Abortion Law Changes: Open Slather on Baby-Killing

Abortion law in Victoria is set to be changed. The Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) has just released its report on ways to proceed. The 191-page report argues that there are three main options, all of which involve the decriminalisation of abortion.

The VLRC wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act so that women and doctors need not fear any criminal prosecution for the abortion. The three major options are:

One. A doctor assesses whether the abortion is necessary, in terms of whether continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk of harm to the woman. The concept of harm is itself open to discussion, with several options available as to how it is defined.

Two. A woman can decide any time up to 24 weeks whether to have an abortion, for any reason. After that, one or two doctors will determine whether there is risk of harm if the pregnancy continues.

Three. A woman can choose to have an abortion at any period of pregnancy, provided it is done by a medical practitioner.

The VLRC also offers 16 recommendations, many of which are of real concern. Several of them recommend that no provision be made for informed consent, counselling or cooling-off periods in Victorian law. Another is that there be no regulations as to where an abortion can take place.

Reading the report leaves the clear impression that this could have been penned directly by the abortion industry itself. It reads like a pro-death wish list. All that is missing is a recommendation that abortionists be awarded the Order of Australia for their outstanding service to humanity. Or perhaps a recommendation that anyone voicing concerns about the unborn be imprisoned for life.

All in all this report is a declaration of war against the unborn. It is all about the rights of women to do whatever they want with the child they are carrying, and nothing at all about the rights and interests of that child. The abortion lobby could not have wished for anything better.

But of course we have come to expect such social engineering agendas from the VLRC. It is a tax-payer funded group which is a law unto itself, accountable to no one, and driven by secular humanist, leftwing interests. It has time and time again held bogus “inquiries,” feigning neutrality, independence and objectivity, but somehow always manages to ignore the great weight of opinion, and push instead the agendas of noisy minority groups.

In this case, 519 submissions were received by the VLRC. And it admits that some 80 per cent of those submissions were pro-life, and opposed the pro-abortion agenda. Yet what does the VLRC do? Predictably, it simply ignores the 80 per cent, and runs with what the minority radicals wanted.

It had its mind already made up, in other words, and had no intention of really listening to what the public thinks. The VLRC is made up of pro-death libertarians who are quite happy to ignore the majority of submissions, and to push their own radical agenda.

But I have documented the social engineering agenda of the VLRC elsewhere on this site. Suffice it to say that this report is totally expected. Of course now the Brumby Labor Government must decide what it will do with the report, and a Government Bill on this issue will be forthcoming. In the meantime all of us need to contact our local Victorian MPs and express our concerns about this report, and urge them to not seek for the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria.

But of equal interest were some of the comments made by the politicians themselves. As would be expected, the Greens were all in favour of the most extreme position. Colleen Hartland said the Greens would run with the third option: “This is the only option that gives full agency to the woman having the abortion.” Let me translate that for you: “This is the only option that gives the woman the right to be judge, jury and executioner of her unborn child”. The unborn baby does not even enter into the discussion here. It is all about the right to kill babies, end of discussion.

Also quite curious – and disturbing – were the remarks of the State Opposition (Liberal) leader Ted Baillieu. He said, “I’ve taken a position in this day and age where I want to see women able to exercise their choice without the fear of unwarranted prosecution or stigma. But nor do I want to see any increase in abortions.”

Now let me see if I have got this straight. The leader of the “conservative” party is all in favour of a woman’s right to choose, yet he does not want to see more abortions? But why? If, as he assumes in his first remark, abortion is simply a woman’s right to choose – no more and no less – then why should he not want to see more choice, that is, more abortions?

If the ability to choose is the highest good, even if it means the ability to choose killing your own baby, then why would Baillieu not want to see far more such choices? His statement about not wanting to see an increase in abortion only makes sense if there is some reason why more abortions are not a preferable option – in other words, might somehow be wrong, or ill-advised.

But if that is the case, what exactly is wrong with more abortions? The pro-lifer can easily answer that question. Abortion snuffs out the life of a very young human being. Abortion is simply baby-killing. That is why someone would not want to see more abortions. Yet that does not seem to be the premise that Baillieu is operating from. He seems to think that abortion is fine. In which case, what is wrong with a million abortions a year in Victoria, instead of the current 20,000 a year?

Mr Baillieu’s logic here is as appalling as is his morality. Either abortion is wrong, and we should seek to curtail it altogether, or it is not wrong, and we should not be bothered with how many take place. But our Opposition Leader has simply bought into the moral relativism and sloppy thinking of our age, instead of showing strong intellectual and moral leadership.

The VLRC report is nauseating reading. And one suspects that our libertarian Attorney General Rob Hulls will accept most of the report, including its most extreme recommendations. But we can still have a voice in this matter, and I again urge all readers of this article – especially Victorians – to let their voices be heard loud and clear.


[1104 words]

28 Replies to “Abortion Law Changes: Open Slather on Baby-Killing”

  1. Hi Bill,

    Can you point me to where it says in the VLRC report that 80% of submissions were pro-life?

    I am writing to my MP, and I want to be able to substantiate that claim. And I haven’t been able to find that in the report.

    Many thanks,
    Rebecca New

  2. Hi Rebecca

    The point is that the VLRC has deliberately omitted those 80% of submissions from the report.

    In presenting three flavours of one partisan position, it would not make sense for them to admit there was a substantial (or majority) opposition to what they propose.

    But yes, I also would like a reference for that figure so that I may quote it also.

    Kind regards

    Dale Flannery

  3. Bill,

    Yours is an excellent analysis of the pro-abortion report in Victoria. I congratulate you for such an superb assessment.

    Have you submitted this article to The Age or the Herald Sun for publication?

    The industry in which I work, family counselling, has many employees who are strenuous advocates for the rights of the child. However, what I find alarming is that abortion promotes harm the most vulnerable children — the unborn. Many feminists don’t seem to grasp this fact!

    How can Christians continue to stand against abortion with such pro-killing agendas? You surely have a strong advocate and supporter of your position in Margaret Tighe of Right to Life Australia.

    Spencer Gear, Hervey Bay, Qld.

  4. Bill this is a shocker isn’t it.

    But it had to be expected from this Law Reform Commission, well stacked by Rob Hull. Tell Rebecca the 80 per cent of submissions from pro-lifers’ was mentioned by Paul Austin in the Age today, in an article that was less than complementary. It’s back to the community to demonstrate responsibility.

    I sent the following to the Age if you want to use it or pick it:

    So the Brumby/Hull duet is going to let the attack dogs loose on the unborn. Spot the hypocrisy here. On more than occasion John Brumby has declared he wants to strengthen legislation to deal with people who harm children. With the unborn it is different; they can’t scream for help; they can’t show anybody their cuts and bruises to seek redress. Spot the hypocrisy also from the Law Reform Commission ignoring 80 per cent of submissions – which came from pro-lifers (Paul Austin, Age 30 May). But of course Rob Hulls made appointments to achieve such findings. The unborn are totally dependent on the community for protection. What a tradegy to ignore such a responsibility!

    Pat Healy

  5. No surprises with the VLRC finding. I fail to understand the Labour Party, which claims to represent the weak and vulnerable in our community. As for Baillieu, he’s trying to have a “bob each way” and offers no credible opposition to the Brumby Government. Bill is absolutely right, it will be up to the rest of us to protect women and children from the ravages of abortion.
    Peter Coventry

  6. Dear Bill,
    1. On abortion, Mr Baillieu is following in the footsteps of at least one Liberal predessor, Sir Rupert Hamer, former Premier of Victoria.
    2. The time for “action” was pre-election, and will be again in ’10. But will ostensibly-pro-life individuals learn a lesson? History clearly teaches pessimism on this issue!.
    Gerard Flood

  7. Baillieu and most of the Victorian Libs are hopeless. On social issues, ‘Red Ted’ is probably to the left of the average Labor MP. I think the wrong people got the sack over that recent anti-Baillieu blog scandal.

    The Libs will never win back government by following an out-flank-Labor-on-the-left type of strategy, nor do they deserve to.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  8. Dare I say that this situation is the fault of the church. Satan who is a killer, has been allowed to muscle in on the health industry and parliament and he has placed territorial spirits over them. Consequently he has suceeded in blinding thier eyes to reality and convinced them this is the best for women. Why wouldn’t he? Anything that is going to kill is a good thing in his eyes. The whole church in Victoria as one, should be on its knees begging God’s forgivness for abandoning the unborn (except for a few committed people), and set up a prayer vigil in and outside parliament and in their churches day in and day out until the enemy is pushed back. Nothing less is going to change this killing machine. Even black magic and voodoo has not achieved the same result as Brumby’s proposed killing machine. Brumby won’t be able to change his mind until Satan is defeated and that will only happen through the united prayer of the church in Victoria.
    Roger Marks

  9. We are indeed entering morally dark times. I took an anti abortion petition to two businesses in my area and all seven persons declined to sign. They all seemed to be of the opinnion that if a woman is raped then she should have the right to an abortion. When I pointed out that there are around 100,000 abortions performed in Australia each year, rape cases representing a tiny proportion of that, they have no reply and would not consider any further discussion. Jesus said “and because lawlessness will abound the love of many will grow cold” Matt 24:12. The world certainly knows how to indoctrinate its own. I would like to know where the VLRC get their 10% of people seriously apposed to abortion from? I find it incomprehensable how a goverment can contemplate making it lawful to perform such barbaric acts of cruelty upon its own.
    Keith Lewis

  10. Great Post Bill!

    Ted Baillieu is really taking the passive pro-life position; and a fairly popular public position to take as well I think. When you take the spin off it though, what these people really believe is that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of another human being without justification, BUT, women should be allowed to do that to their children.

    Duane Proud

  11. I dont want this comment to be misconstrued as support for changes to abortion law as described above because I would obviosuly not support them; but really, do women and doctors need to fear criminal prosecution for abortion, even under current laws?

    I am not sure what similarities there are between NSW and VIC, but I know Sections 82 to 84 of the Crimes Act for NSW (1900) makes it clear that abortion is a prosecutable crime. The problem is, how do you get a jury to convict in these morally relativistic postmodern times? The conclusion I came to is, you don’t!

    In fact a report into abortion and law in NSW states:
    “…prosecution of offences under sections 82 to 84 of this Act effectively ceased in the 1970s” [with one known exception at the time the paper was published].

    A 1999 ‘ACT Right to Life Association’ newsletter also stated:
    “…[I]n the past 30 years there have been very few prosecutions for abortion in any state of Australia. In part this is because juries in a community where there are profound differences about fundamental values are unlikely to convict. The police have abandoned any routine attempt to enforce the statutory prohibition against abortion. Judges are unlikely to instruct juries in such a way as to obtain convictions.

    “Above all, given the law as it stated in, say, Wald, it is just too difficult for the prosecution with limited resources to obtain a conviction. Given that the litigation lawyers commonly obtain an expert to champion almost any opinion, and given the requirements of proof in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt, [and] given the requirement that juries be unanimous in their verdict, the law as to abortion as expounded by the courts is unenforceable.”

    There you go. Current laws which ‘should’ make abortion a crime under the current law, are in fact “unenforceable”! Allowing for similar laws in NSW and VIC, what will be the net effect on justice, on the basis of the new laws? None, as far as I can tell. Nonetheless, I am sure the pro-choicers will appreciate the ‘moral’ victory.

    Thanks for your insights Bill. 🙂

    Duane Proud

  12. Regarding the VLRC figure of 10 per cent strongly opposing abortion, I believe that they have misled people by deliberately leaving out relevant data. I expect that their research asked whether people were “strongly opposed”, “opposed”, “neutral”, agreed” or “strongly agreed”. I wonder how many people were “opposed” i.e people that were not quite so passionate about this issue, but still disagreed with abortion. I expect that the total percentage for people opposed would be way higher than 10%.
    VLRC’s complete research needs to be made public for an informed decision to be made.
    Andrew Roberts

  13. I fully expect the VLRC now to also submit recommendations to the state government for that obviously inverted law concerning fishing where it’s the little ones who have more value and have to be let go to live another day, and the bigger and older ones who are dispensable.
    Mark Rabich, Melbourne

  14. Note that the common tactic, ‘I’m personally opposed, but …’, really is one of the biggest liberal shams around, and Christians should not fall for that, even when a churchgoer says it. OK, why be personally opposed to abortion? If the baby is not a human being, then it’s as silly to be ‘personally opposed’ to abortion as to be ‘personally opposed’ to removing a wart. But if it is a human being, then it is no longer a matter of personal opinion but a duty not to murder this being.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  15. And one of the other popular ones is “a woman doesn’t make the choice trivially” or something like this. But it begs the question, why the concern, if it is not a human being? Shouldn’t be an issue then, right? Why the hesitation? And I can’t help but wonder at the lack of thinking shown by those who express anger towards the messengers of graphic images depicting abortion. Hey, if it’s not human, then what’s the issue? But their emotional reaction conflicts with their stated philosophy. Deep down they know they are looking at death.
    Mark Rabich, Melbourne

  16. …or to relate it in a way that Bill is fond of…

    no one thought it was wrong to publicize gruesome images of dolphins and whales being slaughtered aboard the Japanese trawlers.

    Duane Proud

  17. But if it is a human being, then it’s as silly to be ‘personally opposed’ to abortion as it is to be ‘personally opposed’ to rape but not demanding that rape be included in the criminal code of the state.

    Ewan McDonald.

  18. Re: Ignoring 80%
    When the Victorian Government held a regional meeting in Ballarat for the public to contibute to the vilification laws discussion most of the 200 in attendance expressed their opposition to the discrimination laws. I am talking over 90% against. When I spoke with the government convenor after the meeting she said that those at the meeting did not represent the views of the region. She argued that the meeting was stacked by opponants to the laws. Is this is how they view the 80% of letters against in this abortion report. It seems the silent majority has the loudest voice. A good enough argument if it keeps their agenda on track even if it does not make logical sense. Ignore your concience for long enough and nothing you do makes sense.
    Keith Lewis

  19. Hi Bill,
    I have just sent off a bunch of emails to all my local members, Brumby and Baillieu. I hope all Christians in Victoria take the time and stand up for God’s Kingdom, God’s Law….and write to their local members, the Premier and leader of the opposition. Now!!

    Robert Phillips

  20. Australia May Lift Restrictions on Abortion-Related Aid
    By Patrick Goodenough
    CNSNews.com International Editor
    4 June 2008

    (CNSNews.com) – The Australian government is considering lifting abortion-related restrictions on overseas development aid, drawing warnings of a possible backlash by churches.

    Christian opponents of the move charge that it is being driven by a domestic ideological agenda, not as a result of requests from nations that get assistance from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).

    In a radio interview Wednesday, Boswell warned that if the policy was changed Rudd could face a backlash from Christian voters whose support he sought last year.

    “He cuddled up to the churches for the last election,” he said. “If he does this to them then they’ll turn upon him.”

    That’s if certain churchian lobbyists have the integrity to admit their error when they said it was OK to vote for the largely secularized, homosexual-supporting and abortion-friendly Layba party.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  21. Yes Jonathon, and certain churchian lobbyists gave Rudd a big tick on the issue of overseas aid. Of course it could be argued that government aid is charity having been taken over by socialists (or socialism applied to charity) and therefore probably not even something that churches should even be badgering government about anyway. How ironic it would be now if that aid were used to fund abortions.

    Ewan McDonald.

  22. RE: Duane Proud’s post about NSW law.

    Hold on, are you saying that it is technically illegal in NSW to perform any kind of abortion? If so isn’t the proof that a woman was pregnant and now isn’t and the remains of the fetus not enough proof to prosecute?

    I am guessing there is some kind of loophole here that I am not aware of. In fact I would like to know the exact rule with exposition if anyone can provide links. I am guessing its something to do with a doctor determining “harm” to the mother with harm left undefined.

    Michael Mifsud

  23. I have sent a letter to the newspapers pointing out that abortion does not involve human life and can be disposed of indiscriminately and that this is a delusion of pro-choice people and abortionists. Also, history only reveals the despots (such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) as killers of their own people, after the damage is done. And the most damage is done by people in high places. Our siuation is similar in relation to the Victorian Abortion Bill. History usually changes delusions (such as The above) and the truth about the unborn will come. Also, that when people in high places accept the delusion and make decisions on it – history will reveal them making abortion on demand and adding to the already thousands being aborted each year.
    Peter Rice

  24. The insanity of this proposed bill makes me feel ashamed to be called a “human being”. A good friend of mine prayed recently.. “God… please move upon the hearts of the mother’s and do not let them sacrifice their children on the altar of lifestyle”.
    May God turn the tide on this barbaric proposition.
    Kim Cannan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: