Tag: Australia

Calvary

Calvary: Upholding the Dignity of Life at Every Stage

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

The following statement is from Tony Brennan, the Regional Director of Mission at Calvary St John’s Hospital. In it, Mr. Brennan explains the philosophy underpinning Calvary’s decision to not provide assisted-suicide services in its hospitals.

At the heart of Calvary’s mission is a deep and enduring belief in the inherent dignity of every human life. This dignity does not depend on health, independence or productivity. It is present from the beginning of life to its natural end, and it is never lost through illness, disability, ageing or vulnerability.

Calvary exists to heal where possible, to care always, and to never intentionally cause death. Our understanding of care is grounded in the belief that every life is worthy of compassion, respect and protection, especially when people are at their most fragile.

Importantly, Calvary will never block or interfere with a person’s lawful choice to access VAD elsewhere. Nor do we turn away from people who raise questions about it. When someone in our care expresses interest in VAD, we respond with respect, sensitivity and compassion. We listen. We remain present. We continue to care.

In all that we do, we seek to affirm this truth: every life matters, every person matters, and dignity is never lost.

In Tasmania, the End‑of‑life choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Act 2021 sets out a legal framework for Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD). The act came into effect in October 2022 and includes provisions for an independent review which opens in May and June 2026. While this legislation forms part of the broader health system in which we operate, Calvary’s response is shaped first and foremost by our values.

No one is abandoned at Calvary — especially at the end of life. Our staff are there to have the difficult conversations, to accompany people and families through fear and uncertainty, and to ensure that every person feels heard, valued and cared for until the very end.

Some practices, including voluntary assisted dying, are not consistent with Calvary’s ethic of care. For this reason, Calvary does not participate in any step of the VAD process. This includes making formal requests, assessing eligibility, or administering substances intended to directly cause death. This position is not about judgment or exclusion. It flows from our long‑held commitment to protect life and to care without condition.

We take suffering seriously. People approaching the end of life can experience pain and distress that is physical, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual. Calvary is committed to walking with people through this suffering — not by hastening death, but by relieving pain, addressing distress, offering presence, and providing holistic care that honours the whole person. We also respect a person’s right to refuse treatments that are overly burdensome or no longer helpful.

Tony Brennan

Regional Director of Mission

Calvary St John’s Hospital

Image credit: Calvary St. John’s website.

For information about end-of-life care, please go to our Supports page.

assisted suicide

Young South Australian to die by assisted suicide

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

26-year-old Annaliese Holland will end her life within months through assisted suicide in Adelaide. Her story has been appearing in mainstream media, leading to concerns that her case is glamorising assisted suicide. An excerpt from an ABC news article and a video from news.com are provided below.

Even when a patient like Annaliese has to endure severe suffering, it is never morally justified for them to take their own life. Likewise, doctors who assists in such a case are killing their patients, rather than abiding by their oath to protect life.

It is tragic that instead of peacefully living out her final days with her friends and family, in a spirit of acceptance, Annaliese has been encouraged to take her own life.

From ABC news:

“Annaliese Holland will end her life within months through voluntary assisted dying in Adelaide. The 26-year-old has been living with Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy since she was 18….

“Deciding to access voluntary assisted dying would have seemed unusual, even for Annie, just a few years ago.

“I used to be one of those people who was actually against voluntary assisted dying,” she tells hack.

“It wasn’t until I got sick that my views on it completely changed.”

Annie says she only realised assisted dying was an option when she met Lily Thai, a 23-year-old also suffering AAG, who ended her life just months after South Australia’s voluntary assisted dying laws came into effect in 2023.”

Read the rest of the article here

abortion

More ACT babies born alive after abortion

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

A recent Freedom of Information request in the ACT has revealed that there is an increasing number of babies being born alive after an abortion.

by Minny Jackson

Recent information obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for data uncovered by ACT Right to Life has revealed troubling figures that deserve serious public attention and sober reflection. According to data drawn from a combined analysis of the Maternal & Perinatal Dataset Collection and the Perinatal Deaths Dataset, the number of neonatal deaths following termination of pregnancy in the Australian Capital Territory has increased steadily over the past decade.

The figures are as follows:

  • 2016-18: 19 neonatal deaths
  • 2019-21: 20 neonatal deaths
  • 2022-24: 27 neonatal deaths

These numbers, while small in absolute terms, represent a clear upward trend for the ACT. Behind every statistic is a human life that survived birth, however briefly, and then died. From a conservative and pro-life perspective, this raises profound moral, medical, and legal questions that cannot be brushed aside by euphemism or silence.

To be clear, neonatal death refers to the death of a baby after birth, typically within the first month of life. When such deaths occur following a termination of pregnancy, it means the child was born alive after an abortion. This reality alone should prompt careful scrutiny as it exposes the pitfalls of modern medicine, which is not infallible.

A society that claims to uphold compassion, dignity, and human rights must be willing to ask hard questions about how such outcomes occur and whether current laws and medical practices adequately protect the most vulnerable.

The other ethical question on the table is, why are doctors allowing this when babies born alive after a birth are classified as legal entities with the right to life?

Over the past decade, the ACT has moved towards one of the most permissive abortion regimes in the Western world. Termination has been fully decriminalised, gestational limits have been expanded, and oversight mechanisms have been reduced.

Pro-life advocates have long warned that removing legal guardrails does not eliminate ethical responsibility – it merely transfers enormous moral power to institutions with little transparency or public accountability, and it completely does away with the foundational principle of medicine, the Hippocratic Oath’s “Do no harm”.

The rising number of neonatal deaths following termination appears to coincide with this broader legal and cultural shift that has promoted abortion and denigrated the sanctity of life.

What is particularly concerning is the lack of public discussion around neonatal outcomes following termination. These deaths are largely invisible in public reporting and rarely addressed in parliamentary debate. Yet the data exists, is collected by government agencies, and now through FOI has been brought to light in Australia’s most woke state.

If a baby is born alive following a termination, that child is no longer hypothetical or abstract. That baby is a person before the law, and therefore a patient. He or she is a human being entitled to care, dignity, and protection, under the law. Any system that allows ambiguity around this reality risks eroding the most basic ethical principles of medicine.

There are also implications for women and families. Late-term terminations and neonatal loss can carry profound psychological and emotional consequences on mothers and families. A culture that presents abortion as a simple solution while minimising its complexity does a disservice to women, particularly when outcomes are traumatic or unexpected. Compassion must extend to both mother and child.

Conservatives have long argued that the role of government is to protect life, especially where individuals cannot protect themselves. Neonatal deaths following termination sit at the intersection of law, medicine, and morality. They challenge us to consider whether current frameworks genuinely reflect community values or whether they prioritise ideological convenience over human dignity and if so, what can be done to halt the descent of society into dystopian norms?

At a minimum, these figures justify:

  • Greater transparency in reporting neonatal outcomes.
  • An independent review of late-term termination practices.
  • Clear clinical guidelines to ensure infants live born receive appropriate care.
  • Parliamentary scrutiny rather than quiet administrative handling.

The data tells a story that cannot be ignored: more babies are being born alive following terminations and then dying in the neonatal period. Any society that claims to be humane must be willing to confront that truth honestly. If humanity wishes to “progress” collectively, then it ought to inquire into the reasons why death is increasing.

The measure of our civilisation is demonstrated by how we treat those with the least power. Neonatal children born at the margins of legality and visibility are society’s most vulnerable entities. They deserve more than silence. They deserve our attention, and they deserve a voice because they are not being heard when they are left in kidney dishes to die in a society that has normalised infanticide.

The time has come for the ACT to rise up against this kind of injustice, and demand answers for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Minny Jackson is Director of Advocacy at Christian Faith and Freedom Inc and is an author and researcher. Reprinted from News Weekly with permission.

euthanasia

Euthanasia in Tasmania

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

The Euthanasia legalisation is a form of killing which has traditionally been prohibited by the great world religions. It is now becoming increasingly routine and validated by contemporary cultural doctrine.

by Wayne Williams

From a traditional standpoint, killing oneself is still killing a human being and is forbidden as such. Nor is it only self-killing, for in the legislation, there is the provision for the doctor to kill the patient if the patient cannot do it alone. As for the medical profession itself, euthanasia negates the well-known affirmation of the traditional Hippocratic oath, “First do no harm”.

The doctor cannot annihilate if he is truly to heal.

Euthanasia, moreover, damages the doctor-patient relationship. Once the doctor is “licensed to kill”, the patients’ trust in the authenticity of a doctor’s professional commitment to their well-being will almost certainly be undermined.

The contagion of euthanasia is a slippery slope. Once legalised for the terminally ill at the end of life, its practice grows not only quantitatively but spreads qualitatively to new categories: children, the mentally infirm and afflicted and to those who are not even ill but old and tired of life.

The Tasmanian legislation poorly protects the vulnerable. There should be an independent review mechanism that increases the prospects of an unwilling participant being identified and protected before it is too late.

What should be recognised is the important relationship between the patient and their GP. Any preliminary discussion on the topic of assisted suicide must be created and included in the medical records of the person’s GP practice.

Where a coordinating doctor carries out the first assessment of the patient’s eligibility for physician-assisted suicide, part of which the doctor is satisfied that the patient has made their decision voluntarily and had not been coerced or pressured into making it, the coordinating doctor must then provide a copy of the assessment to the patient’s GP. In addition, a subsequent assessment should be made by an independent doctor (independent of the coordinating doctor) and provided to the patient’s own GP. Each assessing doctor would be required to make enquires of professionals who have recently provided health or social care to the patient and such other enquires as the assessing doctor considers appropriate.

The last provision to be included will almost certainly require that the two doctors consult the patient’s own GP to intervene in circumstances which may appear questionable to the patient’s own GP. In Tasmania, there is no requirement that the person’s own GP participate in the eligibility process.

In Tasmania, members of the patient’s family may invite a practitioner who may never have set eyes on the patient before to become the coordinating doctor and who will be responsible for deciding whether the patient has been subjected to any form of coercion or undue influence by his or her family. Unlike the patient’s own GP, the introduced coordinating doctor will have no previous opportunity to know the illnesses, personality, hopes, expectations and fears of the patient; nor will that doctor have any knowledge or insight of the family dynamics at play.

Under Tasmanian Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) laws, once two doctors have carried out a positive assessment, all that is required to be done in general terms is for the relevant forms to be filled in and submitted. There is no other legal obstacle to the consumption of life-ending drugs.

A further consideration would be the appointment of a special Commissioner, a judge who has the power to appoint persons to be members of a Review Panel. The Commissioner, having received the patient’s declaration and the two doctors’ assessment, would refer the patient’s case to the Panel for determination of the patient’s eligibility to process to the final stage: the ingestion of life ending drugs.

 The Panel’s function should include satisfying itself that the patient has made his or her request voluntarily and not under pressure or coercion. The Panel must have the power to make enquiries of any person whom it believes has relevant knowledge or experience about the circumstances of the patient. The Panel would be statutorily obliged to hear from and may question both the coordinating doctor and the independent doctor.

Tasmanian legislation requires more rigorous standards and must adopt a more cautious and prudent approach to ensure that a person who wishes to pursue physician-assisted suicide is doing so in a truly voluntary way.

The Tasmanian safeguards are more cosmetic than real; there is no effective oversight of the conduct of family members and complicit medical practitioners because Australian practice is private and self- regulating and assumes that all VAD Practitioners are beyond reproach. It is necessary to have checks and balances in the Tasmanian legislation so often the trend is in the other direction, to relax the safeguards even further.

What should be strongly resisted is pressure from pro-VAD proponent lobby groups to remove the ability of Catholic, other Christian and Jewish entities to refuse to countenance VAD in their hospitals and aged care facilities. VAD proponents want the federal law changed so that an eligibility assessment can be conducted by telephone or Zoom. Hopefully, the Tasmanian legislation will not go down that path.

How a medical practitioner could safely conclude by a telephone call or a Zoom meeting that there is no evidence or suspicion of pressure from family members upon that patient is a dangerous form of lunacy, particularly where the patient’s own GP need not be involved.

Notre Dame bioethicist Margaret Somerville stated that “democracies do not necessarily produce ethical laws”.

Democratic Sweden overturned the social censure of incest when, in the 1960s, it legalised marriage between siblings from one parent.

The Human Life Protection Society is strongly opposed to euthanasia on traditional religious grounds that a human being is not the author of life nor its absolute owner and that it is a gift entrusted by the Creator so that it may find its fulfilled purpose in the service of the Creator and other human beings.

Suicide violates the inherent value of life and the fabric of civil society. Will the inherent value of life and our obligations to others persuade when the current secular culture does not accept or feel that these trump euthanasia’s offer of an exit from pain and its teaching of the primacy of one’s own wellbeing?

The Euthanasia legalisation is a form of killing which has traditionally been prohibited by the great world religions. It is now becoming increasingly routine and validated by contemporary cultural doctrine.

Written by: Wayne Williams

Disability Commissioner Tasmania Newsletter-February 2026

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

Here are some highlights from the February newsletter of the Disability Commissioner Tasmania.

disability

In this issue:

Join the Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Advisory Council

Expressions of interest are now open for Tasmanians to serve as council members or chairperson of the first Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Advisory Council under the Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024.

The Council will advise the Minister and the Disability Commissioner on improving access and inclusion for Tasmanians with Disability.

Council members will receive sitting and preparation fees. Travel, accommodation and adjustments will be covered.

What will the Council do?

  • Provide consultation on the Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Plan – a roadmap for government action
  • Assist government agencies to improve access, uphold disability rights, and remove barriers once the Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Plan is implemented.
  • Provide policy advice to identify barriers and practical solutions.
  • Collaborate with other councils locally and nationally to share ideas and strengthen access and inclusion.

Who can apply?

If you are a Tasmanian with Disability or a Tasmanian connected to the Disability community, we encourage you to apply. We welcome applicants with different types of disability, living in all areas of our state, First Nations people, and LGBTIQA+ community members.

Support with applications is available through our office and Disability Voices Tasmania. You can phone Disability Voices Tasmania on 6215 6800 or email office@disabilityvoicestas.org.au. 

Information Sessions

Together with Disability Voices Tasmania, we will hold information sessions around the state to learn more about the council, to ask questions, and help with applications. Sessions have been confirmed for:

  • Burnie – 18 February, 1:15pm-2:15pm, Burnie Library 
  • Queenstown – 19 February, 12:30pm-1:30pm, West Coast Community Services Hub 
  • Launceston – 4 March, 11:15am-12:15pm, Launceston Library 

Information sessions will also be held in Kingston, Huonville, Bicheno, and St Helens. Stay tuned to our socials and website for dates and times.

Visit the Join our Council web page for more information and to register for a session.

Applications close 24 March 2026.

Add your voice to Tasmania’s first Inclusion Plan

Tasmania is developing its first Disability Inclusion Plan, and your voice is needed.

The plan is a key measure of the Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act. It outlines clear expectations for government to ensure Tasmanians with disability can participate fully, safely, and with dignity in everyday life.

We will make a submission to the consultation. If you would like to contribute but don’t feel comfortable making your own submission, please contact us to have your views included.

More information

More information on the Discussion Paper and ways to have your say, are available on the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s website – Department of Premier and Cabinet – Tasmanian Disability Inclusion Plan – Consultation.

Consultation closes 10 March 2026.

Submissions

We recently made submissions to the following consultations. You can read our submissions on the website.

Disability Safeguards Consultation

A submission was made to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing as part of the development of a Disability Support Quality and Safeguarding Framework.Our submission focused on systemic issues rather than individual questions. We highlighted the need for reforms that are practical, enforceable and accessible, noting Tasmania’s high digital disadvantage and the importance of cultural change alongside legal reform.

Read our submission to the Disability Safeguards consultation


Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth) Review

The Commissioner has also made a submission to the review of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act.In our submission, we supported modernising the way disability and discrimination are defined, introducing a positive duty to prevent discrimination, clearer obligations to provide adjustments across employment, education and services, and reforms to make the Act easier to use and more effective in practice, including protections against harassment, offensive behaviour and vilification.

Read our submission to the review of the Disability Discrimination Act. 

Other News

Local engagement officers needed for the Census

Do you have experience working with local communities? 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is preparing for the next Census on Tuesday 11 August 2026 and is recruiting Local Engagement Officers to help support community participation.

Local Engagement Officers lead a team of field staff and coordinate Census activities to support people to complete the Census. They build relationships, answer questions at information sessions, and help make sure everyone is represented.

Visit the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Careers web page for more information on the roles. 

About Arts and Disability Network Australia

Arts and Disability Network Australia (ADNA), is a new organisation that connects, champions and amplifies the voices of d/Deaf artists, and artists, arts workers and screen practitioners with disability nationwide. You can learn more about ADNA and stay up to date on initiatives and opportunities by:

You can also book a 20-minute one-to-one consultation with Sarah-Mace Dennis, the National Director of ADNA. These take place on Mondays between 2:00pm-5:00pm AEDT (Melbourne). You can use this time to meet Sarah, discuss your practice or organisation and talk about any ideas you have for the future of ADNA.

Creative Workplaces Survey

The Creative Workplaces Survey is the first national survey by the Australian Government to understand the working experiences of people in creative industries. It will focus on pay and working conditions, safety at work, bullying, discrimination and harassment. Feedback from this survey will help inform future policies, programs, advocacy, and training opportunities to improve standards and safety in creative workplaces. 

ADNA is providing one on one access support to d/Deaf artists, and artists, arts workers and screen practitioners with disability to help complete the Creative Workplaces Survey. If you would like to participate, call ADNA on 08 8463 1689 or email hello@artsdisabilitynetwork.com.au. The survey closes on 23 February 2026.

More information about the survey

Events

Disability Commissioner Tasmania will share information about events we know are happening within the Tasmanian Disability community. These events are not run by the Commissioner and are not part of her work. Contact us if you would like to have your event considered for inclusion in this newsletter.

Australia’s Disability Strategy National Forum

24-25 February 2026, Adelaide, in-person and online. The forum will focus on two key topics­­: health and safeguarding, with presentations, discussions and sharing learnings and ideas. The forum is for people with disability, community leaders, allies, family members, carers, supporters, and governments.

In-person registrations have now closed; however, you can still register to join online. Learn more and register via the forum web page.

Looking Ahead

Living My Best Life Art Exhibition regional tour

We are working with Libraries Tasmania to tour the Living My Best Life Art Exhibition to regional libraries in the state. More details will be available soon. In the meantime, you can learn more about the exhibition, artists and artworks on our website.

Amanda Stoker

Amanda Stoker responds to the KAP abortion-gag rollback

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

Queensland MP, Bobbie Katter, of the Katter Australia Party, this week made an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the LNP government’s ban on abortion being debated in Parliament. Anne Sherston, President of the Human Life Protection Society, wrote to Queensland MP’s prior to the vote, expressing her support for Mr. Katter’s bold attempt. Only one response has been received so far: from Amanda Stoker, Member for Oodgeroo and Assistant Minister for Finance, Trade, Employment and Training.

Both Mrs Sherston’s letter and Ms. Stoker’s response are reproduced below.

As an Australian voter and the President of the Human Life Protection Society, Tasmania, I am writing to strongly urge you to take immediate action to overturn the gag order placed on pro-life members in the Queensland Parliament, twelve months ago. Although our organisation is based in Tasmania, this gag order affects all Australians.

Politicians need to be reminded that they have been elected to their positions by the Australian people. Politicians need to listen to all views and need to be able to discuss them in parliament freely. There should be no exceptions. If exceptions are being made, Australians are being denied from expressing their democratic values and rights. It is denying us from free speech.

The Australian public needs all our Members of Parliament to be able to speak freely about this critical issue and not fear repercussions.

The current restrictions are silencing a significant portion of the community in enabling them to express their beliefs and engage in a civil debate. I urge you to support Robbie Katter in overturning this gag order and allow freedom of speech. 

Your action can pave the way for a more open discussion on life-affirming measures in Queensland and the rest of Australia.

Anne Sherston, President HLPS

amanda stoker

Here is the response from Amanda Stoker:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about this important issue.

I share your concern about the practice of allowing babies born alive after abortion to be left to die, and about the prevalence of abortion generally.  It is something I have stood against for many years, because all lives have value.

Be assured that I am advocating for Baby Samuel, and for all babies, within my team.   

You will be aware that the government made a commitment prior to the election that it would not change the law relating to abortion in this term.  Like all promises should, it will be kept. But I believe there remain opportunities to make a meaningful difference in policies that directly address the drivers of people choosing abortion by providing better support for families and vulnerable women facing unplanned pregnancy.

You may be interested to know that as a result of my determined and passionate advocacy the State Government in December 2025 funded a new service to provide wraparound residential support to women facing unplanned pregnancy.  It offers mental health support, parenting programs, health care for mother and baby and, if necessary, domestic violence assistance, so that vulnerable women have life-affirming choices available to them.  It will be delivered by Mercy Community as a pilot, and I am hopeful that it will make a positive impact for vulnerable women and their babies so we can make it available in more places.

This is the kind of family support that I truly believe drives down the hardship, alienation and vulnerability that drives women to seek abortion. 

You have expressed a desire to see me vote with Mr Katter, Labor and the Greens to open up the discussion of changes to the law relating to the termination of pregnancy in Queensland.  If you think that a deal to vote with Labor and the Greens – the architects of abortion to birth laws – is going to result in a rolling back of these laws, I respectfully suggest you are quite mistaken.  Sadly, Mr Katter has sold a narrative to some prominent pro-life voices that simply does not reflect the reality of the political environment.  Labor and the Greens want to open discussion of this subject for very different motives to those who care about human life, as they seek to drive pro-abortion policies further.   

I believe that for change on this front to really stick, a change in the law isn’t the easy answer some think it is.  We need a cultural change.  That requires support for people to have confidence to start a family, ensuring people are safe and supported for the task of parenting and appropriate education so that individuals are empowered to embrace life for themselves.  It means we have to address the human pain, fear and hardship that makes a person think abortion is their best or only option.  And while cultural change is slower, it is more enduring than legislation that Labor would not hesitate to change when next elected.  It is my sincere belief that this cultural change will make a deeper and longer-lasting impact for the unborn and their families.

I am committed to building a culture of valuing life in this state.  There is a long way to go. 

Thank you for writing to me.

Regards,

Amanda
Member for Oodgeroo (Cleveland)
Assistant Minister for Finance, Trade, Employment and Training

Calvery

HLPS statement on Calvary hospital takeover

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

When the Hobart Private Hospital was bought by Catholic provider Calvary Health Care, there was an outcry over future access to some procedures, such as abortions, vasectomies, IVF, gender affirming surgery and assisted suicide.

Several news outlets covered the controversy, including the ABC and the Mercury (behind paywall).

Anne Sherston, President of the Human Life Protection Society, has responded to one such article which appeared in the Mercury; her letter was published in that publication on February 6th.

As President of the Human Life Protection Society in Tasmania, I am writing in response to the article “Access in Jeopardy,” by Judy Augustine, published in The Mercury on December 31, 2025.

Kelly Bruce, CEO of Women’s Health Tasmania, expressed concerns about women’s reproductive health in Tasmania, particularly the reduction of support for surgical terminations. This raises an important question: Why is abortion considered part of “reproductive health,” when the term “reproductive” means
producing new life?

What are people actually fearing? Is it that abortion is not going to be as easily accessible? Why are people so eager to make a human being so disposable?

CEO Kelly Bruce stated, “In practice, public hospitals really only provide surgical terminations up to 14 weeks, though there are some exceptions.”

Babies have been known to be born at 16 weeks. There should be no reason a baby needs to be aborted in a late-term pregnancy; caesarean needs to be the only option in these circumstances.

The fact that Calvary is a Catholic organisation would help uphold the values we should all hold dear. If Calvary is forced into allowing abortions, this would go against religious freedom.

Who are we to say who lives or dies when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy, or, for that matter, for someone who is near death? Not one person has the right to interfere with that. Regarding Voluntary Assisted Dying, there is no evidence that the existing safeguards are sufficient to prevent abuse.

When a woman has had an abortion, not only does the unborn baby die, but the woman’s spirit dies as well. This creates a list of numerous other issues and problems, starting with the mental health of the woman.

Family Planning Tasmania CEO Marcus Di Martino commented that
Pregnancy choices and empowering women to have control of their sexual and reproductive health are really important.” This being so important to women, more education needs to be provided to allow women to be completely informed of the choices they can be provided with, such as keeping the baby or
putting it up for adoption. The baby is innocent and the most vulnerable in this issue, and does not need to be aborted. An unborn baby, in fact, has “No Choice.”

We have enough babies being lost to abortion; we don’t need another facility to join the ranks.

cancer

Cancer and pregnancy: how a mother chose life for her baby

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

21 years ago, a Melbourne mother Tricia Colman received a devastating cancer diagnosis during her seventh pregnancy. She was offered an abortion but chose life for her child.

It was 2005, and Tricia arrived for her routine 20-week ultrasound. As it was her seventh child, Tricia wanted to know the gender and was happy to be told she was expecting a girl. She barely noticed when the attendant left the room to find the department head.

He came quickly and asked Tricia to get back onto the bed. The two medicos then discussed various tests and their results, and finally the senior man gave Tricia the news: a lump had been found on her kidney.

At first, Tricia saw no cause for alarm. She thought this was a minor development, perhaps just a cyst, and went home unperturbed.

That all changed after a call from her GP, who laid Tricia’s options on the line. She said that the discovery was a serious one — renal cell carcinoma — and that it may come down to saving the life of Tricia or her baby. She reminded Tricia that she had a husband and six other children to care for, yet Tricia was resolute.

“No harm will be done to my baby,” she told her doctor.

Tricia was given her records and referred to one of Monash Health’s hospitals in Melbourne. There, a second ultrasound showed that the lump on her kidney was now a 20 cm mass.

Later that day, when Tricia’s GP called with the results, Tricia jokingly asked her, “Should I get on my knees?”

Her doctor answered sombrely, “Your whole church needs to get on its knees.”

More specialist visits followed: one to a urologist who scheduled a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Again, the suggestion of abortion was mentioned and again, Tricia refused. The specialist told her the best path would be to deliver her baby early, and that the Obstetrics Department would want her to wait until 32 weeks.

At this point, the fast-growing tumour weighed more than Tricia’s baby. Most of the tests which would have normally been run at this time, as well as treatment for the cancer, were out of the question due to Tricia’s pregnancy. There was little to be done except praying, waiting — and for Tricia, planning for the arrival of her new baby.

On June 6, baby Imogen was born by caesarean section at 31 weeks, weighing 1.5 kg, while the tumour weighed a massive 1.7 kg! The doctors thought the tumour would have spread by that time and told Tricia she would need another surgery two weeks later to remove her kidney as well as her spleen.

Due to the surgery, medications, testing and recovery period, Tricia was never going to be able to breastfeed. Thankfully, a friend who had also just given birth donated milk to Imogen for three months.

With a lot of family support, Tricia was, over time, able to recover from her surgeries while managing her premature baby and was eventually given the all-clear from her cancer.

Tricia marvels at the fact that she experienced no symptoms from the kidney carcinoma, which is typical for that condition. She says, “I’m so grateful for Imogen because it was only due to the pregnancy that the tumour was detected. Had it not been for my baby, it wouldn’t have been discovered in time and I would not have survived.”

Tricia’s story underscores the fact that abortion is never medically necessary. With good care, some courage and a commitment to preserving the unborn child, it’s possible to achieve the outcome everyone wants — a healthy mother and a healthy baby.

This article first appeared at Endeavour Forum and is republished here by permission.

abortion law

Abortion law around Australia

Published on by hlps_australiaLeave a comment

In Australia, abortion law varies from state to state or territory. On this page we have listed the laws for each jurisdiction and listed the pertinent sections of each law. Where exclusion-zones exist to prevent pro-life people from helping mothers near an abortion business, those are also noted.

To find support services for each state, as well as Australia-wide services, please go to our Pro-life Supports page.

Click on the jurisdiction below to jump to the desired law:

Tasmania abortion law

Reproductive Health Act 2013

  • On demand to 16 weeks.
  • From 16-20 weeks, two doctors must agree to the termination; one of these can be the abortionist.
  • After 20 weeks to full term, a panel of specialists must agree to the abortion.
  • Chemical abortions to 9 weeks of pregnancy
    • available via telehealth
  • Currently no doctors in Tasmania provide abortions past 14 weeks, so women wanting an abortion past this date must travel to the mainland.
  • Travel costs may be offset by the government, meaning that taxpayers fund this cost.
  • Pro-life doctors are forced by law to help a mother procure her abortion by sending her to a pro-abortion doctor.
  • 150m exclusion-zones operate around abortion providers

Victoria abortion law

Abortion Law Reform Act 2008

  • On demand to 24 weeks.
  • After 24 weeks to full term, two doctors must agree to the abortion.
  • Pro-life doctors are forced by law to help a mother procure her abortion by sending her to a pro-abortion doctor.
  • Chemical abortions to 9 weeks of pregnancy
    • available via telehealth
  • 150m exclusion-zones operate around abortion providers (Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008)

New South Wales abortion law

Abortion Law Reform Act 2019

  • On demand to 22 weeks
  • After 22 weeks to full term, a specialist doctor must agree to the abortion
  • After 22 weeks, mothers must be offered information about counselling
  • Pro-life doctors are forced by law to help a mother procure her abortion by sending her to a pro-abortion doctor.
  • Chemical abortions can be prescribed by nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives
  • 150m exclusion-zones apply

Australian Capital Territory

Health Act 1993

  • Available for free to residents of the ACT.
  • Chemical abortions up to 9 weeks of pregnancy
  • Surgical abortions on demand to 16 weeks of pregnancy
  • After 16 weeks with doctor’s approval
  • Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are also free
  • Chemical abortions can be prescribed by a GP, nurse practitioner, endorsed midwife or via telehealth service
  • No mandatory counselling
  • Pro-life doctors are NOT required to refer a woman to a doctor who is in favour of abortion
  • 50 metre exclusion zones operate

Western Australia

Abortion Legislation Reform Act 2023

  • Abortion is legal to full term
    • under 9 weeks, a GP, nurse practitioner or midwife can prescribe a chemical abortion
    • from 9 weeks to 23 weeks, GP must refer to an abortion provider
    • from 23 weeks, 2 doctors must agree to the abortion
  • A pro-life doctor, nurse practitioner or midwife must refer a patient to a practitioner who will arrange the abortion
  • Girls under the age of 18. may be able to procure an abortion without parental consent
  • 150 m exclusion-zones in operation

Northern Territory

Termination of Pregnancy Law reform Act 2017

  • Chemical abortion to 9 weeks gestation
  • 9-23 weeks gestation: surgical abortion in a hospital
  • Over 23 weeks, two doctors must agree to the abortion
  • A pro-life doctor must refer a patient to one who will arrange an abortion within 2 working days of the consultation

Queensland

Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018

  • On demand to 22 weeks
  • After 22 weeks, two doctors must agree to the abortion
  • Chemical abortions to 9 weeks gestation
  • Chemical abortions can be prescribed by doctors, nurse practitioners, endorsed midwives and some registered nurses and midwives
  • Doctors with a conscientious objection must refer to another doctor who will arrange the abortion
  • 150 m exclusion-zones in operation

South Australia

Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021

  • On demand to 22 weeks and 6 days gestation
  • After 23 weeks, 2 doctors must agree to the abortion
  • Chemical abortions to 9 weeks via GP or teleheath
  • Pro-life doctors must give abortion-minded mothers a government-produced brochure which explains how they can procure an abortion
  • Data is collected in South Australia and all abortions must be reported to the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing within 20 days of the end of the month
  • 150m exclusion-zones in operation