|
ACT Right to Life AssociationN E W S L E T T E R |
Spring (September - November) 1998
Disability, Abortion and the
Quest for Perfection
President's Report
Annual General Meeting
Suicide Pill on the Way
Right to Reply
Osborne Introduces Bill
News In Brief
Life on the Web
Special Supplement - Osborne Bill Passed
Disability, Abortion and the Quest for Perfection
What follows is an edited transcript of an interview where the Uniting Church's Victorian manager of justice and social responsibilities, Ms Elizabeth Hastings, was interviewed by Keri Phillips on ABC Radio 2CN (24 August 1998) on abortions performed to eliminate unborn children with disabilities.
Although Ms Hastings does not argue that all abortions on the basis of a disability should stop, she does raise some interesting points as part of her complaint that abortion of disabled unborn children is accepted almost without question in today's society.
Elizabeth Hastings: .. disability is a part of ordinary experience, so now there's this idea that you can eliminate it perhaps through abortion or gene engineering and so on and so forth, but of course you've only got to walk out in the street and you might get another disability. And while this idea of elimination is going on, there is also the fact that those who live with disabilities are having their whole lives undervalued and questioned through this sort of system. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Keri Phillips: I do see what you're trying to say.
EH: It's very distressing to listen to people tell me that it would have been better had I not lived. Mine is not a genetic disability by the way, but people don't usually make those fine distinctions when they're making these remarks.
KP: And as if one disability were somehow more legitimate than another.
EH: Well at the moment that seems to be the case but ...
KP: You acquire a disability that's OK, if you're born with one that's not so OK.
EH: That's right.
KP: There will be many, many people listening who have had genetic testing and decided not to continue with the pregnancy because the results were negative and they will tell you that those reasons are simply that they feel they couldn't cope, that they wouldn't be able to be the parent they should be. Why do you think people feel like that?
EH: Well, because-partly because people with disabilities have been so marginalised in our community its still a shock to come across somebody. A lot of people have never even communicated with somebody who has a disability, therefore it's an area of complete ignorance and uncertainty for them. Now that's partly to do with the way ...
KP: Fear of the unknown you're saying.
EH: Fear of the unknown, yes absolutely. So that would be one
of the processes. Now I want it to be understood that I'm not saying nobody should
make this choice. I am saying people should be very, very thoughtful about what they
think they're doing when they are making this choice. And, so one reason I think that
people feel that they couldn't be a good parent is because they have no experience with
people with disabilities in their ordinary lives already. Another reason is that
there is not sufficient support in our society, that carers, people who look after people
with disabilities do not get sufficient support and people with disabilities who could,
with a little support, live independently, don't get enough of that either. And, in
some cases, people do struggle very badly, so that would be another reason.
But I think we also live in a world in which we have this constant tension between our
struggle for perfection or our striving for perfection expressed in all kinds of ways from
cosmetic surgery onwards, and our unwillingness to deal with the reality of life.
And that means that we want to avoid that which looks hard and difficult and perhaps a bit
ugly.
KP: Elizabeth, you must have a very hard time with the notion of producing a large number of embryos for instance, removing them, testing them genetically, and choosing the embryo that you think is the best of the bunch and putting it back and having that baby. This is the kind of thing that is going to be on offer in the very near future.
EH: That's right, yes, and I think it's a matter of great ethical and spiritual significance and debate.
KP: And do you hear any evidence of that debate, or is it just rolling along?
EH: Well, my experience is that it's rolling along. I hear it taken for granted. That that's what we will do. And that if we can eliminate these disabilities and perhaps the wrong colour hair or whatever it is that we want to eliminate, that will be fine. What I don't hear is people asking those who live in this world with bodies and minds that may not be right up to cosmetic scratch, what their life experience is like and who they are and what value do they get out of life and give into life. That doesn't happen at all.
KP: Yes, and I suppose we also have to ask ourselves what defines a disability-- a rotten personality? a lack of a sense of humour?
EH: That's right. Some of these things are not going to be testable beforehand. But then you see, where are the limits? I think it's a very good question that you ask. If we start eliminating certain things that we can see are genetic problems, where do we draw the line? Do we say, well this person's got genetic propensity to breast cancer when she's about 50 so we'll abort that foetus?
KP: Wouldn't like to have somebody go through that. Yes, we don't know the answers to these questions. Your point this morning is: talk about it.
EH: Absolutely. And don't just talk about it amongst those who don't have disabilities, but engage those families and those individuals who live in a world that contains this reality, see what you might learn from us.
KP: Elizabeth Hastings, thanks very much for speaking with us this morning. It's been thought provoking.
This year has been a very busy one for the Association. We have had two elections which have severely taxed our limited resources. Considerable time and effort was required to canvass both local and Federal politicians on their stand regarding abortion and euthanasia, collate their responses and then to publish them. You may have seen the local results on our web site.
We have also been busy capitalising on the introduction of the Osborne Bill into the Legislative Assembly. While this Bill has generated much discussion and media interest, the facts are seldom reported. Accordingly, the Association conducted a mail-out to members informing them of the terms and conditions of the Bill and urging them to write to their MLA's.
This could not have been achieved without the numerous volunteers who helped out through these hectic times. The Association was fortunate to have many keen and energetic people on the Council last year and most have decided to remain on the Council for 1998/99. I would like to thank them all, both past and present, for their tremendous help over the year and I am looking forward to working with them as we continue our pro-life battle in the new year.
Nicola Pantos
President
The Association held its Annual General Meeting on the evening of Tuesday, 20 October. The current council was largely re-elected, except for some long serving members who decided it was time to step down.
Margaret O'Donovan, after ten years active service on the Council, a number of these as president during the turbulent times in the early 1990's when we campaigned strongly against the introduction of a private abortion clinic, decided to step down to pursue other interests. A motion of thanks for Margaret was enthusiastically passed. Lynne Pezzullo is also taking some time off, but we hope to see her back very soon.
The Council was pleased to recruit a new member, Mary Joseph, who has a strong pro-life background.
Our guest speaker for the night was Sydney barrister Michael McAuley, who spoke about developments in abortion law, the Osborne Bill and a number of negligence cases taken against abortion doctors.
Extracts from his interesting and entertaining speech will appear in the next newsletter
On Monday, 21 September, the ACT Branch of the NSW Voluntary Euthanasia Society hosted a talk by Dr Philip Nitschke, Australia's loudest campaigner for euthanasia. The talk was held at the Australian National University on the anniversary of the death of Mr Bob Dent, the first person to receive a lethal injection under the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws and included the ACT Minister for Health, Mr Michael Moore, MLA.
Dr Nitschke talked about his - now failed - bid to unseat Kevin Andrews, MP, from his Melbourne seat of Menzies in the October Federal Election where Dr Nitschke ran as an independent. He went on to describe developments in the formulation of a suicide pill. Dr Nitshke's work on the suicide pill will lead to a 'kitchen-manufactured' preparation of commonly available drugs which a terminally ill person can use, with minimal facilities, to make a lethal dose.
Continuing our rebuttal of pro-abortion slogans…
Slogan #2
What about rape? Incest? Deformities?
One method of dealing with this slogan is by applying the same logic to born persons. Ask the pro-abortion advocate whether he or she favours the death penalty. If society does not kill the guilty rapist, then why should we kill the innocent child resulting from rape? You could also ask the person to imagine two babies, one conceived within a loving marriage and the other conceived as a result of a brutal rape. If these two babies were placed side by side could anyone be able to identify the child conceived through rape? No? So why decide one baby should die simply because of the manner of conception?
In the case of incest, as well as applying a similar line of reasoning, it may help to point out that all abortion does is to help conceal the crime so that the perpetrator can continue his predatory ways.
Due to the traumatic nature of rape and incest, conception rarely results. Only about 2% of abortions are performed for medical reasons and the vast majority of these have nothing to do with rape. Social policies should aim to defend both victims of the crime, mother and child. Advocating abortion simply subjects the mother to yet another harsh invasion of her body and condemns the baby to a gruesome death because of the father's crime. That is hardly a compassionate, just or humane response.
So what about abortion in the case of deformities? Ask whether handicapped people have less of a right to live than those who are perfectly healthy? Generally the answer will be "No". So deciding which preborn babies will live or die based on whether they have handicaps or not is not just inconsistent, it is discriminatory. Further, whenever one group of people decides that another group is somehow inferior they are applying eugenicist thinking.
And this century has provided more than enough evidence of the tragedy that type of thinking can cause! t
On Wednesday, 26 August, Independent MLA Paul Osborne introduced the Health Regulation (Abortions) Bill 1998 into the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The Association welcomed the Bill as it would restrict the number of abortions and provide for a number of sensible safeguards on the practice of abortion.
President of the ACT Right to Life Association, Nicola Pantos, said "I cannot imagine that anyone would object to regulations to ensure that women have informed consent and independent counselling or that anyone would object to a cooling-off period so that women don't make a hasty decision they may regret. Providing women with information can only empower them."
"This Bill goes beyond the usual polemics of the abortion debate - these are the minimum standards anyone would expect to be applied to the abortion industry," Ms Pantos said.
The Bill will ensure that:
Although opposition to the restrictive aspects of the Bill was expected, perhaps the most
surprising aspect of the reaction to the Bill was the opposition to the information and
cooling-off provisions.
Criticism of Osborne Bill
A number of pro-life groups have also expressed concern about the content of the Osborne Bill.
Speaking at the ACT Right to Life Association Annual General Meeting on 20 October 1998, president of the Association, Nicola Pantos, explained the Association's support for the Bill.
"The Bill does ... allow abortions in some circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. While I and the Council are naturally not happy that any abortions are allowed to be performed in the ACT, it is not politically realistic to expect that we can stop all abortions in one move. The best we can do - and this is demonstrated by the experience of pro-life groups around the world - is make incremental restrictions on access to abortion.
"Whilst we have the support of the members of the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, some pro-life groups have criticised this Association, either publicly or privately, for supporting the Osborne Bill. The basis of some of the criticism is their claims that (1) abortion is a crime and that we should convince the authorities to enforce the law, and (2) the Osborne Bill condones abortion and is therefore immoral.
"Enforcing the law sounds so easy, yet since Justice Menhennit provided grounds for legal abortion in a judgement he gave in 1969, convincing the authorities to enforce the law has become almost impossible, both for this Association and for our critics. Although over one million Medicare-funded abortions have been performed since 1974, the last successful criminal prosecution of an abortionist that I am aware of was in 1981.
"Whilst abortion remains in the Crimes Act in the ACT, that law has been watered down over the past twenty years by a succession of judicial interpretations, with the result that there is little practical legal restriction to the availability of abortion. Consequently the abortion industry has been functioning in the ACT for a number of years unchecked. The Bill proposed by Paul Osborne would actually restrict current abortion practices.
"The Association has supported Mr Osborne's moves to establish some basic requirements of the industry and I believe that, whilst the Bill may not be ideal, the passing of this legislation would be a dramatic improvement on the current situation and a definite step in the right direction. I and the Council do not condone abortion, but believe that if we are given the opportunity to reduce the number of abortions performed in the ACT - to save lives - then we have to grab that chance with both hands and give the legislative initiative our full support."
Unborn with disabilities would be protected
Another disturbing development is the opposition declared to the Bill because it will, since it stops almost all abortions after 12 weeks, have the practical effect of stopping abortions for reason of disability.
Reported comments from a number of public figures criticising the Osborne Health Regulation (Abortions) Bill reveal a disturbing lack of tolerance for people with a disability, said president of the ACT Right to Life Association, Nicola Pantos.
ACT Minister for Health, Michael Moore MLA, and Canberra Hospital's Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, David Ellwood, were reported in The Canberra Times (28 August 1998) criticising the Bill because it would have the effect of reducing the number of unborn children with a disability who could be aborted. This is despite the fact that current law does not specifically allow for abortions on the grounds of a detected disability.
"A civilised society is about sharing our common humanity and acknowledging the value of all the people in our community", Ms Pantos said. "Our politicians and health professionals should be in the forefront of the defence of marginalised groups -- not excluding them from our society."
"Prenatal diagnosis, with the intent of selectively aborting unborn children because they have a disability, is just blatant discrimination. It doesn't just mean the end of many unborn children detected with a disability, but that the lives of the people who slip through are devalued too."
"Our society often disables people because we do not tolerate or cater for those who are different. But disabilities should be treated, understood and accommodated, not feared.
"The assumption is so easily made by some that the life of a person with a disability is so awful that it would be better that they were never born. But who is really able to determine whether an unborn child, with or without disability, will have a good life or not?"
ACTRTLA president Nicola Pantos addressed the Pregnancy Support Service at their in-service day in Young on Monday, 7 September. Ms Panto's talk on what it means to be pro-life was well received, and indicates the important role that the Association can play in offering friendship and support to pro-life groups in the Canberra region.
Women Hurt by Abortion brought US post abortion syndrome expert, Terry Selby, to Canberra for a workshop for counsellors on September 20 and 21, and a public lecture on the evening of Tuesday, 22 September at Canberra Hospital. Mr Selby ran an innovative and interactive workshop and, according to one participant, "Terry is just brilliant!"
In a bad week for euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, Kevin
Andrews MP was returned in the Federal election, the Northern Territory referendum
rejected statehood and a researcher criticised the Northern Territory's former euthanasia
law as a failure. One of the authors of an article recently published in the English
medical journal, The Lancet, described the old Northern Territory euthanasia legislation
as having been 'a failure' (Adelaide Advertiser, 6 October 1998). Professor David
Kissane from the University of Melbourne, who co-wrote the study of the operation of the
NT's euthanasia laws said "… this sort of legislation is very difficult to get
right and doesn't protect the vulnerable people involved". The other authors
were Dr Annette Street of La Trobe University and Dr Nitschke.
The ACTRTLA has had a web site up for a little over a year now and many requests for information have been satisfied by referring the requesters to the site. Efforts are being made to keep the information held on the site up-to-date and we would welcome your feedback in that regard.
As well as the ACTRTLA site, there are many other pro-life sites
both in Australia and around the world. Those members who have Internet access may
be interested in browsing some of the following. (Please note that the Association
does not necessarily endorse or recommend any of these sites.)
Special supplement
Osborne Bill passed by the Assembly!
Just after 3am on Thursday, 26 November 1998, Independent MLA Paul Osborne’s Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act 1998 was passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The new legislation provides women considering abortion with a minimum standard of information, as well as a cooling off period of three days. The final vote for the Bill was 11 votes to 6.
New legislation welcomed
ACT Right to Life Association president, Nicola Pantos, welcomed the new legislation as a positive step forward in the struggle to inform women about abortion.
"Although the Association would like to see an end to abortion tomorrow, that is not possible, so we will do all we can to make sure that all women facing a crisis pregnancy are fully informed of the risks associated with an abortion and of the support services that are available in the ACT to assist them during a crisis pregnancy."
By being informed, many women may decide not to go ahead with an abortion, thereby saving many unborn children.
New legislation from Osborne and Humphries
While a majority of MLAs had privately indicated that they would support Mr Osborne’s Health Regulation (Abortions) Bill 1998, support in the Assembly quickly evaporated after the Bill was introduced (see page 4 of this Spring 1998 newsletter for details of this Bill).
Therefore, after working closely with one of the other prominent pro-lifers in the Assembly, Attorney General Gary Humphries, Mr Osborne withdrew this first version of the Bill and introduced the second version, the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Bill into the ACT Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, 18 November.
The major change in the new Bill was that it left out the most controversial part of the first Bill - the part that would have tightened the current practice of the law by only allowing abortions in the first trimester under certain specified circumstances.
Although the pro-life coalition in the Assembly refused to agree to further amendments to the new Bill, a number of provisions, such as the requirement for parental consent to an abortion for women who were not yet 18 years old, were defeated in the Assembly debate on 25 and 26 November.
Content of the legislation
Despite amendments, the new Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act 1998 has a number of important provisions, which include:
a) women considering an abortion must receive a copy of an information pamphlet, including information on the medical risks of abortion, and which must also include information such as photographs of an unborn
child at various intervals;
(b) the information pamphlet will be written by an independent seven member committee largely formed of medical staff nominated by the two public hospitals, Canberra Hospital and Calvary Hospital;
(c) once information has been provided, a woman cannot access an abortion for 72 hours;
(d) consent to an abortion must be obtained in writing from the woman involved;
(e) quarterly statistical reports on abortions will be made publicly available; and
(f) the right to conscientiously object to performing, assisting, counselling, or referring for abortion is protected.
Historical context
Looked at in historical context, the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act 1998 is very important. It is perhaps the most important Australian pro-life legislative victory on abortion since the defeat in the Federal Parliament of the McKenzie-Lamb Bill - an attempt to legalise abortion in the ACT in 1973, and the enactment of the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance 1978, which restricted abortions in the ACT to public hospitals.
More details will be published in the next newsletter.
Supplement to the Spring 1998 ACT Right to Life Association Newsletter
