This morning Frank Brennan, the media savvy Jesuit priest, wrote in his order’s own publication, Eureka Street, that the new proposed Victorian abortion law is unjust and “carries the hallmarks of totalitarianism.”
“Any self-respecting civil libertarian” should support medical professionals who refuse to obey the law, Brennan said, “regardless of their views on the morality of abortion on demand.”
Well Frank this is one self respecting civil libertarian who does not agree with your authoritarian edict.
The Victorian Catholic Church’s stance on the new abortion laws is wrong. It puts ideology and religious belief in front of the right of a woman to have medical treatment, and it exposes those who work in Catholic hospitals to criminal charges or at least to claims for damages for gross medical negligence.
The Catholic Church objects to those clauses in the proposed law which allow a medical professional to refuse to perform a termination of a pregnancy but which says that if that person does, they must refer the patient to another medical professional who does not have such an objection. The Bill also says that despite “any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.” The Catholic Church is telling medical professionals to ignore that clause.
In telling Catholic medical professionals that they should break these laws, the Catholic Church is itself inciting human rights abuse.
Take a situation where a pregnant woman in a Catholic hospital faces death if an abortion is not performed by the medical professionals in that hospital. The Catholic Church is saying that in such a case the woman must be left to die, because it will not allow, in hospitals run by it, medical professionals to refer the pregnant woman to a medical professional who will perform the abortion.
In allowing the woman to die, the Catholic Church is sanctioning medical professionals clearly breaching their duty of care to a patient and possibly exposing them to manslaughter charges because of their deliberate inaction.
And the Catholic Church is essentially saying in such a case that a woman’s right to life is subjugated to a religious, ideological and doctrinal belief system which must be enforced no matter what the consequences.
Even in refusing to refer a woman to a medical professional in cases where her life is not endangered, the Catholic Church is clearly putting its own views above those of the will of the people as expressed through the Parliament. This is a case of the Church seeking to override the democratic state – something which offends the principle of the seperation of church and state.
And what of the civil liberties of the pregnant woman? Does the Catholic Church really think it is humane to tell a 16-year-old school girl who has been raped by her uncle or another family member and who has become pregnant as a result, that it will turn her out onto the street and refuse her request for a termination in circumstances where one is clearly a sensible and compassionate option?
The Victorian abortion law represents a sensible balance in respecting the rights of medical professionals to follow their conscience but in doing so, not override the rights of the pregnant woman – what could be fairer than that?
And of course, Wikipedia is always correct. 🙂
‘.. this is one self respecting civil libertarian who does not agree with your authoritarian edict” Talk about crass sectarianism dressed in civil liberties disguise. Frank Brennan expresses an opinion about the rights of doctors in a publication and Barnes describes this expression of opinion as an “edict.” I’m reminded why the republic’s cause was so badly managed and with whom Turnbull associated.
The question begging that underpins this “edict” of Barnes ( just to be consistent! ) is the usual amalgam of distortions, half truths and closed mindedness that characterises the Left liberal assault on the innocent and the helpless. That anyone, male or female, has a right to destroy an unborn child underpins this insistence that doctors must dirty their hands by facilitating these murders, combined with the equally absurd proposition that this procedure is in any way therapeutic. The infamous killing of a 32 week old unborn baby by De Crepigny and his ‘team” is a classic example of medical mismanagement from start to finish. Mum was allegedly suicidal, and the baby was supposed to be suffering witha congenital form of dwarfism. To have intervened in such a situation in this manner was appaling medicine. All the evidence suggests that abortion in such a patient would exacerbate her psychosis and, of course, the baby was quite capable of surviving had labour been induced, but there was no way the eugenicists were going to allow this helpless child to live.
Barnes and his Left liberal mates know little about genuine human rights and even less about optimum medical care.
Forget about the Catholic Church.
What has been passed in the lower house of Victoria gives the best evidence yet of simply not enough talent for so many tiers of government and Brumby is a dreadful leader.
Many medicos are extremely concerned. What will happen with upper house approval are unquestioned abortions for women entering the final trimester and even later. It is nutty stuff destined for catastrophe.
Saving gestational age of less than 20 weeks in one room and ending a gestational life of 24 weeks and later in another. It will be soul destroying for the women and carers involved.
And f..k the legal niceties….
And the church wonders why it’s churches are empty and can’t entice men into the priesthood. No matter though their consciences are clear no doubt.
Pro Life catholic doctors do everything in their power to preserve the life of the mother AND the unborn child. You can read more about the catholic position on abortion at http://www.cuf.org.
Abortion increases the risk that young women will develop depression, anxiety and drug and alcohol abuse. Read the study by Professor Fergusson, a psychologist in New Zealand. He is a self described” pro choice, atheist and rationalist”. You can find his study in the Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology
2006. Therefore, It is possible that providing an abortion in a case or rape or incest may compound the girls trauma.
A Finnish study found that post abortive women were more likely to commit suicide than women who carried their pregnancies to term. I read this on Wikipedia,