When it comes to the sexual revolution, the Nordic governments continue to show they are among the most radical in the world. This was borne out again at the most recent session of the Universal Periodic Review, where governments review each other’s human rights records.
The Nordics continued to pressure other governments on abortion, gender ideology, and extreme sex-ed. In the most recent session of the UPR, where thirteen countries were reviewed, there were 35 instances where governments were pressured to liberalize their abortion laws. Twelve of them came from Nordic governments, which include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—but predominantly Iceland. Iceland generates by far the most abortion pressure out of all 193 UN member states at the UPR—around 20 percent of the total in the last completed review cycle.
The Nordic countries called for abortion to be legalized, decriminalized, and made more accessible, including by limiting the right of conscientious objection by health care providers.
On the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, the governments under review were pressured 160 times, 33 of which were from Iceland (close to 20 percent). These recommendations included urging the Marshall Islands to legalize same-sex marriage and “introduce a transparent administrative self-identification process for legal gender recognition free from intrusive requirements.” Iceland and Norway urged several countries to decriminalize same-sex sexual behavior and enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories.
Iceland also recommended that Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, and Panama guarantee that comprehensive sexuality education be provided, both in and out of school settings.
Nordic countries are among the top funders of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women, which in turn promote SRHR in developing countries where they work. This is despite the fact that the UN General Assembly has never accepted the SRHR terminology—despite decades of repeated efforts by the Nordics and their allies.
Unlike the U.S., which is a bigger donor but undergoes significant shifts in its foreign policy depending on which party controls Congress and the White House, the Nordic countries have maintained consistent political and financial support for SRHR over time. This has included Sweden’s launch of the first explicitly feminist foreign policy in 2014, a 2020 statement from Nordic prime ministers opposing any restrictions on abortion, and a 2024 joint statement from Nordic gender ministers in support of LGBTI rights.
In addition to their funding for UN agencies earmarked for promoting SRHR, Nordic countries also strategically fund activist groups within developing countries, particularly where social norms remain largely pro-life and pro-family. In 2014, the Queen of Denmark announced a new funding mechanism called Amplify Change, which supports “grassroots movements for SRHR.” It has provided grants for groups promoting abortion, “sex work,” comprehensive sexuality education, and reducing stigma around LGBT issues.
Despite continued Nordic investment in international SRHR, Sweden decided in 2022 to abandon the explicitly “feminist” framing of its foreign policy after a right-wing bloc won in a general election. This year, Norway’s left-wing government narrowly held on to power despite gains on the right. However, while populist parties make gains in the Nordic region, often motivated by mass immigration, it remains to be seen whether this will translate into a rightward movement on social issues in their foreign policy.
By Rebecca Oas. 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.
The European Union blocked funding to two European pro-life groups charging that they do not adhere to “EU values,” specifically abortion, homosexual marriage, and gender ideology.
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. and Kelly Heilman, J.D.
The European Union denied the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE) EU project funding six times in recent years. The World Youth Alliance received three review letters from the EU, which are essentially threats to lose funding. Both groups are pro-life and pro-family and say they are being targeted for their pro-life and pro-family beliefs.
FAFCE’s President, Vincenzo Bassi, told the Italian Bishops’ daily newspaper Avvenire, that his group was the target of “ideological discrimination” based on the EU Commission’s latest LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy.
Bassi explained that the Federation’s latest request for funds was turned down because it emphasized the importance of the family in their application and it is known that FAFCE represents Catholic families founded on the union of one man and one woman. EU authorities decided that “this focus (on the family) could violate EU equality norms” and that the group did not carry out enough “gender analysis” in its programs, which could in turn lead to discrimination.
FAFCE is one of Europe’s original pro-life and pro-family groups. It represents Catholic family associations from across Europe in EU institutions since 1997 and operates on a shoestring budget. In recent years it has held events and campaigns to promote family policies, the protection of children, and to oppose abortion and surrogacy.
The World Youth Alliance (WYA) is a youth organization that promotes the engagement of pro-life and pro-family youth with international institutions. It has received EU project funding in recent years but appears slated to lose it all because of its pro-life and pro-family work.
WYA was recently accused by the George Soros funded group openDemocracy with spreading false information about abortion. As a result, a formal compliance investigation into the organisation’s funding was opened and it was officially denied project funding. WYA’s status for future grants has not been determined.
WYA says the EU Commission does not have a legal basis for denying them funds. They argue that the Commission is relying on non-binding political decisions as if they were binding law.
EU funding projects are run by the EU Commission as the executive branch of the European Union. In recent years the Commission has begun to speak of “EU values” as a threshold issue for participating in EU civil society space and receiving EU funds.
The EU values that the Commission is purportedly enforcing are found in the 1992 Treaty on the European Union. That treaty provides the Commission with the authority to take action against EU member states for a failure to uphold “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.” The Commission interprets these EU values to include homosexual and transgender issues as well as abortion and extrapolates that its mandate requires imposing these as ideological requirements on organizations that receive EU grants.
Discrimination against pro-life groups
These developments are part of a wider push by abortion and LGBT advocates to censor pro-family and pro-life groups and exclude them from participation in public debates. Several reports from groups funded by the EU Commission, the U.S. State Department, George Soros, and other progressive international actors call on international organizations to expel and deny participation to so-called “anti-rights” groups. Most recently, the “Next Wave Report” models this approach. It is authored by Neil Datta of the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights, an initiative of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network.
Most civil society organisations and charities in the European Union receive public funds and would not be able to operate without them. Unlike the United States, where the tax code encourages independent civil society institutions for religious, educational and charitable purposes, Europe does not historically have a robust civil society. Public funding from European institutions has tried to fill that gap. The difficulties of FAFCE and WYA face at the EU Commission show the tradeoff that happens when independent civil society organisations, including pro-life groups become dependent on public funds.
Stefano Gennarini, J.D.and Kelly Heilman, J.D.
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.
An increasing number of pro-life governments are pushing back against radical abortion and gender ideology at the UN General Assembly.
Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
More governments than ever voted for eliminating controversial language related to abortion and LGBT issues in the ongoing UN General Assembly.
In the Third Committee of the General Assembly, forty-eight governments voted in favour of removing “sexual and reproductive health” language from a resolution on children. Seventy governments voted to remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from a resolution on persons with disabilities.
A close call
In both cases the amendments to remove the controversial terms failed, but the votes were closer than it was imagined possible. While seventy-four governments voted to retain the language on sexual orientation, they won by a mere four votes. Many of the governments that voted in favor of the homosexual and transgender agenda did so only because of pressure from the European Union. Over fifty states abstained or failed to cast a vote.
The close vote is a wakeup call for the European Union and progressive governments that promote abortion and gender ideology in UN policy. The vote demonstrated a realistic path to rollback abortion and gender ideology from UN policy altogether, something few thought possible during the first Trump administration.
Pushing back from Africa to Europe
Dozens of delegations made statements complaining of the attempt to corrupt children through explicit UN-style sex education and the promotion of abortion and contraception for children without parental consent.
Speaking on behalf of a group of African governments, Nigeria complained that proposals related to the importance of the family were not included in the final draft, despite being based on the obligations of all members states under binding international treaties.
A delegate from Burkina Faso —speaking for Burundi, Cameroon, and Mali — said the use of the term sexual and reproductive health “cannot be interpreted as giving children access to drugs and medical treatment without parental consent.” She said the term must only refer to health services that are “legal and approved by competent authorities” in each nation. She emphasized the “inalienable and central role” of parents in the education of children.
Argentina’s delegate said parents had the “primary responsibility” to protect children and that the State could “support, but never replace” the family. He emphasized that protecting the family is a “structural principle of human rights law, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and that it is part of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
The delegate of Denmark speaking on behalf of all the nations that are part of the European Union attacked the amendment to protect children from sexualization as “harmful to the substance of the resolution” and urged nations to keep “sexual orientation and gender identity” in the resolution on persons with disabilities. Earlier in the day, he had also attacked developing nations in Africa and Asia for refusing to recognize homosexual unions as families in a resolution about the family. “Families are living dynamic entities” and “various forms of the family exist” he said.
The amendments that led to the debate were proposed by Burundi and Egypt, respectively. The Egyptian amendment to delete the homosexual and gender identity language was on behalf of the 54 member states of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.
The sexual left among UN member states and UN bureaucrats are increasingly furious about traditional governments pushing back on abortion and LGBT issues. They have invented a new term — anti-rights — for those governments and NGOs that oppose their agenda.
Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
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.
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. In this article, Dr. Hobart looks at three areas of Victorian health law which violate the conscience rights of medical doctors and other health professionals.
By Dr. Mark Hobart
In Victoria first we had denial of conscience with regards to abortion in 2008. Then we had the denial of conscience with regards to the Covid gene therapy in 2021 . And now it is legislated that we have denial of conscience with regards to the promotion of euthanasia. These three government directives lead to the inability of the doctor to give his or her independent opinion regarding abortion, covid injections and euthanasia.
Abortion
According to the Victorian 2008 Abortion Law Reform Act,1 a request for abortion to a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must be referred to a doctor who does not have a conscientious objection to abortion:
ABORTION LAW REFORM ACT 2008 – SECTION 8
Obligations of registered health practitioner who has conscientious objection
(1) If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.
It is the case now that if the doctor advises against abortion and then refuses to refer, he will be breaking the 2008 ALR Act. This is especially worrying if the woman is being coerced.
I was cautioned for this in January 20142 by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) when I refused to refer a woman for an abortion at 19 1/2 weeks for gender selection because the unborn baby was female and they wanted a boy. So, in fact, if a woman says she wants an abortion, she must be referred for an abortion.
Covid injections
In March of 2021, AHPRA issued a position statement3 for registered health practitioners and students regarding the COVID-19 vaccination.
If you opposed the position statement, you would have been suspended, as happened to me and to four other Victorian doctors. From the position statement (emphasis added):
Conscientious objection In the case of a conscientious objection about receiving, authorising, prescribing or administering COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must inform their employer and/or other relevant colleagues (where necessary) of their objection as soon as reasonably practical. For example, a practitioner’s personal beliefs may form the basis of a conscientious objection to particular treatments. In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.
While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students. National Boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Queries about COVID-19 vaccination programs should be directed to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which are responsible for these programs.
COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.
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. …. Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service4 (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by AHPRA.
In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates, usually three months duration, to my patients who were being forced to have the Covid injection. Had they refused, they would have lost their jobs and/or had an injection which was dangerous to their health and/or also conflicted with their religious beliefs because the injections are made using aborted human foetal parts.
When I had the opportunity to ask them, about 50% of these patients had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a three months certificate saying that they should not have the injection.
I am still suspended now four years later. I will finally have a trial in April 2026 in which AHPRA/the medical board will attempt to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.
I am one of only four doctors who have been suspended for this 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.
Voluntary Assisted Dying
The Victorian government has amended4 the Voluntary Assisted Dying law to make it a requirement that doctors give information about VAD to their patients.
Possibly, from as early as December this year, doctors must advise that another practitioner may assist and give the person the information. You are also required to give information approved by the “secretary.”
“(2) If a registered medical practitioner or nurse 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 medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and (b) give the person the following information— (i) contact details for the prescribed voluntary assisted dying care navigator service; (ii) the address of an Internet site of the Department of Health that provides information about voluntary assisted dying.”.
Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying. This should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the Crimes Act with a penalty of five years in jail, it can’t be called that.
It can’t be called voluntary assisted death either, because it’s up to the patient to take the medication at their discretion. The doctor doesn’t need to wait around to make sure that the patient is dead, as the drug is supposed to kill them; this is usually phenobarbitone, which may or may not work. [See this article on why assisted suicide is neither dignified nor painless.]
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 record the terminal condition which led to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more; for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or Neil Daniher’s motor neurone disease.
Now we come to the crunch. In past years, if you felt there was a genuine possibility that a patient would commit suicide, you would call the CATT team6 or the police surgeon to prevent it. In the more distant past, you could certify the patient yourself.
Yet according to this new legislation, if patients comes to you, as a doctor, requesting “assisted dying” and the information needed to access it, (i.e. they want to know how to commit suicide), instead of asking them why they want to commit suicide, you must give the advice on how to kill themselves, including information approved by the government secretary. I hope she’s a good secretary.
Implications for Catholic doctors
All the formerly Catholic hospitals are now influenced by the government to a large extent, for example St. Vincent’s and the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne. There are obviously others as well, and we have the example of the fate of the Calvary hospital in Canberra.
Obviously, these laws are insane. We are Catholic doctors. We cannot advise patients to kill themselves. We cannot stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort her child. We cannot stand by and agree with a medical treatment that we think is dangerous and has been recommended to the patient because the government says it is justified.
On the other hand, if we act on our consciences, we will not be able to practise medicine in our society. It is not only doctors but nurses who are at risk. They certainly won’t be able to do general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology. Endocrinology and psychology will be a big problem, as will plastic surgery and other forms of surgery be problematic. These include paediatrics and paediatric surgery. The implications are endless.
I believe Catholics were excluded from the professions in England following the Elizabethan persecutions and that this continued until 1871. Such restrictions on faithful health professionals are being imposed in C21st Australia and must be opposed at every stage.
A tiny premature Queenslander is being hailed as a miracle baby; his recovery illustrates the reality and the injustice of late-term abortion.
In a deeply moving story out of Queensland, a tiny baby born at just 22 weeks and six days gestation has finally gone home after surviving a staggering 139 days in hospital. George Lassig Hodgetts, who weighed only 510 grams at birth, defied the odds when he and his twin brother Jude were born prematurely at Townsville University Hospital. Sadly, Jude passed away at five weeks. But George’s survival and discharge is being hailed as nothing short of a miracle.
From the moment of his birth, George’s life hung in the balance. His parents, Maddy and Damien, made the courageous decision to ask doctors to do everything they could to save them, despite being told of the extremely high risks. Their plea represents the essence of the pro-life conviction: that even the smallest and most fragile lives are worth fighting for.
Over almost five months in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), George endured a series of life saving interventions. He received blood transfusions, six weeks of antiviral therapy, and constant respiratory support.³ Skilled neonatal specialists, nurses, and doctors pulled out all the stops, demonstrating both the capacity of Queensland’s health system and the moral imperative to preserve life at its most vulnerable.
When George finally left the hospital, he weighed around 5 kg and was thriving, having passed checks on his heart, hearing, and vision.⁴ His progress is a clear demonstration that surviving extreme prematurity is not just possible, but that with proper care, life can flourish even in its smallest form.
But George’s journey also raises important political and ethical questions for Queensland. As medical technology advances, babies born earlier and earlier can survive, yet our policies often fail to reflect this reality. His story stands as a powerful response to arguments in favour of late term abortion. Instead of assuming premature babies cannot survive, George shows that with compassion, resources, and determination, even the tiniest among us can beat the odds.
His story also highlights the importance of continued investment in neonatal services statewide. The level of care he required and the immense emotional toll on his family emphasise that Queensland must prioritise NICUs, staff resourcing, and parental support systems. Protecting vulnerable life is not just an ethical stance, it is a practical political commitment.
For the pro-life community, George’s survival is more than a touching human story, it is evidence. Evidence that life in the womb is precious. Evidence that viability is shifting earlier. Evidence that the smallest Queenslanders deserve the greatest protection.
As George’s family begins their life at home, their story remains a reminder: Every life deserves a chance. And when we choose life, even when it is fragile, miracles can happen.
By Melanie Cliff. This article first appeared at Cherish Life and is republished here with permission. Cherish Life Queensland was founded in 1970 (as Right to Life Queensland), to advocate for the right to life from conception until natural death and remains one of the largest pro-life organisations in Australia.
European abortion advocates have gathered more than one million signatures asking the European Union to pay for women to travel abroad for their abortions. The idea is that the EU would pay for a Polish woman, for instance, to travel to France for a late-term abortion.
Nika Kovač, the representative of the “My Voice, My Choice” petition drive, said, “women from Poland have a good network of NGOs which are supporting their travels and medical procedures [for abortion]. But those medical procedures are costly, so what we want to do is to establish a way that NGOs or women themselves do not need to pay for them.”
Pro-life NGOs and members of the EU parliament came together in the European Parliament to object. “We are here today for a fight, a fight that is eminently political […] it is a fight for life,” said Laurence Trochu, French politician and member of the European Parliament.
The European Center for Law and Justice organized a response in the European Parliament. The conference, co-hosted by the One of Us Federation, the European People’s Party, and the European Conservatives and Reformists, the two main conservative parties in the EU Parliament, was the largest gathering of pro-life advocates in the EU Parliament in more than a decade.
“This petition is completely out of step with the reality of abortion,” said Nicolas Bauer, Senior Research Fellow at the ECLJ. Bauer warned against speaking of abortion “as a trivial choice” and said that the “‘My Voice My Choice’ is a denial of women’s suffering” and a “denial of the unborn child, who is the most innocent being there is.”
Six women testified to their emotional and psychological wounds inflicted by abortion. One French woman described her abortion as “not chosen but endured.” She described the pressure she felt from the father of her baby and the medical establishment to undergo the abortion. She sought advice from several doctors but didn’t find a single “neutral third party.” Instead, they downplayed her concerns and accelerated the abortion process. She recalled lying on the floor crying when the baby’s father put the pill in her mouth that was supposed to “help the baby come out.”
Bauer said the European Union, through its “support and coordination powers,” could do more to “support motherhood and the family” in line with Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that “[t]he protection of the family is ensured on the legal, economic and social level.”
Bauer noted one successful EU program that supported one hundred poor and isolated Italian families who were “overwhelmed by the demands of welcoming and raising children” but flagged that its funding was “modest” and “discontinued four years ago” and that “[s]ince then, nothing has been done at the European level to support motherhood and the family.”
“The European Union is responsible for supporting motherhood and family life, and this morning we are asking it to make this a priority,” Bauer continued
The petition is part of an EU program called the European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows one million or more EU citizens to direct the European institutions to take up a particular issue. It should be noted that pro-lifers tried this years ago with something called One of Us. Though they gathered more than 1 million signatures, the European institutions ignored the request. The EU has yet to respond to the petition by pro-abortion groups.
By Iulia-Elena Cazan
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.
This testimony by Anne Sherston of Tasmania’s Human Life Protection Society is a reminder that a degree of coercion is a common factor among many abortions. Anne’s abortion at the age of 16 is a vivid example of that tragedy.
by Anne Sherston
No choice
Many people can’t put into words what they are feeling after an abortion, and sometimes, that might never even happen. I can explain, however, that there is a way to do this, and that is through spiritual healing…. If I hadn’t experienced my own healing, I would not have been able to do that either…. so now I am in a position to share my story with you.
Anne as a young girl
I had an abortion in 1975, when I was only 16 years of age. This was not my choice…. and there is no need in telling you who that person was who made that choice for me, because it doesn’t change anything, and I have forgiven that person a long time ago…. Also, it doesn’t change what I went through for years later, in fact for more than 29 years later…. During that time, I went through many emotions, anger, hatred, loneliness, and even being suicidal…
Close to suicide
The scariest time of all was when I was 18 years old and only been married a few months. I was coming home from work on a train in Sydney. Keep in mind that trains didn’t have automatic doors back then. If any of you remember those trains, they were called the red rattlers…
I was standing at the open doors of the carriage with my toes just over the edge, contemplating to step out…. I remember that day as if it was yesterday…. Hindsight is a marvellous thing….
I remember a presence behind me. I didn’t look around, however, that presence was telling me to step back and that he was ready to catch me, he was there for me. Now so many years later I know that was God…. God was with me at that moment and made sure I didn’t go any further. That was back in 1977 (48 years ago and 2 years after the abortion).
A ‘red rattler’
It took me another 25 years after that to reach out for help. I started seeing a psychologist, who helped me so much, however, still didn’t quite hit the spot. I was still searching for something. There was still something missing. That is, till I reached out to two very long-time friends who were part of the Rachel’s Vineyard retreat team in Sydney. I realized then that I hadn’t cried about this for those 29 years till I spoke to those friends, one being a priest.
Some people might think it would be easy to pick up the phone and ask for help, however, it takes a lot of courage to take that first step, to make that phone call. I’m not just talking about myself, but for all women and men that have had an abortion experience in their lives. Really, that applies to anyone who has had a traumatic event in their lives.
After those two phone calls, I agreed to attend that retreat in Sydney on the first weekend of October 2004. That weekend was totally life changing. I met Christ exactly in the place where I was, which was a place of brokenness. Attending one of these retreats, becomes life changing. Again, I don’t only speak for myself here, but for others that have shared their experiences of attending those retreats with me.
Spiritual healing is paramount
Until I went to that retreat, my life felt as if I was in quicksand. For nearly 3 decades, I was sinking in this quicksand and trying everything to get out. Then I attended the Rachel’s Vineyard retreat. The retreat took us deeper and deeper into a state of meditation and prayer. I was able to tap into my 16 year-old self and knowing I was doing this for her.
By doing the work that weekend, I started the journey of coming out of that quicksand. Each step I took, Jesus was there with me, He was there for me every step of the way. This experience was what I was missing and what I longed for. Come the Sunday morning of the retreat, my heart was ready to accept God’s mercy. Having been in that place, I knew that Jesus and my baby had forgiven me. I was able to breathe again……
Something I have learnt since that retreat, is that we need to take care of ourselves and our inner child. This is so important, because otherwise that inner child will never find that healing, he or she deserves. I am no expert; however, I do keep trying…. And that is something we all need to keep working at.
After a few months being back home, I got highly motivated and started the retreat in Tasmania and eventually took it to NZ, Singapore, Penang Malaysia, Perth and Brisbane. I ran this retreat for nearly 14 years before it was time for me to give it up. In that time, my team and I came across many women and men with so many experiences and reasons for them going ahead with the abortion…. Something for all of us to keep in mind, is that not all decisions to have an abortion, come from a place of freedom…
Coercion, lack of choice
For sure, some women choose quite easily to have an abortion, and even use it as a form of contraception; however, it’s not always the case. Some people are put in a situation as I was, and are forced into that procedure. Even some men don’t even get a say, maybe because the woman didn’t tell him she was pregnant until after the abortion had taken place, or she might say, “My Body, My Choice”.
There there was one couple that came to one of our retreats after having three healthy children, they were pregnant with their fourth healthy child, until their doctor convincingly told them, that since the husband had diabetes, he would never live long enough to watch his baby baby grow up.
Can you even begin to imagine what that would have been like for those parents!! How sad and traumatic is that…. As far as I know that man is still alive…. We so often feel that we can’t question our doctor, but we can! Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
A different example of a doctor’s approach, is when our youngest daughter, and her husband were planning to start a family of their own. The time came when she did the home pregnancy test and it showed up ‘positive’. Her next step was to confirm this with a GP. Once the pregnancy was confirmed, the doctor, just came right out and asked her “What do you want to do about it?”
Thankfully there was no question for my daughter or our son in-law. This is something they wanted; they planned for. There was no reason for this GP to question it. Of course, she never went to him again. We now have a gorgeous 11yr old grandson.
People that are sometimes put in a place where they have to choose, would be at their lowest. They would be scared on so many levels and most of them would feel that they have no choice and sadly they go through with the abortion…. Thankfully, we now know there is another choice and that is to go through with the pregnancy…. There is so much help out there now, compared to when I was 16 years old. {See the HLPS website for pregnancy support around Australia.}
Unless you walk a mile
So, while we continue with our day, please remember, not everyone chooses abortion from a place of freedom. We can’t stand in judgement; however, we can continue to hope and pray that they will change their minds. Also, that our governments, State and Federal will actually realise what they have approved and what they are paying for with our tax payers’ money.
We also need to keep advocating for these unborn babies and for the women and men that find themselves in a situation where they have to choose. We also need to keep praying and raising awareness for those who choose abortion freely.
There is a saying I use, and that is: “Unless you have walked a mile in my shoes, you truly don’t know what I have gone through….” Let us be generous with our thoughts while we continue our mission in saving the unborn and saving lives at all stages of life.
{NOTE: although Anne’s abortion took place many years ago, there is plenty of evidence to show that abortion coercion remains common. See recent articles here, here and here.}
by Anne Sherston. Anne is the President of the Human life Protection Society, based in Tasmania. Anne ran Rachel’s Vieyard retreats for 14 years, and joined the HLPS in 2023. HLPS was founded in 1972 and has been a voice for the voiceless ever since, advocating against abortion, euthanasia and disability discrimination.
For information about post-abortion healing, please see the Rachel’s Vineyard website
Baby Priya’s Bill will become law after being rushed through the Senate by Labor, who cut short debate on how the law will treat deliberate late-term abortions.
by Kurt Mahlburg
Labor and the Greens have used their majority in the Senate to cut short debate and push through the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 — a move that sparked outrage from senators who warn the Albanese government silenced scrutiny over how the law treats intentional late-term abortions.
Passed on Monday, the bill requires Australian employers to maintain paid parental leave entitlements for employees who lose a child to stillbirth or newborn death — a provision that received unanimous support even from pro-life senators.
However, under existing definitions in Australian law, the same provision also applies in the case of intentional late-term abortions that are performed after 20 weeks’ gestation — a fact critics warn was deliberately hidden from public view.
Senator Matt Canavan condemned the government’s use of parliamentary procedure to “silence debate” on an issue he described as deeply sensitive and deserving of open discussion.
“Labor and the Greens teamed up in the Senate to shamefully silence debate on Priya’s Bill,” he said. “Thousands of Australians were concerned that this Bill would extend such rights in circumstances where a termination was intentional. These concerns deserved investigation.”
Canavan explained that the government blocked the committee stage and a formal inquiry, which would have given senators the chance to hear expert evidence and concerns from the Australian public.
“We are paid good money to tackle such issues,” he said. “This debate should not have been silenced and your Parliament should listen to you.”
Debate silenced, amendments rejected
Labor used its Senate majority to force a guillotine motion, which allows debate to end early and bypass the committee stage.
Senator Alex Antic. Senator for South Australia. Liberal Party of Australia. Official Portrait. 46th Parliament. File No 20190302, Parliament House Canberra, 31st July 2019. Image David Foote AUSPIC/DPS
The government pushed the bill to a final vote before 1 p.m., and rejected all proposed amendments, including one from Senator Alex Antic, who hoped to exclude intentional abortions from the provisions of the bill.
“The Senate passed the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025, which provides that employers must pay parental leave to employees who suffer the tragedy of a stillbirth,” Senator Antic later reported.
“I moved an amendment to prevent intentional terminations of pregnancy from being treated as stillbirths for the purposes of the Fair Work Act. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.”
Eight senators supported Antic’s motion — Senators Sarah Henderson, Leah Blythe, Malcolm Roberts, Ralph Babet, Dr Jess Collins, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Ross Whitten, and Sean Bell — but it was voted down 42–8, with Labor and the Greens rejecting it unanimously.
Professor Joanna Howe, a legal scholar who first exposed the issue on social media, confirmed the sequence of events, noting that “Labor just rammed through Baby Priya’s Bill in the Senate, skipping committee stage, forcing it to a vote and blocking scrutiny.”
She said the government’s move avoided questions about why the bill “forces employers to pay Paid Parental Leave for late-term abortions”.
Baby Priya’s story and the bill’s origins
The legislation is named after Baby Priya, a little girl who died at just 42 days old in 2024. Her parents later discovered that her mother’s employer revoked her parental leave. Their advocacy led to calls for reform so that parents who lose a child to stillbirth or neonatal death do not lose their entitlements.
Baby Priya’s Bill was introduced on 9 October 2025 and passed the House of Representatives without division.
Notably, the bill does not create new leave entitlements, however, it does prevent employers from cancelling paid leave in the case of a stillbirth or neonatal death.
While the intent of the bill was widely praised, senators and legal experts warned that the bill’s definition of stillbirth — namely, 20 weeks’ gestation or 400 grams — means that intentional abortions after this point are classified the same way as natural stillbirths.
Following the passage of Baby Priya’s Bill, this conflated definition will effectively compel employers to make parental leave payments even when the life of an unborn child over 20 weeks is deliberately cut short.
Payments for late-term abortions confirmed
The Albanese Government has previously confirmed that parents who intentionally abort a baby after 20 weeks are able to access taxpayer-funded payments under the Stillborn Baby Payment scheme.
“Minister Katy Gallagher confirmed parents who have a deliberate stillbirth are eligible for either the $4,200 Stillborn Baby Payment or the $22,000 Paid Parental Leave payment,” Professor Joanna Howe reported in late October.
“Now they’ve taken it even further, forcing private employers to pay for late-term abortions under Baby Priya’s Bill.”
Senator Pauline Hanson also raised concerns in Parliament earlier this year about what she called the “misuse of payments” tied to intentional abortions.
Critics of the scheme have argued that conflating natural stillbirths with deliberate abortions is disrespectful to parents who are grieving the unintended loss of a baby, and distorts the moral basis of paid parental leave.
by Kurt Mahlburg
Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at Mercator, Intellectual Takeout, The Spectator Australia, The American Spectator and Caldron Pool.
The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific.
Pro-abortion Victorian parliamentarian Georgie Purcell, of the Animal Justice Party, has used her pregnancy announcement, paradoxically, to promote the “perceived right” to abortion, as Endeavour Forum recently reported. Incoherence appears to be a way of life for Purcell, who defends the rights of ducks and greyhounds while advocating for the slaughter of innocent children in the womb — including two of her own babies. Now Ms Purcell has teamed up with Rachel Payne of the Legalise Cannabis Party to push for expanded abortion access in the already extremely permissive state of Victoria.
Georgie Purcell
Rachel Payne
Payne and Purcell have released a report which they hope will garner support for their vendetta against Victoria’s babies. They claim that, despite abortion having been legal to full term in Victoria since 2008, women face multiple obstacles to accessing abortion due to a variety of factors. The Abortion Access Report identifies four areas which the two women believe need to be addressed so that Victorian women can gain greater and more straightforward access to abortions, and makes recommendations related to those areas of focus. An examination of the Report reveals the same disdain for pregnancy, for conscience rights and for women’s safety that is evident in modern “reproductive rights” debate.
Affordability
Following in the footsteps of the ACT, where abortions have been free since 2022, Payne and Purcell are demanding that Victoria taxpayers likewise fund abortions. Included in this demand is the specific call for those mothers not covered by Medicare to be offered chemical or surgical abortions for free — a clear reference to migrants and international students.
Yet these two minority groups — migrants and international students — are already accessing abortion due to the high cost of giving birth outside the Medicare system. Anecdotal evidence of this comes from members of the pro-life community who attended prayer vigils outside abortion facilities before the advent of exclusion-zones. They confirm that many non-citizens would gladly proceed with their pregnancies were the hospital fees associated with having a baby not so high.
So, despite the cost, abortion is far less expensive for non-Australians than having a baby; it is this problem which needs to be solved rather than attempting to reduce the cost of abortions.
Payne and Purcell also want the state government to examine its Patient Transport Assistance Scheme to ensure its policies, such as eligibility criteria and paperwork, are not raising barriers to abortion access.
Accessibility
According to the Abortion Access Report, 70 per cent of Victoria’s local government areas have no dedicated abortion provider, and 20 per cent have no chemical abortion provider, obviously a disastrous state of affairs for any advocate of child sacrifice.
In order to address this perceived need, Payne and Purcell want the Victorian government to expand its sexual and reproductive “health” hubs into even more areas, with what can only be called a eugenic agenda — the babies of migrants and the “economically disadvantaged” are being specifically targeted for more abortions.
Payne and Purcell are also demanding that any hospital which provides maternity care be also forced to perform abortions. These women’s continual certitude of the supposed equivalence of birth and death by abortion is quite staggering!
Another egregious defect of the Report is the lack of concern shown by its authors for women’s safety. Citing the latest guidelines for abortion provision, Payne and Purcell state that doctors who require pathology and ultrasounds prior to a mother’s abortion are causing unnecessary delays. Indeed, ultrasound-free chemical abortions, such as those procured via Telehealth appointments are being promoted as the “modern” and “straightforward” way of accessing abortion.
Screenshot from MSI website
Yet although these diagnostics are not legally required, it makes good medical sense to perform them prior to an abortion. For example, if a pregnancy is ectopic (that is, the embryo is implanted outside the mother’s womb), then it is extremely dangerous for a woman to take the abortion pill. Since the location of an embryo can only be detected by ultrasound, it is very irresponsible of a doctor not to order one before prescribing a chemical abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition which should not be downplayed by those seeking to simplify abortion access.
Conscientious objectors
As the Report reminds us, pro-life doctors have a legal obligation under Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 to advise patients of their pro-life stance and to refer women to another doctor who has no objection to abortions. Of course, this is a gross violation of conscience rights as, despite that action being indirect, by referring a mother to a colleague, and knowing this will lead to a child’s death, a pro-life doctor becomes an accessory to that death.
Payne and Purcell claim that such referrals by pro-life doctors are often not being provided and want this to stop. The two women are requesting from the state government more resources in the form of officials designated to monitor pro-life doctors — in effect, to spy on them and turn them into the authorities.
This is an unrealistic and dangerous suggestion for a number of reasons. Economically, Victoria is strapped for cash and it would be most irresponsible to spend public money on policing confidential conversations between doctors and their patients, when, as the Report’s authors agree, many basic health services are not being provided in the state.
Secondly, it would be demoralising to medical professionals to have their privacy violated in this way. Only pro-life doctors would be affected; their actions should be contrasted with those of doctors who do refer for and perform abortions which leave their patients traumatised yet for whom there is no oversight.
Thirdly and most importantly for the privacy of all residents, the creation of a watchdog of this kind would set a dangerous precedent, one which would only cement Victoria’s reputation as a police state.
Included in this section is another call for publicly-funded hospitals to be forced to provide abortions; an end to the practice of — in the authors’ words — “corporate conscientious objection”. Failure of pro-life medical staff and hospitals to provide abortions is at the very heart of Payne and Purcell’s new campaign.
Workplace training
The final section of the Abortion Access Report is dedicated to increasing the number of abortion providers through more funding for training. A widely-circulated untruth is repeated: that it is stigma surrounding abortion which makes doctors reluctant to provide them. Nothing could be further from the truth as abortion is so ubiquitous that it is the doctors who are pro-life, and not pro-abortion, who are being marginalised!
Yet the lie must continue, for it covers the reality that many doctors simply do not want to perform abortions because they find it distasteful. The Report quotes another from 2024, providing the following statistics:
As of mid-2023, just 17 per cent of GPs in Victoria were providing medical abortions and only 19 per cent of pharmacists were dispensing the medication. Access to surgical abortion is even more limited, particularly in regional and rural areas. Across Victoria there are just 35 providers, and only 15 offering procedures beyond 12 weeks’ gestation.
To anyone who is shocked by the industrial scale of abortion, having 35 providers in Victoria alone, with 15 willing to perform late-term abortions, appears a disastrous state of affairs. Yet Purcell and Payne believe women need far, far more abortionists — one on every corner? — to ensure that every last unwanted child is eliminated in a timely manner.
The Abortion Access Report underscores a harmful undercurrent continually at play throughout Australia: that the abortion lobby is prepared to jeopardise women’s health and safety, and to push more and more vulnerable women into choosing death for their children over life. Its emphasis on squashing the rights of medical practitioners to exercise freedom of conscience highlights an authoritarian agenda that needs to be resisted at every opportunity.
About the author
Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.
The most commonly proposed pro-life laws are those centred on limiting abortions above a certain gestational limit, but is it wise for those opposed to abortion to support them?
Such a measure has been put forward in South Australia by Independent MP Sarah Game, a member of the state’s parliamentary upper house. She has recently proposed an abortion amendment bill, which, if passed, would restrict access to abortions after 23 weeks’ gestation.
In light of this proposal, it may be timely to look at what kind of pro-life laws are the most, or least, helpful for the pro-life cause. As will be shown below, there are better options than merely seeking to place an upper-limit on abortion availability.
‘Term limits’ convey the wrong message
Paul Hanrahan, the Australian CEO of Family Life International, makes the point that, far from uniting the pro-life community, such laws create deep divisions due to the different principles being employed by opponents of abortion.
While acknowledging that the media attention garnered by these bills does have the benefit of raising the issue of abortion in the mind of the public, he reminds us of the biblical moral principle that “we must never do evil to obtain a good” (Romans 3:8). He told Endeavour Forum that “This kind of bill embeds and lends support to the notion used most to defend abortion — ‘my body, my choice!’”
“It is wrong to ascribe an unborn baby’s “viability” to an arbitrary age, such as 24 weeks. All unborn children are viable from conception. The fact that they wouldn’t survive outside the womb until a later age is irrelevant. So long as they have time and nourishment, they are viable, living human beings and are entitled to the full protection of the law.”
Speaking specifically about Victoria’s failed Infant Viability Bill of 2016, Mr Hanrahan added,
“It was legally ridiculous to carve out an exception in the bill from prosecution for the mothers. Of course, we are all aware of the tragic circumstances some mothers are placed in, and that often they are cajoled or coerced into an abortion they don’t want. However, if a person complicit in a crime has reasons that reduce or negate their culpability, then the Court would decide that. They would then receive a reduced sentence or be found not guilty. The legislation cannot decide that in advance.”
‘Exceptions’ undermine pro-life case
John Smeaton, of the UK’s Voice for the Family, heartily agrees. He believes that pro-life groups should not be “campaigning for politicians to vote for abortion in the case of rape, or in the case of disability, or in the case of a baby being below a certain number of weeks’ gestation”, concluding: “We will never defeat abortion by campaigning for politicians to vote for abortion in particular circumstances.”
“Is it not likely that one of the reasons why the evil of abortion is so overwhelmingly accepted in particular circumstances by our fellow citizens, including by our fellow Catholics, is that pro-life groups themselves have almost universally been prepared to accept legalised abortion in certain circumstances?”
In the same article, he makes the additional point:
“Imagine it was lawful in our countries to kill children up to six months after birth. Imagine a parliamentarian putting forward legislation to stop the killing of children after three months, while authorising killings of children up to the three-month limit — and with exceptions for disabled children who could be killed up to six months or even later. It would clearly be wrong to vote for such a law or to campaign for such a law, however many lives, allegedly, such a law would save, on the [flawed] basis that it would be ‘a step in the right direction’.”
A realistic alternative?
New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, a member of the Libertarian Party, is currently putting forward a private member’s bill addressing sex-selective abortion practices. His Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Sex Selection Prohibition) Bill 2025 aims to outlaw abortions based on gender — the incidence of which has been documented in a Western Australian study published earlier his year.
However, with the text of the bill not yet available, the devil is literally in the details. Does the bill apply equally to boys and girls? Does it, like so many flawed pro-life laws, contain a positive right to abortion in its text, with sex-selection given as an exception to this right? This is the weakest part of any pro-life law, generally.
In practice, enforcement is often the most difficult aspect of a bill of this kind. Do we really expect our pro-abortion governments to provide the resources for policing abortion-providers in order to enforce a law like this? Or are abortion-providers expected to self-monitor and self-report? Are the parents desiring an abortion based on their child’s gender expected to reveal this as the reason for their abortion?
Chemical abortions
Another alternative anti-abortion law is being put forward by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, August Pfluger, from Texas. The Republican congressman’s bill, named the Second Chance at Life Act, would mandate that chemical-abortion providers fully inform mothers about the possibility of reversing the drugs’ effects. This is meant to alert women to the possibility of their baby being saved if they change their minds part way through proceeding with a chemically-induced abortion.
Yet even this is a fraught area, with possible unforeseen consequences. Dr Debbie Garratt, researcher and founder of the discontinued Real Choices Australia organisation, had this to say about the proposed law:
“With all the pressures women experience toward abortion, I believe that for many, this could be experienced as a potential ‘way out’.
“I can take the pill and still change my mind and it will be okay.”
This, however, is not the case. I coordinated a national network of doctors providing progesterone — a hormone that supports pregnancy — to women in such circumstances for five years, then coordinated a world-first clinical trial doing the same.
While results are good, they are not guaranteed with treatment being time-critical. Gestational age also appears to make a difference. Therefore giving women a false hope that what they are about to do could be reversed does not resolve any issues and may add extra pressure.
Legislation should be focused on the provision of actual informed consent, including risks of mental health harm, and information about ways women can be supported to navigate whatever circumstances have prompted them to consider abortion. This information should be given to women both verbally and in writing, and a waiting period should be enforced.
However, as all informed-consent legislation relies on the abortion-provider giving accurate and complete information — and we know that doesn’t happen now — it’s hard to see how it would be effective.
I do think that those two things combined achieve the aim of educating about and highlighting the real reasons women seek abortion and ensuring women are informed about supports. A waiting period, which ensures some distance from the possible pressure of abortion-clinic staff, and time to seek out alternatives would also help.”
As the examples make clear, the only way pro-life legislation could work would be for an independent body to monitor abortion-providers to ensure that the laws were being adhered to. The chances of that happening while our governments are committed to supporting the abortion industry are slim to none.
Education is vital
Some states in the U.S. are taking a different angle when it comes to new pro-life laws. One example is Ohio, which has just introduced its Baby Olivia Act. The Act, inspired by a video created by the pro-life group, Live Action, requires public schools to expose children to scientifically-accurate depictions of prenatal development. Live Action’s video was made with input from medical experts and uses computer animation to show a baby’s development throughout its time in the womb.
In this way, legislators hope that children will grow up with an understanding of a baby’s humanity which would preclude them from seeking abortions later in life.
It is difficult to see any moral problems with this kind of legislation, and it could hold the key to creating a new generation of citizens who have the kind of respect for motherhood and parenting which would one day make abortion unthinkable. Not only children would benefit; teachers and parents could potentially have their pro-abortion opinions challenged by exposure to this kind of information.
Conclusion
The preceding examples show that the area of creating good pro-life law is full of pitfalls, and that wide consultation among many different groups is necessary — from health legislation experts, pro-life leaders and even from psychologists. No one person or group has all the answers when there is a risk of putting in place a morally flawed or practically unworkable law.
While there are ways to legislate that potentially decrease the public’s reliance on abortion, we must begin with the understanding that many proposed measures have the potential to do more harm than good.
About the author. Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at LifeSiteNews, Family Life International, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
