By Dave Andrusko
When we reported yesterday about the prospects that a radical pro-abortion bill would pass in the Australian state of Queensland, we quoted from the Catholic News Agency that the pivotal question would be whether members of the Liberal National Party would be allowed a “conscience vote,” as opposed to being required to follow the LNP’s position of opposing decriminalization of abortion.
Unfortunately, according to ABC.net
Queensland is expected to pass legislation to decriminalise abortion next week, after the opposition Liberal National party decided to allow its MPs a conscience vote.
The decision, announced after a lengthy party room meeting on Tuesday afternoon, will pave the way for the removal of abortion from the 1899 criminal code.
The laws, which will be put to the parliament next week, allow for abortion up to 22 weeks gestation and provide safe access zones around abortion clinics.
This represents a turnabout from last month, Ben Smee reported, when Gary Spence, the president of the LNP “reportedly told MPs they could lose preselection if they voted against the party’s formal policy, which is opposed to decriminalisation.”
Queensland LNP leader Deb Frecklington says she was “not of a conscience” to support the bill. “It has been a longstanding position of the LNP party room that matters about the creation and ending of life are treated as matters of conscience,” Frecklington said in a statement. She added that she would speak further during the debate in parliament.
Should the “Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2018” pass, New South Wales would be the only state in Australia to retain its protective abortion laws.
Naturally an Australian “Factchecker” denied what everybody knows to be true– that the proposed law allows “unrestricted access to abortion after 22 weeks.”
Why is that characterization “baseless,” according to RMIT ABC Fact Check?
Because the law would “require two doctors to consider ‘all the circumstances’ before performing an abortion after 22 weeks.” But what are these “circumstances”?
Those circumstances included all relevant medical considerations, a woman’s current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances, and take into account all relevant professional standards and guidelines.
In other words, virtually anything and everything! The charge is anything but “baseless,” it is spot on.
As noted above, a vote is expected next week.