(February 2, 2005)

Many of you that have followed the media closely over the last year or so would be aware of the debate ignited by the Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, in his address to the Adelaide University Democratic Club on "The Ethical Responsibilities of a Christian Politician". Most of the message conveyed by Mr Abbott was relatively uncontroversial and broadly commendable on many levels, arguably palatable to many in the audience. This was until he reached the 5th page of his 7-page speech. Mr Abbott took the opportunity to express his views on an issue, which has caused wide dissension in the community, and in doing so, provoked great hostility in the audience. The crowd expressed its contempt of the Minister's view on this issue by booing and hissing him. The issue was the tragedy of the practice of abortion across Australia. He said the following:

"The problem with the contemporary Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother's convenience. Aborting a first trimester foetus is not morally identical to deliberately killing a living human being but it's not just removing a wart or a cyst either. Even those who think that abortion is a woman's right should be troubled by the fact that 100,000 Australian women choose to destroy their unborn babies every year. What does it say about the state of our relationships and our values that so many women (and their husbands, lovers and families) feel incapable of coping with a pregnancy or child?"

News of Mr Abbott's stance on abortion spread like wildfire. Feminists argued that as a man and as Federal Health Minister, he was not in any position to make such a statement on a policy that the public had already allegedly decided in debates of yesteryear. Other high profile Christian MPs expressed their support of Mr Abbott's forthright stance on the tragedy of abortion. The community's voice was exemplified in mixed expressions of support and disapproval, made known across Australian newspapers and in forums addressing the issue.

As a member of the Upper House of NSW Parliament, on the 18th March, two days after Mr Abbott's message was delivered, I took the opportunity in Parliament to express my commendation of Mr Abbott's stance and my commitment to address the tragedy of the current practice of abortion in NSW.

I am of the wholehearted view that as humans we are obligated to value and respect life at whatever stage of its development. As a Christian, guided by a Judeo-Christian ethic as exemplified in the Holy Bible, I hold the strong opinion that life begins at conception. God's view of the beginning of human life is delicately and lovingly expressed in Psalm 139 where it says:

"For you formed by inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the Days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them". The issue of abortion is a serious one and a serious attempt must be made to address its widespread occurrence.

Within the context of abortion, I am particularly grieved by the practice of what is known as "partial birth abortions" or late term abortions. "Partial birth abortion" is the non-clinical name for a procedure known more scientifically as "dilation and extraction", however, pro-life advocates are of the general view that "partial birth abortion" is the most suitable label for the procedure involved because it aptly describes what is involved in the procedure.

The United States Congress has enacted laws banning the practice of this heinous procedure. During US Senate deliberations on this issue, a US Registered nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer, reported her experience as an agency nurse, which occurred in September 1993, arising from the assistance of a partial birth abortion. Her description is a shocking and heart wrenching account of what is involved in the procedure:

"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like the baby does when he thinks he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp . The whole baby was then delivered, dead."

It is not known with any specificity how widespread the practice of partial birth abortions is in NSW or across Australia either within the public or private sector. There is an absence of information on this issue. In fact, only the ACT, SA and the Northern Territory are legally required to keep any statistics at all on abortion. It is known, on a general level, that there are approximately 100,000 abortions in Australia each year and that there are about 800 abortions each week in NSW - approximately 40,000 annually. Of course, it is not clear how many abortions from these statistics may be characterised as involving the partial birth procedure.

It has come to my attention that late-term abortion practitioners in Australia accept sex selection as a valid reason for carrying out partial birth abortions, stating that sex selection is a "real and important indication for some ethnic and religious groups" when considering late terminations. Partial birth abortions are also carried out when an abnormality is detected in the unborn child. For example, in 1998, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) reported a termination of pregnancy for dwarfism diagnosed at 28 weeks in a pregnant woman who was a dwarf herself. The termination was prompted by "the mother's compelling description of her own life and suffering and her genuine repeated request". The RCOG has also reported terminations for Down syndrome and for spina bifida at 34 weeks. The RCOG Ethics Committee has documented over 100 terminations of pregnancy performed after 24 weeks in England in 1996. It stated in 1998 that late termination has become "a standard management option in tertiary referral centres for serious abnormalities diagnosed after 24 weeks".

At common law, unborn children (or "foetuses" as the law prefers to consider them) have no rights until birth. Thus, any "rights" ascribed to this highly vulnerable group of our population must be defined and given to them by the Legislature.

There is a common misconception that NSW law permits abortions to be carried out. This is not true. In fact, the base position is that all abortions are unlawful unless a specific exception applies, as detailed by judicial findings. Unfortunately, the progression of judicial thought in this area has increasingly widened the scope of circumstances where abortion is lawful. As the law currently stands, a healthy woman (both physically and mentally) carrying a healthy child does not have a legal right to abortion. Also, there is no specific endorsement that abortion may be performed if the child itself is deemed impaired (wholly or partially) or even if it carries a defect. Whether or not an abortion is lawful or unlawful in any given case depends on the facts of the case itself.

Second, judicial precedent has deemed abortion lawful where the abortionist or woman involved, has an honest belief on reasonable grounds that the

1.. preserve the woman involved from serious danger to her life;

2.. preserve the woman's physical or mental health.

Thirdly, a consideration of the economic demands on the pregnant woman and the social circumstances affecting her health may be made when assessing the danger to a pregnant woman's health or life. Lastly, consideration may be given to the possibility that the pregnant woman's psychological or physical state might be in danger after the birth of the child and not only during the pregnancy itself.

A separate crime known as "child destruction" or alternatively known as "killing an unborn child" exists in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This crime only applies to abortions performed late in pregnancy i.e. late term abortions. It can also apply in instances where a person intentionally attacks a pregnant woman in order to kill her unborn child. The crime of child destruction generally carries more severe penalties than the crime of unlawful abortion. In New South Wales there is no "child destruction" or "killing an unborn child" offence.

In view of the above it was yesterday's multi-denominational meeting on the issue of abortion was timely. In a meeting of religious leaders representing Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist faiths yesterday, we affirmed our respective positions on abortion. As superintendent of Wesley Mission, I represent the pro-life stance within the Uniting Church. Wesley Mission is unified in its stance. This meeting gave religious leaders the opportunity to put forward a combined and unified position on abortion. We have jointly called upon the Federal, State and Territory Governments of Australia to do the following:

1.. To enact laws requiring those performing abortions in all States and Territories to provide details of such abortions, as required in South Australia, including such details as age of mother, postcode area, reasons and gestational stage without in any way identifying the mother, based on such mandatory details, the Governments thereafter to make available to the public on an annual basis accurate records and statistics on abortion in Australia.

2.. To enact laws requiring that accurate and objective information be provided by an independent medical practitioner, both orally and in writing, to women considering an abortion which:

1.. Describes the methods of abortion to be employed;

2.. Outlines the nature of potential health risks, both physical and psychological, to the mother resulting from abortion procedures;

3.. Describes to what stage the foetus had developed, and

4.. Which also provides for a statutory 'cooling off' period of 7 days between the provision of such information and any abortion procedure so that women proceed only on the basis of properly considered and informed consent.

3.. To guarantee as an initial measure the protection at law of the viable foetus (after twenty weeks) in the interests of women's health and protection of the unborn child.

4.. In the interests of patient care, to make resources available for adequate post-abortion follow-up including counseling and referral.

THE REV. THE HON. DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC