Queensland Parliament can’t ignore calls on abortion laws anymore
|
The Queensland government has tried their best for a quite a few years to ignore the calls to change the state’s laws on abortion. However, whatever your views are on abortion, the issue in Queensland can no longer be avoided by the Queensland Parliament. The situation for individual women seeking an abortion and for doctors prepared to provide it is now totally untenable. It has now been reported that:
Queensland women are now having to travel to Sydney for a medical abortion. Because this issue will always be treated as a conscience vote, it means traditional party controls and discipline do not apply. If a majority in the Queensland Parliament do believe that abortion should be illegal, then let them have a vote to confirm that. There would obviously be many people unhappy about this outcome, but at least it would provide certainty and clarity about what the law is. At present, the legal uncertainty means Queensland has the worst of both worlds on the issue. Even though the Premier and her Ministers in Cabinet may not be wanting to have a full debate, the Parliament as a whole should have the final say on bringing on any proposed changes to the law for debate. Each individual MP would also be free to move amendments to any Bill that is brought forward. Cairns-based gynaecologist Caroline de Costa has been writing regularly in Crikey over many months now assiduously documenting the untenable situation which has developed in Queensland following the decision to charge a young from Cairns with procuring and assisting to procure her own abortion. Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has kept trying to avoid the issue throughout this time, stating that while her personal view is that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor, there shouldn’t be any attempt to change the existing law, supposedly because there wouldn’t be the numbers in the Queensland Parliament for it to succeed. Personally, I am not so convinced about that, but even so, I don’t see that as sufficient reason not to bring on a debate, which would at least clarify the issue. This has always been an issue that is treated as a conscience vote by all parties in the Parliament, where traditional party line votes don’t occur. Efforts have been made by some in the Labor Party to introduce a Private Members Bill (i.e. legislation that is not formally produced or backed by the government). This was done successfully in the federal Parliament in regards to RU486, where a Bill sponsored by a Senator from each of the Liberal, Labor, Democrat and National parties. However, while legislation on a matter which is seen as a conscience vote can be introduced by any MP, the decision about whether or not to allow that legislation to be debated and voted on is still a government decision – unless enough individual members of the governing party willing to defy such a decision, which does not occur when Labor is the governing party. Even though most surveys suggest a clear majority of Australians support safe abortion being made available to a woman who seeks it, politicians of all parties usually tend to shy away from bringing on debates on the issue. This may be more due to the fact it can be quite divisive within a party, than the fact it can be lead to strident debate within society. The big benefit of a conscience vote is that it makes each individual member of Parliament individually accountable for what they do. They can’t hide behind the party room or caucus. There is no doubt this is an issue where have people have very strong and genuinely held beliefs on both sides of the debate. That situation might require a special effort be made to have as respectful a debate as possible, but it is no reason to dodge the debate all together.
|
| ||
|
|
11 Comments
Andrew you should know better, it doesn’t make any difference what Anna wants or says, as long as the AWU mafia, headed by Bill Ludwig, and his happy group of right wing theologians, run Queensland, then there will be no abortion law reform, regardless of it being an ALP policy for many years. The DLP is alive and well and living in Queensland, after all George Pell was the keynote speaker at the AWU conference last year, what does that say to you.
In truth there is no uncertainty about the law of abortion in Queensland. The current legislative position makes quite clear that abortion may only be performed in the most extraordinary of circumstances.
Given that abortion necessarily involves the death of a human being, it seems quite appropriate for the law in this matter to be exceptionally restrictive.
This is a basic human rights issue - approximately half of those aborted are female and half are male.
MJS2122
Leaving aside the irrelevant observation about abortion and the death of a human being, I believe Martin Shanahan is missing the point of the article. He concedes that “… abortion may only be performed in the most extraordinary of circumstances..”, but fails to see that even if the ‘extraordinary circumstance’ condition is properly met, the legal uncertainty prevents the medical profession from choosing what might be the most appropriate, effective technology for the task. In other words, when all the moralising and pontificating is over and a decision has then been legally and medically indicated to terminate, only then does this new legal uncertainty come into play.
Surely doctors should be able to choose and maintain their own tools?
Dear Hugh,
How can it be an irrelevant observation that abortion causes the death of a human being? That unfortunately strikes right at the heart of this discussion. I suggest Hugh you put to one side your ingrained beliefs about those who argue a contrary view on this critical law - those who cogently propose an alternative view are not by that act moralising and pontificating.
Let me re-construct one part of my argument: I struggle to find any situation where abortion is medically indicated - that is, there are no medical indications such that the destruction of the life of an unborn child will by itself cure a disease of the mother, none.
Further, there are no psychiatric or psychological indicators where the carrying out of an abortion will cure the mother of those psychiatric or psychological conditions. Hugh, the evidence is that abortion is totally contra-indicated in these situations.
Doctors like lay people have a right to have their tools and practices regulated - how are doctors registered, for example?
MJS2122
Martin,
If you want to argue the case against abortion, to “struggle” with medical indications, to worry about the gender balance of those aborted - you go for it. This particular article is not about that subject. This article is about a different subject. In my discussion about this different subject, pontifications about the morality of abortion are irrelevant, just as the religion, ethnic background, first language, marital status, sexual orientation or gender of participants in the discussion is irrelevant.
Dear Hugh,
The following sentence demonstrates that I have indeed “got” the article: “The situation for individual women seeking an abortion and for doctors prepared to provide it is now totally untenable.”
A law that recognises explicitly the need to restrict abortion does not need attention from the Parliament. It is a good law.
That some find the restriction unpleasant or disagreeable does not make that restriction untenable.
Regards,
Martin
Martin,
You say that the various Queensland laws are aimed at restricting abortion - your earlier note mentioned “.. the most extraordinary of circumstances”. I’d say the laws (as they are written) are aimed at banning abortion outright, no exceptions. The passage of time and particularly the 1980s interpretations of those various laws, has created exceptions which make available (ie. no longer illegal) a number of different ‘possibilities’ - including, effectively, abortion on demand. Furthermore, modern medical technology (genetics, scanning, pharmacology) has rendered some parts of the dated law….. unresponsive (I can’t think of a exactly the right expression for this situation).
For some, the idea of abortion on demand when the law says the opposite is an untenable situation. For others, the idea that the laws don’t actually address the issue at hand is also untenable. I suggest that the way to resolve such untenable situations is not to hang on harder to what you’ve (not) got but to arrange for some attention from the Parliament.
All religions think they have a right to dictate to women and men.
However democracy means we should all make up our own minds what to do with our own body.
Men can have vasectomies and women should be able to choose IVF or abortion without the state interfering. People should have the right to die as they wish.
We should not force our opinion on others.
I agree with the main point of Andrew’s article, but I would like to point out that it is obfuscatory, rather as the current law on abortion is obfuscatory, to write about “genuinely held beliefs”. Howard used to use “sincerely held beliefs”. Both are nonsense phrases. You can express a view sincerely, but not hold one sincerely,. If you hold it, ipso facto you hold it “sincerely”. There are no insincerely held beliefs, only insincere statements of pretended ones; the same goes for ‘genuinely’. These phrases are weaselwords used to refer to irrationally held beliefs - those which are not really open to rational debate and scrutiny. Usually they are or derive from religious “convictions” [nice ambiguity there], but need not be.
Hugh - the law is right - it needs to be enforced! That so many are stopping their (apparently) unlawful activities suggests that some advisers are telling the clients that their actions are, well, unlawful.
That something is doable does not mean that it is best that it be done.
Pharmaceuticals can be good and bad - what happened with Thalidomide was a compelling warning - similarly with RU486 - the off-label uses are warned against on the initial manufacturer’s labels.,
Kerry - there is a qualitative difference between a vasectomy, a tubal ligation and an abortion. The first two do not involve the direct and deliberate killing of another human being. The last one always involves the death of a human being.
How many therapeutic or pharmacological treatments always and necessarily involve the killing of another human being?
Regards,
Martin
Martin,
If you believe the law is right then show some respect to Judge McGuire. Thalidomide is irrelevant.