The case for decriminalising abortion is not so simple

As noted in Ms Anne O’Rourke’s recent On Line Opinion article “Abortion: the silent majority”, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has recently produced a report for the state government on options for decriminalisation of abortion.

Ms O’Rourke says three cheers for the Law Reform Commission - they got it right. “The religious right” don’t represent “the silent majority” and therefore have no reason to complain when their submissions got scrapped by the commission.

But, it is not as simple as that.

Writing for what Ms O’Rourke labels as “the religious right” but in truth, the great bulk of the church, whether catholic, orthodox or evangelical, we do have grounds for complaint about the commission’s report, though it must be said the commission has mostly, though not entirely, kept to the Victorian Attorney-General’s terms of reference.

It should cause no surprise to anyone, including Ms O’Rourke, given the churches’ principled opposition to the decriminalisation of abortion and deep distress to know that there is one abortion for every three live births in Victoria, that we will continue fight for the unborn child and the care of the pregnant woman contemplating an abortion.

In turning to the VLRC Report, The Law of Abortion, it is not difficult to see that the report has been framed for the benefit of abortion facilities and their staff rather than for the benefit of the pregnant woman and her developing unborn child.

Thus we do not see why if a medical practitioner performs an abortion not authorised by law he or she should only be subject to professional sanctions and not criminal sanctions, as the report advocates.

This failure of the report to concern itself only with the interests of the abortion industry and not the women seeking abortions is in part due to the government’s own restricted terms of reference.

What we find interesting in the report is the inclusion of an assessment of community views (“standards” is the word used in the terms of reference) but also a statement (report, p12) that “we have (not) been asked to make judgments about the ethical and philosophical arguments concerning abortion”. How it is possible to undertake a review of community standards without considering “ethical and philosophical arguments concerning abortion” entirely escapes us. Certainly, the great majority of the submissions - given the government’s directive to take into consideration community standards in devising the options for changing the law - have entered into a discussion of the ethical and philosophical arguments.

In point of fact the commission has revealed its own allegiance to a certain set of ethical and philosophical principles, by recommending that the new abortion law should not contain humane measures such as information provisions; counselling or referral to counselling; a built-in delay or cooling-off period; restrictions on where abortion procedures may be performed; or anti-coercion provisions (report, p8, recommendations 4-7, 16).

It can be argued that all of these measures would positively benefit any woman faced with this heavy decision, and unarguably they would improve the chances of survival for the life in her womb.

The commission has totally failed to give any consideration, and it would argue due to Mr Hulls’ terms of reference, to the welfare of women. Yes, protection to the abortion industry, but not to women. There is an ever expanding database of women having an abortion and paying a terrible cost.

Melinda Tankard Reist, in a book made available to the commission, Giving Sorrow Words, tells the stories of grief of 18 women who went through an abortion. Anne Lastman, an Australian psychologist has written Redeeming Grief based upon her counselling of in excess of 1,000 women who had undergone an abortion. These stories are only going to multiply and they cry out to be heard.

We strenuously object to the second-class treatment for women considering and undergoing abortions at a time of great emotional stress.

An additional problem with the commission’s report is that it has misapplied the part of the terms of reference where it is stated, “the government’s aim is that reform should neither expand the extent to which terminations occur, nor restrict current access to services” (emphasis added) to mean “not expanding or restricting current abortion services” (p6). The commission has failed to consider the point about the number of terminations in the terms of reference, focusing only on access to services. Presumably the Government is not opposed to a reduction in the number of abortions provided they are not brought about by a restriction in current access to services.

There is another matter that needs to be raised.

Late term abortions are particularly insidious and barbaric. If the mother is judged to be at risk because of a pregnancy, that risk doesn’t necessarily require the killing of the unborn baby - and there can be no doubt that a real live baby is involved since premature babies survive at 25 weeks and even from 22 weeks. In other words, the risk to the mother can be removed in these cases by inducing the birth of the child.

Why should the government and the wider public consider the points that churches are raising?

Abortion is a controversial subject and if the government simply accepts the commission’s recommendations, including opting for one of the three models presented, it would leave itself open to the charge that its reform of the law was solely for the benefit of those involved in the abortion industry.

The requirement to consider community standards cannot be reduced to assessing community attitudes. “Standards” inevitably mean consideration of ethical and moral issues.

Furthermore, the report’s key findings that about 80 per cent of Australians support a woman’s right to choose (p66) and no more than 10 per cent of the Australian population opposes abortion outright (report, p67) is a very poor conclusion based on the data available to the commission.

We do not contest that a majority of Australians support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, but what the Sexton survey, commissioned by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute and presented to the commission, clearly demonstrated was that when confronted with the reality of one abortion for every three live births, large majorities of Australians said that the rate of abortion was too high and that those measures ruled out by the commission as noted above should in fact be acted upon.

It is not good enough to object to presenting data on the rate of abortion to survey respondents as “a negative proposition” (report, p61) when in fact it is a factual and relevant proposition. No one celebrates an abortion, whereas the delivery of a child is normally greeted with joy.

The fact that the commission thought it necessary to consult with no less than eight pro life Christian groups out of a total of 36 groups seems to indicate that they know the unease if not outright opposition to abortion is certainly greater than the 10 per cent cited in its report.

That Australians consider the number of abortions to be too high and that measures exist, without taking away a woman’s right to an abortion, to reduce the level should be accepted and acted upon by government as readily as it might accept that most Australians accept a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

It is worth repeating the point: none of the commission’s recommendations benefit women and/or the life that they carry in the womb. A woman caught with an unplanned for pregnancy, often without the support of her partner is in an incredibly vulnerable position. It will not do for the government to wash its hands, like Pontius Pilate, of its responsibilities towards such pregnant women in such a predicament.

Two hundred years ago slavery was abolished through the endeavours of good men and women motivated by Christian charity. When will we see such charity displayed to our woman and their unborn children often abandoned and contemplating such a grievous procedure as an abortion?