About the Abortion Bill
Before 24 weeks
Doctors can perform abortions for any reason. Pharmacists and nurses can supply abortion drugs for any reason.
After 24 weeks
Abortion is legal if 2 doctors agree that it is appropriate in all the circumstances (with regard to all relevant medical circumstances and the woman’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances). 2 agreeing doctors can also direct hospital pharmacists or nurses to supply abortion drugs post 24 weeks.
Charles Francis, AM, QC says that this bill means that “In reality, in Victoria, we will have abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy.” (See article below for explanation).
Click to see the Bill and explanatory notes.
Back to Matt's Protest
MEMORANDRUM OF ADVICE RE ABORTION LAW
REFORM BILL 2008
As a matter of reality Clause 5 of the
Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 will create a situation in which abortion can be
performed at any time during the pregnancy. The loophole is fairly similar to
that created by the Menhennitt ruling
(1969). After 24 weeks gestation a woman only needs to find a medical
practitioner who is prepared to abort her even though there be no reason under
Clause 5. In
The medical practitioner only needs a partner or
colleague who is prepared to collude and say that he too believed it appropriate
in all the circumstances to perform the abortion. If thereafter any questions
are asked pursuant to some inquiry or otherwise, all that the two doctors need
say is that they both believed the abortion was appropriate in all the
circumstances.
Thereafter they can refuse to answer any further
questions directed to the question of why they formed that belief on the grounds
that any answer to the questions would be a breach of medical
practitioner-patient privilege under the Evidence Act 1958. Thus the
genuineness of their belief could not be tested.
In these
circumstances there would be no evidence by which proceedings for professional
misconduct could be brought under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005.
Consequently unless the patient or the abortion-provider's staff are prepared
to provide evidence that the abortion was performed without any reason at all,
abortion providers will be able to perform abortions at any time without risk of
proceedings before the relevant board.
As mentoned above, this
obvious loophole in the law is somewhat like the situation which inadvertently
developed after the Menhennitt ruling.
Because the onus of proof was on the Crown, the abortion provider could assert
the abortion was performed for serious risks but refuse to identify those risks
because of the medical practitioner-patient privilege under the Evidence Act
1958. The Crown was then unable to prove that there were no serious risks to
the woman's physical or mental health.
No doubt those who drafted
the Bill wanted to place some limitation on abortions after 24 weeks gestation,
but in my view the Bill will not be effective in producing that consequence. In
reality, in
Charles Francis, AM, QC, is a former MP in the Victorian
Parliament, and a former Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council. He has won
settlements for women who sued their abortionists for failure to warn of the
psychological trauma and the increased risk of breast cancer caused by
abortion.
Mat well done. What you are doing has touched my heart greatley. I would like to join you this coming week, on Wednesday.Is that okay? Bles you Carolyn.
Reply to this
Good on you Matt. Keep up the good work. I cant believe they are actually thinking about passing something like this..it's disgusting. ..
Claire
Reply to this
Pharmacists and nurses can't legally supply medication without it being prescribed by the treating doctor. The ONLY place in Victoria that actually offer medical abortions is RWH. RWH ensure that women who have special needs, such as disability, health issues, or difficulties in life or circumstances, have access to their services as priority and they aren't available to everyone and anyone. From memory, RWH only preform about 5 surgical or medical (the pill form and less often) terminations a week as it is, everyone else is referred to the private sector. The private clinics preform about 20 each morning.
Please Matt, I have respect for what you're doing but please, please, please only present fact, not speculation or your interpretation as if it were fact as it really discredits the work you're doing. Well researched facts should have the same affect! I sincerely hope you take this approach as it will reach more people as opposed to only reaching the majority on here who are influenced by religion only so are already have a pro-life stance-that's obviously not going to influence a shift in thinking. There's no point preaching to the converted if you're looking to make change if you know what I mean.
I'm with you also, as I am of a pro-life belief too now days (it took having a termination to make me see that abortion is not the answer and is an awful thing to do to your child )but many people are alienated when religion is bought into it, and then to be fed ill informed information as if it were fact will soon see your view disregarded.
Shouldn't taking an approach that will ensure your stand point is backed up with water tight evidence be the most successful approach?
Reply to this
Matt has not exaggerated a word, please refer to "MEMORANDUM OF ADVICE RE ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL 2008" by Charles Francis QC that Matt has elsewhere posted on this blog.
And note also that everyone is religious so it is simply not possible to keep religion out of the abortion debate as you suggest. Those who claim not to be religious are in fact believers in the religion of atheism (or secular humanism as it is also known). The atheists have their own version of morality and it is this false morality that justifies abortion (or the murder of the innocent as we would call it if we were being totally honest).
Reply to this
What you are referring to is the way things run currently. The information as shown on Matt's site and on the signs reflect the proposed changes under the Bill that will be voted on next week.
Reply to this
I agree wholeheartedly. It is so important to only present the facts as anything that is remotely not fact will be used to discredite ALL that you are doing. I am sure that is what you are trying to do but I think its prudent to listen to what stephanie is saying.
Reply to this
This is true - the thing is, the facts are being presented as they have been proposed in the Bill which will be voted on next week.
As I said, Stephanie is perhaps correct about current procedure, what Matt is referring to is proposed procedure, which has been accurately portrayed and gives reason to the protest.
Reply to this
umm, the bill doesn't change what the registration boards for nurses and pharmacists govern as to what their limitations are. It has absolutely no effect on that at all! Did you know that an enrolled nurses (div 2) can't give panadol to patients and if they do they care lose their nursing registration over it-panadol! So it's clear that registered nurses (div 1) cannot just give out medication willy-mnilly because of any bill that may pass. The Nurses Board of Victoria prohibits it!
The bill also isn't going to change the procedures of an already stressed public health system (Royal Women's Hospital). Their termination services aren't going to be extended JUST because of the bill-they CAN'T offer further services if the staff don't exist to preform the procedures. This is why it's such a low number they do now,in comparison to the private clinics. The bill isn't going to make nursing and medical staff appear from nowhere! Come on, it's just not possible and the bill can't make it possible.
Scaremongering is not the answer here guys! I'm telling you this as someone who worked at that hospital for years, I'm not just making this stuff up because I want to go against the grain guys, I'm sharing this information because its the truth and I think the truth is the most effective way to assist change.
If you don't actually know the healthcare system ask people who do instead of making things up as you go along. The public healthcare system is available and always has been available on a basis of necessity, not just because someone wants something.
Reply to this
I'm not sure what exactly it is that you say Matt has exaggerated? Are you saying that the part about "Pharmacists and nurses can supply abortion drugs for any reason" before 24 weeks, is an exaggeration?
In any case, what we do know about the bill is bad enough, and that is as Charles Francis says: "As a matter of reality Clause 5 of the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 will create a situation in which abortion can be performed at any time during the pregnancy."
Reply to this
Hi Matt It was good to see you yesterday and to stand with you briefly I and Judy S*&^&*(( Laurens mum will be joining with you on Sunday.
Your right when you say that you are a man who has not had to face these hard decisions and most people will find it difficult to relate to another persons story as we all have different backgrounds, situation which creates the places we find ourselves in this however doesn't diminish what we know to be right and wrong.
Abortion is not a womans issue its a human rights issue! Whilst no one has the right to condemn a person for their actions we should and must speak up when we see injustice occurring.
Im impress they way you are dealing with such an emotive and important issue.
Keep up the good work.
Reply to this