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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2505 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Ms Gallagher's substitute provision gives much less protection than the provisions of the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act 1998. It gives no protection to other medical/health staff in relation to an abortion procedure.

Significantly, Ms Gallagher's proposals give no protection to any person, whether a medical practitioner or otherwise, who does not wish to refer a woman for an abortion nor to counsel abortion to her. Medical practitioners would still be subject to so-called 'wrongful life' suits. There have been a number of these actions where typically a person born with a handicap sues the doctor who managed the mother's pregnancy for the doctor's failure to refer the mother, or counsel her for an abortion.

Further, Ms Gallagher's proposals offer no protection to persons who work in pregnancy support services. These persons (often volunteers) might find themselves and/or their organisations, against their consciences, obliged to refer women for an abortion for fear of legal consequences.

She goes on to say:

These serious omissions in the Gallagher Bill clearly fail to 'band-aid' one of the evident deficiencies of the Berry proposals.

The letter goes on to say:

The Association has already made representations opposed to the two Bills presented by Mr Berry and our concerns are presented in more detail in the Attachment.

I won't go into that. But she stated, in summary:

We hold that the legislation:

removes valuable statutory safeguards for women who are considering termination of pregnancy, including informed consent, and a cooling-off period to allow women to consider their decision free of pressure;

does not protect persons who conscientiously object to participating in abortion, or referring for abortion, or counselling for abortion; and

removes all legal protection from the unborn child before birth and would be an abandonment of the fundamental role of government, which is to protect the lives and promote the well-being of all members of the community which they serve, particularly those members who are most vulnerable.

It goes on to say:

In fact, in respect of Mr Berry's proposal to remove all sanctions against abortion, the Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Legal Affairs Scrutiny Report No.2 2002 stated that no other jurisdiction in Australia has removed all criminal sanctions governing the procuring of abortion. Further, this proposal is contrary to the obligations of Australian Governments to conform their laws to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, particularly as given in its Preamble and Articles 6, 7, 19 and 37

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