More ACT babies born alive after abortion

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.