Page 3844 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In considering whether an offence arises in relation to the supply of termination drugs, it does not matter if the person being supplied is pregnant or not—that is not an offence—or whether the drug that has been supplied is effective in terminating the pregnancy.
I took the briefing from Ms Le Couteur and her staff on this matter in July and I personally raised a number of questions with Ms Le Couteur. They included: what happens to the product of the termination of pregnancy when it is terminated at home? What information about support services will be provided to patients seeking medical terminations, and by whom? Whilst the conscientious objection provisions in this bill were much better than they have been hitherto, they did not extend to pharmacists and their assistants. Ms Le Couteur has not got back to me on any of those issues since July.
I note that in consultation the AMA is not opposed to this bill but did express concerns about the issue of nurse practitioners, which the health minister has touched on. The scrutiny of bills committee also commented on the bill. Also, I note that the minister has circulated, through the Clerk’s office, amendments, which she has touched on, that establish the time frame for commencement; restore the current language in relation to abortion, that is, omitting “termination” and reinserting the term “abortion”; and amend relevant definitions.
It disempowers nurse practitioners from the supply or administration of abortifacient drugs, and the minister has addressed those. It allows an authorised person to refuse to prescribe on religious or conscientious objection grounds but prohibits the conscientious objector from refusing to treat a person requiring medical treatment because they have had an abortion. The minister also proposes to include the power to extend protective areas, exclusion zones, to around dispensing pharmacies. All these matters are straightforward matters of fact about what the bill does.
As members would know, the Canberra Liberals consider the issues in relation to life and death to be conscience issues and it has been agreed that members would be able to speak and vote freely according to their conscience. It would come as no surprise to members of this place that I would be opposed to this legislation.
This bill makes it easier for Canberra women to obtain chemical abortion as an alternative to surgical abortion. Ms Le Couteur calls this improving access to abortion and improving access for Canberrans seeking to exercise their reproductive rights.
As someone who has been actively involved in the pro-life movement my whole adult life, I cannot do anything to support this bill. As someone who knows that life begins at conception, I am opposed to all instances of abortion irrespective of the means by which it is procured and irrespective of the time at which it is procured. This is why, at every opportunity, I have supported restrictions on abortions and oppose the relaxation of abortion laws. And this is the case today.
I want to make it clear, so that I cannot be verballed, that I am not critical of women who resort to abortion. I would just prefer that we lived in a society where they had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video