News

Published: 24 September 2020

Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker often shares our concerns on issues relating to family, faith and freedom. So this week I thought I should share her warnings about new “anti-conversion” laws in Australia.

These laws were recently passed in Queensland and the ACT. The Victorian government is going down the same path, and other states could follow.

Most Australians have no idea about what has happened. There has been very little information in the media, so Senator Stoker’s comments need to be shared widely. Here is what she said in an email to supporters on 7 September:

Right on the back of new laws in Queensland, the rights of parents, teachers, psychologists and doctors were dealt a damaging blow with the passing of anti-conversion therapy laws in the ACT.

Nobody is advocating for archaic, harmful treatments, and indeed I and my colleagues are opposed to such practices.

But these laws go much further than simply doing this.

They potentially inflict criminal penalties on anyone just trying to provide care and support, particularly to young people, who are struggling with the difficult questions associated with gender identity.

Such laws strip parents of their responsibility and indeed their duty to raise and socialise their children to cope with the world around them.

Families need to be able to talk openly, freely, lovingly without fear of legal repercussions.

And our medical professionals need to be able to provide valid, clinical care in the best interests of their patients, rather than being compelled to simply lock patients into an affirmative model that remains medically controversial.  This law criminalises the open scientific discussion that leads to improvements in clinical care – which can only harm people struggling with gender dysphoria.

Even the ACT Law Society has voiced its concerns about the vagueness of the laws, particularly around what exactly constitutes illegality under the legislation.

Similar laws introduced in Queensland a fortnight ago are not quite as far-reaching, but have medical professionals in the state equally concerned. 

We must continue to be vigilant and call out these extreme ideological laws being passed under the pretence of “care” for our vulnerable young people.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. Please pray that more MPs like Senator Stoker will speak out against harmful, unjust laws like these.

Peter Downie - National Director

FamilyVoice Australia

Published: 23 September 2020

The Australian Medical Association has come out in opposition to a proposed Tasmanian euthanasia bill.

Dr Helen McArdle, President of the Australian Medical Association in Tasmania, said the group is concerned about several parts of the so-called Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill.

“It is long and confusing, seems to have been developed on the run, comprises 160 pages much of which we found difficult to understand and many points that seem contradictory,” said Dr McArdle.

“The definition of relevant medical condition is vague and, unlike other states, does not include timeframes in which death is likely. It allows for the relevant condition to be combined with other conditions.

“Therefore, a patient with diabetes, which if untreated, is likely to cause a person’s death combined with arthritis and mild depression would qualify a person to apply for VAD,” she added.

Dr McArdle said that doctors have an ethical duty to care for dying patients so death can occur with comfort and dignity.

“They have a responsibility to initiate and provide good quality end of life care which strives to ensure a dying patient is as free from pain and suffering as possible and upholds the patient’s values and goals of care,” she said

“For most patients, pain and other causes of suffering can be alleviated through good care, including palliative care that focuses on symptom relief, prevention of suffering and improvement of quality of life.”

Dr McArdle said that despite pressure the legislature may feel to pass the bill, “bad legislation remains bad legislation” and that “it is particularly dangerous when it involves life and death”.

Published: 21 September 2020

Mark Latham has responded to Andy Murray’s call for Margaret Court’s name to be removed from the arena named in her honour, saying he should “butt out of Australian matters.”

In calling for her name to be removed from the stadium, Andy Murray claimed that “I think as a sport you just have to be as inclusive as possible ...”.  

FamilyVoice has pointed out that his view of diversity doesn’t seem to include Margaret Court - who defends biblical truth and upholds the biological difference between men and women.

“Margaret Court is a great champion, on and off the court and Andy Murray, a Scot, should butt out of Australian matters”, said NSW MP Mark Latham.

“Go back to Scotland, Andy, and fix the problems there, which are massive,” he added.

Andy Murray has lost five Australian Open singles finals.

Margaret Court on the other hand has won a total of 18 titles (11 singles & 8 doubles).

Sign our petition calling on Andy Murray to apologise to Margaret Court.

Published: 17 September 2020

A grocery store in the US is being sued for firing two employees who refused to wear aprons emblazoned with an LGBT heart emblem.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is suing the Arkansas Kroger store for breaching religious discrimination laws.

Both former employees are Christian who could not in good conscience wear the outfits featuring LGBT propaganda.

The women “believed the emblem endorsed LGBTQ values and that wearing it would violate their religious beliefs,” according to the EEOC.

The women were disciplined for their refusal and subsequently fired by Kroger.

“One woman offered to wear the apron with the emblem covered and the other offered to wear a different apron without the emblem, but the company made no attempt to accommodate their requests,” said the EEOC.

The EEOC said that the alleged conduct violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The legal action seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory damages, along with an injunction against future discrimination.                       

“Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs,” said EEOC  spokesman Delner-Franklin Thomas.

The Kroger Company is the second-largest general retailer in the US and the largest supermarket by revenue.