Last chance on Abortion legislation

[Andrew Moody]

Just a reminder to everyone that this is our last chance to contact our MPs (and pray!) about the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 that was tabled yesterday.

If you want to email members of parliament you can find their details here:
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/menupage.cfm?menuId=1

Who knows, one of us might be able to say something that will stir the consciences of our leaders.
I'm sure we all know that the stakes may be high here for both our country and us individually.

[Jereth]

Thanks for the reminder, Andrew.

I've heard in the media that the conscience vote will occur within a month.

Euthanasia legislation is also coming before the Vic parliament soon. The proposed bill, put forward by the Greens, allows a lethal medication to be prescribed to terminally ill people on the opinion of 2 doctors. The good news is that this legislation is less likely to succeed, and the medical profession is by and large opposed to assisted suicide.

Jereth

[jwhkuan]

I attended today's briefing in Parliament by the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee.  We heard Prof. Graeme Clark and Gianna Jessen speak against the Bill - they were fantastic.  The Committee has released an open letter to all Victorian MPs and the ACL has urged Christians to act now by contacting their MPs and registering their concern.  Interestingly, Abp Freier signed the open letter.  

Debate begins tomorrow in the lower house, and as it is a conscience vote it is more likely that contacting your local MP will be more persuasive than usual.  You can send your five or six MPs (both houses) a polliemail from makeastand.org.au - enter your postcode and go!

In summary, the Bill as it stands will allow abortions for no reason at all other than the mother wanting one, up to 24 weeks.  It will almost certainly add to the 20,000 abortions performed annually in Victoria (75% of which are done in abortion clinics, not hospitals - ie. it's an industry and money-spinner).  82% of abortions in this State are done for psycho-social reasons - ie. perfectly physically healthy mother and foetus.  

[jwhkuan]

jwhkuan wrote:

I attended today's briefing in Parliament by the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee.  We heard Prof. Graeme Clark and Gianna Jessen speak against the Bill - they were fantastic.  The Committee has released an open letter to all Victorian MPs and the ACL has urged Christians to act now by contacting their MPs and registering their concern.  Interestingly, Abp Freier signed the open letter.  

praise God!

In summary, the Bill as it stands will allow abortions for no reason at all other than the mother wanting one, up to 24 weeks.  It will almost certainly add to the 20,000 abortions performed annually in Victoria (75% of which are done in abortion clinics, not hospitals - ie. it's an industry and money-spinner).

Yes, that's right. And any of these 75% of privately-done abortions may claim a Medicare benefit of $147.65*, in other words, tax payer money (yours and mine). Assuming every patient claims the benefit, that's in the order of $2 million per year of public health money being spent on the Victorian abortion industry [multiply by ~4 to get the Australian total]. The 25% done in public hospitals are of course totally tax payer funded.

This of course excludes things like pre and post-op consultations.

So if morals alone don't motivate you to oppose this bill, just think about the the <chink> <chink> and soon you will be filled with a righteous anger

Jereth

* note this benefit is for the (relatively) simple procedure of suction curettage used on early pregnancies. Those done at a later stage, such as beyond 20 weeks, require a more invasive procedure (such as a hysterotomy) which is more expensive.

[jwhkuan]

what the? why is this calling me wei-han???

[jwhkuan]

This issue could do with lots of prayer from eveyone - fortunately not every politician agrees with it and there are some notable names who will vote against it. Peter Costello came out strongly against it today (not that he can vote) which is really encouraging.

Extract from The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/national/baillieu-rejects-costellos-stance-on-abortion-20080907-4bi5.html

Mr Costello has made it clear he regards the Victorian bill as dangerous and would support abortion only in "very extreme circumstances" such as when the life of the mother was at risk.

"I can't believe that there is a proposal to make abortion legal as a matter of course up to 24 weeks when babies are born at less than 24 weeks," the former federal treasurer told The Weekend Australian.

"We will have a situation in this country when, in one part of a hospital, babies will be in humidicribs being kept alive, and in some other part it will be legal to be aborting them."

[jwhkuan]

jwhkuan wrote:

Interestingly, Abp Freier signed the open letter.  

This is a completely fantastic development.

The letter that carries our archbishop's signature says (among other great things) "as a matter of human solidarity with the unborn and with women, we are opposed on moral grounds to abortion as the taking of innocent and vulnerable human life."

This is a clear, unambiguous public statement from our archbishop and it is very good and very welcome.

Can I please encourage everyone with concerns about abortion to please write directly to the archbishop to thank him and to support him in this matter. I am certainly planning to do this. As I said when he made a public statement against euthanasia, we must equally strong in supporting our archbishop when he leads and represents us well as we can be critical when we feel he has allowed Christian belief to be misrepresented.

Today, I am very pleased to be a Melbourne Anglican. Today we should praise God for his servant, our archbishop. Today, our church has spoken up for the unborn.

Tim

[jwhkuan]

(And it seems that I've become Wei-Han too... Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Wei-Hans!)

[jwhkuan]

Previous post was by me (ANDREW) not jwhkuan!!! Tim Tim, we um broke your web page!!!

ANDREW (not jwhkuan)

[jwhkuan]

It's agent Smith -- he's replicating himself! arrrrrrrghhhh

[David Paton]

Hi All,

Yesterday the Abortion Bill was passed by the Lower House, but apparently it will be harder to get it passed in the Upper House, when it is debated in Parliament next month.

So it is still be a great idea to write to your representative MPs.  This website makes it ultra-easy to find out the mailing-address of the Members of Parliament in the Upper House in your region.

http://www.righttolife.com.au/Contact_MPs.aspx

Its been really encouraging to see lots of Christians praying for, and being vocal about this issue!

Dave Paton

[David Paton]

Whoops, I might have been wrong about the Bill being passed in the Lower House already.  I think they are still debating it and which amendments they plan to make to it.

David

[jwhkuan]

how strange... it seems that i'm wei-han as well! good thing i really am.. or am i?

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's note.]

I've pulled the last post from 'Agent Smith' as I don't think the language was helpful.

It's clear that many of us are very upset about the Abortion Bill passing but I don't think inflammatory language serves the debate or unborn children in any way. We need to channel our emotions in more constructive ways.

The post did contain useful information however, so if 'Agent Smith' wants to repost it using different words, that would be welcome.

Tim

[Jereth]

Tim, with all due respect

I saw "agent Smith's" post before it was censored. I disagree that it contained "inflammatory language". The objectionable part, I presume, is where he (or she) referred to abortion as murdering children.

I strongly believe that we are playing into the pro-abortionist's hands when we tone down or censor our language about abortion. Our society wants us to think of this gruesome, barbaric practice as a harmless clinical procedure and thus seeks to take it from the criminal code and disguise it in neutral medical terms and polite euphemisms.

This is not on, and we ought not buy into it. We cannot use civilised language to talk about something that is not civilised. We would not speak about the Jewish holocaust, or Pol Pot's massacre, or Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in polite dinner table conversation with good company. Nor should we discuss abortion in this way. It is the willful destruction of defenseless human life. The usual methods of abortion (eg. suction curettage) are nothing short of slaughter. And on the scale that it happens (80,000 per year nationwide, or 1 in 4 of all pregnancies) amounts to genocide. If people are scandalised when we speak this way, this is not because we are using inappropriate language -- it is because abortion is scandalous and so they ought to be scandalised.

Society wants to hide this thing away. Christians however have the mind of God, and if God detests this thing, then we ought to as well.

Jereth

Edit: just a note that in saying this I'm not condoning rudeness, malicious threats or violence upon people who perform abortions or people who support abortions.

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's note]

Hey Jereth,

Thanks for the note. The reason I pulled the post wasn't because it referred to abortion as child murder - I personally think this is a reasonable description - but rather because it claimed that was the title of the Bill, which was untrue and provocative.

As you know, I'm strongly opposed to abortion and think that both the practice and prevalence of abortion are scandalous. I too detest the shallow rationale that is often used to justify it. But we must argue by using facts and reason with an overwhelming demonstration of love for those who hold a different position. Mockery doesn't advance anything and I'm not keen for this forum to allow it.

Again, I would be more than happy for 'Agent Smith' to repost in better language.

Tim

[Andrew Stagg]

From "The Age"
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/right-to-choose-not-just-the-prerogative-of-one-group-20080911-4eoo.html?page=-1

One of the distinctive aspects of Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Bill is that it requires doctors who object to abortion to refer patients seeking it to medical colleagues who do not have such qualms. Other Australian jurisdictions that have decriminalised abortion have not gone so far in constraining rights of conscience, and this provision of the bill is deeply contentious. It has found critics even among those who otherwise agree that abortion should be decriminalised.

This is an interesting article that stands out from the 'it's time' theme from most of the rest of the stuff I've read (in both papers). I didn't know that they were going to add this clause to the legislation too. This clause (if I've read the article right, and if the article is accurate) attempts to force doctors who disagree with abortion to become involved in the process against their will. It's not enough anymore for the doctor to be allowed to say I don't agree with this - go find somebody else. It's as if the state has decided that abortion is such an absolute moral right that they need to force doctors to support it by writing out a referral.

Personally I'm depressed by the absolute breadth of this legislation. I'm depressed by the militancy of some of those who were arguing for it so stridently. I'm depressed that people were arguing that they needed 24 weeks, I'm saddened that after that you just go out and get a second doctor anyway (did I understand that bit right?) and you carry on. I'm staggered that people were arguing against independent counseling - arguing that it's a really bad idea. I'm upset that I've seen folks on the telly overcome by joy that the legislation passed lower house.  I'm sorry I'm ranting a bit, but I'm just staggered by the whole thing. I find it really depressing.

[Jereth]

Tim,

Thanks for the clarification mate. Good on you for the way you've fought this evil -- you have my admiration, support and prayers.

Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

Andrew Stagg wrote:

Personally I'm depressed by the absolute breadth of this legislation. I'm depressed by the militancy of some of those who were arguing for it so stridently. I'm depressed that people were arguing that they needed 24 weeks, I'm saddened that after that you just go out and get a second doctor anyway (did I understand that bit right?) and you carry on. I'm staggered that people were arguing against independent counseling - arguing that it's a really bad idea. I'm upset that I've seen folks on the telly overcome by joy that the legislation passed lower house.  I'm sorry I'm ranting a bit, but I'm just staggered by the whole thing. I find it really depressing.

Hey Andrew,

It's not quite over yet. I think it was the day before the Abortion Bill passed in the Lower House that the Upper House voted down the Physician Assisted Dying Bill (ie. euthanasia). So, it seems the Upper House may have a different view on matters of life and death.

Which means, we can still use this time to write in to Upper House members and urge them to represent us when the Bill comes to them.

Tim

[Jereth]

Read something in the paper yesterday -- in the upper House it's something like 19 for, 16 against and 5 undecided. Vote is next month. Furthermore, if they manage to get an amendment through to lower the time limit to 20 weeks, the Greens (3 votes out of the 19) may withdraw their support -- what the Greens are really after is unlimited abortion up to 40 weeks, 24 weeks is a painful compromise for them, and 20 weeks will be intolerable.

So yes, much prayer and lobbying is in order. Go to either Make a Stand website (Australian Christian lobby) or the one mentioned above by Dave Paton.

Jereth