Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2503 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Third, notwithstanding that pregnancy is part of the woman's intimate sphere, which itself is constitutionally protected, and she has a right to the free development of her personality, including her autonomy to decide against parenthood, the embryo is not simply part of the woman's body. Abortion does not remain within the private area of life. In the reconciliation of these competing interests, the protection of the life of the foetus must be given priority.

There are some other provisions there. Those are probably the main ones-somewhat different perhaps from approaches taken in some other countries. Nevertheless, I think that is worthy of mentioning in terms of the argument in favour of protection of the rights of the unborn child-and some other members here might well quote other parts of the scrutiny of bills report in terms of other rights there.

Archbishop Carroll, in his letter to the Chief Minister-a copy of which was sent to all members-makes a number of points in relation to these three bills. He summarises six main areas, and I think it is worth putting those on the record. Moving to the more specific aspects of the legislative proposals and related matters, he says firstly:

1. Traditionally the purposes of law are, as you well know, to protect, to regulate and to educate. In the case of abortion generally and the Berry amendments in particular, all three goals are subverted. How so? In the case of the unborn, he or she will be killed, invariably by harrowing means. According to Mr Berry, and notwithstanding all legal textbooks to the contrary, women do not need to know any details about the abortion procedure and its possible sequelae. They certainly do not need any time to consider any information which might have been given to them, nor do they need time to seek a second opinion. All of this presumes that all women are always, and in all circumstances, completely self-possessed and in complete command of all facts (medical, legal, emotional, psychological, and alternatives to killing their children, etc) so that they do not need any protection. But what of especially vulnerable women? Does the Assembly pass laws for the protection and care of those who claim vehemently that they do not need it, or for the voiceless and vulnerable who do?

2. In support of these straight-forward propositions concerning (a) the provision of all relevant information, and (b) the necessity of adequate time to consider it, one need only be referred to the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety's Senior Legal Adviser, Meg Wallace, who, as you know, has written a detailed text on health law (Health Care and the Law, 3rd Edition 2001).

He goes on to say that he encloses an extract of the textbook, complete with checklists regarding these matters. He states:

I draw your attention to paragraphs 4.108 & 4.122. You will readily appreciate that the "check-lists" drawn up by Ms Wallace are predicated on the landmark High Court decision of Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. Mr Berry's amendments would make a bizarre exception to Ms Wallace's checklist, so that its recommendations could be said to apply to all medical procedures except abortion.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .