Thursday 29 May 2008

The Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishop Denis Hart, today called on the Victorian Government to establish a Parliamentary Enquiry into abortion, before introducing legislation on abortion.  

"Matters of such gravity and community concern should not be determined on the basis of a single committee report," Archbishop Hart said.

The Archbishop said that Victorian Law Reform Commission enquiry does not provide an adequate basis for Government to legislate. As an unelected body, it has produced a report that is not responsive to community concerns. 

"The Commission completely dismisses concerns about proper respect for human life. It seeks to have abortion treated as though it were any other medical procedure. This flies in the face of the fact that the life of a human being is intentionally destroyed. It also flies in the face of community concern for a woman faced with the predicament of abortion."

All three options provided by the Commission reject requirements for making supportive counselling available, requiring an independent medical opinion, reporting adverse events or restricting abortion to places that have adequate facilities for a major surgical procedure.

Australians are clearly deeply conflicted on the abortion issue. The Sexton research, which the Commission acknowledged is superior for its specificity and range of questions, indicates that 87 per cent of Australians would like both to reduce the rate of abortion and retain the right of women to legal access to abortion, and only 42 per cent are persuaded by the argument that the foetus is not a person.

Moreover, when asked about their personal moral position, only a small minority of the general public (24 per cent and less depending upon the circumstance) finds abortion to be morally justifiable (with the exception of cases of severe physical foetal abnormality). All of which goes a long way to explain why it is that Australians who are on the one hand pro-choice and on the other pro-life, want the numbers of legal abortions in Australia significantly reduced.

All the options recommended simply allow a doctor to perform consensual abortion with no support offered to the woman to assist her with her pregnancy.  No-one else need be involved. That does not reflect Australian opinion which sees abortion as a decision that is very difficult to make and in need of supportive counselling.

The Archbishop expressed concern that, "All the Commission’s options would dramatically change the law of Victoria making it completely permissive and giving women in difficulty no support.  The Parliament is given no option to consider that would reflect greater balance and the nature of the community concern over abortion."  Inevitably, the number of abortions will increase as will the number of children aborted who are matured enough to be born alive.
 
Under Option A, the Menhennitt judgement is codified but the child destruction (late term abortion) provisions go. This proposed codification would limit the factors to be considered  to comparing the risks to the woman only of pregnancy and of abortion, and disregards the fact that abortion destroys a life. Judge Menhennitt took the latter into account in his judgement.  It also introduces economic factors for the first time. Option A is the least permissive, but it still weakens Menhennitt and strikes down the current provision relating to a child who is mature enough to be born alive.  
 
Under Option B, Menhennitt is struck down for early abortion so there would be no restriction whatsoever for an abortion up to 24 weeks. The Menhennitt judgement which currently does not apply to late term abortion would be applied to late term abortion only.
 
Under Option C, all restrictions are removed and abortion becomes like any other medical procedure.
 
The Commission includes an essay on the ethics of abortion which completely misrepresents pro-life and pro-woman positions. In particular, Pope John Paul II is selectively quoted. There is no mention of his efforts to ensure that women are given the support that they need whether or not they have an abortion.

Archbishop Hart said, "The Commission’s Report fails to address the gravity of the decision for a woman and the adverse effects of abortion. The Commission’s Report completely fails to address the needs of a woman in the predicament of an unexpected pregnancy for support and the opportunity to discuss the issues with someone who is supportive of her and independent.  

"Everything can rest on the advice and opinion of the abortion doctor,” he said.   

The lack of reporting requirements means that the Commission does not support the creation of a data base that would allow women to be better informed. Basically, the Commission’s report is anti-choice and anti-woman because it shows no commitment to women having access to accurate information. Under the Commission’s three models, the only person who would be required to provide information would be the abortion doctor who in many cases is the very person whose livelihood depends on their willingness to perform abortions.

The Archbishop said that before taking any further steps with this issue, a responsible Government would shift the discussion to a forum of elected representatives who can take evidence for themselves and gauge the nature of community concerns that have been obscured by this report.

"A Parliamentary enquiry is needed," he said.