REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
INQUIRY RULED OUT INTO ATROCITIES OF LATE ABORTIONS
Babette Francis, November 13, 2010
A call to investigate the deaths of more than 50 babies
who die each year shortly after birth, following failed abortions,
was rejected earlier this year by Victorias Parliament.
On July 28, 2010, Victorias upper house, the Legislative Council,
debated a motion moved by Peter Kavanagh MLC (DLP, Western Victoria) to
investigate the deaths. But a majority of MLCs voted against Mr Kavanaghs
motion, which therefore failed. Three upper house members, Colleen Hartland
(Greens), Gayle Tierney (ALP) and Brian Tee (ALP), called Mr Kavanagh
disgusting for raising the issue. They added that there was
no way that babies born alive following failed abortions could
be neglected to death, much less deliberately killed. They claimed that
these babies were wanted babies and that the parents had chosen
to have the pregnancies terminated by early induction rather than a chemical
abortion so that they could cuddle their babies before they died.
However, Barney Zwartz, religion editor of the Melbourne Age, recently
wrote an article headed, Aborted babies being left to die
(The Age, October 7, 2010). In it he quoted extensively from a motion
to the annual Victorian synod of the Anglican Church moved by Rev Dr Mark
Durie, vicar of St Marys Anglican Church in Caulfield a suburb in
Melbournes south-east. Dr Durie moved that the Anglican Church ask
Victorias Brumby Labor Government to provide answers to the public
to five questions about late-term abortions:
How many are happening, and how late?
What are the reasons for these abortions?
Are those born alive receiving medical care, or what is their cause
of death?
What has been the effect on staff morale at the Royal Womens
Hospital?
What has been the effect on staff recruitment?
Dr Durie added that a trainee (not at the RWH) was deeply traumatised
when she was told to drop a living foetus into a bucket of formaldehyde.
Unfortunately, Dr Duries motion at the Anglican synod was not voted
on as Rev. Dr Ray Cleary, a theology lecturer and former chief executive
officer of Anglicare Victoria (Victorias largest provider of support
services for children and families), moved that the synod move on to the
next item on the agenda.
However, in a media release, Peter Kavanagh MLC said: My suspicion
that abortionists assume the right to kill any baby after birth, whom
they try but fail to kill before birth, is now confirmed, however, with
the revelation that survivors of abortion are being deliberately neglected
to death.
One nurse even reports that she was told to drop a surviving victim
of an abortion into a bucket of formaldehyde.
In a media release dated October 7, 2010, Marilyn Beaumont, executive
director of the feminist pro-abortion Womens Health Victoria, made
serious allegations against Dr Durie, claiming he was spreading misinformation
about Victorias abortion law. In his response, Dr Durie stated that
It is disappointing that in launching what amounts to a public attack
on my reputation, Womens Health Victoria has itself put out information
containing serious omissions and inaccuracies. These give a misleading
impression concerning both the abortion law in Victoria, and statistics
for late-term abortions.
Dr Durie has said that conscientious objection by medical staff to abortion
was now illegal in Victoria. This comment was reported in the context
of the employment of hospital medical staff. Ms Beaumont alleged that
this statement was inaccurate, on the grounds that:
Section 8 of Victorias Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 allows
health practitioners to object to abortion.
However, a health professional who has a conscientious objection
to abortion is required to refer a woman for termination of pregnancy
services.
Any conscientious objection to making such a referral does
not have merit.
The Acts rejection of conscientious objection in relation
to referral is ethically correct, because in the context of referral,
a womans right to make informed choices about her health must take
precedence over the conscience of the health practitioner.
In response to this argument, Dr Durie said: I note first that Ms
Beaumont has correctly conceded that it is illegal in the state of Victoria
for a health practitioner to object, on grounds of conscience, to referring
a woman for abortion services. In this respect, conscientious objection
by health practitioners is illegal in Victoria.
Ms Beaumont appears to regard this illegality as trivial
she maintains such an objection does not have merit. However,
this value judgment relies upon a contentious ethical opinion about the
moral value of abortion, which regards it simply as a decision made by
a woman about her own body.
Second, and more importantly, the Section 8 concession to conscientious
objection only applies in the case when a woman has requested a health
practitioner to advise or treat her in relation to abortion. No such concession
exists in the case of hospital staff such as operating theatre
workers who do not have a direct relationship with the woman. In
this context, Section 8 is irrelevant, and conscientious objection by
health practitioners receives no protection under the Abortion Law Reform
Act 2008.
The comments attributed to me in the Melbourne Age were specifically
in relation to hospital health workers. It is therefore disappointing
that Ms Beaumont has misrepresented the scope and application of the Abortion
Law Reform Act. Nothing in the WHV press release acknowledges that Section
8 of the Act does not apply to hospital health practitioners who have
no direct relationship with the patient. This was a significant omission.
Dr Durie went on to discuss government official statistical estimates
for abortion in Victoria. He said: Ms Beaumont stated that A
significant proportion of late-term abortions, including the 52 mentioned
in this article, [i.e., in the Melbourne Age, October 7, 2010] are for
congenital abnormality
. Based on this observation, she alleges
that The ministers [i.e., Mark Duries] comments are
not only inaccurate but grossly insensitive both to the health-care providers
and families involved in late-term abortions for congenital abnormality
and the impact this can have.
The rebuke appears to rely on an implication that late-term abortions
in Victoria are primarily for congenital abnormality. This is not true.
For example, in 2005 there were 129 late-term abortions reported
in Victoria for reasons of congenital abnormality, but 180 for psychosocial
indications (i.e., there was nothing wrong with the baby).
Victoria has seen explosive growth in late-term abortions for psychosocial
indications. This trend was well underway before the Abortion Law Reform
Act in 2008, and there has been an indication that it may be continuing.
A Channel 7 news report, aired on April 17, 2010, reported that
late-term abortions at the Royal Womens hospital had allegedly increased
six-fold since the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 was introduced. This has
to be considered on top of the previous 400 per cent state-wide increase
in late-term abortions for psychosocial indications from 2001-2007.
While it is impossible to be sure of figures without further information,
the combined multiplicative effect of two such reported increases could
be an overall 2400 per cent increase in late-term abortions for psychosocial
indications within a 10-year period. Such a possibility caused me
to move that the Melbourne synod of the Anglican diocese request a report
from the Victorian State Government about the impact of its liberalisation
of abortion laws.
The Abortion Law Reform Act went into force in late October 2008,
so the full impact of Victorias liberalisation of abortion laws
on late-term abortion statistics will only be publicly known when the
2009 report of the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality
and Morbidity is released. This will presumably be sometime in late 2011
to early 2012. (The 2008 report has not yet been released as of October
2010, and the 2007 report was only released in April 2010).
I deplore the serious omissions and misleading information concerning
the application of abortion law which were contained in the Womens
Health Victoria press release. I repeat my call for the Victorian
Government to report to the public on the impact of abortion law reform,
and specifically its impact on the frequency of late-term abortions in
Victoria. I remain deeply concerned about the implications of what
appears to be explosive recent growth in late-term abortions in Victoria,
including the obvious potential of such growth to impact on the recruitment
and morale of health practitioners in those hospitals which perform late-term
abortions.
Endeavour Forum Inc. has written to all state MPs to ask them to inform
Victorian voters before the state elections on November 27 whether, in
view of Dr Duries serious allegations, as reported by Barney Zwartz
in The Age, they would support:
(a) Legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, USA,
which requires that any baby born alive as a result of natural or induced
labour, caesarean section, or induced abortion be legally considered a
person and receive medical attention as needed.
(b) Legislation similar to the Nebraska law, Legislative Bill 1103, which
provides pain relief to the foetus in late-term abortions. Dropping a
live foetus into a bucket of formaldehyde is hardly keeping
it warm, hydrated and pain-free, as claimed by the Labor and
Green supporters of late-term abortions who opposed Peter Kavanaghs
motion for an inquiry. Babies born alive after abortion are legally entitled
to the same medical care as other infants of the same gestational age.
Babette Francis is Australian and international co-ordinator of Endeavour
Forum Inc., an NGO having special consultative status with the Economic
and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC).
|