A study from the La Trobe University on the impact of deregulation of the abortion pills, MS-2 Step, revealed that the number of chemists stocking the drugs has almost doubled.
by Kathy Clubb
What is MS-2 Step?
MS-2 Step, also known as the abortion pill, is produced by Marie Stopes International and was formerly known as RU-486. The change of name reflects the two-stage protocol for inducing an abortion via chemicals. First the drug Mifepristone is consumed to stop progesterone production, effectively stopping a baby from accessing nutrition from its mother. Then thirty-six to forty-eight hours later, the drug Misoprostol is taken to expel the child. At that point, the baby is expected to have died, but that is not always the case. Many mothers have traumatically delivered live babies into their toilets at home, this is more likely when the mother takes the drugs later in her pregnancy.
MS-2 Step is available in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and is recommended for use until sixty-three days gestation.
Effects of deregulation
After the Therapeutic Goods Administration made changes in 2023, the number of pharmacies selling MS-2 Step increased from 2,228 to 4,107. This increase reflects the TGA’s decision to eliminate the need for pharmacists to be registered before they could dispense chemical abortion drugs.
The new figures, reported by La Trobe University’s School of Nursing and Midwifery, show that mothers have access to the abortion pill in almost half of the postcodes around Australia – this has long been a goal of abortion advocates, who frequently describe a “postcode lottery” when referring to what is, in their view, limited abortion access.
Along with that change for pharmacists, GP’s were no longer required to be registered or to have specialised training before prescribing the drugs. Additionally, midwives and nurse practitioners were given permission to prescribe them.
A new brand of abortion drug on the market
Until recently, MS-2 Step was the only abortion pill available in Australia, with that product being the sole focus of the La Trobe University study. However, a second chemical abortion drug was released this month, having been approved by the TGA in February.
The drug, Arzestra, comprising the same two medicines, is registered as a “generic drug”, making it a lower-cost alternative to MS-2 Step. There is little information available about Arzestra – it is not yet possible even to view the packaging. But there is little doubt that once it hits the shelves, there will be an even greater rise in the number of abortions using chemicals.
Rebellion at the heart of abortion
With abortion pills so readily available and increasingly becoming the preferred method for killing unborn babies worldwide, it is no wonder that we are witnessing the blatant promotion of their use by abortion activists.
Two examples of this spring readily to mind. In Poland, activists have just begun providing abortion pills via lockers placed strategically near the Warsaw Parliament building. The locker system is known by the chilling term “abortomat” in Polish. Mother can use a six-digit code to open one of the doors and access abortion pills in hostile opposition to the nation’s stringent anti-abortion laws.
In the US, the Satanic Temple recently released the horrifying music video about a woman consuming an abortion pill as part of an “abortion ritual.” The video was filmed inside the toilet of a Hobby Lobby store, to highlight that company’s opposition to abortion.
How is this healthcare?
According to this report, abortion advocates are, perhaps unsurprisingly, still not content with the availability of abortion around Australia. Dr Anna Noonan, an abortion researcher with the University of Technology Sydney, said that despite the increase in accessibility reported by La Trobe University, more expansion is necessary.
Dr. Noonan said her research showed that medical professionals are already facilitating that expansion. She claims:
Doctors and nurses are going to pharmacies in advance saying, ‘I’m going to be an abortion provider in this community, will you stock this medication?’
She also suggests that regulation “harms” patients, especially those on limited means:
“The more we encourage a deregulated environment, the easier access will be, particularly for people with less resources.”
“People with less resources” is code for those on the lower socio-economic rungs. It should come as no surprise to see a promoter of abortion trying to ensure that there are fewer children being born to poor families.
De-regulation is not progress
There needs to be a halt to the use of drugs for abortions, rather than an expansion. Their danger to babies is obvious, the harms to mothers are well-documented.
Experience overseas shows that apart from killing babies and potentially harming mothers, the ease with which the chemical abortion regimen can be obtained leads to serious abuses. It is becoming alarmingly common to hear of mothers being slipped abortion pills by their partners or family members, in order to surreptitiously kill their unborn babies. ( See here, here and here.)
There is no other form of “healthcare” that allows someone to so easily force death upon a child or an unsuspecting mother. Allowing for greater access to abortion pills is not a sign of progress, but of barbarism, of a society in decline.
David Daleiden, of the Centre for Medical Progress, has released an update on his ongoing investigation into the trafficking of foetal body parts in the US. Daleiden’s examination of the case of “Clementine”, a baby who was born alive so that her organs could be harvested while still viable, has uncovered evidence of foetal organ procurement by the University of California.
Press release from the Centre for Medical Progress
Abortion business sold foetal body parts for $765 each to taxpayer-funded labs, new records show. Cercle Allocation Services, Inc. charged University of California $765 per body part harvested from late-term abortion clinics
IRVINE, Sept. 30—New documents released under a California Public Records Act request show a new abortion side business, Cercle Allocation Services, Inc., selling foetal body parts for $765 each to taxpayer-funded laboratories at the University of California.
Cercle Allocation Services is the foetal organ harvesting company that took possession of an infant believed to have been born alive at a late-term abortion clinic in New Jersey two years ago, based on expert analysis of medical records in the recent investigative documentary “What Happened To Clementine?” by The Center for Medical Progress, who made the public records request.
The new documents include purchase orders from a UCLA laboratory to Cercle in August and September of 2023, for a total of $16,065 for 21 foetal body parts—14 livers and 7 thymus glands. The purchase orders show each individual organ being billed at a separate $765 price.
The purchase orders were apparently revised multiple times by UCLA at Cercle’s demand, to remove sales tax from the orders so it would look like only “services”, rather than “items”, were being sold. In a September 2023 email, Cercle’s Account Manager told UCLA, “The overriding issue is the use of terminology that we must not use due to their improper implication that we are selling taxable items,” and, “Due to the nature of our business we must be very careful and clear that we invoice fees for our procurement services (untaxable).” The Account Manager wrote that “notations of ‘Total Tax’ and ‘Total Price Includes Sales Tax’ would imply that we are selling the items received (which are illegal to sell). Therefore, it is quite important that Purchase Orders are created to authorize payment for our Services, which can be tied to the sample dates and numbers”. The purchase orders show that Cercle billed UCLA for as many as five $765-per-body-part charges in a single day.
42 U.S. Code 289g-2 makes it a federal felony to “transfer” “any human foetal tissue” for “valuable consideration”.
Recently published studies note that Cercle was previously doing business as Advanced Bioscience Resources, a foetal organ harvesting company that maintained extensive government contracts. ABR, along with its longtime business partners at Planned Parenthood, was the subject of Congressional criminal referrals in 2016 after investigations prompted by CMP’s undercover video reporting. Planned Parenthood has supplied aborted fetuses to ABR/Cercle since the 1990s.
CMP previously released undercover video interviews with ABR admitting that sometimes aborted fetuses “just fell out” of patients in the operating room. ABR’s procurement manager Perrin Larton—now with Cercle—testified under oath in 2019 that intact fetuses were harvested “every couple months”, and that sometimes she saw foetal hearts beating after being cut out. ABR has sold FDA-regulated “current Good Tissue Practice” (cGTP) foetal organs for up to $7,000 each to taxpayer-funded laboratories.
The new public records documents from UCLA also show that in March 2025, Cercle had to cancel an order for foetal brain because it was unable to procure it. The medical records reviewed in CMP’s documentary “What Happened To Clementine?” show Cercle’s research procurement site in New Jersey, the Cherry Hill Women’s Center, using large doses of the labor-inducing drug Misoprostol on abortion patients. According to expert analysis, the time intervals and procedure steps recorded after that point leave barely one minute for the 5-month-gestation infant, named Clementine by her parents, to be taken out of her mother in the operating room.
“These new records from Cercle’s abortion side business harvesting baby body parts show the extreme financial incentives that exist for ‘research’ abortions to deliver whole, preemie-size babies alive—as appears to have been done to baby Clementine and her mother, and potentially thousands of others,” notes David Daleiden, founder and president of CMP.
Elise Ketch, associate reporter with CMP, states, “Mass organ harvesting for foetal research is the beating heart of the abortion industry. Behind all the fiercest defenders of abortion you can find a tie to profits from this black market. You just have to look.”
Thomas Kearns, the father of baby Clementine from the documentary and founder of the Clementine’s Voice advocacy group, says, “Looking at the prices on this page reminds me of what they claim my daughter Clementine’s life was worth. I’m reminded that these body parts came from children just like my daughter Clementine—children who were more than just a liver or a thymus. The value that Clementine and these children had to offer the world was not a price tag from a business exchange. They are not just their body parts or organs. They had souls, they had families, they had their own lives if they were not interrupted by the abortion and organ harvesting industry. This is the same agency that took my daughter two years ago. Were the babies in these purchase orders harvested with the same partial-birth abortion methods as my daughter?”
“What Happened to Clementine?” – investigation into sale of foetal body parts
“What Happened To Clementine?” is a new, feature-length documentary by The Center for Medical Progress that covers victim family interviews and expert analysis of medical records to investigate the case of a young couple’s unexpected pregnancy and subsequently coerced 5-month abortion at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center in New Jersey—and the clinic’s supply of their preemie-age daughter Clementine to biotech wholesaler Cercle Allocation Services, Inc. in March 2024.
The evidence reveals that the Cherry Hill-Cercle organ harvesting program uses large doses of labor inducing drugs on pregnant women, and baby Clementine appears to have been born alive before being provided to the organ harvesting company.
Endeavour Forum has joined 43 nations and dozens of pro-life organisations in signing the Geneva Consensus Declaration – a pro-life, pro-family manifesto which affirms the dignity of human beings and rejects the so-called “right” to abortion. Click here to find out more and see the other signatories.
by Denise Mountenay
Endeavour Forum Inc., in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC, is honoured to join the Civil Society Coalition for the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD), standing alongside 43 countries and organisations committed to defending life, family, and national sovereignty.
We signed onto the Geneva Consensus Declaration because:
We affirm that there is no international right to abortion. No UN treaty or binding instrument creates such a right, and attempts to claim one distort international law and undermine the protection of unborn life.
We believe every nation has the sovereign right to protect life. Laws concerning abortion must be determined by each country’s people, constitution, and moral convictions—not imposed by UN agencies or external pressure.
We uphold the family as the fundamental unit of society. Strong families are essential for the well‑being of women, children, and communities. Policies that devalue life ultimately weaken families and nations.
We support women’s health without promoting abortion. True care for women includes healthcare, support, protection from violence, and economic opportunity—none of which require abortion as a solution.
In recent years, several UN agencies and aligned NGOs have advanced an agenda to frame abortion as a global human right. Agencies such as UNFPA, WHO, and OHCHR, along with NGOs like International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and MSI Reproductive Choices, have worked to normalize abortion as “essential healthcare” and pressure countries to liberalize their laws.
By joining the Geneva Consensus Declaration, Endeavour Forum Inc. stands with a growing coalition that:
Defends the dignity of every human life, born and unborn.
Affirms the central role of the family.
Protects national sovereignty over life and family policy.
Offers a clear, principled alternative to the UN abortion agenda.
We are grateful for this opportunity to add our voice to a global witness for truth and life, and we remain committed to advocating for policies and media that honor both women and their children.
A novel category – “reproductive violence” – was accepted in a recent Human Rights Council resolution, threatening to serve as a Trojan horse for the pro-abortion agenda if it gains further acceptance.
The resolution, which dealt with the rights of women and girls in humanitarian situations, listed violations “such as forced or denial of contraception, forced pregnancy, forced abortion and forced sterilization” as examples of “reproductive violence.”
The denial of abortion was not explicitly mentioned in this non-exhaustive list, but that does not mean it was not included by implication. Abortion advocates like the International Planned Parenthood Federation applauded the new language. An article in Ms. Magazine embraces this term as a way to pressure the United States for state-level abortion restrictions, noting that while the resolution was focused on humanitarian situations, this language will have broader implications.
For delegates from countries with pro-life laws, opposing the new term is difficult given the topic of the resolution, which focuses on vulnerable women and girls facing violence, including sexual assault, in the midst of conflict and natural disasters. However, the architects of “reproductive violence” terminology make clear that they intend to use it to enable one form of violence while condemning others. Specifically, they want to equate the denial of abortion with forced abortion as types of violence.
“Reproductive violence” has already entered UN discourse through reports of agencies like the United Nations Population Fund. Earlier this year, they coauthored a report promoting the term with the abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices. Their proposed definition includes “laws, policies, institutional practices and social and gender norms that restrict choice, deny consent or impose reproductive outcomes” – clearly taking aim at pro-life measures.
Not everyone who favors the new category does so for pro-abortion reasons. Some proponents of surrogacy bans have argued that the practice is a form of “reproductive violence,” including the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls. However, for pro-life advocates, the potential harms of this tactic outweigh the benefits. Surrogacy, as well as forced abortion and other harmful acts, can be condemned individually without creating a new category.
Human rights or wrongs?
This is particularly true when the novel category has already been purpose-built by the international abortion lobby to describe those who would restrict abortion as “violent.” Additionally, the new term further distorts the definition of violence beyond acts perpetrated by individuals against other individuals and including things like pro-life laws, policies, and even social norms.
Proponents of “reproductive violence” terminology are already well on their way to inserting it into a forthcoming treaty on crimes against humanity, still under negotiation. They also seek to broaden the definition of “forced pregnancy” beyond the narrow one that was agreed to in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which explicitly exempted it from including pro-life laws. This was a loss for the abortion lobby, which proposed a definition of “enforced pregnancy” that targeted abortion restrictions.
In the near future, the governments in support of this new language, chiefly Western European, will undoubtedly try to build on their success in Geneva and bring this terminology to the UN General Assembly in New York this fall. It remains to be seen if their efforts can be stopped.
by Rebecca Oas, Ph. D. at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.
About 200 counter-protesters in Germany tried to attack 20 young Christian pro-lifers as they were leaving a peaceful prayer gathering against abortion on Aug. 15, a rights group reported.
In Göttingen, Germany, 12 police officers were injured when the counter-protestors tried to break through a police line to attack volunteers from the “SOS Life” campaign and “Sacred Heart Apostolate” who had finished their “Public Rosary Prayer Against Abortion,” according to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe).
“Police prevented the violent protesters, reportedly from the far-left, from reaching the participants, but 12 officers were injured during the intervention,” OIDAC Europe reported, adding that the officers suffered injuries from irritant spray and that ambulances responded to the scene.
Officers later escorted the pro-lifers from the area for their safety.
The Christians held a peaceful gathering with speeches and drum beating until 200 pro-abortion counter protesters formed a crowd, and tensions escalated after the prayer gathering ended, according to police.
“Counter-protesters attempted to violently break through a police line separating the groups, prompting police to intervene by securing entrances, exits, and stairwells so the gathering Christians could retreat,” OIDAC Europe said.
The Christian Forum described the counter-protesters as “left-wing extremists.” According to OIDAC Europe, their disruption left participants “shaken by the irrational hatred,” forcing them to rely on police protection to leave the area.
Republished from Christian Daily under a Creative Commons license. Christian Daily International provides biblical, factual and personal news, stories and perspectives from every region, focusing on religious freedom, integrated gospel and other issues that are relevant to the global Church today.
Dr. Mark Hobart revisits the erosion of conscience rights for doctors and their patients as it has unfolded across Australia in recent decades.This post is based on recent talks and articles from Dr. Hobart.
In this piece I wish to explain and describe the progression of government control over medical practitioners that has occurred over the last 20 years, starting with:
the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act in 2008
the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act in 2010 (particularly with regards to the illegality of being able to discriminate according to gender identity and sex which is essential in the practice of medicine to avoid life-threatening disasters
the “no jab no pay/play” vaccination of children in 2016,
the legalisation of euthanasia in Victoria in 2017,
the Covid injection mandates in 2021,
and lastly the removal of conscientious objection to euthanasia by doctors in the amendments to the Victorian VAD law in December 2025.
I contend that these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare which is an Australian government agency, are in contravention of section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.
The term “services” in this context means the private contract between the doctor and the patient for a medical service to occur, for which you need both parties, and for the contract to be valid you need informed consent and no coercion of either party.
Abortion
In October 2008, Victoria passed the Abortion Law Reform Act1 which stated that the doctors must refer to a “non-objecting practitioner” when a patient presented to them requesting an abortion if the doctor had a conscientious objection to the abortion. The doctor was not to proceed with any further discussion or advice regarding the abortion. This law spread to all the other states over the next few years.
In late November 2011 a woman presented to me who was 19 ½ weeks pregnant, accompanied by her husband. They requested an abortion because the baby was a girl and they did not want a girl because they already had one. I refused to refer her, explaining that it was dangerous for her health, and eventually I had to explain to her that it was also against my religious beliefs, when she replied that she was not concerned about the health risks.
On 17 May 2013, the medical board commenced an own motion investigation into my actions because I had failed to refer to a non-objecting practitioner and demonstrated a disregard for patient rights. On 30 January 2014, I was cautioned because I had stated in the media that I knowingly acted in contravention of section 8 of the abortion laws reform act, that is the section which prohibits conscientious objection.
Doctors unable to discriminate regarding gender or sex
According to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 20102, attributes protected by law are:
age, race, and disability
gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation
marital, parental, or carer status
religion, political belief, and industrial activity
Of course it is necessary for doctors to discriminate on the basis of gender and sex and do so with every patient; not to do so would be very dangerous because men and women are anatomically and genetically different. However, this legislation has permitted hormonal and gross surgical mutilation, leading in many cases to misery and death.3
In July 2015, I was reported to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by a patient whom I had not seen previously, because I did not prescribe female hormones as the patient requested. The patient appeared male, and they said they were undergoing treatment to transition into a woman, and they said they were “legally a woman”.
Their usual doctor was not available at the time. It was a new patient. The patient had located me using the internet. I refused to prescribe the medication and explained to the patient that in my opinion it is dangerous to prescribe for a genetic male female hormones.
The complaint was looked at by the Human Rights Commission and conciliation of this complaint was attempted which was unsuccessful. The commission decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115 of the act. They said that conciliation of this complaint had been attempted but was unsuccessful, and that they had decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115(2)(a) of the Equal Opportunity Act which directs to 116(e):
“having regard to all the circumstances, the Commission considers it is not appropriate to provide or to continue to provide dispute resolution.”
So I think I dodged a bullet there!
Other doctors have not been so lucky: for example, Dr Jillian Spencer, the psychiatrist who lost her job at the Brisbane Children’s Hospital for three years because she didn’t follow the policy directions of the hospital with regards to puberty blockers in children. Recently, she has won her case against the hospital, and hopefully she’ll be reinstated.
No jab, no pay/play
In 2016, the Victorian government brought in “no jab, no play” laws which meant parents were required to have their children vaccinated with the recommended childhood vaccines or they would be penalised by withholding of the tax rebate, which could amount to up to $800 per fortnight, so that they could not afford to put their children into childcare or kindergarten.
Wealthy parents could afford to do this, but families where both parents had to work to pay the mortgage and put food on their table could not. I think most reasonable people would define this as coercion.
There is no avenue for the parents to refuse these vaccinations for the children because they are worried about their safety or adverse effects on the health of their child or the fact that some of these vaccines are manufactured from aborted foetal tissue.
Any doctor who advises against these vaccinations is highly likely to be suspended from practice and factor home. Doctors who advised against the vaccinations are highly likely to be suspended from practice and face cancellation of their licence. Dr John Piesse was suspended in 2017 for this and is still suspended.
Euthanasia
In 2017, Victoria legalised euthanasia4, calling it “voluntary assisted dying.” In most cases, this involved a doctor giving the patient a bottle of a very strong sedative, phenobarbital, which could be drunk later at a time of the patients choosing and which would, in most cases cause the patient’s death.
It is not called voluntary assisted suicide, possibly because assisted suicide is still a crime in Victoria punishable by five years imprisonment. Although suicide is not illegal, assisting or encouraging another person to commit suicide remains a criminal offence in Victoria.
Section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 19585 makes it an indictable offence to:
incite another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
aid or abet another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
be a party to a suicide pact.
The maximum penalty for these offences is five years’ imprisonment. As stated previously, the Victorian government amended the euthanasia law in December 2025, making conscientious objection to euthanasia illegal and stating that the doctor “must” give the patient information regarding euthanasia if the patient presents enquiring about euthanasia:
Conscientious objection of registered health practitioners.
(1) In section 7 (a) of the Principal Act, for “to” substitute “subject to subsection (2), to”. (2) At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert— ”If a registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must— (a) advise the person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and (b) give the person the information approved by the Secretary.”6
Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying, which should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the crime act with a penalty of five years in jail it can’t be called that. It really can’t be called voluntary assisted death either because it’s up to the patient to take the medication which is supposed to kill them (usually phenobarbital which sometimes fails to kill the patient) at their own discretion so the the doctor doesn’t need to wait and make sure that the patient is dead.
Also, the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication but write the terminal condition leading to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more: for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease (which Neil Daniher, a prominent Ausgralian footballer, had been suffering from for many years).
It is impossible to give an accurate estimation of how long these people will be expected to survive with any of these conditions. The legislation at present states that death is to be expected within 12 months.
According to this legislation, if a patient comes to you as a doctor requesting “assisted dying” and wants information as to how to do it, (i.e. they want to know how to kill themselves) instead of asking them why, and whether you feel it is a genuine possibility they would do this, and instead of calling the CAT team or the police surgeon to stop them, or certifying them yourself (as you could formerly do), you must give the advice on how to kill themselves including information approved by the government secretary.
I hope she’s a good secretary.
Imagine a patient coming to see a doctor requesting advice regarding euthanasia, and instead of the doctor asking them why they want to die and arranging urgent psychiatric evaluation, he or she must give them advice on how to do it. It really is beyond belief but here we are.
It is needless to say that if doctors criticise this legislation, they are putting themselves at risk of suspension in the same way as I was cautioned when I criticised the abortion legislation in 2013. Indeed, this happened to me.
On 26 February 2020 I was reported to the Health Complaints Commissioner by Dr Cameron McLaren, an oncologist at Peter McCallum hospital who promoted euthanasia and facilitated euthanasia for his patients and was featured prominently in “The Age” and “The Australian” newspapers on December 26 2019 and February 21 2020 respectively.
He also wrote an article in the “Australian Doctor” magazine on February 26 2020 on which doctors were invited to comment. He was asked “What are the reasons behind the patients coming to you?” He replied,
“for the vast majority, it is not due to the physical suffering they face. Dealing with pain, with physical suffering, is something that palliative care does manage exceptionally well… They might be very comfortable, even peaceful, but through voluntary assisted dying we can provide closure in ways that assist the grieving process for the patient and the family. It’s an existential problem – not just about pain management.”
I made a comment simply stating that Adolf Hitler suspended his euthanasia program on August 18, 1941 after public protests, which I quoted from the “History Channel.” The complaint was forwarded to AHPRA but no further action was taken.
COVID mandates
From the AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) position statement on COVID-19 vaccination:
“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.” 7
In November 2021, I was suspended from medical practice by the medical board, being charged with professional misconduct. The main reason was that I had issued temporary COVID injection exemptions to my patients because I could not comply with the position statement.
By that time, it was widely known that the COVID injections caused death from myocarditis and pericarditis, and this was reported in the mainstream medical literature. It was also widely known that the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus, and that they caused myocarditis. Indeed, Dr Nick Coatsworth, Commonwealth deputy chief medical officer at the time of COVID, in an interview on “A Current Affair” in March 2025 has since admitted this and said that the covid mandates were “unethical”. (see 7.20 – 8.10)
This was also published in a poster by the NSW ambulance authority in August 2021. (see below).
In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates usually of three months duration to my patients who were being forced to have the COVID injection otherwise they would lose their jobs and or have an injection which was dangerous to their health and or also conflict with their religious beliefs because the injections were made from aborted human foetal parts.
When I had the opportunity to ask, about 50% of them had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a certificate saying that they should not have the injection. I am still suspended now almost five years later waiting for the decision of my last trial which finished on the 16 June. The medical board is attempting to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.
I am one of four doctors who have been suspended for this in Victoria because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.
Dr Luke McLindon, Catholic, a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist specialising in fertility treatment at the Catholic Mater Hospital in Brisbane, in an affidavit to the Supreme court QLD found that 73% of his patients that were vaccinated within 6 weeks of conception against COVID had miscarriages compared with 13% of the patients that had not been vaccinated immediately prior to or just after conception. He was sacked by the hospital in June 2022 and has been unable to work in medicine since. He told me that the Mater hospital was the only public Catholic hospital in Australia, offering tubal surgery restore fertility; these are no longer offered and patients are now told “there’s only IVF”, as cost is a significant barrier.
Several other doctors throughout Australia have been suspended for comments they made about COVID in social media or in the mainstream media, or they were sacked from their jobs because they refused to have the COVID injections.
Implications for Catholic doctors
These laws are contrary to fundamental Catholic teaching regarding the right to life, and to live according to the truths of the Catholic faith. Even if you are not Catholic, these laws are against the natural law. The Hippocratic oath from 500 BC contained fundamentals precepts: first do not harm, do not prescribe or administer a poison, do not procure an abortion and there must be confidentiality between the physician and patient; the term “patient” derives from the Latin patientem: “suffering”.
Catholic doctors and doctors who follow the natural law cannot assist patients to kill themselves. We should not stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort their child and certainly not be complicit in abortion. We should not comply with giving a medical treatment the patient is forced into accepting because they believe it is dangerous or against their beliefs, or that we think may be dangerous for them and but recommended it to the patient because the government says it is so. On the other hand if we do not do these doctors are not able to practice medicine in our society.
What can be done?
As I said at the outset I contend these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare, which is an Australian government agency, is in contravention to section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian continent Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.
This amendment to the Constitution was brought in by the Robert Menzies in 1946, in the context of the then recent Nuremberg medical trials which punished doctors who performed forced experimental medical treatment.
Although it may be sometime before we can use the Constitution to rectify the situation logically, it should be possible if there is sufficient public opinion to push things towards this end.
The main purpose of my talk is to raise public awareness of the current state of affairs so that people can form an understanding of how we got to the situation, which is completely untenable and unacceptable, and then take steps to change it.
Dr Mark Hobart, MBBS. 30 July 2026
Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine.
Governments from multiple countries recently signed a political declaration calling for an international moratorium on surrogacy and advocating a complete worldwide ban.
The declaration warns that women and girls in surrogacy arrangements “face medical risks, coercion, exploitation and loss of agency that fall disproportionally on vulnerable populations with limited access to legal remedies.” It also points to psychological, emotional, and identity-related impacts on children born through surrogacy, along with risks of abandonment and human trafficking.
“Surrogacy is no longer a matter confined to domestic legislation or individual choices,’ said Eugenia Roccella, the Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities. “ It has become a global phenomenon increasingly shaped by international markets, cross-border arrangements, and profound inequalities within and between societies.”
A $600,000 lawsuit recently filed in Canada against a surrogate mother reveals the legal and moral complications of the practice. Two years after giving birth, the mother was sued by the same-sex couple who hired her because she refused to abort the child after it was diagnosed with a cleft lip and a possible heart defect at 22 weeks of pregnancy.
The child, conceived through in vitro fertilization using a donor egg and sperm from each of the men, has had one reported medical incident, but is otherwise healthy. The lawsuit alleges the mother failed to “follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’s medical care.”
Research indicates that 33% to 40% of those commissioning surrogates are same-sex couples. Homosexual male couples represent a substantial majority of this group, while heterosexual couples make up about 66% of surrogacy arrangements overall. The “Gayby Boom,” as it is called, represents the largest demographic in gestational surrogacy, which requires an egg donor, an IVF procedure, and a surrogate.
Celebrities who have engaged surrogates, such as Kim Kardashian, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Neil Patrick Harris, have also boosted the popularity of the practice.
According to a UN study on surrogacy published late last year by the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Reem Alsalem, surrogacy is now worth nearly $14.95 billion a year and is expected to grow to $99.75 billion by 2033.
Alsalem gave a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council during the recent session and again stressed her concern for the women who are most vulnerable to violence because of the surrogacy practice.
“The states that are joining the declaration today recognize that surrogacy raises fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children,” said Alsalem. “They recognize that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible.”
The declaration was released in June, during the 62nd session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, by the Holy See along with Italy, Chile, and Cameroon. It was announced as the first step toward abolishing the practice they believe involves the “commodification of human life and women’s reproductive abilities.”
More than 220 organisations from 40 countries have been working together on a coordinated international strategy to end surrogacy.
by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.
Following the parliamentary defeat of late-term abortion restrictions in South Australia, advocates confront hard questions on legislative strategy and core principles.
South Australia’s parliament has rejected legislation that would have imposed certain new restrictions on abortions after 25 weeks of pregnancy. For many Australians this was simply another conscience vote. For those committed to the pro-life cause, it raises a profound moral and political question: What should lawmakers do when they cannot secure complete protection for unborn children?
Is it morally acceptable to support a law that saves some lives, even if it still permits other abortions? That question lies at the heart of the recent proposal to change South Australia’s abortion legislation. And it is one that pro-lifers need to address.
The supporters of the legislation came from a variety of political backgrounds. Sarah Game herself argued that late-term abortions involve viable unborn children and that society has a moral obligation to offer them greater protection. Members of One Nation supported the bill, consistent with the party’s increasingly outspoken pro-life stance.
National political figures associated with the movement, including Barnaby Joyce, have recently appeared at pro-life rallies calling for greater legal protection of unborn children and warning politicians against treating abortion as a settled issue. Some Liberal and Labor MPs also voted in favour, demonstrating that abortion remains one of the few issues in Australian politics that regularly crosses party lines. For supporters, the bill represented an incremental but meaningful step towards protecting unborn life.
Opposition to the bill was broad and ultimately overwhelming. The Greens opposed it outright. Most Labor MPs voted against it, as did many Liberals. Premier Peter Malinauskas, who voted in favour of the bill, later criticised the renewed focus on abortion legislation and argued parliament should direct its attention elsewhere.
The question for pro-lifers is how does one navigate the moral evil of abortion, given that a law outlawing abortion in any Australian juristiction at this point would seem impossible to pass. The question with which most pro-lifers struggle is: what are the limits within which we can effectively operate to stop abortion without sacrificing our principles? Despite the intention of those in favour of the South Australian bill, this was still a law that allowed abortions up until 25 weeks. It was still a morally problematic amendment as it left in place a deeply morally flawed law.
Another way of asking the question at the heart of this debate is: how much harm can be permitted even when one is acting with the clear intention of trying to reduce harm? The argument is one that pro-lifers need to have in order to come to some settled understanding of how to prosecute our cause. From this perspective, many pro-life advocates would argue that it is morally permissible to support Sarah Game’s bill, despite its exceptions. Others argue that any law allowing abortion is morally wrong and is therefore unacceptable.
Despite the noble intentions of those arguing in support of the bill, laws have an effect that is far greater than the individual intentions of legislators. And this cannot be overlooked, even when there is much enthusiasm for a cause. Many in the pro-life cause worry that laws containing exceptions or laws that continue to permit moral evil, will ultimately reinforce the idea that certain unborn lives are less worthy of protection than others. If a law objectively says some children deserve legal protection but others do not, despite the subjective intentions of legislators, will that not ultimately entrench the very evil that the pro-life movement seeks to overthrow?
It is difficult to gauge accurately within the pro-life movement, where the mainstream opinion is to be found on this issue. It seems that for many pro-lifers, any opportunity to reduce the number of abortions must be taken. For others, they argue that such opportunities are not as clear cut as we would like, as they represent their own kinds of harm that will ultimately do damage to the pro-life cause.
We at Right to Life welcome the debate and wish to contribute to making clear what are its parameters and what must be decided. We also welcome the work of those who have brought the abortion debate back into the mainstream. The South Australian bill has shown that abortion is no longer the taboo topic that our political class has made it out to be.
By making the problem of abortion mainstream- we immediately see who is aligned for a right to life and who opposes it. Across Australia, pro-life activists and politicians are becoming more organised and more willing to challenge laws that only a few years ago seemed politically settled. We are working towards making this debate the beginning of a new phase of pro-life advocacy in our country. We pray this may be the beginning of the end for abortion in Australia.
This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.
A growing body of research is dismantling the claim that pro-life laws harm women’s health.Abortion advocates are willing to overlook the facts for the sake of ideology.
A growing body of research is challenging claims that pro-life laws harm women’s health, as new data from across the United States suggest abortion restrictions may reduce abortions without increasing maternal mortality. A recent study published on April 3, 2026, examined more than 22 million births and 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths between 2018 and 2023. Researchers found no significant rise in maternal mortality in states that enacted strong pro-life protections after the 2022 Dobbs decision overturned the federal right to abortion.
The study’s findings add to evidence that pro-life legislation can protect unborn children while maintaining quality healthcare for mothers. In Iowa, the state’s foetal heartbeat law — which bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected at around six weeks — reportedly reduced abortions by 40% since July 2024. Indiana saw an even more dramatic decline, with abortions falling by 98% following similar restrictions.
Texas also experienced notable demographic changes after implementing its heartbeat law in 2022. Data indicate the state’s fertility rate rose between 2% and 8%, suggesting more children are being carried to term rather than aborted. At the same time, maternal mortality rates in Texas reportedly declined by 2.4%, while states with comparable pro-life laws saw decreases averaging 3.3%.
Pro-life advocates say these findings undermine longstanding arguments that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health. While researchers caution that more long-term analysis is needed to establish direct causation, current evidence suggests that laws defending unborn life can coexist with positive public health outcomes for women and families alike.
This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.
On June 2nd, Robbie Katter introduced a disallowance motion seeking to halt the LNP’s regulation change that allows midwives to prescribe the abortion pill. While there are many aspects of the debate that deserve discussion, one issue sits at the very heart of the matter – and it is the issue that Health Minister Tim Nicholls failed to address.
Regulative changes to abortion have been made by the LNP behind the scenes, whilst they have gagged the issue in the chamber.
Version 5 of the Extended Practice Authority for Midwives stated:
“For use in early medical termination of pregnancy. Only if the midwife has completed specified training and has been approved by their employer to administer or give a treatment dose of mifepristone and misoprostol (e.g. MS-2 Step).” 1
In March 2024, Version 6 of the Extended Practice Authority was introduced, stating “a course approved by the midwife’s employer that includes at a minimum:
– education about early medical termination of pregnancy medicine/s including indications, contraindications, management of common side effects and
administration;
– confirming pregnancy and gestation;
– pre and post termination counselling;
– cultural safety;
– mental health assessment and psychosocial screening;
– screening for domestic violence and reproductive coercion;
The critical difference is not the training requirements. The critical difference is that the requirement for employer approval has been removed. The change is clear:
Version 5 (March 2024): Midwives must complete training and receive employer approval to administer MS-2 Step.
Version 6 (March 2026): Midwives must complete training, but employer approval is no longer required.
That is a substantive regulatory change. Whether one supports or opposes it, Queenslanders and their elected representatives have every right to ask why this safeguard was removed and what justification exists for doing so.
Robbie Katter did not dispute that training remains in place. His question was straightforward: Why was employer approval removed? Mr Katter stated at the beginning of his speech, “a course approved by the midwife’s employer. That has been taken out. That is a glaring omission in the change that is being proposed to this new regulation.” 3
Yet Health Minister, Tim Nicholls (who voted with Labor to allow abortion up to birth in 2018) failed to engage with the issue. In fact, he went further, stating, “nothing in the updated extended practice authority introduces, alters or expands such provisions. Nothing in these amendments changes the existing legal or clinical framework in that area … So in every step along the way the requirements are unchanged.” 4
This is blatantly false. As stated clearly above there has been a change. Nichols obfuscates and spends all his time arguing about version 7, 5 which is not relevant to the discussion as it applies to nurses not midwives. 6 So, either he has misunderstood the nature of the motion, he has intentionally lied or it is a classic red herring?
Furthermore, Nicholls focuses on training requirements rather than addressing the removal of employer oversight, in doing so he sidesteps the central concern. The debate is not about whether training exists; it is about why an additional layer of accountability that previously existed has been taken away.
Queenslanders deserve a direct answer. Until the Government explains why employer approval was removed, it cannot credibly claim to have addressed the question that was put before it.
Rather conveniently the Speaker of the House LNP MP Jon Krause (Scenic Rim) then halted debate and moved straight to the vote without any opportunity for further questions.
The vote was as follows:
LNP, Labor, Greens MP and Independent (Noosa) voted against.
The Katter Australian Party voted for it.
By Matthew Cliff. This article was first published at Cherish Life and was used here with permission. Cherish Life is one of the largest pro- life organisations in Australia. Cherish Life Queensland was founded in 1970 (as Right to Life Queensland), to advocate for the right to life from conception until natural death.
