“Jonathan Green, the editor of Crikey, asked for a piece on this topic, so here it is. Read the comments - quite hysterical.”

Heavens, what a sensitive little flower he is. If he thinks the above comments are hysterical, I guess he hasn’t read much from the anti-choice mob.

Despite this bigotry, Merriwa, in common with many other small country towns, has a declining population.

Classic fail.

And if I have an implacable moral objection, shouldn’t I have the courage of my convictions and take whatever penalty applies (Thomas Moore style) and in that case what penalty applies? There doesn’t seem to be a penalty in the Act.

Can I ask you to address the practicality of any putative restriction? Information on how to obtain an abortion is freely available in Victoria. If a doctor refuses to refer what will happen. Assuming the woman doesn’t seek some kind of unspecified redress, his involvement would end there. She would no doubt go off to obtain information from one of the many advertised family planning centres which do provide advice on abortion.

The real practical effect of this Act is to make doctors tell disclose to their patients a strong conflict of interest. It doesn’t even stop them counseling against abortion, just makes them disclose that part of their reasoning is a moral judgment. Perhaps we should be asking why and Act is required to make doctors disclose this obvious and significant conflict when ethically and professionally they should do so anyway?

If the clinician has his own ideological axe to grind on the matter, and when it trumps any consideration of risks versus advantages, how can he be trusted to comply with what you just said?

And “dictated as legal” is a contradiction, unless “legal” means “mandatory” which in this case it doesn’t.

That is disgraceful and in my view immoral.

(Edit)

I suggest that there are many more doctors uncomfortable by our crazy abortion laws than believe in the insane rejection of the recommended vaccination protocols which each clinician must take into account the risks versus advantages for the individual and absolutely not take into account the community benefits.

I don’t think so. We expect professional duty of care to override the doctor’s personal opinions, for good reason: medical care is a right just as freedom of conscience is. As long as doctors are not actually required to perform abortions their freedom of conscience is adequately protected. Dissent is not being “silenced”; there is a difference between suppressing someone’s opinion and saying that a person should have ready access to an alternative view if they so choose.

I must say this kind of anti-choice junk puts what I previously assumed to be Sinclair’s libertarianism in a different, less flattering light.

No it isn’t difficult to imagine. That’s the problem. A campaigner in disguise as a service provider might simply say “Let’s not make any hasty decisions until we’ve explored all the options.”

It’s then easy to manipulate the frightened patient by saying “Why don’t you sound convinced?” when she says she wants abortion, and “That sounds very decisive and strong” when she wavers in the other direction.

A doctor who makes it clear to all that she/he is a consciencious objector, would avoid this problem. And would also do a more credible job of objecting conscienciously.

It’s concerned with advertising by pregnancy-services clinics, rather than advice by GPs during consultation. But the principle is sound, it finds a good balance, and could be adapted. Oblige consciencious objectors to state up front to all their patients that they will not help with abortion.

After all, wartime consciencious objectors are expected to have shown some visible sign of pacifism, not to suddenly come out of the closet the moment the conscription letter appears.

A sign saying “This clinic does not assist with abortion” could work with the same degree of visibility as the other sign that says “Payment strictly at time of consultation please.”

If I was a doctor and believed that organ transplants were morally wrong should I allowed to provide advice based on my morals rather than my professional knowledge? Should I impose my moral view on someone who came to me for professional advice?

Further, I would argue that Davidson’s s116 point is subtly but deliberately wrong. Section 8(1) (B) does not prohibit the doctor freely exercising his religion, which is what the constitution says. H can freely refuse to do a thing that offends his religion. It does stop him using his position as a registered health practitioner to impose his religion upon another person who, pointedly, does not share his view.

The most telling part of this piece is the statement that “Except for a small article in Quadrant magazine….the first anniversary of the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act passed quietly this month”. Is that because the Victorian Community at large does not share a narrow, male conservative view?

Why not simply come out and say you oppose abortion. Nobody could serious suggest referral to a doctor is a violation of s116, and it is doubtful the High Court would accept that enlivening of the external affairs power in this context. What happened to the libertarian commitment to localised decisionmaking anyway or parliamentary sovereign over and above the new world order. Just shows you what a fake Davidson is…

As for the Author’s reliance on the section 116 of the Australian Constitution I am afraid he has mis-read the case law on this section. We do not have an ‘Establishment clause’ ala the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rather, the High Court has held that the government can conscript a citizen to fight, notwithstanding their religion’s prohibition on violence. Likewise, in the DOGS case the High Court held the Commonwealth can fund private religious schools and not fall foul of section 116 (as opposed to the US where such actions would violate the Establishment clause). Only where the Commonwealth actually prevents a person from practicsing their religion - rather than merely force them to do something contrary to a relgious tenant - is the action likely to be unconstitutional. (I don’t support such a narrow reading of section 116 but, without a referendum on the issue, there are only 7 people in Australia who can change the situation).

Indeed, the High Court has said repeatedly that section 116 only prevents the Commonwealth establishing an official religion (but it can support, or not support, one or more existing religions); it cannot impose a religious test on APS employees (although morning prays in Parliament are OK).

So, contrary to the Author’s views, the Commonwealth (or Victoria) can certainly compel a doctor to recommend another doctor willing to perform an abortion and not fall foul of section 116.

If the Author is looking for a way to prevent a government from forcing doctors to perform or recommend abortions he is looking at the right document but the wrong section. Section 51(xxiiiA) prevents the ‘civil conscription’ of doctors and dentists (and perhaps nurses). However, the prohibition only extends to the Commonwealth and, as this is Victorian legislation, there is little room to challenge the legislation.

And, finally, the common law position is a mess, not an ideal. It is different in NSW, QLD and, until recently VIC. There is no settled precedent and the High Court could, if a case on abortion came before it, set abortion law back 40 years in those states which have no legalised abortion.

[And, for those who oppose a federal charter of human rights, you cannot call upon a right to freedom of conscious or speech or thought. They aren’t protected nationally].

I would only add that Davidson’s argument presupposes that the provision’s tangential engagemnt with a doctor’s freedom of conscience overrides a woman’s right to exercise control over her own body … a priority with which I disagree.

Anyone reading the actual clause can see that the above statement (and many others in the article) is nonsense. Doctors are not compelled to give up their religion or religious beliefs. Nor are they required to perform a procedure or even refer the patient for a procedure which is against their religious beliefs. Merely to refer the patient to someone who does not share the same conscientious objection.

Just to be clear, this clause DOES NOT force doctors to refer women for abortion.

It requires them to refer their patient to a doctor who will provide objective information on all options so that the patient can make an informed decision. One that is based on unbiased information and their own circumstances, not one based on someone else’s belief system.