Dissenting report from Senator Canavan, Senator Antic and Senator Babet
1.1The Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 seeks to ensure that this fundamental human right is extended to those unfortunate babies who are born alive following an abortion procedure.
1.2Australia has committed to every child having the right to life, every child having access to health care and reducing the deaths of babies. This commitment was formalised in 1990, when we ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 6 of that convention, states that ‘Australia recognises: … that every child has the inherent right to life.’ And ‘Australia: … shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.’ Further, Article 24 of that convention, states that ‘Australia recognises: … the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.’ And ‘Australia: … shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.’ And ‘Australia: … shall pursue full implementation of this right and (specifically) shall take appropriate measures … to diminish infant and child mortality.’[1]
1.3Although the intention of an abortion is to end the life of the foetus, there are occasions when a baby is born alive. Given that our nation has signed up to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services, support for this bill should be uncontroversial.
1.4Some submitters and witnesses claim that this bill diminishes the human rights of mothers and medical practitioners, others claim it is an attack on women’s freedom of choice and anti-abortion and others claim the bill incorrectly perpetuates a myth that children are born alive as a result of abortions.
1.5This position is at complete odds with the data. The record shows that more than 700 babies have been born alive following an abortion over the past decade, or more than one a week.
1.6And this data is just from two states (Victoria and Queensland) so the number would be much more across the whole country. If babies are born alive in other states to the same proportion that they are in Victoria in Queensland, it is likely that two babies are born alive following an abortion procedure every week in Australia.
1.7The submission from Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, states that:
…the Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist… The Bill stigmatises pregnant people, demonises healthcare providers and is founded on two fundamental misunderstandings. First, the Bill misunderstands the realities of healthcare provision in Australia. Second, the Bill misunderstands the normative content and scope of the international human rights law standards it purports to advance.[2]
1.8The bill quite simply seeks to dispel the belief that a child who is born alive as a result of an abortion is not a child and thus does not have any rights. As stated by Mrs Wendy Francis from the Australian Christian Lobby:
This isn't a debate about abortion; this is a debate about whether or not the baby who is still alive following a medical procedure on its biological mother carries the same rights as other prematurely delivered babies.[3]
1.9The committee has published 154 submissions and a large volume of material associated with coordinated campaigns. Members and senators also received thousands of emails from people in support of this bill. A public hearing was held in Canberra on 8 June 2023.
1.10To demonstrate that live births do occur as a result of terminations. A number of submitters referenced the case of baby Jessica Jane in the Northern Territory which was subject to a coronial inquest. Mrs Wendy Francis from the Australian Christian Lobby, recounted the circumstances of this case:
Following being aborted, Jessica Jane was born alive and placed on a metal kidney dish in an empty room for approximately 80 minutes until she died. According to Nurse Williams, who delivered her, Jessica Jane, although premature, was apparently healthy, had no apparent abnormalities and her vital signs were relatively good. She weighed 515 grams. When the doctor who authorised the abortion was informed of the live birth and that the baby's Apgar scores were strong, his only response was to say, 'So?' The nurse checked on her every 10 to 15 minutes and observed crying and movement, but the baby was left to die where she lay. The coroner stated that after an hour her heartbeat and breathing slowed until death.[4]
1.11All States and Territories have legislation that enables termination of pregnancy (abortion).States allow termination up to 20 weeks (WA - with a proposal to increase this to 23 weeks), 22 weeks (Qld, NSW & SA), or 24 weeks (VIC & NT), with the exception on Tasmania (16 weeks) and the ACT which has no gestational limit. Each State has additional requirements which must be met in the case of later-term pregnancy terminations.
1.12A summary of each states’ legislation can be found in the Appendix to this report. However, according to Dr Elvis Seman:
…only New South Wales and South Australia have abortion laws which ensure that babies born live after abortion are afforded treatment equal to all other babies in Australia[5]… My understanding of both bills is that what they offer will be translated into a national standard. I think this is really important, because babies born alive post abortion will mostly require palliative care. That's an important aspect of care for all babies born alive, irrespective of their circumstances.[6]
1.13Further, Queensland is the only State with Clinical Guidelines for Termination of Pregnancy[7] which explicitly states 'If [during an abortion] a live birth occurs… Do not provide life sustaining treatment… Document the time and date of death.'
1.14Some submitters contend that there is no need for such guidelines to specify the nature of the care that should be provided to babies born alive after a termination procedure. Others have tried to claim—quite falsely—that this bill would require doctors, under threat of penalty, to keep non-viable babies alive. This is not true.
1.15The Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 seeks to place a duty of care on medical practitioners to provide exactly the same medical care and treatment to a child born alive as a result of an abortion as they would a child born in any other circumstances.[8]
1.16Section 9 of the bill states that the medical care and treatment to be provided to a baby born alive as a result of an abortion to be commensurate to the circumstances, not including the fact that they were born as a result of a termination and goes on to state that this could be life-saving treatment or, indeed, palliative care as the case may be. Some have said this bill would keep babies alive that have congenital deformities. Well, again, only if the baby was viable. And if the baby was viable but had congenital deformities, which is another way of saying the baby was born with disabilities, what is the problem? Are people saying that children born with disabilities should be left to die?
1.17The NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Sexual and Reproductive Health for Women in Primary Care (SPHERE) claimed that this bill represented interference with medical and professional ethics standards:
Providers of abortion care, like all other medical providers in Australia, are bound by clear medical protocols that are in line with current evidence-based standards for abortion-related clinical care. As such, legally mandating “heroic” measures for foetuses that have medical issues which are incompatible with life or with the mother’s health is in contravention of current standards of medical and ethical care...A key objective of clinical practice is to provide care that is patient-centred. Patient-centred care includes the provision of medical care that is compatible with patients’ personal goals, wishes and preferences related to the care provided. The proposed measures in the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 reflect a poor understanding of the realities of clinical decision-making and are essentially irreconcilable with patient autonomy and patient-centred care.[9]
1.18While the submission from the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition (SAAAC), outlined the following concerns, stating that the bill:
Seeks to regulate an extremely rare, if non-existent, procedure and disregards, or misunderstands, current practice, which already offers the best, and most appropriate, care to all extremely premature newborns. Consequently, the intention of this bill is to further stigmatise abortion, the people who have them, and the people who provide them.
Fails to understand the circumstances and practices of abortion care at later gestations;
Misrepresents (or misunderstands) the complexities of foetal viability;
Infringes the professional responsibility and obligations of medical providers to offer patient-centred care and ignores existing medical and professional ethics standards in the delivery of clinical services, and
Contravenes the reproductive rights of pregnant people and may be detrimental to their health and wellbeing.[10]
1.19The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) stated that:
The proposed Bill would impose additional legal duties and obligations on health care providers performing abortion, by prescribing how abortions should be managed. The management of abortion can involve a range of complex clinical and ethical decisions in many different clinical, social and personal contexts. RANZCOG believes that guidance in relation to these decisions is best provided in a detailed clinical guideline that can cover the broad range of considerations that need to be accommodated. Legislating a statutory duty to treat children born alive, as is proposed in this Bill, is not an appropriate way to guide good clinical practice in this area, particularly when the proposed legislation also carries the risk of criminal liability on the part of health practitioners performing abortion. It is RANZCOG’s view that the Bill, if passed, would further reduce access to abortion in Australia by generating fear and uncertainty about legal liability, without contributing to any improvement in clinical practice in relation to abortion.[11]
1.20The submission by Children By Choice states:
…fetal viability (the ability to survive outside the womb) has been demonstrated, at 22 weeks of gestational age, to range from 0-34% (3,4). Babies who are born at this age have a heartbeat, but no other indicators of survivability. From 23 weeks, there is less than 10% chance of survival, and prolonging life or providing significant medical intervention is unnecessary and inhumane. Legislative interventions like Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 fail to consider these low survival rates, and the medical expertise, availability and financial resources required to enable advanced neonatal care for premature births.[12]
1.21This was disputed by Professor Joanna Howe, stating:
…this isn't borne out by the data. The Murdoch Institute for Children's Research says that babies born at 23 weeks have a 45 per cent chance of survival, with odds dramatically improving if they survive the first week. According to the Journal of Pediatrics in the US, gestational age is imprecise. Approximately one half of 23-weekers we take care of are, in fact, 22‑weekers. They say in that journal: These perceptions reflect a widely held but erroneous belief that treatment of babies born at 22 weeks is futile … Decisions for babies born at 22 weeks should be made the way all good clinical decisions are made, by taking into account all the relevant clinical information and the parents' preferences then making an individualized clinical judgment. That's what's missing in this situation. We have a situation in Australia where babies are born alive but don't receive an individualised, clinical judgement mandated by law because they're born alive as a result of a procedure that was meant to end their life. This is the gap this bill seeks to address.[13]
1.22Throughout the Committee’s deliberations, submitters and witnesses disputed terms like ‘live-birth’ and ‘late-term’ abortion -which in my view, in plain English is easily understood and explained.
1.23In responding to a question on notice from the Committee, Dr. Moore stated:
“Live birth” is defined within the profession of obstetrics with reference to the World Health Organisation’s declaration, which defines “live birth” as being when a fetus exits the mother with a sign/s of life. For example, limb movement or pulsation of the umbilical cord prior to expulsion of the placenta would be recorded as a “live birth”. This term is used regardless of the gestational age of the fetus (ie. the capacity of the fetus to survive outside of the uterus). Further, the term is used regardless of the length of time the sign/s of life are present. While viability is not absolutely correlated with gestational age, 24 weeks is a general estimate of expected viability. Therefore, given the above definition, a “live birth” may occur at earlier gestations such as between 20 and 21 weeks completed gestation. Thus, neither a heartbeat at delivery nor an audible cry is a necessary criterion of the definition of “live birth”…[14]
1.24In response to a question on notice asked by the committee, Dr Flowers, from SAAC, stated:
The phrase late-term abortion is generally used by those who oppose abortion. It is not a medical term and does not refer to abortion at or after a specific gestational period, nor does it describe a medical procedure. In Australia, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists categorises abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation as late termination of pregnancy. In Australia, abortion after 20 weeks is statistically extremely rare, hovering between 1%-2% annually. Late terminations are performed because of complex and often tragic medical and/or personal circumstances of the woman or pregnant person. As Australian states such as New South Wales and South Australia debated the decriminalisation of abortion, the College took the position that because of the “complexity of clinical and supportive care required” for these patients, gestational limits should not be enshrined in law (RANZCOG, “Late Abortion statement,” 2019).[15]
1.25While the reporting of babies born alive differs between states, the data that is collected and released clearly dispels the argument that there are no babies born alive from an abortion procedure.
1.26The data shows between 2010 and 2020, in Queensland and Victoria alone, more than 700 babies were born alive as a result of abortion procedures.[16] This data is proof, unfortunately, that this is neither ‘extremely rare’ or ‘non-existent’.
1.27With regards to the data presented by several submitters, Dr Flowers, from SAAC, stated:
I think part of the problem is that the data is being used without sufficient context or expertise to understand the meaning of the figures and stories they contain….can't glean anything from this data about what exactly that means. They may have been born alive over 20 weeks. Are they of an advanced enough age that they would have reached fetal viability? What are their health conditions? We actually don't know enough to make conclusions about what kind of care should be offered. So I think it's not that the data is wrong. The interpretation about the meaning of the data is really where we would fundamentally disagree, and the idea that there needs to be a federal law mandating something that is already being handled according to patients' needs…. I think perhaps our concern would be the disingenuous uses of that data… I think people who support the status quo rightly have some suspicion about the intentions of those who want this data…And, clearly other states do not see the value in collecting this data in the way that you suggest.[17]
1.28And in response to a question on notice, Dr Moore stated:
We simply do not know from this data how many of these live births occurred at a viable gestation, nor what the signs of life were and for how long they were present. Further, there is clearly nothing in the data to indicate the repeated assertions that these very premature and non-viable infants were not palliated or cared for. My clinical experience and knowledge of submitted case numbers for Victoria suggest that a very large proportion of these cases would be at early, pre-viable gestations when feticide may not have been clinically appropriate, sign/s of life would be fleeting, and resuscitation would not be a feasible option.[18]
1.29It is important to note here that while an opponent of this Bill, Dr Moore does not deny that some babies are born alive, just that ‘resuscitation would not be a feasible option.’ This conclusion, however, seems to fundamentally misinterpret the intention and effect of this Bill.
1.30Nothing in this Bill requires that a baby must be able to be resuscitated for care to be provided. Just as we do not deny someone with a terminal illness, or in the late stage of life, care. Indeed, quite the opposite normally happens. Generally, people are provided more medical care towards the end of their life so that they can die with the least suffering, and in as humane a way, as possible.
1.31Many of the little babies born alive from an abortion are in the same position. They may not be able to survive but why do they not deserve the same palliative care that we provide to the terminally ill or people at an older age? All this Bill would require is that all Australians are provided such care equally.
1.32The Committee received very little information about exactly how medical officers are required to treat and / or care for babies that are born alive. Queensland would appear to have the only published guidelines that deal with this matter.Among other things those guidelines state that in the event of a live birth that medical officers are not to ‘provide life sustaining treatment (e.g.gastric tubes, IV lines, oxygen therapy).’[19] While the guidelines say that health officials should ‘Handle baby gently and carefully and wrap to provide warmth’, there is no mention of the provision of any pain relief or palliative care to the baby.
1.33These guidelines, and the clear lack of care provided to the baby, underscore the need for this bill. They also further discredit any claim that babies are not born alive from abortion procedures in Australia. If there are no babies born alive from abortions, why do the Queensland Government’s ‘Termination of pregnancy’ guidelines have a whole section describing what to do if a ‘live birth’ occurs?
1.34One concerning point that was raised during the Committee’s hearings was the suggestion from one opponent of this Bill that a mother should have the right to choose to have her baby born alive with the intention that a denial of care ultimately ends the baby’s life.
1.35As Dr Flowers, from SAAAC, said:
Later terminations are a multiday procedure, and, in most circumstances, they commence with an injection that induces fetal demise, known as feticide. This means that there is no possibility in these instances of a child being born alive. However, as part of supportive care providing rituals of bereavement and grief, some patients choose to forego an injection so that they can spend time with their newborn in its final moments. Palliative care is part of perinatal practice guidelines in these circumstances. SAAAC believes it is cruel and disrespectful to legally mandate life-saving medical interventions in such circumstances, particularly interventions that are not evidence based or patient centred.[20]
1.36It seems to us fundamentally unethical to induce a baby with the intent of being born alive just so a mother ‘can spend time with their newborn in its final moments.’ From the time of birth that baby is a human being and as such, he or she has individual rights independent of the wishes of the mother. However, the claim made by Dr Flowers above seems to indicate that the wishes of the mother are permitted to trump the inherent rights of another human being. If this is the practice of medical officials it would appear to be a clear breach of the inalienable right to life.
1.37In the time available to the Committee, it was unclear whether this is a common practice among abortion clinics. If it is, however, we believe it would outrage most Australians to know that a baby is intentionally born alive only for it to be allowed to die through an absence of care after birth.
1.38In fairness, the evidence from medical officials about exactly how abortion procedures are performed in Australia, was confusing. For example, DrElvisSeman, informed the Committee:
Firstly, if they've not had feticide—an injection of potassium chloride in the heart at the start of the procedure to kill them—then you’re dealing with babies whose ability to survive the procedure gets better and better with increasing gestation. Once you're into 26 weeks and above, you've got a better rate of survival, even from an abortion procedure which intends to produce a dead baby.[21]
Depending on gestation, there may be a surgical abortion called dilatation and evacuation, which is like a surgical procedure of dismembering the baby. In the first trimester they mostly do suction evacuation. That's the surgical method or medical termination of pregnancy, also called two-step. In the early mid-trimester, surgical terminations are still done; they're called dilatation and evacuation. Beyond that you're mainly looking at inducing labour.[22]
1.39And in the submission from the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, which claims the Queensland data on live births (used in support of this bill) ‘is misleading and medically inaccurate’, it states:
These procedures were performed if the foetus had lethal or significant abnormalities or if a birth posed a risk to the mother and the foetus had zero chance of survival. In these situations, women are offered medication to euthanise the foetus in the womb prior to delivery, or in some cases the baby is delivered alive for medical or personal reasons and then given palliative care (e.g., if a woman wants the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies).[23]
1.40This very concerning evidence goes beyond the topic of this Bill into the regulation of abortion procedures more generally. However, enough evidence has been provided to the Committee that there should be a national review of late-term abortion procedures. This is especially required given that access to late-term abortions has been made much more available in recent years. There seems to be inadequate regulation and medical guidance for a procedure that does result in the death of otherwise viable babies.
1.41The fact is there is little to argue against in this bill, unless of course an objector felt that a baby born alive as a result of an abortion should be left to die because it was born as a result of an abortion. Such a position is a clear contravention of our international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1.42Every death of a viable baby born alive as a result of an abortion that occurs in Australia means that the fundamental rights of a child enshrined in this UN convention are absent in this country. This needs to be remedied. Lives need to be saved.
1.43In conclusion, we provide an extract from the judgement made by the NT Coroner, Mr Greg Cavanagh, in his summing up of the inquest into the death of Jessica Jane:
The evidence established that the deceased was fully born in a living state. In the 80 minutes of her life she had a separate and independent existence to her mother. … the purpose of the induction procedure (which was to abort the delivery of a live baby) should not be allowed to diminish her status as a human being. Her life was unexpected and her death was inevitable. However, the first half of this description could be applied to many of us, and the second half to all of us. The deceased having been born alive deserved all the dignity, respect and value that our society places on human life. In my view, the fact that her birth was unexpected and not the desired outcome of the medical procedure, should not result in her, and babies like her, being perceived as anything less than a complete human being. Similarly, the fact that her death was inevitable should also not have the same result. The old, the infirm, the sick, the terminally ill are all entitled to proper medical and palliative care and attention. In my view, newly born unwanted and premature babies should have the same rights. The fact that her death was inevitable should not affect her entitlement to such care and attention.[24]
1.44We believe that all human beings deserve care even if such care cannot prevent their death. For this reason, we support the passage of this bill.
1.45In addition, Professor Joanna Howe has suggested a number of recommendations which are worthy of further consideration in this context, including:
statutory protections for all babies born alive to receive medical care irrespective of the circumstances of their delivery.
national medical protocols to govern the provision of medical care to newborn babies following an abortion.
mandatory national data collection on babies born alive following an abortion (including gestational age at birth, gender of the baby, reason for abortion, medical care provided after birth and length of life).
comprehensive counselling for all pregnant women undertaking a second or third trimester abortion so that they are made aware of the risks of late-term abortion, including live birth.
requirements that all babies born alive following an abortion who die prior to discharge from the hospital be referred to a Coroner for an inquest.
when death is unavoidable, the baby must always be given palliative care, with proper attention given to pain relief and the emotional needs of the dying baby [25]
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan
Liberal National Party
Senator for Queensland
Senator Alex Antic
Liberal Party of Australia
Senator for South Australia
Senator Ralph Babet
United Australia Party
Senator for Victoria
Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018, Queensland:[26] Abortion is legal in Queensland and available on request as a health service up until 22 weeks gestation. Thereafter the involved medical practitioner must consult another medical practitioner who also considers that, in all the circumstances, the termination should be performed.
The Abortion Law Reform Act 2019, New South Wales:[27] a medical practitioner may perform a termination on a woman who is not more than 22 weeks pregnant provided that informed consent has been given (unless, in an emergency, it is not practicable to obtain the patient’s informed consent). Different provisions apply in relation to terminations at more than 22 weeks. Except in emergencies (being to save the patient’s life or the life of another foetus), such terminations can only be performed by a specialist medical practitioner, and at a hospital controlled by a local health district or statutory health corporation.
Health Act 1993 (ACT) Division 6.1:[28] Abortion is legal in Australia Capital Territory with no pregnancy gestation limit. Abortion can only be carried out by a doctor within an approved medical facility.
Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, Victoria:[29] Abortion is legal in Victoria; legal termination can be sought up to 24 weeks gestation by a qualified medical practitioner, nurse, or pharmacist. Thereafter for termination to be performed the involved medical practitioner must consult another medical practitioner who also considers that, in all circumstances, the termination should be performed.
Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, South Australia:[30] In South Australia, abortion is legal up to 22 weeks and 6 days. Thereafter for legal termination to be performed the involved medical practitioner must consult another medical practitioner who also considers that, in all circumstances, the termination should be performed. The two medical practitioners must also consider if continuing the pregnancy would cause elevated risk to the life, physical or mental health of the pregnant individual or if there is a risk of foetal anomalies.
Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013, Tasmania:[31] In Tasmania, abortion is legal up to 16 weeks. Thereafter for legal termination to be performed the involved medical practitioner must consult another medical practitioner who also considers that, in all circumstances, the termination should be performed. The two medical practitioners must also consider the pregnant person’s physical, psychological, economic, and social situation. And at least one of the consulted doctors must specialise in obstetrics or gynaecology.
Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 and the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911, Western Australia: In 1998, Western Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to decriminalise abortion. In Western Australia abortion is legal up to 20 weeks gestation, with limitations for pregnant people under the age of 16. However, it is subject to counselling by a medical practitioner other than the one performing the abortion resulting in informed consent, or when serious personal, family, or social consequences will impact the pregnant person if an abortion is not performed, or when the life or physical or mental health of the woman is endangered or when pregnancy causes danger to the woman’s mental health.Beyond the 20 weeks’ gestation period, abortion is only legally performed if at least two out of the six medical practitioners appointed by the WA Minister for Health agree that the pregnant person, or the foetus, have a severe medical condition that justifies the procedure. The termination can then only be performed at a facility approved by the Minister for Health.On 21 June 2023, the Abortion Legislation Reform Bill 2023 bill was introduced.If passed, terminations will be placed under the Public Health Act and allow women to self-refer to an abortion clinic without requiring the involvement of two physicians. This legislation will also abolish the ministerial panel requirement for later-term abortions, force health practitioners who conscientiously object to abortion to transfer the patient’s care or provide information on where to access that care and end mandatory counselling. The gestational time limit for a procedure will be increased from 20 to 23 weeks. it will allow patients to decide, in consultation with their healthcare provider, whether to have an abortion up to 23 weeks, after which two doctors would need to be involved in decision-making. The Bill would also remove abortion from the state’s criminal laws.
Termination of Pregnancy Law Reform Legislation Amendment Act 2021, Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks gestation, with one doctor’s approval. For termination beyond 24 weeks to be performed another medical practitioner beside the involved medical practitioner must give their approval. In the case of an emergency, abortion will be performed if considered necessary by the medical practitioner to preserve the life of the patient.
Footnotes
[1]United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (accessed 28 August 2023).
[2]Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Submission 12, p. 2 .
[3]Mrs Wendy Francis, Australian Christian Lobby, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 1.
[4]Mrs Wendy Francis, Australian Christian Lobby, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 1.
[5]Dr Elvis Seman, Expert Consultant, Right to Life Australia, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 9.
[6]Dr Elvis Seman, Expert Consultant, Right to Life Australia, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 10.
[7]Mrs Wendy Francis, Australian Christian Lobby, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 5.
[8]Senator Matthew Canavan, second reading speech, Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, Official Senate Hansard, 30 November 2022, pp. 2584–2585.
[9]SPHERE, Submission 4, p. 3.
[10]SAAAC, Submission 2, p. 2.
[11]Draft national guidelines on abortion care – response to Question on Notice taken by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, received 23 June 2023.
[12]Children by Choice, Submission 7, p. 6.
[13]Professor Joanna Howe, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8June2023, p. 18.
[14]Response to Question on Notice taken by Assoc Prof Paddy (Patricia) Moore, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne received 26 June 2023.
[15]Response to Question on Notice taken by Dr Prudence Flowers, on behalf of South Australian Abortion Action Coalition, received 19 June 2023.
[16]Professor Joanna Howe, Fact Sheet, Babies born alive and left to die following a failed abortion, p.2.
[17]Dr Prudence Flowers, South Australian Abortion Action Coalition, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 32.
[18]Response to Question on Notice taken by Assoc Prof Paddy (Patricia) Moore, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne received 26 June 2023.
[19]https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/735293/g-top.pdf Table 23, p. 24 (accessed 30 August 2023).
[20]Dr Prudence Flowers, South Australian Abortion Action Coalition, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 31.
[21]Dr Elvis Seman, Expert Consultant, Right to Life Australia, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 13.
[22]Dr Elvis Seman, Expert Consultant, Right to Life Australia, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Committee Hansard, 8 June 2023, p. 15.
[23]Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, Submission 10, p. 5.
[24] Inquest into the death of Jessica Jane *******[2000] NTMC 37 pages 19-20 https://justice.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/206702/baby-j.pdf (accessed 26 August 2023).
[25]Professor Joanna Howe, Fact Sheet, Babies born alive and left to die following a failed abortion, p.4.
[26]https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/bill.first/bill-2018-089 (accessed 26 August 2023).
[27]https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2019-011 (accessed 26 August 2023).
[28]https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/1993-13/current/html/1993-13.html(accessed 26 August 2023).
[29]https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/abortion-law-reform-act-2008/005(accessed 26August2023).
[30]https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/v/a/2021/termination%20of%20pregnancy %20act%202021_7/2021.7.un.pdf (accessed 26 August 2023).
[31]https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/tas/num_act/rhtta201372o2013481/(accessed 26 August 2023).
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments