a woman in consultation with her medical practitioner,' she said. There are many who believe that this will almost certainly lead to an increase in the procedure.
It has been claimed that the law has symbolic value. According to this argument, to make something legal is to indicate that the society approves of those practices it makes legal. It has been claimed that this is a doubtful claim to make in relation to abortion which many appear to regard as an unfortunate necessity rather than an action they would enthusiastically endorse.
The concern has been expressed that explicitly making abortion legal may be an encourgaement to some women to undergo abortions, when, without this encouragement they might not.
David Palmer, in an article published in Online Opinion in August 2007 stated, 'The major problem with making abortion legal without qualification ... is that the general public, including the young, will begin to think of abortion - once considered morally wrong, or at the very least morally dubious - as morally right. Abortion is not morally right. Even the ancient Greeks recognised the value of the unborn so that Hippocrates bound all doctors in his oath against procuring an abortion.
One practical consequence of the change in emphasis associated with decriminalisation of abortion would be that it will become much harder for a woman to resist calls from her boyfriend, her husband or other family members to undergo an abortion.'
A similar position has been put by Victoria's catholic bishops in response to Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Bill. In an open pastoral letter the Catholic bishops of Victoria have stated, 'The Law is a great educator and if the Law approves something then people gradually accept a new understanding of what is right and what is
wrong. People begin to think: "Abortion is lawful now, so it's right."
Taking abortion out of the Crimes Act would undoubtedly be a victory for the pro-abortion forces. But moving the regulation of abortion from the Crimes Act to the Health Act would also give strength to the fallacy that abortion is just an ordinary medical procedure.'