Author: EF Team

medicine

Medicine by captivity: the rise of the hostage physician

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

When doctors spend more time serving systems than serving patients, medicine changes. When physicians are afraid to speak honestly, medicine changes. When documentation matters more than human presence, medicine changes.
by Joseph Varon, MD
[This article, reproduced here by permission, was originally published by the Brownstone Institute in
Austin, Texas.]

The ICU before sunrise

The intensive care unit (ICU) was crowded before sunrise, again. After 40 years in medicine, I am not sure what “full” even means anymore. Every ICU now feels just one patient away from disaster. Patients wait in emergency departments for beds that do not exist. Another transfer is already on the way because someone thinks our ICU still has space. Nurses are exhausted. Residents are exhausted. Families are scared. Doctors try to think clearly while phones ring, alarms sound, charts pile up, and somewhere, someone checks dashboards and occupancy numbers while real people struggle to breathe just a few feet away.

I remember one morning clearly because it still bothers me years later. An administrator came into the ICU and asked about the “game plan” for one of my patients since his insurance would run out at the end of the week. I remember feeling angry, not because I cared about getting paid, but because I realized how much institutional pressure had taken over medical decisions. The focus was no longer on whether the patient needed ICU care or if the family understood what was happening. Instead, the conversation was about the “insurance clock”. I stood there wondering when this became normal. When did hospitals stop feeling like hospitals and start feeling like big systems moving people through pathways, numbers, and coverage limits?

Nobody in the room seemed shocked because everybody already understood the environment we were functioning inside. That may actually be the part that bothers me the most and made me write this article. We adapted to it. We normalized it. Human beings can normalize almost anything if they live inside it long enough. Physicians are especially vulnerable to this because medicine trains doctors to absorb enormous pressure quietly. We keep going because patients still need us. We keep functioning because sick people keep arriving. We convince ourselves this is simply modern healthcare. But there are nights, usually very late at night after rounds are over and the ICU becomes quiet for a few minutes, where I sit there wondering when medicine started losing part of itself.

I remember another conversation from years ago that also made me feel sick. Someone explained, almost casually, that if we transferred a patient to a long-term acute care facility (LTAC) and they stayed the required 21 days, they could come back to the hospital, because “the insurance clock resets”. Hearing that phrase for the first time sounded less like medicine and more like someone describing a loophole in a business contract. Meanwhile, a real person was lying in that bed, connected to ventilators and feeding tubes. A family was somewhere, terrified about whether their loved one would survive. But the discussion was about clocks, timelines, insurance days, and logistics.

I still think about those conversations. Not because they shocked me completely. After enough years in modern healthcare, very little surprises doctors anymore. Maybe that is part of the problem. We get used to things that should still bother us.

When hospitals became factories

I have now spent four decades practicing medicine. Four decades inside ICUs, emergency departments, trauma bays, hospital corridors, family meetings, codes, and nights where sleep never happened because too many people were too sick. I entered medicine because I genuinely cared about patients. Most physicians did. That is the part many people outside medicine still do not fully understand. Doctors do not sacrifice years of their lives, miss holidays, destroy their sleep schedules, and carry this kind of emotional burden because they dream about maximizing throughput metrics or documentation compliance. We entered medicine because we wanted to help people. It sounds simple saying that now, maybe even naïve, but it is true.

Somewhere along the line medicine changed. Hospitals changed. The language changed first because that is always how these transformations begin. Patients slowly became “throughput issues”. Beds became “capacity management”. Discharges became “flow optimization”. The ICU became “utilization”. Doctors became “providers”. Everything slowly started sounding less human and more operational. And eventually, hospitals stopped feeling like places centered around caring for human beings and started feeling like giant processing centers where movement itself became the priority.

Basically “Get them in”, “Get them out”, “Open the bed”, “Reduce the stay to maximize profit”, “Move the patient to an LTAC”, “Clear the ICU”, and so on.

Every hospital now has dashboards, graphs, throughput committees, operational targets, discharge metrics, and endless meetings about movement. Everything is about movement. Sometimes it feels like modern healthcare is one big revolving door. Patients come in one side, and everyone starts figuring out how quickly they can safely, or sometimes not so safely, move out the other side.

The strange thing is that many younger doctors probably think this is normal because it is the only medicine they have known. They inherited the system after it changed. Endless clicking. Mandatory modules. Documentation requirements. Throughput meetings. Insurance battles. Constant electronic interruptions. For them, this already feels like medicine. But it was not always like this. Hospitals once felt slower in some ways, not inefficient, just more human. Doctors had time to think, to sit with families, and to focus on the patient without constant operational pressure.

Now everything feels rushed. Even death feels rushed sometimes. I hate to write that, but it is true. Families barely have time to process terrible news before talks begin about placement options, transfer plans, insurance limits, or discharge plans. Sometimes, the machinery around medicine completely overwhelms its humanity. And honestly, I think physicians feel this loss more deeply than many people realize.

The patient somewhere in the middle

Doctors complain about administrators because they frustrate everyone. Doctors complain about electronic medical records because they take up so much time. But beneath all these complaints, something deeper is happening in medicine. Many doctors quietly feel that the profession they gave their lives to is slowly disappearing, even as everyone calls it progress. Maybe I sound old saying that. Maybe I sound frustrated. The truth is that I am frustrated. Very frustrated. Because we did not enter medicine to become highly educated employees inside giant healthcare corporations. We entered medicine to care for human beings during the worst moments of their lives.

That was supposed to remain the center of everything: the patient, the suffering human being in the bed. Not the dashboard. Not the metric. Not the throughput target. Not the insurance clock.

Somewhere along the way that became too easy to forget. The part that bothers me most is not that hospitals need money to survive. Of course they do. Ventilators are expensive. ICU nurses are expensive. Keeping hospitals open costs enormous amounts of money. I understand all of that. What bothers me is watching the patient slowly become secondary inside conversations where everybody claims to be acting in the patient’s best interest. All of this happens while the administrator thinks about occupancy, the insurance company thinks about authorization, the hospital thinks about length of stay, the case manager thinks about placement, and the physician tries to think about the patient while absorbing pressure from every direction simultaneously.

That is not how medicine was supposed to feel. I have had families look at me and ask what I would do if the patient were my own father or mother. That question cuts through all the institutional language immediately. They are not asking about metrics or throughput or utilization review. They are asking for honesty. Judgment. Humanity. They are asking for a doctor. And at that moment all the dashboards in the world suddenly feel ridiculous.

Doctors became servants to the machine

The electronic medical record sped up much of this change more than people realize. Hospitals promoted the electronic medical record (EMR) as a big step forward. We were told it would improve communication, reduce mistakes, streamline work, and let doctors spend more time with patients. Now, that almost sounds like a joke. The EMR did not free doctors. It buried them.

Doctors now spend huge parts of their lives working with electronic systems, mostly designed by people who have probably never spent a night in an ICU. We click boxes, answer alerts, fill out required forms, meet compliance rules, and write notes that are more for billing, auditors, administrators, insurance companies, and lawyers than for patient care. You stop writing notes for physicians. You start writing notes for the machine. This changes people (clinicians) psychologically even if they do not recognize it immediately.

There are moments now during rounds that honestly feel absurd. A family member is crying while the physician tries to maintain eye contact and complete mandatory documentation before another alert appears on the screen. The patient is talking. The nurse is asking questions. Laboratory values are changing. The phone rings. Another admission waits downstairs. Somewhere, someone is reviewing occupancy numbers while physicians are trying to keep critically ill people alive.

And through all of this chaos, doctors are somehow still expected to think clearly, compassionately, and deeply about human suffering.

Late at night after ICU shifts, I sometimes realize I spent more time with software than with real people. Think about how strange that really is. Somewhere along the line doctors stopped using computers and became servants to them. Everybody inside medicine knows it. Almost nobody says it publicly.

Burnout is the wrong word

I have become more irritated with the word burnout because I think it does not capture what many doctors are really going through. Burnout sounds temporary, like something in your mind. It makes it seem like doctors just need more yoga, resilience workshops, mindfulness apps, or wellness seminars. Hospitals like to talk about physician wellness because it lets them treat the problem as psychological instead of structural. But many physicians are not burned out. They are morally exhausted.

There is a big difference between being tired and slowly realizing that the profession you gave your life to no longer looks like the one you started in. That feeling builds up quietly over thousands of moments. A patient is discharged earlier than feels right because beds are needed. A doctor spends more time on paperwork than thinking. A hard family conversation is cut short because charts are unfinished. An ICU transfer is rushed because someone is watching occupancy numbers. A treatment discussion is quietly shaped by pressure no one talks about.

None of these moments alone defines modern medicine. That is what makes the situation psychologically dangerous. Rarely does somebody walk into a room demanding something obviously unethical. The pressure is subtle. Administrative. Financial. Constant. Eventually physicians begin anticipating institutional pressure before anybody even speaks it aloud. That is how systems shape human behaviour most effectively. Not through force. Through environment.

Covid-19 and the breaking point

Covid-19 exposed many realities physicians will never fully forget. The pandemic did not create institutional control inside medicine because the machinery already existed long before Covid-19 arrived. But Covid-19 revealed how powerful that machinery had become and how quickly independent clinical judgment could become secondary to institutional management once systems entered crisis mode.

At the beginning uncertainty existed everywhere. Physicians were trying to understand a disease process in real time while caring for critically ill patients under extraordinary emotional strain. In theory this should have been a moment for open scientific debate, flexibility, disagreement, and aggressive clinical observation.

Instead, many physicians experienced the opposite. Protocols hardened rapidly. Institutional rigidity intensified. Independent thinking suddenly became dangerous in ways many doctors had never previously experienced.

I remember exhausted physicians privately admitting frustrations during late-night ICU conversations they would never publicly express. Doctors quietly questioned policies in hallways while repeating institutional messaging during official meetings. Physicians felt trapped between what they observed clinically and what institutions expected them to communicate publicly.

Many doctors realized during Covid-19 that they were far less independent than they once believed. That realization changed some physicians permanently.

And honestly, I do not think medicine has emotionally recovered from that period yet.

This is not burnout. It is captivity.

This article is not nostalgia for some mythical golden age because medicine has always been difficult and
healthcare systems absolutely require organization, technology, and structure. Standardization sometimes saves lives. Electronic access to information has obvious benefits. Nobody seriously wants to practice medicine without modern tools. But professions can gradually lose their soul without visibly collapsing. That is what worries me after 40 years in medicine.

When doctors spend more time serving systems than serving patients, medicine changes. When physicians are afraid to speak honestly, medicine changes. When throughput quietly shapes bedside decisions, medicine changes. When documentation matters more than human presence, medicine changes. And when physicians slowly begin feeling emotionally trapped inside giant institutional systems that they no longer control, we should probably stop calling that burnout because burnout does not adequately describe what many doctors now feel. It feels more like captivity.

About the author
Joseph Varon, MD, is an American critical care physician, professor and president of the Independent Medical Alliance. He has authored over 980 peer-reviewed publications and serves as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Independent Medicine. The above article, reproduced here by permission, was originally published by the Brownstone Institute (Austin, Texas) on May 18, 2026, here . All of Dr Varon’s Brownstone Institute posts may be found here.

rights

The abolition of doctor and patients’ rights since 2008

Published on by EF Team1 Comment

Dr. Mark Hobart revisits the erosion of conscience rights for doctors and their patients as it has unfolded across Australia in recent decades. This post is based on recent talks and articles from Dr. Hobart.

In this piece I wish to explain and describe the progression of government control over medical practitioners that has occurred over the last 20 years, starting with:

  • the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act in 2008
  • the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act in 2010 (particularly with regards to the illegality of being able to discriminate according to gender identity and sex which is essential in the practice of medicine to avoid life-threatening disasters
  • the “no jab no pay/play” vaccination of children in 2016,
  • the legalisation of euthanasia in Victoria in 2017,
  • the Covid injection mandates in 2021,
  • and lastly the removal of conscientious objection to euthanasia by doctors in the amendments to the Victorian VAD law in December 2025.

I contend that these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare which is an Australian government agency, are in contravention of section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

The term “services” in this context means the private contract between the doctor and the patient for a medical service to occur, for which you need both parties, and for the contract to be valid you need informed consent and no coercion of either party.

Abortion

In October 2008, Victoria passed the Abortion Law Reform Act1 which stated that the doctors
must refer to a “non-objecting practitioner” when a patient presented to them requesting an
abortion if the doctor had a conscientious objection to the abortion. The doctor was not to
proceed with any further discussion or advice regarding the abortion. This law spread to all
the other states over the next few years.

In late November 2011 a woman presented to me who was 19 ½ weeks pregnant, accompanied by her husband. They requested an abortion because the baby was a girl and they did not want a girl because they already had one. I refused to refer her, explaining that it was dangerous for her health, and eventually I had to explain to her that it was also against my religious beliefs, when she replied that she was not concerned about the health risks.

On 17 May 2013, the medical board commenced an own motion investigation into my actions because I had failed to refer to a non-objecting practitioner and demonstrated a disregard for patient rights. On 30 January 2014, I was cautioned because I had stated in the media that I knowingly acted in contravention of section 8 of the abortion laws reform act, that is the section which prohibits conscientious objection.

Doctors unable to discriminate regarding gender or sex

According to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 20102, attributes protected by law are:

  • age, race, and disability
  • gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation
  • marital, parental, or carer status
  • religion, political belief, and industrial activity

Of course it is necessary for doctors to discriminate on the basis of gender and sex and do so with every patient; not to do so would be very dangerous because men and women are anatomically and genetically different. However, this legislation has permitted hormonal and gross surgical mutilation, leading in many cases to misery and death.3

In July 2015, I was reported to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by a patient whom I had not seen previously, because I did not prescribe female hormones as the patient requested. The patient appeared male, and they said they were undergoing treatment to transition into a woman, and they said they were “legally a woman”.

Their usual doctor was not available at the time. It was a new patient. The patient had located me using the internet. I refused to prescribe the medication and explained to the patient that in my opinion it is dangerous to prescribe for a genetic male female hormones.

The complaint was looked at by the Human Rights Commission and conciliation of this complaint was attempted which was unsuccessful. The commission decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115 of the act. They said that conciliation of this complaint had been attempted but was unsuccessful, and that they had decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115(2)(a) of the Equal Opportunity Act which directs to 116(e):

“having regard to all the circumstances, the Commission considers it is not appropriate to provide or to continue to provide dispute resolution.”

So I think I dodged a bullet there!

Other doctors have not been so lucky: for example, Dr Jillian Spencer, the psychiatrist who lost her job at the Brisbane Children’s Hospital for three years because she didn’t follow the policy directions of the hospital with regards to puberty blockers in children. Recently, she has won her case against the hospital, and hopefully she’ll be reinstated.

No jab, no pay/play

In 2016, the Victorian government brought in “no jab, no play” laws which meant parents were required to have their children vaccinated with the recommended childhood vaccines or they would be penalised by withholding of the tax rebate, which could amount to up to $800 per fortnight, so that they could not afford to put their children into childcare or kindergarten.

Wealthy parents could afford to do this, but families where both parents had to work to pay the mortgage and put food on their table could not. I think most reasonable people would define this as coercion.

There is no avenue for the parents to refuse these vaccinations for the children because they are worried about their safety or adverse effects on the health of their child or the fact that some of these vaccines are manufactured from aborted foetal tissue.

Any doctor who advises against these vaccinations is highly likely to be suspended from practice and factor home. Doctors who advised against the vaccinations are highly likely to be suspended from practice and face cancellation of their licence. Dr John Piesse was suspended in 2017 for this and is still suspended.

Euthanasia

In 2017, Victoria legalised euthanasia4, calling it “voluntary assisted dying.” In most cases, this involved a doctor giving the patient a bottle of a very strong sedative, phenobarbital, which could be drunk later at a time of the patients choosing and which would, in most cases cause the patient’s death.

It is not called voluntary assisted suicide, possibly because assisted suicide is still a crime in Victoria punishable by five years imprisonment. Although suicide is not illegal, assisting or encouraging another person to commit suicide remains a criminal offence in Victoria.

Section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 19585 makes it an indictable offence to:

  • incite another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
  • aid or abet another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
  • be a party to a suicide pact.

The maximum penalty for these offences is five years’ imprisonment. As stated previously, the Victorian government amended the euthanasia law in December 2025, making conscientious objection to euthanasia illegal and stating that the doctor “must” give the patient information regarding euthanasia if the patient presents enquiring about euthanasia:

Conscientious objection of registered health practitioners.

(1)​ In section 7 (a) of the Principal Act, for “to” substitute “subject to subsection (2), to”.
​(2)​ At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert—
​”If a registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—
​(a)​ advise the person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
​(b) ​give the person the information approved by the Secretary.”6


Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying, which should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the crime act with a penalty of five years in jail it can’t be called that. It really can’t be called voluntary assisted death either because it’s up to the patient to take the medication which is supposed to kill them (usually phenobarbital which sometimes fails to kill the patient) at their own discretion so the the doctor doesn’t need to wait and make sure that the patient is dead.

Also, the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication but write the terminal condition leading to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more: for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease (which Neil Daniher, a prominent Ausgralian footballer, had been suffering from for many years).

It is impossible to give an accurate estimation of how long these people will be expected to survive with any of these conditions. The legislation at present states that death is to be expected within 12 months.

According to this legislation, if a patient comes to you as a doctor requesting “assisted dying” and wants information as to how to do it, (i.e. they want to know how to kill themselves) instead of asking them why, and whether you feel it is a genuine possibility they would do this, and instead of calling the CAT team or the police surgeon to stop them, or certifying them yourself (as you could formerly do), you must give the advice on how to kill themselves including information approved by the government secretary.

I hope she’s a good secretary.

Imagine a patient coming to see a doctor requesting advice regarding euthanasia, and instead of the doctor asking them why they want to die and arranging urgent psychiatric evaluation, he or she must give them advice on how to do it. It really is beyond belief but here we are.

It is needless to say that if doctors criticise this legislation, they are putting themselves at risk of suspension in the same way as I was cautioned when I criticised the abortion legislation in 2013. Indeed, this happened to me.

On 26 February 2020 I was reported to the Health Complaints Commissioner by Dr Cameron McLaren, an oncologist at Peter McCallum hospital who promoted euthanasia and facilitated euthanasia for his patients and was featured prominently in “The Age” and “The Australian” newspapers on December 26 2019 and February 21 2020 respectively.

He also wrote an article in the “Australian Doctor” magazine on February 26 2020 on which doctors were invited to comment. He was asked “What are the reasons behind the patients coming to you?” He replied,

“for the vast majority, it is not due to the physical suffering they face. Dealing with pain, with physical suffering, is something that palliative care does manage exceptionally well… They might be very comfortable, even peaceful, but through voluntary assisted dying we can provide closure in ways that assist the grieving process for the patient and the family. It’s an existential problem – not just about pain management.”

I made a comment simply stating that Adolf Hitler suspended his euthanasia program on August 18, 1941 after public protests, which I quoted from the “History Channel.” The complaint was forwarded to AHPRA but no further action was taken.

COVID mandates

From the AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) position statement on COVID-19 vaccination:

“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.” 7

In November 2021, I was suspended from medical practice by the medical board, being charged with professional misconduct. The main reason was that I had issued temporary COVID injection exemptions to my patients because I could not comply with the position statement.

By that time, it was widely known that the COVID injections caused death from myocarditis and pericarditis, and this was reported in the mainstream medical literature. It was also widely known that the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus, and that they caused myocarditis. Indeed, Dr Nick Coatsworth, Commonwealth deputy chief medical officer at the time of COVID, in an interview on “A Current Affair” in March 2025 has since admitted this and said that the covid mandates were “unethical”. (see 7.20 – 8.10)

This was also published in a poster by the NSW ambulance authority in August 2021. (see below).

rights

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates usually of three months duration to my patients who were being forced to have the COVID injection otherwise they would lose their jobs and or have an injection which was dangerous to their health and or also conflict with their religious beliefs because the injections were made from aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask, about 50% of them had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a certificate saying that they should not have the injection. I am still suspended now almost five years later waiting for the decision of my last trial which finished on the 16 June. The medical board is attempting to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of four doctors who have been suspended for this in Victoria because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Dr Luke McLindon, Catholic, a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist specialising in fertility treatment at the Catholic Mater Hospital in Brisbane, in an affidavit to the Supreme court QLD found that 73% of his patients that were vaccinated within 6 weeks of conception against COVID had miscarriages compared with 13% of the patients that had not been vaccinated immediately prior to or just after conception. He was sacked by the hospital in June 2022 and has been unable to work in medicine since. He told me that the Mater hospital was the only public Catholic hospital in Australia, offering tubal surgery restore fertility; these are no longer offered and patients are now told “there’s only IVF”, as cost is a significant barrier.

Several other doctors throughout Australia have been suspended for comments they made about COVID in social media or in the mainstream media, or they were sacked from their jobs because they refused to have the COVID injections.

Implications for Catholic doctors

These laws are contrary to fundamental Catholic teaching regarding the right to life, and to live according to the truths of the Catholic faith. Even if you are not Catholic, these laws are against the natural law. The Hippocratic oath from 500 BC contained fundamentals precepts: first do not harm, do not prescribe or administer a poison, do not procure an abortion and there must be confidentiality between the physician and patient; the term “patient” derives from the Latin patientem: “suffering”.

Catholic doctors and doctors who follow the natural law cannot assist patients to kill themselves. We should not stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort their child and certainly not be complicit in abortion. We should not comply with giving a medical treatment the patient is forced into accepting because they believe it is dangerous or against their beliefs, or that we think may be dangerous for them and but recommended it to the patient because the government says it is so. On the other hand if we do not do these doctors are not able to practice medicine in our society.

What can be done?

As I said at the outset I contend these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare, which is an Australian government agency, is in contravention to section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian continent Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

This amendment to the Constitution was brought in by the Robert Menzies in 1946, in the context of the then recent Nuremberg medical trials which punished doctors who performed forced experimental medical treatment.

Although it may be sometime before we can use the Constitution to rectify the situation logically, it should be possible if there is sufficient public opinion to push things towards this end.

The main purpose of my talk is to raise public awareness of the current state of affairs so that people can form an understanding of how we got to the situation, which is completely untenable and unacceptable, and then take steps to change it.

Dr Mark Hobart, MBBS.
30 July 2026

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. 

ENDNOTES

  1. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/abortion-law-reform-act-2008/005 ↩︎
  2. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/equal-opportunity-act-2010/032 ↩︎
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11063965/ ↩︎
  4. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/voluntary-assisted-dying-act-2017/006 ↩︎
  5. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/crimes-act-1958/321 ↩︎
  6. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/voluntary-assisted-dying-act-2017/006 ↩︎
  7. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/COVID-19/Vaccination-immunisation-information ↩︎
euthanasia

Europeans call for elderly euthanasia

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

EU-backed groups promoted an international right to assisted suicide and government-sanctioned euthanasia programs in negotiations of a new legally binding UN treaty on the rights of older persons last week.

By Kelly Heilman, J.D.  at C-Fam

The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons, tasked with drafting the new treaty, held the first consultation on the content and scope of the treaty last week. While most governments focused on protections against age discrimination and neglect, non-governmental groups funded by the European Union called for the treaty to include controversial obligations related to “sexual and reproductive rights,” DEI, gender ideology, and even the “right to die with dignity.”

The EU-funded non-governmental organization AGE Platform Europe criticized the fact that assisted suicide is usually seen as a “taboo” subject. They called for more “open discussion” and the incorporation of research conducted by the World Health Organization.

The Americas National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) Network, representing a range of human rights institutions, also funded by the European Union and the UN system, called for the treaty to include “reproductive rights” and “the right to die with dignity.” They also said the treaty should adopt an “intersectional approach.” This approach integrates woke gender and DEI priorities across all policy areas.

The negotiations are taking place against the background of highly charged political debates in several countries. France recently legalized euthanasia and has been heavily criticized for not adopting sufficient safeguards for disabled, elderly, or mentally impaired individuals. The Labour government in the United Kingdom tried to pass a euthanasia law last year, but it stalled after disability advocates raised concerns. At the same time, countries where euthanasia is already legal, including Canada, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, are increasingly coming under fire for allowing assisted suicide for children, the elderly, and disabled persons, and persons only diagnosed with depression.

The World Health Organization does not oppose assisted suicide. It quietly accepts it without actively promoting it. WHO promotes the notion of “death with dignity” instead. Even though it is the same term used by euthanasia advocates, WHO says “death with dignity” refers to palliative care to help manage pain in all contexts regardless of the legal status of euthanasia.

Some disability rights groups are not aware of the dangers of including ambiguous “death with dignity” provisions in the new treaty. Others assume that the treaty will allow euthanasia in some form as part of the “death with dignity” provision, much like the WHO approach.

“Where medical assistance in dying exists, eligibility must rest on the fact that the person is dying, never on disability or old age,” Inclusion Canada said. However, while claiming to protect those with disabilities or mental illness, they also said: “no advance document may authorize ending a person’s life without contemporaneous consent.” In other words, with consent, care, and support, older people can readily consider death as an option.

The new treaty has been discussed as a possibility for close to two decades. Disability groups support the treaty to add further safeguards against ageism, exclusion, and discrimination in international law. They say the treaty must treat older persons as full rights holders rather than passive recipients of care.

The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons will continue to hold consultations for the next two years. The working group is expected to provide an initial draft of the treaty by the end of the consultations.

by Kelly Heilman, J.D. at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

gender

GenderSpeak: weaponizing gender against sex

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

When and why did the word “gender” displace the word “sex?” “Gender” refers to a person’s socially constructed identity of being male, female, or some other category, while “sex” refers to physical characteristics of male or female, such as chromosomes. Gender is a matter of a person’s self-perception; sex is a circumstance of birth.

by Wendy McElroy at the Brownstone Institute

When did sex get pushed to the curb by gender? In his book The Man Who Invented Gender, Terry Goldie claims that the sexologist John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical Center (Baltimore) first used the word “gender” in its modern meaning in 1955. Money pioneered the word to describe his famous John/Joan experiment that was conducted on a young boy named Bruce who’d lost his penis in an accident. To ‘prove’ Money’s theory that sexual identity was learned and not biological, Bruce’s parents raised him as a girl, complete with a surgically constructed vagina. The experiment failed. Bruce ultimately insisted on living as male, but he did not recover from the ordeal Money imposed on him, which he called torture. Bruce committed suicide in his 30s.

By then, however, Money had declared for decades that John/Joan was a complete success; discussions of “gender identity” abounded in ‘60s medical journals and academia. By the ‘70s and ‘80s, feminists brought the term to the streets, with “gender” describing a person’s self-defined sociocultural identity and “sex” meaning biology. Then, the word wedged its way into government. In 1993, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaced “sex” with “gender” in its literature. In 2011, “sex” returned to the FDA to mean biology while “gender” meant “a person’s self-representation.” The term went global. Also in 1993, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) vaguely defined this aggression as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women.”

Genderspeak became the language of elites, social justice activists, and the government, while average people still spoke of “sex”. But more than elitism lies behind the difference in words. By swapping in their own terms, elitists—especially professional feminists—grabbed the narrative on sexuality and politicized it to dismiss anyone who disagrees. Since the average male generally still uses biology to define his sexuality, he is an opponent; the average male is a living, breathing disagreement.

The ideology of gender faces an obstacle, however. If people can argue effectively against gender, then the narrative is difficult to manage. Those who dissent must be intimidated into silence or otherwise marginalized. The main strategy is to condemn dissenters as hate-filled. If some people cannot be silenced, then their words or opinions can become hate crimes punishable by law. George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four is about a dystopian society of social control, which is maintained largely through restricting language. Since words are the foundation of thought, this means people cannot form thoughts, let alone articulate them. The villain of Nineteen-Eighty-Four proclaims, “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” He concludes, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” 

Men’s health researcher James L. Nuzzo highlights an attempt to perfect the language. “In recent years, use of the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) in the titles and abstracts of papers indexed in PubMed has increased noticeably. Between 2019 and 2025, the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) appeared in the titles or abstracts of 2,784 articles indexed in PubMed.” [Chart available here.] 

A typical definition of gender-related violence or gendered violence is “any form of physical or non-physical violence or abuse against a person or group of people because of biased or harmful beliefs about gender. It can include things that happen online and that use digital technology.” This definition is typical because it includes non-physical violence (discrimination) and abuse (words) that are motivated by non-specific ”biased or harmful beliefs about gender.” Nineteen-Eighty-Four would refer to such non-physical violence as “crimethink,” with thought itself being an assault. 

Just as “sex” is displaced by “gender,” well-researched and comparatively clear terms such as “domestic violence” are displaced by less-defined ones such as “gender-related violence.” This achieves several goals. For one thing, the confusing definition becomes elastic. Almost any word or act can be stretched to qualify as “gender-related violence,” especially since virtually everything in the politicized feminist universe is gender-related. 

But the most important purpose of swapping in the word “gender” is to introduce a subtle but powerful bias that controls the narrative; it creates Genderspeak. 

The concept of gender comes directly from the twin ideologies of Social Constructionism and Gender Feminism. Social Constructionism tells us that male and female are learned forms of behavior (gender) rather than biology (sex). 

To this, Gender Feminism adds an ideological layer. Male and female are patriarchal learned behaviors; they are social concepts derived from white male capitalistic culture. Thus, approaching violence in a correctly gendered way means rejecting white male capitalism—the economic system that is said to vest power and wealth in the hands of white men at the expense of everyone else. To embrace gender is to reject white male culture and capitalism, with ‘the free market’ usually viewed as a synonym. 

Genderspeak is similar to Orwell’s Newspeak. Both are ambiguous speech that embeds ideology into the language so that every word perpetuates correcthink—officially approved thought. In Orwell’s dystopian world, Newspeak serves the ideological goals of Ingsoc – an abbreviation for English Socialism. It gradually replaces Oldspeak and becomes pivotal in defining politics and culture. Genderspeak has the same ideological goal. If you embed gender ideology into words, then you control how people think and how culture develops.  

The process goes something like this:

  • Embed new ideologically-driven language when possible. For example, substitute the term “gendered violence” for the more research-driven term “domestic violence.” 
  • Eliminate “wrong” words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, salvageable literature was rewritten in Newspeak so that authors either disappeared or were reinterpreted to serve Ingsoc. Today, school texts are commonly reviewed to eliminate wrong words. ‘Improper’ ones like “Founding Fathers” are changed to proper ones like “Framers.” 
  • Change the meaning of words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, the word “free” is used only in the simple form of ‘my sweater is free of lint.’ The concept of freedom does not exist. The current usage of “diversity” in Genderspeak is similar. It is a diversity that tolerates no deviation. Its conclusions are or can be mandated by law. 
  • Introduce doublethink. Doublethink is when someone accepts two contradictory ideas as being true. A modern example is students who attend “sensitivity training,” which includes publicly ridiculing and humiliating whites and males because of their race and sex. This is sensitivity?
  • Last of all, decry anyone who objects as a hater and oppressor; punish them.

Precise wording provides the incredible benefit of letting people know what they are talking about. It is time to reclaim the richness of precise English…verb by verb, adjective by adjective. Words should not be propaganda that blocks thought; disagreement is no crime. And sex is reality, while gender is not. The concept and the word “gender” should be abandoned by people who respect either accuracy or truth.

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer. McElroy is the editor of the website ifeminists.net. This article first appeared at Brownstone Institute and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

LGBTQ

Sydney landlords shut down anti-Christian LGBTQ+ performances at heritage-listed former church

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Landlords have shut the door on the LGBTQ+ desecration of a former Sydney Catholic Church and theatre named after saints.

by Rod Lampard

Concerned critics said St John the Evangelist, which had previously also served as a school for the poor and a men’s shelter, was being used to mock Christianity in the name of art.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the club was “slated to host live music, cabaret shows and performances — most of it adopting Catholic themes and names.”

Dubbed as an “experimental nightclub” and the brain-burp of LGBTQ+ company Heaps Gay Events, the former church was branded “The Unholy Playhouse.”

Organisers quickly changed this to “The Divine Playhouse” after media attention attracted an apparently unexpected flood of public criticism.

Owners issue notice of breach of lease

St John’s current owners, Anthony El-Hazouri and Charbel Hazzouri (Revelop), caught wind of the proposed use, then “issued a notice of breach of the lease over offensive trade.”

Heaps Gay founder, Kat Dopper, said her company “had acted in good faith throughout this whole process and remains committed to meeting our obligations as tenants and working towards a constructive resolution.”

Dopper claims the group was “being silenced,” and has said they are “exploring legal options.”

Sydney’s alt-news site CityHub blamed “radical Christian groups” for the cancellation.

They were referring to Christian Ministries Fit for the Kingdom (FFTK) and The Prodigal Sons (TPS).

Both ministries gathered over 150 Christians to pray outside the 158-year-old church building last week.

Saying it without stating it, CityHub accused the two groups of selective outrage, and insinuated that they were “seeking to prevent [those who identify as] LGBTQ+ from expressing themselves.”

Confirming the context, CityHub quoted Revelop’s breach of lease notice, which read:

“We note that the trade carried on by HG Events has been the subject of significant protest and public criticism, given its offensive nature.

“Such offensive trade has caused, and will continue to cause, grievance and disturbance to owners of adjoining properties and to the general public.

“In circumstances where future public protests are almost certain to occur and are likely to endanger members of the public, our client considers that the time by which the offensive trade is to cease is reasonable.”

On Instagram, Fit for the Kingdom founder, Tomas Mones-Cazon, said: “What makes this worse? The club is openly supported and funded by the NSW Government through Create NSW.”

“Taxpayer money from hardworking people including Christians is being used to desecrate a sacred heritage building and mock the Christian faith that helped build this nation.”

“This would never be allowed for Islam or Judaism,” he protested, “There would be immediate outrage, protests and government intervention.”

A second prayer vigil outside St John’s is planned for 17 July.

NSW state government funding Christian mockery

Validating Mones-Cazon’s claims, Australasian Leisure Management (ALM) confirmed that the NSW State Government had contributed 100,000 dollars to the venue.

Now removed, Heaps Gay’s insensitive marketing and social media posts are what first drew public attention to the LGBTQ+ club’s blatant mockery of Christianity.

For example, ALM recalled the former church being marketed as a “Sanctuary for Divine Mischief.”

Heaps Gay also openly “promoted events using Christian language and symbolism.”

This included “promotional material featuring drag performers dressed as nuns and religious imagery.”

Images that have resurfaced online show “The Divine Playhouse” mocking the Eucharist using McDonald’s fries and a man dressed as a pig.

One post shows a crucifix attached to a BDSM “dog collar.” Another picture shows someone wearing stiletto heels with a cross on the soles.

Others show a clear mockery of Christian ritual and liturgy being performed within St John’s.

‘Neither respect nor tolerance’

The Australian Christians Party backed the owner’s cease and desist notice.

Maryka Groenewald stated in a press release that “even after deconsecration, Church buildings remain places that still carry deep spiritual and cultural significance for believers.”

“They shouldn’t be used as backdrops for explicit entertainment that mocks or trivialises the Christian faith.”

The Western Australian Legislative member then protested the double standard, rightly arguing that this is the “same political lobby that constantly speaks about ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’.”

Now they’re “trying to bully a landlord into hosting events that show neither respect nor tolerance for the Christian worldview.”

“Sydney is not short of nightlife venues or performance spaces.

“It again raises a fair question: why the determination to stage these particular activities in churches?

“We want the [owners of St John’s] to know they are not alone.”

“Many Christians and common-sense Australians can see the double standard at work,” Groenewald added, stating that they “are grateful for their willingness to draw a line in defence of Christian morality and basic respect.”

Reading the room, Family First’s Lyle Shelton simply said, “Imagine if this happened to Islam?”

In a Family First statement published online, he added, “The Minns Government would never dream of funding an arts project devoted to mocking Islam’s prophet Muhammad or ridiculing Islamic religious practices.

“There would be an immediate public outcry and possibly violence. Christianity should be afforded the same respect.”

History of St John the Evangelist

Built in 1868, St John the Evangelist was deconsecrated in the 1930s.

The Catholic Press reported in 1938 that a “gradual clearing out of the residential population” had shifted the building’s usefulness.

Kent Street was being transformed into a commercial hub.

St John’s “carried on as a school, but even that was discontinued as there was no longer either any people or children to be served.”

As The Sydney Morning Herald wrote one month later: when St John’s on Kent was built, “sunlight flooded through its windows. From its front door there was a view of the harbour.”

“Today the church is wedged between large commercial buildings.”

After the people had moved on, the church building was “rented out for secular purposes.”

In 1938 the church reintegrated the building back into its Christian mission. Priests from St Mary’s Cathedral proposed using the church as a hostel for the down and out.

Consequently, St John’s on Kent became the first site of the Matthew Talbot Hostel, Sydney’s long-running Saint Vincent de Paul’s men’s shelter.

From 1952–2020, the Gothic, Victorian-style, stone building served as the home of The Genesian Theatre, named after St Genesius, the patron saint of actors.

Now it’s being used by the LGBTQ+, who, with the monetary blessing of Labor politicians, are funding the mockery of Christianity behind the guise of “art” and “freedom of expression”.

As evidenced by the recent Australian Christian Freedom Index, the 21st century now offers plenty of examples showing the consequences of de-Christianisation.

The abuse of St John’s and the “be tolerant — don’t shove your religion down our throats — love is love” hypocrisy attached to it is one of the loudest.

Christians repeatedly deployed St John’s to serve the community; homosexuals are now using it to serve their own self-interests.

The difference between the two groups does not get any clearer than that.

By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good. 

eugenic

Global effort to shut down eugenic baby mills

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Governments from multiple countries recently signed a political declaration calling for an international moratorium on surrogacy and advocating a complete worldwide ban.

by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam

The declaration warns that women and girls in surrogacy arrangements “face medical risks, coercion, exploitation and loss of agency that fall disproportionally on vulnerable populations with limited access to legal remedies.” It also points to psychological, emotional, and identity-related impacts on children born through surrogacy, along with risks of abandonment and human trafficking.

“Surrogacy is no longer a matter confined to domestic legislation or individual choices,’ said Eugenia Roccella, the Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities. “ It has become a global phenomenon increasingly shaped by international markets, cross-border arrangements, and profound inequalities within and between societies.”

A $600,000 lawsuit recently filed in Canada against a surrogate mother reveals the legal and moral complications of the practice. Two years after giving birth, the mother was sued by the same-sex couple who hired her because she refused to abort the child after it was diagnosed with a cleft lip and a possible heart defect at 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The child, conceived through in vitro fertilization using a donor egg and sperm from each of the men, has had one reported medical incident, but is otherwise healthy. The lawsuit alleges the mother failed to “follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’s medical care.”

Research indicates that 33% to 40% of those commissioning surrogates are same-sex couples. Homosexual male couples represent a substantial majority of this group, while heterosexual couples make up about 66% of surrogacy arrangements overall. The “Gayby Boom,” as it is called, represents the largest demographic in gestational surrogacy, which requires an egg donor, an IVF procedure, and a surrogate.

Celebrities who have engaged surrogates, such as Kim Kardashian, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Neil Patrick Harris, have also boosted the popularity of the practice.

According to a UN study on surrogacy published late last year by the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Reem Alsalem, surrogacy is now worth nearly $14.95 billion a year and is expected to grow to $99.75 billion by 2033.

Alsalem gave a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council during the recent session and again stressed her concern for the women who are most vulnerable to violence because of the surrogacy practice.

“The states that are joining the declaration today recognize that surrogacy raises fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children,” said Alsalem. “They recognize that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible.”

The declaration was released in June, during the 62nd session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, by the Holy See along with Italy, Chile, and Cameroon. It was announced as the first step toward abolishing the practice they believe involves the “commodification of human life and women’s reproductive abilities.”

More than 220 organisations from 40 countries have been working together on a coordinated international strategy to end surrogacy.

by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

conversion

Religious leaders sound alarm on Victoria’s oppressive conversion therapy ban

Published on by EF Team1 Comment

Religious leaders in Victoria, Australia, have called on their Government to roll back its oppressive conversion therapy ban, warning that it criminalises conversations between parents and children, and prevents ministers from offering pastoral advice to those seeking it.

by The Christian Institute

Victoria’s infamous Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act criminalises any practice deemed to be ‘aimed’ at ‘changing or suppressing’ an individual’s ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’. The penalty is up to ten years in prison or a maximum fine of over A$200,000.

Not only does Victoria’s ban make it unlawful not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law also prohibits prayers about sin and repentance. Just as alarming, the guidance even said a parent discouraging their child from taking puberty blockers would be guilty of unlawful conversion therapy — this was only deleted following public backlash.

This video was created for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission two years ago. It shows how committed the government is to promoting gender ideology, and to minimising religious practise in Victoria.

Four years on from the Act coming into force, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has launched a review of the legislation.

In their submission to the review, a group of religious leaders with pastoral oversight for more than two million Victorians warn that the Act extends far beyond addressing harmful practices, and that its “broad overreach, ambiguity and ill-defined concepts of faith, has caused confusion in the community”. They say this is most notable among religious leaders and parents, who “appear to be disproportionately affected by the Act”.

Representing a range of religious traditions – including Anglican, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim – the leaders go on to say there has been “a chilling effect, particularly on religious leaders, many of whom feel constrained or unable to provide appropriate pastoral care to those seeking guidance for fear of breaching the law”.

Joanna Timm, Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute, commented:

“For years, activists have championed Victoria’s conversion therapy ban as the model for the UK to follow. That is why this latest intervention from religious leaders in Victoria is so significant.

“It puts paid to the claim that concerns about a UK conversion therapy ban are alarmist, and pulls back the curtain on the impact such laws have on ordinary church work and parenting. With the Westminster Government doubling down on its commitment to legislation, Victoria shows us what happens when activist demands are written into statute.”

NOTES

• There are already robust protections in law against abuse and coercion. Independent legal advice from multiple KCs is clear that any extension of the criminal law could breach no fewer than four rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights by criminalising ordinary church work, parental guidance and gender-critical beliefs.

• The Westminster Government confirmed in the King’s Speech that it intends to publish a draft ‘conversion practices’ Bill for England and Wales.

Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

abortion

The moral dilemma facing Australia’s pro-life movement

Published on by EF Team1 Comment

Following the parliamentary defeat of late-term abortion restrictions in South Australia, advocates confront hard questions on legislative strategy and core principles.

by Right to Life NSW

The history of the South Australian bill

South Australia’s parliament has rejected legislation that would have imposed certain new restrictions on abortions after 25 weeks of pregnancy. For many Australians this was simply another conscience vote. For those committed to the pro-life cause, it raises a profound moral and political question: What should lawmakers do when they cannot secure complete protection for unborn children?

Is it morally acceptable to support a law that saves some lives, even if it still permits other abortions? That question lies at the heart of the recent proposal to change South Australia’s abortion legislation. And it is one that pro-lifers need to address.

The legislation was introduced by Family First MLC Sarah Game. It sought to amend South Australia’s abortion laws by prohibiting abortions after 25 weeks except in certain defined circumstances. This was not the first such attempt.

In fact, it was the third effort in just two years to tighten South Australia’s abortion regime, which was liberalised in 2021. The bill passed the Legislative Council by the narrowest of margins – ten votes to nine – before proceeding to the House of Assembly, where it was defeated decisively, thirty-six votes to nine. Sarah Game has already indicated she may return with another proposal in the future.

Political alignments and Parliamentary voting

The supporters of the legislation came from a variety of political backgrounds. Sarah Game herself argued that late-term abortions involve viable unborn children and that society has a moral obligation to offer them greater protection. Members of One Nation supported the bill, consistent with the party’s increasingly outspoken pro-life stance.

National political figures associated with the movement, including Barnaby Joyce, have recently appeared at pro-life rallies calling for greater legal protection of unborn children and warning politicians against treating abortion as a settled issue. Some Liberal and Labor MPs also voted in favour, demonstrating that abortion remains one of the few issues in Australian politics that regularly crosses party lines. For supporters, the bill represented an incremental but meaningful step towards protecting unborn life.

Opposition to the bill was broad and ultimately overwhelming. The Greens opposed it outright. Most Labor MPs voted against it, as did many Liberals. Premier Peter Malinauskas, who voted in favour of the bill, later criticised the renewed focus on abortion legislation and argued parliament should direct its attention elsewhere.

The moral debate and future advocacy

But from a pro-life perspective, a deeper question arises that cannot be settled by a political vote. The intention of the South Australian bill, although aimed at restricting the upper limit of late term abortions to 25 weeks, did allow for abortion up until that point. It also allowed abortions after that date in the cases of foetal abnormalities and in case of the health of the mother. Although a better law than the one already in operation in South Australia, the new law would have still been an incredibly permissive abortion law. Even by world standards.

The question for pro-lifers is how does one navigate the moral evil of abortion, given that a law outlawing abortion in any Australian juristiction at this point would seem impossible to pass. The question with which most pro-lifers struggle is: what are the limits within which we can effectively operate to stop abortion without sacrificing our principles? Despite the intention of those in favour of the South Australian bill, this was still a law that allowed abortions up until 25 weeks. It was still a morally problematic amendment as it left in place a deeply morally flawed law.

Another way of asking the question at the heart of this debate is: how much harm can be permitted even when one is acting with the clear intention of trying to reduce harm? The argument is one that pro-lifers need to have in order to come to some settled understanding of how to prosecute our cause. From this perspective, many pro-life advocates would argue that it is morally permissible to support Sarah Game’s bill, despite its exceptions. Others argue that any law allowing abortion is morally wrong and is therefore unacceptable.

Despite the noble intentions of those arguing in support of the bill, laws have an effect that is far greater than the individual intentions of legislators. And this cannot be overlooked, even when there is much enthusiasm for a cause. Many in the pro-life cause worry that laws containing exceptions or laws that continue to permit moral evil, will ultimately reinforce the idea that certain unborn lives are less worthy of protection than others. If a law objectively says some children deserve legal protection but others do not, despite the subjective intentions of legislators, will that not ultimately entrench the very evil that the pro-life movement seeks to overthrow?

It is difficult to gauge accurately within the pro-life movement, where the mainstream opinion is to be found on this issue. It seems that for many pro-lifers, any opportunity to reduce the number of abortions must be taken. For others, they argue that such opportunities are not as clear cut as we would like, as they represent their own kinds of harm that will ultimately do damage to the pro-life cause.

We at Right to Life welcome the debate and wish to contribute to making clear what are its parameters and what must be decided. We also welcome the work of those who have brought the abortion debate back into the mainstream. The South Australian bill has shown that abortion is no longer the taboo topic that our political class has made it out to be.

By making the problem of abortion mainstream- we immediately see who is aligned for a right to life and who opposes it. Across Australia, pro-life activists and politicians are becoming more organised and more willing to challenge laws that only a few years ago seemed politically settled. We are working towards making this debate the beginning of a new phase of pro-life advocacy in our country. We pray this may be the beginning of the end for abortion in Australia.

This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.

Sources

assisted-suicide

Assisted-suicide bill returns to UK Parliament amid renewed opposition

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

U.K. lawmakers will debate again whether to grant terminally ill adults a legal right to end their lives, following a fresh legislative push that has drawn fierce condemnation from Christian leaders and medical professionals. The previous Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would have allowed terminally ill adults with six months or fewer to live to receive assisted-suicide under specified safeguards. The legislation stalled after extensive amendments and procedural delays in the House of Lords prevented it from advancing before the parliamentary session ended May 13.

by Chris Eyte  for Christian Daily

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced that initial private member’s bill, which cleared the House of Commons in June 2025. Once it reached the Lords, the legislation faced hundreds of proposed amendments, sparking prolonged debate.

Lauren Edwards, the Labour MP for Rochester and Strood, confirmed in a statement on June 14 that she will reintroduce the identical bill. While Edwards stated she does not intend to invoke the Parliament Acts — a rare constitutional mechanism that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords — opponents argue she is using the possibility of the mechanism to pressure the upper chamber to approve the legislation.Stay informed with The Christian Daily NewsletterSign up

Edwards called the progression of her private member’s bill a “great privilege.”

“This long overdue change to the law was supported by MPs during the last session of Parliament and was prevented from passing only by the decision of a minority in the House of Lords to talk it out and stop it coming to a vote,” Edwards said.

Claiming it is a “fundamental democratic principle” that the elected House of Commons should decide British law, Edwards argued that lawmakers owe a final decision to terminally ill people and their families.

“And I believe it undermines public trust in our democracy more widely if we cannot deliver on a measure that is supported by a very large majority of voters in all parts of the country,” Edwards added that MPs across all parties weighed the evidence carefully. “They considered the evidence presented during the lengthy committee sessions, consulted their constituents and listened to those with personal experience of the injustice and cruelty in the law as it now stands.”

Edwards said MPs did not take the decision lightly, reminding the House of Lords that its constitutional role is to “revise legislation not to block it.”

“It was rightly described as the safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world,” Edwards said. “And it still is. If MPs pass it again, as I believe they will, it will go back to the Lords who will then be asked to finish the job they should have completed earlier this year.”

However, Christian organizations, healthcare alliances and disability advocates reacted swiftly to condemn the revived bill.

Gordon Macdonald, chief executive officer of Care Not Killing — a prominent alliance of church groups, healthcare professionals and disability rights organizations — expressed deep disappointment over what he termed an “illogical and ideological” decision.

“We are obviously disappointed by this decision to bring back a deeply flawed bill,” Macdonald said. “A bill that was so riddled with errors not a single doctors’ group or disabled group supported it. A bill that even before it went to committee in the Commons saw an important safeguard removed, namely the High Court overseeing each application.”

Macdonald warned that rushing such complex, technical legislation would force vulnerable people to “pay the price with their lives.” He cited a Whitestone Insight poll showing that 60 percent of the public oppose cutting parliamentary scrutiny short to force the bill through via the Parliament Acts, including a majority of Edwards’ own constituents.

“Indeed, only 34 percent of the electorate voted for Labour at the last election, so the Labour MP would be wrong to suggest that the Labour government has a democratic mandate to support the bill being forced through,” Macdonald pointed out.

The Christian Institute also issued a statement opposing the new attempt, arguing that the high volume of amendments tabled by peers was necessary given the poor quality of the initial text.

“Despite activists’ claims, the House of Lords did not table countless amendments to Leadbeater’s Bill out of mere ‘delay tactics,’” said Angus Saul, head of communications for The Christian Institute. “Peers emphasised over and again that the Bill was ‘full of holes’ and had not received due diligence and proper pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead of bringing back this horrific Bill, MPs need to ensure that all can access high-quality palliative care.”

Meanwhile, Right To Life UK warned that forcing the bill through would spark a civil war within the ruling Labour Party. Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive officer of Right To Life UK, urged Edwards to change course and introduce a less divisive piece of legislation.

“Using the Parliament Acts to force through a controversial Private Members’ Bill that was not in the government’s election manifesto would be unprecedented and unacceptable,” Hungerford-Morgan said.

“Given the slim majority with which Kim Leadbeater’s Bill passed the House of Commons last year, this opposition, combined with the many flaws in the Bill exposed by experts in the House of Lords, means the Bill would very likely fail even if it were revived.”

By Chris Eyte. Republished from Christian Daily under a Creative Commons license. Christian Daily International provides biblical, factual and personal news, stories and perspectives from every region, focusing on religious freedom, integrated gospel and other issues that are relevant to the global Church today.

abortion

The data pro-abortion advocates don’t want you to see

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A growing body of research is dismantling the claim that pro-life laws harm women’s health. Abortion advocates are willing to overlook the facts for the sake of ideology.

by Right to Life NSW

A growing body of research is challenging claims that pro-life laws harm women’s health, as new data from across the United States suggest abortion restrictions may reduce abortions without increasing maternal mortality. A recent study published on April 3, 2026, examined more than 22 million births and 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths between 2018 and 2023. Researchers found no significant rise in maternal mortality in states that enacted strong pro-life protections after the 2022 Dobbs decision overturned the federal right to abortion.

The study’s findings add to evidence that pro-life legislation can protect unborn children while maintaining quality healthcare for mothers. In Iowa, the state’s foetal heartbeat law — which bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected at around six weeks — reportedly reduced abortions by 40% since July 2024. Indiana saw an even more dramatic decline, with abortions falling by 98% following similar restrictions.

Texas also experienced notable demographic changes after implementing its heartbeat law in 2022. Data indicate the state’s fertility rate rose between 2% and 8%, suggesting more children are being carried to term rather than aborted. At the same time, maternal mortality rates in Texas reportedly declined by 2.4%, while states with comparable pro-life laws saw decreases averaging 3.3%.

Pro-life advocates say these findings undermine longstanding arguments that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health. While researchers caution that more long-term analysis is needed to establish direct causation, current evidence suggests that laws defending unborn life can coexist with positive public health outcomes for women and families alike.

References

This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.