News

pregnant

Pro-abortion MP Nat Cook sounded like she was against abortion, when arguing with her pro-life ALP colleague Tom Koutsantonis MP in the South Australian Parliament today.

Mr Koutsantonis had urged his colleagues to consider how best to respond when a baby might survive the termination procedure.

This brought a sharp response from Ms Cook, a former registered nurse, who described in graphic detail the misery which resuscitation may involve, and said such measures ought not to apply.

“Ms Cook spoke with considerable expertise about the horrendous nature of heroic measures when medical people battle to resuscitate a baby, including the use of a myriad of needles, brain drainage and punctured lungs,” said FamilyVoice spokesman David d’Lima.

“Tragically, it sounded like a superb argument against surgical abortion,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the brutality of abortion is largely absent in this debate that is more concerned with definitions and semantics - including insisting the bill refer to pregnant persons, not pregnant women, lest offence be given to those not wishing to be identified as female.

“Using average statistics, more unborn South Australians have died during this awful debate this week than there are MPs arguing about their fate.”

radio

FamilyVoice's Greg Bondar speaks with Vision Christian Radio about woke bans on Shakespeare and asks: Will the Bible be "Cancel Culture's" next target? Listen now.

pregnant

A number of amendments have been proposed to the radical abortion bill which continues to be debated in SA Parliament.

An amendment to restrict the extreme abortion to birth provision in a South Australian abortion bill has been defeated.

The amendment, put forward by David Speirs MP, was defeated 26-20 (vote breakdown below).

But a watered-down version pushed by pro-abortion Attorney-General Vickie Chapman, proponent of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, has passed.

The broad nature of the exemption wording in Chapman’s amendment – if the continuance of pregnancy poses a  “significant risk of injury to physical or mental health”, means that it may make no difference whatsoever to babies being aborted up until birth.

The Advertiser reported:

Under the original Bill, the only provision needed for a late-term abortion was for two health practitioners to deem it “medically appropriate”.

Under Ms Chapman’s amendments, a late-term abortion could be performed only if two medical practitioners deem the termination “is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or save another foetus” or if the continuance of pregnancy poses a “significant risk of injury to physical or mental health”.

A late-term abortion could also be performed if there were “serious foetal anomalies”, or risk of them, associated with the pregnancy.

Her amendment to late-term abortion provisions eventually received the support of the House of Assembly on Wednesday night, following exhaustive debate on what is considered an “injury to mental health”.

Meanwhile, federal Liberal MP Nicolle Flint has criticised state Liberal MP Michelle Lensink, who introduced the abortion bill last year, of being patronising.

Michelle Lensink lectured MPs on Twitter, saying: “No one is interested in your carefully curated arguments, or your capacity to audition for your local debating team.”.

In response, Nicolle Flint responded on Twitter:

“I have dedicated my time in federal parliament to trying to SAVE the lives of unborn babies. How dare you be so patronising to those who wish to do the same.”

Debate on the abortion bill will continue today.

How MPs voted on David Speirs' amendment to provide greater protection for unborn children from late term abortions

Ayes 20

Noes 26

Majority 6

In favour of greater protection for the unborn around late term abortion
Bell, T.S. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Knoll, S.K. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Piccolo, A. Power, C. Speirs, D.J.Tarzia, V.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.

Against greater protection for the unborn around late term abortion
Basham, D.K.B. Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Chapman, V.A. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gardner, J.A.W. Gee, J.P. Harvey, R.M. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Odenwalder, L.K. Picton, C.J. Pisoni, D.G. Sanderson, R. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Teague, J.B. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L. Wortley, D.

 

sad woman

FamilyVoice Australia supporter Ms B. Edwards has spoken openly and movingly about her deep regret, after two abortions, in the years before she became a Christian.

In the following letter to the editor of The Advertiser, Ms Edwards responded to a column by journalist Paul Starick. Ms Edwards urges MPs to reject abortion legislation. Her letter (predictably ignored) gave her testimony as follows:

Paul Starick’s article in ‘The Advertiser’ (13 February) quotes legal experts who say abortion reform is “evidenced-based”.

Well I would like to share my evidence, having suffered greatly by a surgical and a chemical abortion.

At the age of 17, I listened to experts telling me abortion was a simple, common procedure and I would be just fine. I tried to counsel myself into this line of thinking before and after my abortion, but torment would spring up in my mind. I started doing drugs 6 months later.

My second abortion was through a chemical tablet. Soon after taking it, I had intense cramps lasting three hours. I passed my dead child into my toilet, through immense pain and mental anguish. The images of that day have never left me.

I do not think the legal experts or MPs understand the terrible harm done by abortion to women, especially through chemicals that turn the bathroom into a place of trauma.

KevinAndrews 003

Remember the plebiscite on same-sex marriage back in 2017?

Malcolm Turnbull, then PM, strongly promoted the “yes” vote. He said it would make same-sex couples very happy, but not change anything else.

How wrong he was!

These days, affirming man-woman marriage – or quoting Bible verses about homosexual activity – can get you hauled before a tribunal, or sacked.

Just ask Archbishop Porteous, Rev Campbell Markham or Israel Folau.

Moreover, the recently passed Victorian “gay or trans conversion bill” even bans some consensual prayer!

The federal government set up an inquiry and promised legislation to fix the problem. But more than three years and two draft bills later, we’re still waiting.

So it was great to hear Hon Kevin Andrews (below), a former federal Liberal government minister and chair of the inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, give us an update via our FamilyVoice webinar on 8 February.

Nearly 300 people registered on the night, but if you missed it you can catch up on our FamilyVoice YouTube channel.

Kevin paid tribute to the ongoing work of FamilyVoice. “It’s often been a tough battle, against the current zeitgeist which reigns supreme in the liberal media and elsewhere,” he said. “Your efforts, your prayerfulness, your thoughtfulness, your concern about the future of this country in a very real and substantive way – thank you very much!”

He then noted that many Australians think there is religious freedom in Australia – in practice, as well as in law.

“But in fact there is very little protection of religious freedom here,” he said. “There is some protection in the federal Constitution, but not in the states.”

Our problem in Australia today is that other human rights trump religious freedom. “Our anti-discrimination laws do not recognise the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948),” he said, “or its later expanded form, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).”

Article 18 in both treaties provide for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The ICCPR says this “right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

This freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject “only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 18 also affirms the freedom of parents and legal guardians “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

Victoria has a human rights charter. Queensland and the ACT have human rights acts. Yet none provides the degree of religious freedom protection of Article 18 of the ICCPR.

Kevin Andrews would like to see a commonwealth law incorporating Article 18 of the ICCPR. A third draft federal government bill to protect religious freedom is nearly ready, but Kevin says it is a “compromise”.

“Ten years ago I would have opposed such a bill because of the danger that judges could change its meaning,” he said (in part). “But the current lack of protection for religious freedom is so dire that I have changed my mind.”

Peter Downie - National Director

FamilyVoice Australia