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.
Endeavour Forum’s Canadian associate, Denise Mountenay, is currently working on a new pro-life film, “Truth Matters: The Impact of Abortion”. This comes ten years after Denise co-produced the award-winning documentary, “Hush”, which exposed the links between abortion and breast cancer, premature birth and mental health issues.
A new pro-life film
Dear Friend in Christ:
This documentary exposes the falsehoods many pregnant women are told. It shines a light on the miracle of life before birth through ultrasound technology and features medical experts who reveal the truth about it. Specialists report on the increased breast cancer risk, preterm birth link, and the devastating mental health consequences.
You’ll hear from a medical researcher reporting on dozens of peer-reviewed studies proving legal abortion is not “safe” for women. And you’ll witness powerful testimonies from women who have been physically, emotionally, and spiritually harmed by legal abortion—women who now speak out to warn others and bring hope.
Please watch the trailer to gain an idea of what we have in mind for this film:
This film is more than information. It’s a mission. A warning. A lifeline.
It will speak to the body, soul, and spirit—and ultimately save countless precious lives created in the image of God.
A call to action
Become our partner for such a time as this!
We are coming against the spirits of death and murder. We urgently ask for your prayers and, if possible, your fasting.
But prayer alone is not enough—this professionally produced film needs your financial support to be completed. We are raising funds for:
Editing and soundtrack-$30,000.
Subtitles in multiple languages (abortion is a global epidemic)
Marketing and distribution to reach hearts worldwide $100,000.
Good news
Everyone who donates $1,000 or more will receive a complimentary copy of the documentary upon release. And yes—your gift is tax-deductible if you give online to
Upper-limit abortion legislation such as that currently being put forward in the UK is ultimately detrimental to the pro-life cause, warns John Smeaton, co-founder/co-director of Voice of the Family. Similar legislation is being considered in the South Australian parliament.
In my article last week, I explained how, nearly 40 years ago, British anti-abortion parliamentarians and campaigning organisations, including SPUC in which I had a leading role, paved the way for the catastrophic 1990 legislation which raised the upper limit for abortion to 24 weeks for most abortions in the UK while allowing abortions up to birth in cases of disability and for certain other reasons.
John Smeaton
The UK Government and parliamentarians were following the example set by the anti-abortion lobby, including by the Catholic bishops, which had backed David Alton’s1 Bill, published on 16 December 1987. The Alton Bill sought to introduce an upper limit of 18 weeks for most — so-called “social” — abortions, while permitting disabled babies to be killed up to 28 weeks.
The rationale for supporting Alton Bill-style legislation was presented in Human Concern, the flagship newspaper of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), of which I was general secretary, in these terms:
“SPUC will be stepping up its educational programme in the fight to win equal rights for the handicapped. The decision followed the results of the David Alton Bill in which an exception clause allowing abortion for severe handicap has been included.
“‘Of course we are continuing our support for the Bill’, said Phyllis Bowman, National Director. ‘It will save a considerable number of lives and will be the first step in the right direction.’” (My emphasis)
Tragically, it is more accurate to say that it proved to be a major step in the wrong direction.
Today, Right to Life UK is promoting another upper-limit bill which, if pursued, will result in similarly disastrous legislation. Support for exceptions for disabled babies is even more deeply entrenched in the parliamentary and public psyche and, as debates and votes in Parliament over the decades have demonstrated, politicians are likely to demand abortion up to birth for other reasons too.
The details of the bill backed by Right to Life UK have not been published but it’s reasonable to expect that it will be along the lines of one of two legislative measures which were under consideration in 2024, one proposed by Baroness Nuala O’Loan and the other by Sir Liam Fox MP. Both were backed by the Catholic bishops — with, no doubt, the same rationale as SPUC put forward in 1988, that they would be the “first step in the right direction”.
Both legislative measures expressly supported the killing of unborn children up to a certain number of weeks, while leaving in place abortion up to birth for disabled babies and for other reasons.
Baroness O’Loan’s Bill states: “In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy), for ‘twenty-fourth’ substitute ‘twenty-second’.
Parliamentarians backing Baroness O’Loan, therefore, would have been voting for the following provision to become part of the Abortion Act:
“1 (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith
“(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-second week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;
“Sir Liam Fox’s proposed new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill stated: “In section 1 (Medical termination of pregnancy) of the Abortion Act 1967, at the end of sub-subsection (1)(d) insert ‘provided that, where that chance arises from a foetus having Down syndrome, the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit identified in sub-subsection (a).’”
Parliamentarians backing Sir Liam Fox’s measure, therefore, would have been voting for the following provision to become part of the Abortion Act:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
“(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
…
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped ‘provided that, where that chance arises from a foetus having Down syndrome, the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit identified in sub-subsection (a).”
Both legislative measures were inviting parliamentarians expressly to support abortions on babies up to a certain number of weeks — 22 weeks in the case of Baroness O’Loan, and 24 weeks in the case of Sir Liam Fox — just as David Alton’s Bill, back in 1987, invited parliamentarians expressly to support abortions up to the 18th week of pregnancy. The Alton Bill stated:
“1 (1) A woman’s pregnancy may be terminated in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 at any time up to the beginning of the 18th week of gestation.
“(2) Thereafter, up to the 28th week of pregnancy … [for various reasons, including in the case of disability).”
The Catholic Church teaches that a law permitting the killing of certain unborn children is an unjust law which, in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence”. Pope John Paul II in this connection, citing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, said:
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.”
The meaning of this statement quoted in Evangelium Vitae (no 73) is 100 per cent clear, and yet during the past fifty years, pro-life leaders, myself included, have backed legislation which permits abortion in certain circumstances on the basis that such legislation is an improvement on an existing law and will save lives.
However, such permissive anti-abortion campaigning sends the message to friends and opponents alike that abortion can be the right thing to do. 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?
Since 1995, many of us have justified our campaigns in support of unjust laws by quoting another paragraph in section 73 of Evangelium Vitae, where Pope John Paul II famously wrote:
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on … In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
For the past 30 years perhaps the majority of pro-life leaders have interpreted this paragraph as meaning that politicians may vote for, and campaigners may campaign for, laws which of themselves expressly permit abortions. But this is contrary to the teaching of the encyclical, as shown by the immediately preceding paragraph:
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.”
According to Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, “the principle (or law) of non-contradiction is the firmest … without the principle of non-contradiction we could not know anything that we do know”. On the basis of this foundational principle of rational procedure, it is not possible for this statement to mean both one can vote for an unjust law and one cannot vote for an unjust law — on the basis of one’s motives in doing so or for any other reason.
Imagine it was lawful in our countries to kill children up to 6 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 6 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 basis that it would be “a step in the right direction”.
Regarding exceptions for the abortion of disabled babies, Rachel Hurst, vice-chairman of Disabled People’s International, has said that pro-life groups which tried to stop social abortions but not eugenic abortions were being “extremely discriminatory and obviously show[ing] eugenic tendencies, even though they would refute them”. She argued that the lower status given to disabled unborn children reflected a view that “disabled people are not seen as human beings”.2 This was absolutely not the attitude or intention of David Alton or the Catholic bishops SPUC’s national director or myself back in 1987, but we must face the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There is a crucial moral difference between, on the one hand, limiting, in an ethical way, the harm of pro-abortion legislation, such as we saw in the triumphant pro-life campaign to overturn the Roe v Wade decision; and, on the other hand, 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. We will never defeat abortion by campaigning for politicians to vote for abortion in particular circumstances. As long as legislators accept that “it’s OK” directly to kill an innocent child in the womb, the defence against killing any unborn child is torn away.
by John Smeaton of Voice of the Family. Voice of the Family is an initiative of Catholic laity, formed to defend Catholic teaching on the family. Voice of the Family was founded in 2014 to offer our expertise and resources before, during and after the Synod on the Family 2014-15.
Voice of the Family is praying for Lord Alton who, last week, was being treated in hospital for injuries received in a road accident while on a bus in central London. ↩︎
Cited in Colin Harte, Changing Unjust Laws Justly (CUA Press, 2005) p 50. ↩︎
Although many have woken up to the immoral nature of IVF and to its inherent risks, low effectiveness rate and exorbitant cost, some conservatives unfortunately still believe it is a feasible solution for couples suffering from infertility.
Yet, only a little research is required to discover that, even if the procedure were risk-free and morally acceptable, it would remain problematic due to the amount of human error involved. A plethora of oversights are currently plaguing the industry, placing parents in unenviable situations and making IVF a highly defective product.
Embryo mix ups at the Queensland Fertility Group
The case of a mix-up by Australia’s Queensland Fertility Group exemplifies the problem of IVF’s inherently inadequate safeguards. A white couple who requested sperm from a donor in the U.S. made their selection based on the features of the future male parent: blond hair and blue eyes. It wasn’t until the baby was born that its parents realised it was of an entirely different ethnicity from theirs: the baby is part African-American.
A recent news report on the incident, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), reveals that the mother involved wrote in an online parents forum: “I love my beautiful baby more than life itself [but] has anyone ever found out their IVF baby wasn’t theirs? Has anyone had a baby that looked like it came from [a] different ethnicity?”
The incident happened over a decade ago, but it was only recently made public as the IVF-provider and its Australian parent company, Virtus Health, ensured the scandal was kept quiet for as long as possible: the parents were made to sign a non-disclosure agreement in return for a settlement, and the mix-up was not even reported to the company’s shareholders.
Additionally, an ABC investigation revealed a significant conflict of interest existing between the Queensland Fertility Group and the industry regulator, RTAC (the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee). At the time of the incident, when RTAC claimed to have no knowledge of the mix-up, its chair was the scientific director of the Queensland Fertility Group. It is beyond belief that a senior employee of the fertility-provider would have no knowledge of such a devastating mix-up; yet he told the ABC that he had “no memory” of the incident.
It appears that Queensland IVF didn’t learn from its mistakes as other mix-ups have been recently reported. Two lesbians who thought their three IVF children were related were shocked to discover that one of their boys was not related to the other two. The anomaly was revealed after genetic testing of the children was conducted for unrelated reasons. The two women are also incensed that their children are suffering from health problems, including autism, and blame Queensland IVF for failing to properly screen the donor sperm. Unfortunately, had they done their homework, the two women would have known that IVF babies are more prone to developing a number of health problems over naturally-conceived children.
Multiple errors at Monash IVF
The mistakes being made at Queensland IVF are not limited to their company alone. Melbourne-based Monash IVF has this year been forced to apologise for embryo mix-ups on two different occasions. The first incident was devastating and traumatic. A Brisbane woman found that she had given birth to a stranger’s baby after a mix-up at the IVF laboratory. A lawyer specialising in “family creation” (donor conception and surrogacy) said that while this mistake was the first of its kind to happen in Australia, it was not unheard of in other parts of the world.
The second incident occurred on June 5 at its laboratories in the Melbourne suburb of Clayton. This involved the transplant of a patient’s embryo rather than the one she had requested: the embryo belonging to her partner. Consider the ramifications of this scenario: two lesbians each have at least one embryo, and see their potential family as a sort of mix-and-match affair!
An advocate for IVF patients, Lucy Lines, said that this second incident “rocked the industry to its core”, noting that more regulation is necessary as there is no legal requirement for embryologists to be registered with a central body. But is lack of oversight the fundamental problem? Is more regulation the answer to this morally problematic industry?
Embryo experimentation
Both of these incidents follow another controversy at Monash IVF, in which it was accused of using inaccurate genetic testing which led to the destruction of potentially viable embryos. More than 700 patients joined a class action lawsuit accusing Monash of secretly using embryos they had asked to be discarded. The parents’ decision to have the embryos destroyed was on the basis of the flawed testing which returned false positives for abnormalities. Monash subsequently used those unwanted embryos for scientific experimentation.
Repromed, a related Monash IVF company, was also accused of falsifying the results of a clinical trial, forging patient signatures on consent forms, and destroying documents to hide evidence of the illegal embryo experiments. Monash didn’t admit liability, but settled the class action out of court for $56 million.
IVF industry smear campaign
The entire reproductive health industry should be chastened by the many examples of malpractice that are occurring with alarming regularity; yet rather than question its own morality, it has taken to discrediting alternatives to IVF. A natural approach to fertility, known as Restorative Reproductive Medicine, or RRP, is the latest casualty in the IVF industry’s campaign to establish itself as the only solution to the problem of infertility.
RRM is superior to IVF for a number of reasons, including its more wholistic approach to human life, its moral procedures and its higher success rate. Additionally, children conceived using RRP techniques are without the health risks so prevalent among children born using IVF.
The National Catholic Bioethics Center in America approves of RRP, describing its goal as the treatment of “the root causes of dysfunctions that make it difficult or impossible for couples to conceive and bring to birth children”. RRP is also recommended by the Washington-based think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, which states,
“RRM succeeds even after IVF has failed, at a fraction of the cost, especially across multiple pregnancies. One study published in 2024 found that 40% of couples previously diagnosed with infertility conceived naturally after undergoing RRM-based treatments compared with a 24% success rate with IVF. Another 2018 study found that 32.1% of women who had an average of two failed IVF cycles conceived naturally following targeted medical interventions with RRM.”
Yet its success has made RRM a target by the IVF behemoth, which regards it as “an approach long confined to the medical fringe”.
Conclusion
It must be restated that even if IVF could be provided without numerous opportunities for human error to derail its effectiveness, it would remain immoral. IVF kills more babies than abortion and can lead to harmful results such as huge numbers of donor-conceived children being related.
Society’s reliance on IVF is predicated on the idea that anyone — in any kind of relationship or none — is entitled to a child if he or she wants one. It is this philosophy that has given rise to abortion and surrogacy, as well as to IVF. As American author John Stonestreet, president of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, has warned,
“The reproductive marketplace is built on twin illusions of consumerism and control. In this world, the almighty ‘I’ should have whatever he or she wants. Those who want sex without children should not be ‘punished’ with a kid. Those who want a child without the trouble of giving birth can rent an incubator for their little accessories. Those who’ve chosen an inherently sterile union can insist, not only that they should be able to have kids, but that others should pay for it. Any future technologies will be utilised accordingly.”
A return to the traditional view of marriage and family is the only solution to the heart-breaking problem of children being perceived as commodities. Until that happens, IVF will remain a defective product sold with no guarantee of satisfaction.
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 appeared at LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Family Life International, The Remnant Newspaper, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.
Sex-selective abortion is legal in Queensland and other Australian states, particularly among immigrants from India, China and Vietnam. Yet, feminists and other pro-choice activists are silent about this lethal form of discrimination.
By Hannah Newton, Cherish Life Queensland
Sex-selective abortion, that is the practice of ending the life of an unborn child based on that child’s sex, is often thought of as a distant problem confined to other parts of the world like Asia. However, new research has revealed that this lethal form of discrimination is not only happening in Australia, it is also likely happening right here in Queensland. Devastatingly, there is currently nothing we are doing to stop it.
Newly released study
A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published in PLOS Global Health analysed over 2.1 million births in Western Australia and New South Wales between 1994 and 2015.1 The authors found consistent, statistically significant patterns of male-based sex ratios at birth among certain population groups, particularly at the second or third pregnancy following one or more daughters.
In natural conditions, the sex ratio at birth (otherwise known as the SRB) is about 105 boys for every 100 girls. However, this study showed that the SRB exceeded expectations for children born to Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese mothers. For mothers from China, the SRB was 1.09 at second birth and markedly higher (1.34) at the third birth when the first two were female.2 This pattern was also observed for mothers from India. Indian and Chinese mothers had much higher induced abortion rates in early pregnancy than their Australian counterparts, which also coincided with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing. The authors concluded that this provided observational evidence that linked the male-biased SRB with prenatal sex determination followed by selective female-biased abortion.3
So what is non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)? This is a semi-recently introduced blood test that can reveal the sex of a baby as early as 10 weeks gestation.4 This timeline also conveniently falls well within the legal window for abortion-on-request in most Australian Jurisdictions. What this means is that parents can find out the sex of a baby early enough to legally terminate the pregnancy if they are disappointed.
While this data came from WA and NSW, the same cultural and legal conditions exist in Queensland, meaning that there is every reason to believe that similar sex-selection practices are occurring here.
Permissive abortion laws fuel the problem
Since the passing of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 (Qld), abortion in Queensland is legal for any reason up to 22 weeks gestation.5 Beyond 22 weeks, it can still be performed with the agreement of two doctors.
There is:
No requirement to give a reason for seeking an abortion
No restriction on terminating based on the sex of the baby
No delay in disclosing the baby’s sex via NIPT
No data collection or monitoring of why abortions are performed in Queensland
This legal environment effectively created the perfect storm for sex-selective abortions to occur undetected and unchallenged. Parents can learn the sex of their unborn child early, and if they are hoping for a boy but find out it is a girl, they can legally and quietly abort the baby. We must acknowledge this for what it is, gender discrimination.
Let’s be clear: this is gender-based discrimination
Sex selective abortion is not a fringe concern. It is a form of gender-based violence that targets girls at their most vulnerable stage: in the womb. It says to girls, before they take their first breath, that they are not wanted or valued.
This practice has contributed to millions of “missing girls” globally, especially in China, where widespread sex-selection has created dangerous demographic imbalances and human rights crises.6 The United Nations has even condemned sex-selective abortion as a violation of women’s rights.7 However, in Australia we are turning a blind eye.
We cannot claim to uphold gender equality while permitting a legal system that allows girls to be aborted for simply being girls.
A glaring double standard: IVF vs abortion
Here’s the irony: in Australia, it is illegal to select the sex of a baby through IVF unless there is a medical reason (such as avoiding a sex-linked genetic disorder).
The National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, which govern reproductive technology, explicitly prohibit non-medical sex-selection. The reasoning is sound: allowing parents to choose the sex of their child for personal or cultural reasons would entrench gender bias and commodify children. And yet, while sex-selection through IVF is banned, sex-selection through abortion is entirely legal. This contradiction is staggering.
In one context, the government rightly says: you cannot choose your child’s sex – because girls and boys are of equal value. But in another says: you can end the life of your unborn baby if the child is not the sex you want – and we won’t ask why.
This is not just a loophole, it’s a fundamental failure of consistency and principle and it is costing baby girls their lives. How can we ban sex-selection in the lab while turning a blind eye to it in the womb?
The lies used to justify it
Pro-abortion advocates often justify unrestricted abortion laws by invoking tragic scenarios – claiming that if abortion were restricted in any way, women would be denied care for miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. This is false.
In Queensland:
Miscarriage care is completely legal and is routinely provided
There is no law that prohibits health professionals from offering and administering life-saving treatment.
This argument is a scare tactic, used to distract from the fact that our current laws allow for abortion purely because the child is the “wrong” sex. This is not about reproductive healthcare, it is about ideological dishonesty and legal cowardice.
So, what needs to be done?
If Queensland is serious about protecting women and girls, we must take urgent steps to end sex-selective abortion. At a minimum the Queensland Government should:
Ban the disclosure of a baby’s sex before 20 weeks unless medically necessary
Prohibit abortion on the grounds of a baby’s sex
Introduce mandatory reporting requirements, including collection of data on reasons for abortion and a baby’s sex at termination
Implement clinical protocols in line with ethical standards that prevent misuse of NIPT for non-medical sex-selection.
Equality must begin in the womb
Sex-selective abortion is happening in Australia. It is enabled by silence, fuelled by ideology, and ignored by the very laws that claim to protect women. If we care about gender equality, we cannot look away.
Every unborn girl deserves the same right to life and dignity as a boy. Equality must begin in the womb. It’s time Queensland faced the truth – and acted to protect all of our babies.
By Hannah Newton. Republished from Cherish Life 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.
Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
