FamilyVoice Australia MEDIA RELEASE 4 December 2018
FamilyVoice Australia urges both the parliament and the people to reject the abortion reform bill as “a excruciating and heartless attack on unborn children”.
FamilyVoice National Director Charles Newington said the unborn are society’s most vulnerable members and must be safeguarded.
“Unborn babies should not be treated as any less human just because they have not yet passed through the birth canal,” he said.
“They feel the excruciating pain of abortion and mothers frequently report physical harm and mental anguish following the procedure.
“In any abortion not just the child dies in its mother's womb.
Especially in late term abortions something else dies in the mother's heart” he said.
“Parliament must also recognise the medical advancements that have reduced the age of surviving premature birth to about 23 weeks which is a clear indication of the child's full humanity. It's past time for moral leadership on this issue. Reject the Bill. Protect mother and child. Find a better way."
For more information, contact David d'Lima on 0414 969 145.
A Tasmanian bill which would allow parents to refuse to list a child’s gender on their birth certificate has been deferred until March next year.
If the legislation were to be passed, persons 16 or older will also be able to legally change their gender on their birth certificate by simply filling out a statutory declaration.
Before and during the plebiscite, we were told repeatedly that there would be no adverse consequences to redefining marriage. And yet, just a year after removing gender from marriage, LGBT activists are seeking to remove gender from society altogether.
The good news is we still have time to fight this radical Tasmanian proposal!
FamilyVoice Australia is deeply concerned about the proposals in the ALP-sponsored private Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 currently being debated in the Senate (watch LIVE here for updates).
The Bill will remove some clauses which have previously provided protection for Christian organisations to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Law Professor and popular legal commentator Neil Foster points out that the Bill, which started out as an agreed measure to stop religious schools from expelling gay students on the basis of their “orientation” alone, “has a number of other serious consequences for religious freedom, not only for schools but for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organisations (such as, for example, University student ministries.)”
The Coalition have 30 senators. Labor have 26 and the Greens have 9. This means Labor and the Greens represent 35 votes and all bills only need 38 votes to get it passed. Hence we would need 8 of the remaining 10 cross bench senators to oppose the bill for it to be blocked in the senate.
A sample email template is provided below courtesy of popular Christian blogger Akos Balogh. Click here for a helpful “contact page” which allows emails to be sent to Senators on the Parliament house website.
Dear Senator [x],
I hope you are well.
I am a [INSERT YOUR STATE] voter, and am writing to express my deep concern about the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018.
I understand the motivation behind the Bill (namely, to prevent students being expelled from religious schools merely on the basis of their sexuality).
However, these are the reasons why I think it is not a solution to public perceptions and concern about the expulsion of gay students from Christian schools.
1) Current public discussion has been built on a lie – faith-based schools have made it clear that students are not being expelled simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. Even the initial media reporting on the leaked recommendations of the Ruddock report (from the likes of the SMH) did not allege that students were or had been expelled merely for being gay.
2) However, the current ALP-sponsored Bill goes far beyond dealing with this problem, and will seriously reduce the religious freedom of religious schools to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs.
3) The removal of section 38(3) will remove religious freedom protections for the ‘provision of education’ – having far broader impact than has been claimed.
4) The Bill is also so widely framed that it removes protections for all “religious bodies” in relation to “education”, and this has the potential to make it unlawful for churches, mosques and synagogues to teach the doctrines of their faith to their own members.
5) It would be best if legislation was not rushed through at the last minute. Parliament should wait until the Ruddock Report has been released and there is time for careful consideration and consultation before making any amendments in this area.
6) International law to which Australia is a signatory recognises religious freedom as a fundamental human right and accords it the highest possible protection - not just to holding a belief but expressing that belief, including through the establishment of schools based on those beliefs.
Please consider the legal issue outlined, in the following blogposts from Associate Professor Neil Foster, faculty of Law at Newcastle University:
In summary: there are enormous weaknesses with the Bill as it stands – and the government amendments are still problematic. If there is no urgent crisis that needs to be addressed, then why rush this Bill through Parliament? Why not wait until the Ruddock Report has been fully released?
[Insert your name and home address]
For a long time, Left-wing social reconstructionists have understood the power of words in attractively packaging political ideologies detrimental to the wellbeing of society and the freedoms that we enjoy. One obvious example is the frequent use of the deceptive phrase “marriage equality” rather than “homosexual marriage.”
As the gender confusion movement is founded on the basis of the lie that there are more than two genders, it feels the need to police those who bring biological reality back into the public conversation.
This is where two trendy terms “misgendering” and “deadnaming” – which, of late, are being used as weapons in the cultural Marxists’ efforts to hijack language - come into the game.
Earlier this week, in an effort to further crackdown on free speech, Twitter banned “misgendering” and “deadnaming.”
“Misgendering” is when someone refers to another using a pronoun associated with that person’s real gender and not their fake gender.
According to GenderTerror.com:
Intentionally misgendering someone is an attack. Our genders and identities are constantly up for debate and misgendering a trans* person is a reminder of that. Misgendering us is a reminder that our identities are considered fragile, something to be bent and broken to the will of the cis people who wish to abuse us. When someone cannot get to us, they go in through our hearts and our minds. They dig deep. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words can leave just as permanent scars. This includes something such as perpetual misgendering and denial of one’s self.
Not surprisingly, the gender confusion movement paints itself out to be the victim when, in reality, it is the perpetrator punishing dissenters who refuse to be coerced into using approved “transgender” speak.
How about “deadnaming”? That’s when a person who is confused about their gender is called by the name they were given at birth instead of the name that is associated with their new fake gender.
The Huffington Post, an unashamed gender-confusion-peddling tabloid, claims that “deadnaming a trans person is violence.”
Hearing or seeing one’s old name can induce a visceral sense of terror that no matter how much progress one makes in their transition, the person they used to be (or pretended to be) is still there.
If it were just cultural policing of these “offences” that would be bad enough. But more concerning is that the gender confusion movement is seeking to co-opt the state into policing truth and undermining our right to free speech through the invention and manipulation of language.
As George Orwell wrote in the classic manifesto 1984, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
In the face of such a hostile and ruthless movement we must remain strong and continue to speak truth to power.
The voters of Victoria have a momentous opportunity this Saturday to rid the State (and the nation) of truly wretched euthanasia legislation. The current law is due to come into effect next year, but it will be repealed if enough pro-life candidates are elected.
Since the major parties tend to treat the life issues (such as abortion and euthanasia) as conscience votes, it is imperative that voters choose candidates, not major parties, when voting. The major parties have some candidates who are pro-euthanasia and others who are pro-life.
Your careful and considered vote on Saturday could make all the difference.
Candidates we understand to be pro-life include the following:
ALP: Anthony Carbines, John Eren, Marlene Kairouz, James Merlino, Tim Richardson, Natalie Suleyman.
Australian Liberty Alliance: Siobhann Brown.Democratic Labour Party: Arthur Bablis, Victor Bennett, Jennifer Bowden, Kathryn Breakwell, Stephen Campbell, Dermot Connors, Fi Fraser, Liz Freeman, Sami Greiss, Nathan Keen, Des Kelly, Leon Kofmansky, Helen Leach, Michael Long, Ross McPhee, Peter Mulcahy, Peter O’Brien, Tony O’Brien, Peter Phillips, Joseph Purtill, Edward Sok.
Liberals/Nationals: Neil Angus, Brad Battin, Gary Blackwood, Tim Bull, Neale Burgess, Robert Clark, Peter Crisp, Michael Gidley, David Hodgett, Andrew Katos, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pessuto, Richard Riordan, Dee Ryall, Steph Ryan, Ryan Smith, Tim Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Heidi Victoria, Nick Wakeling, Peter Walsh, Graham Watt, Kym Wells.
Independent: Russell Northe.
ALP: Melina Bath, Nazih Elasmar, Adem Somyurek.
Australian Liberty Alliance: Indhira Bivieca Aquino, Mark Brown, Francine Cohen, Terri Franklin, Russell Gomez, Daniel Jones, Kaylah Jones, David Maddison, Daniel Macdonald, Ewan McDonald, Kenneth Nicholls, John Reisner, Ralf Schumann, Royston Wilding, James Wylie, Avi Yemini.
Democratic Labour Party: Benjamin Cronshaw, Jackie Gwynne, John McBride, Chris McCormack,
Larry Norman, Jeremy Orchard, Padraig O'Hea, Michael Palma, Mark Royal, Peter Stevens, Lucia De Summa, Joel van der Horst, Walter Villagonzalo, Jarred Vehlen.
Liberals/Nationals: Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Bernie Finn, Margaret Fitzherbert, Wendy Lovell, Josh Morris, Craig Ondarchie, Luke O’Sullivan, Inga Peulich, Gordon Rich-Phillips.
Shooters & Fishers: Jeff Bourman, Daniel Young.
Independent: Rachel Carling-Jenkins
Authorised by C. Newington, FamilyVoice Australia, 4th Fl, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000
FamilyVoice Australia upholds Christian values and the family: permanence of marriage, sanctity of human life, primacy of parenthood and limited government.
Don't miss out on quality research and news that will equip you to face the culture wars.
Join the growing movement of young people daring to be counter-cultural.