Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Lawyer sets record straight on NSW crime of abortion

The decision made by NSW Parliament earlier this month to derail a reform bill that would have taken abortion out of the state Crimes Act was marred in a campaign of misinformation, according to one lawyer.

user iconMelissa Coade 30 May 2017 The Bar
briefcase
expand image

Anna Kerr from the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has described the rejection of a bill to decriminalise abortion in NSW as the being result of a political campaign to disperse misinformation about the proposed law reform.

There was a lot of misinformation put out that this was about late-term termination, such isn’t the case.

In fact, by making abortions more accessible [there is likely to be] fewer late-term interventions,” Ms Kerr said.

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly about the 24 to 14 vote down of the bill proposed by Greens MLC Dr Mehreen Faruqi in May, the lawyer set the record straight about the current status quo of the criminal law in NSW and the implications it has for women.

According to the 100-year-old law, women who access abortion services and their doctors are liable for imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years.

“There is also quite a lot of misunderstanding in this area, when you talk about [abortion]. Because people think that it’s already legal – they don’t know really what this whole debate is about,” Ms Kerr said.

“I think women really need to realise this is quite an important issue. Although it may seem remote from some women’s lives, because they have this access, for many women in our community it is still an inaccessible healthcare,” she said.

The co-chair of the ALHR women and girls subcommittee said the ramifications were worse for regional women, who faced additional barriers accessing health services.  

For example, abortion is not covered by the public healthcare system and women who do elect to undergo the medical procedure need about $500 on hand.

Ms Kerr added that by keeping abortion in the state’s Crimes Act, NSW politicians were acting contrary to international law and the modern position of most other states and territories in Australia.

Citing articles 12 and 16 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the fundamental issue is really about women’s self-determination, she said.

“It’s very important that women own a position to determine their own medical care and make their own choices.

“These provisions that are in the Crimes Act were drafted before women had the vote. Things have moved on, and that legislation is really out of step with community attitudes,” Ms Kerr said.

“These decisions are for women to make, and it’s a private decision that they should make in consultation with their doctors and families. But it’s their decision, not the decision of the men in Parliament.”

Ms Kerr went on to note the three objectives of the Abortion Law Reform (Miscellaneous Acts Amendment) Bill 2016 were to declassify abortion as a crime in NSW; compel those doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion, to refer patients to other health professionals; and create a 150-metre exclusion zone from protest around abortion clinics.

By blocking law reforms to take abortion out of the Crimes Act, the NSW Parliament was perpetuating ambiguity about the lawfulness of the medical procedure in the state, she said.

“It really was a bit of housekeeping to get those [provisions] removed from the Crimes Act.”

“Women take these rights for granted, and we are seeing [other] various services for women being dismantled at a rapid rate.

“But I think the wider community’s still not aware the extent to which that’s happening,” she said.

In Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT have all enacted legislation to legalise the medical procedure.

Tags
Comments (10)
  • Avatar
    I don't agree with all of the points made by Rita. However it is telling that she makes her argument more cogently than the other commentators here. There is obviously a boundary to individual freedom and we should be able to have a respectful argument about where the line is drawn.
    0
  • Avatar
    Rita points out one of modern society's worst legal fictions. And while Rita may come from a 'Christian' perspective, abortion is based on a libertarian world view. One view says 'me first', the other view says 'others first'. And Australian policy and law is headings down the 'me first' path full throttle.
    0
  • Avatar
    Rita Joseph wrote:
    Lethal child abuse of small defenseless human beings in the 'privacy' of an abortion "choice" is everybody's business.

    Sorry Rita, but my bodily autonomy (i.e. the ability to do what I want with MY body) is none of your business. Please take your extreme Christian views elsewhere and not within an abortion argument.
    3
    • Avatar
      Our autonomy is limited by respect for the rights of others and for the security of all. The law must not be hi-jacked by pro-abortion propaganda that encourages and facilitates elective abortion of the smallest and most defenceless members of the human family.

      Autonomous rights cannot be lawfully separated from the natural context of responsibilities to other more vulnerable human beings in our power and under our care.

      In human solidarity, the relationship between duties and rights remains valid for all human beings, including the distressed pregnant woman with specific problems. Together we work the problems—we don’t kill her child.

      Our communities have a duty to provide these mothers and their children with ongoing care in a safe environment. These distressed mothers' personal needs and anxieties can and should be addressed by non-violent means.

      0
      • Avatar
        Rita, I am starting to understand your points of view a bit more. My concern, however, is your view that the rights of an unborn child override and are greater than all other rights. What do we do in a situation where a woman is raped and is pregnant as a result? Are you saying we force her to carry the child? My point is how do you balance these rights? Where is the line between protecting the right to life and taking away a woman's right to autonomy over her body? Why should the right of an unborn child be greater than that of the woman carrying the child? Does it not open a legal argument floodgate, enabling politicians to legislate over what people can and cannot do with their bodies?
        0
    • Avatar
      Mary that is a very old tired response.... abortion destroys something with different DNA to the mother.
      -1
      • Avatar
        How, exactly, is a person's right to control their body and have autonomy over the same "a very old tired response" exactly?
        1
  • Avatar
    One struggles to understand why this is still a live issue in 21st century Australia, notably NSW and Qld who still make early non therapeutic termination a crime unlike other States who abandoned this law years ago. It is simply a matter of women's self determination and access to proper health services without fear of prosecution.It is not a matter in which the State should have any say at all. It is a matter of choice .If this procedure offends your morals, you are free not to access it but get off everyone else's case.
    2
    • Avatar
      The term "therapeutic termination" is a cover-up for a lethal procedure targeting a small daughter or son being nurtured and protected in her/ his mother's womb.

      There are public duties as well as 'private' rights.

      Lethal child abuse of small defenseless human beings in the 'privacy' of an abortion "choice" is everybody's business.

      Privacy cannot be invoked to conceal human right abuse of children, including violations of their rights to prenatal care, survival and development. Human rights law has consistently rejected the right to privacy as a defense against human rights violations by adults in positions of power over children in positions of dependency.

      No human being has ownership and killing rights over another human being, no matter how small, or dependent or troublesome or 'unwanted'.

      0
  • Avatar
    It's telling that the author on this article does not make any mention of the small human beings, small daughter and sons who are the victims of abortion.

    It is sad that pro-abortion ideology has had so much success in peddling the dogma that all pregnancies are childless and all abortions are victimless.

    Ultrasound technology, together with biology, embryology, fetal surgery, and examination of the human remains of an abortion, all tell us that the victim targeted for abortion is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.

    True justice requires that elective abortions be recognized and treated not as harmless, idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.

    The author is wrong too in claiming that "NSW politicians were acting contrary to international law".

    Under Australia's solemn human rights treaty obligations, the right to life of every human being "without exception" is “the supreme right” and “basic to all human rights”.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has "recognized" that every child is entitled to "special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth" (See UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child; also UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).

    Under the universal human rights principle of inherency, the child’s rights pre-exist birth – they inhere in the child’s humanity. “Every human being has the inherent right to life…” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 (1).

    Rights are not predicated on size or seniority, or viability.

    To be eligible for membership of the human family, one has only to be a human.


    1
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!