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.
An Australian public-school principal is taking a stand against LGBTQ+ bullies who’ve forced her out of a 34-year teaching career. Ironically, Janelle Rowe faced disciplinary action for “underperformance” after she proposed replacing LGBTQ+ “Wear It Purple Day” with “Bullying No Way Week.”
Although the punitive measures are being sold as unrelated, Human Rights Law Alliance’s John Steenhof is arguing that the evidence proves otherwise.
Principal the ‘best leader I have ever worked with’
Internal employment documents uncovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) showed Mrs Rowe had been described as “outstanding” and “highly capable.”
The FOI also quoted at least one teacher stating that Rowe is “the best leader I have ever worked with in my 40-year career.”
Furthering the connection, the ACT school’s disciplinary process included Rowe “being placed under supervision and instructed to celebrate” and lead the LGBTQ+ safetyism day on 28 August, while forcing her to wear purple.
So, “this was never about underperformance,” Steenhof exclaimed.
Rowe’s reasons for trying to replace “Wear It Purple Day” were due to “concerns about sexualised content being taught to children as young as four.”
“Wear It Purple Day is not simply a ‘wear purple’ dress-up day,” she said in HRLA’s 7 September press release.
“Its focus is to indoctrinate children with LGBTQ+ ideology from a young age and normalise it every year through this national awareness day.”
“Under the school system’s own codes of conduct, it is inappropriate to expose children to content of a sexual nature.”
“My primary concern was about child protection and our duty of care as educators,” Rowe explained.
This is what drove the haters her way.
Bullying and disregard for child safeguards
After speaking out, complaints were made to the ACT Education Directorate. HRLA argued that this resulted in the disciplinary action.
Rowe “also received threats that the union would be brought in to pressure her to keep Wear It Purple Day.”
She “was then subjected to allegations that Rowe was being motivated by her Christian faith.”
Bullied, Rowe was forced to resign.
In HRLA’s statement regarding the case, Rowe said, “I chose not to go to Fair Work because I wanted to be able to speak freely and help parents understand what was really going on in schools and enable them to protect their children.”
“Talking with primary school-aged children about sexualised content goes against the National Child Safe Standards,” she added.
It also goes against “related procedures, policies, and codes of conduct we are trained on and expected to uphold as educators.”
“Scenarios where sexualised content is shared with children,” Rowe asserted, “are considered Reportable Conduct, Inappropriate Conduct, or Misconduct.”
She called the “entire process procedurally unfair and religiously discriminatory,” adding that it has caused her “significant psychological harm.”
“Wear It Purple Day” concerns
“Wear It Purple Day” began in 2010, and its reach goes far beyond the education system.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) warned about it in 2021, saying, “Promoted as a day in which to ‘celebrate diversity and young people from the LGBTQIA+ community’, a darker, very alarming, side has emerged.”
“Wear It Purple is a member organisation of ILGA World (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association).”
“Under a cloak of ‘gender equality’ speak,” ACL explained, “this influential global federation is currently lobbying for governments to erase child protection policies and to lower the age of consent for minors.”
That lobbying involves the “Feminist Declaration,” which in part demands that governments abolish limitations on age and disability consent to sex laws.
Section 14, for instance, blatantly calls for the removal of age of consent laws that “protect children and young people from sexual exploitation and abuse.”
As ACL’s Wendy Francis noted, “What possible reason is there for us to remove these provisions?”
Referring to Janelle Rowe’s case, The Daily Telegraph described the clash with education bureaucrats as a “bitter dispute”.
Offered column space, DT said the ACT Education Directorate declined to comment, citing “privacy considerations.”
Canavan and Shelton protest
Two high-profile names who did weigh in, though, were Nationals Senator Matt Canavan and Family First’s Lyle Shelton.
Horrified, Canavan protested on X, asking, “What is going on in our schools? A principal with 34 years of teaching experience has left because she was being forced to teach about alternative ‘lifestyles’ to 4-year-olds… 4-year-olds!”
National/State secretary for the Teachers Professional Association of Australia (TPAA), Edward Schuller replied, “It gets so much worse. There is a network of government-funded organisations providing graphic sexual education to students.”
He linked his August interview with Karl Stefanovic and a petition, adding, “These groups have received over $230m in funding in just the last 5 years. Parents and teachers are fighting back — join them.”
You can read more here, although reader discretion is advised.
Lyle Shelton was just as concerned.
He posted a statement online declaring that Rowe “should be LAUDED, not driven from her profession.”
“Australian schools,” Shelton stated, “are no place for promoting radical LGBTQ+ sexual and gender-fluid ideology to children.”
“Janelle Rowe should be regarded as a hero for having the courage to say what countless Australian parents are thinking: four-year-olds do not need LGBTQA+ sexual and gender” training.
Schools should be teaching zero tolerance for bullying, he added, “But that does not require schools to promote harmful ideas about sexuality and gender identity to infants and primary-school children.”
“Wear It Purple Day should be banned from Australian schools, not the brave teachers who call it out.”
By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration.The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.
As Darwin debates a new assisted dying law – the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill – the very protections written into it are already targeted by the people who campaigned for the law.
Right now, in Darwin, the Northern Territory Parliament is debating a bill that would make the Northern Territory the last jurisdiction in Australia to legalise assisted dying. It’s expected to pass this week on a conscience vote.
But here’s what should worry you: the “safeguards” being built into this bill are already being targeted for removal, before it’s even law.
Strip away the acronyms and here’s what the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill actually does:
It limits eligibility to people with a prognosis of 12 months or less to live.
The patient can ask their doctor about assisted dying as an option at any time; a doctor cannot be the one to raise it first.
That third point is the one being fought over hardest this week. In the media, it’s almost always called a “gag clause.” As usual, language is being used to imply something quite different from what’s actually happening — and how often are we seeing that play out in Australia lately?
What a “gag clause” really is
“Gag” implies censorship — someone being silenced against his will. That’s not what this provision does. The patient can ask his doctor about assisted dying as an option at any time, and the doctor can answer honestly. What the clause does is keep the doctor from being the one to introduce death as a treatment option to a patient who hasn’t asked for it.
We need to call it what it is: a safeguard against a serious power imbalance.
A dying patient is frightened, exhausted, often in pain, and trained to trust his doctor’s judgement above almost anyone else’s.
If a doctor can raise assisted suicide unprompted, that judgement carries enormous weight — even when it isn’t meant as pressure, a patient can hear “have you thought about ending things” from their doctor as something close to a recommendation. The clause exists to make sure the idea comes from the patient, not from the person holding authority over his care.
Calling it a “gag” reframes a protection for patients as a restriction on doctors. That’s the language fight to watch, and it’s exactly the provision now being targeted for removal.
Push to widen assisted dying already underway
Andrew Denton, founder of the advocacy group Go Gentle Australia, has publicly welcomed this bill. But in the same breath, he and others — including the NT branch of the Australian Medical Association and the Labor opposition — are already pushing to strip out the very safeguards it contains: both the 12-month prognosis limit and the rule stopping doctors from raising assisted dying unprompted.
If the prognosis limit goes, who is “terminal” becomes far less clear. If doctors can raise assisted suicide unprompted, a sick, frightened, or depressed patient could hear it offered to him before they’ve asked, from the person he trusts most for medical guidance.
If you live in the Northern Territory and disagree with this bill, or you’re worried about how quickly its safeguards are being targeted, contact your local MLA this week, before the vote. (See details below)
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.
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.
Landlords have shut the door on the LGBTQ+ desecration of a former Sydney Catholic Church and theatre named after saints.
by Rod Lampard
Concerned critics said St John the Evangelist, which had previously also served as a school for the poor and a men’s shelter, was being used to mock Christianity in the name of art.
TheSydney Morning Heraldreported that the club was “slated to host live music, cabaret shows and performances — most of it adopting Catholic themes and names.”
Dubbed as an “experimental nightclub” and the brain-burp of LGBTQ+ company Heaps Gay Events, the former church was branded “The Unholy Playhouse.”
Organisers quickly changed this to “The Divine Playhouse” after media attention attracted an apparently unexpected flood of public criticism.
Owners issue notice of breach of lease
St John’s current owners, Anthony El-Hazouri and Charbel Hazzouri (Revelop), caught wind of the proposed use, then “issued a notice of breach of the lease over offensive trade.”
Heaps Gay founder, Kat Dopper, said her company “had acted in good faith throughout this whole process and remains committed to meeting our obligations as tenants and working towards a constructive resolution.”
Dopper claims the group was “being silenced,” and has said they are “exploring legal options.”
Sydney’s alt-news site CityHub blamed “radical Christian groups” for the cancellation.
They were referring to Christian Ministries Fit for the Kingdom (FFTK) and The Prodigal Sons (TPS).
Both ministries gathered over 150 Christians to pray outside the 158-year-old church building last week.
Saying it without stating it, CityHub accused the two groups of selective outrage, and insinuated that they were “seeking to prevent [those who identify as] LGBTQ+ from expressing themselves.”
Confirming the context, CityHub quoted Revelop’s breach of lease notice, which read:
“We note that the trade carried on by HG Events has been the subject of significant protest and public criticism, given its offensive nature.
“Such offensive trade has caused, and will continue to cause, grievance and disturbance to owners of adjoining properties and to the general public.
“In circumstances where future public protests are almost certain to occur and are likely to endanger members of the public, our client considers that the time by which the offensive trade is to cease is reasonable.”
On Instagram, Fit for the Kingdom founder, Tomas Mones-Cazon, said: “What makes this worse? The club is openly supported and funded by the NSW Government through Create NSW.”
“Taxpayer money from hardworking people including Christians is being used to desecrate a sacred heritage building and mock the Christian faith that helped build this nation.”
“This would never be allowed for Islam or Judaism,” he protested, “There would be immediate outrage, protests and government intervention.”
A second prayer vigil outside St John’s is planned for 17 July.
NSW state government funding Christian mockery
Validating Mones-Cazon’s claims, Australasian Leisure Management (ALM) confirmed that the NSW State Government had contributed 100,000 dollars to the venue.
Now removed, Heaps Gay’s insensitive marketing and social media posts are what first drew public attention to the LGBTQ+ club’s blatant mockery of Christianity.
For example, ALM recalled the former church being marketed as a “Sanctuary for Divine Mischief.”
Heaps Gay also openly “promoted events using Christian language and symbolism.”
This included “promotional material featuring drag performers dressed as nuns and religious imagery.”
Images that have resurfaced online show “The Divine Playhouse” mocking the Eucharist using McDonald’s fries and a man dressed as a pig.
One post shows a crucifix attached to a BDSM “dog collar.” Another picture shows someone wearing stiletto heels with a cross on the soles.
Others show a clear mockery of Christian ritual and liturgy being performed within St John’s.
‘Neither respect nor tolerance’
The Australian Christians Party backed the owner’s cease and desist notice.
Maryka Groenewald stated in a press release that “even after deconsecration, Church buildings remain places that still carry deep spiritual and cultural significance for believers.”
“They shouldn’t be used as backdrops for explicit entertainment that mocks or trivialises the Christian faith.”
The Western Australian Legislative member then protested the double standard, rightly arguing that this is the “same political lobby that constantly speaks about ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’.”
Now they’re “trying to bully a landlord into hosting events that show neither respect nor tolerance for the Christian worldview.”
“Sydney is not short of nightlife venues or performance spaces.
“It again raises a fair question: why the determination to stage these particular activities in churches?
“We want the [owners of St John’s] to know they are not alone.”
“Many Christians and common-sense Australians can see the double standard at work,” Groenewald added, stating that they “are grateful for their willingness to draw a line in defence of Christian morality and basic respect.”
Reading the room, Family First’s Lyle Shelton simply said, “Imagine if this happened to Islam?”
In a Family First statement published online, he added, “The Minns Government would never dream of funding an arts project devoted to mocking Islam’s prophet Muhammad or ridiculing Islamic religious practices.
“There would be an immediate public outcry and possibly violence. Christianity should be afforded the same respect.”
History of St John the Evangelist
Built in 1868, St John the Evangelist was deconsecrated in the 1930s.
The Catholic Press reported in 1938 that a “gradual clearing out of the residential population” had shifted the building’s usefulness.
Kent Street was being transformed into a commercial hub.
St John’s “carried on as a school, but even that was discontinued as there was no longer either any people or children to be served.”
As The Sydney Morning Heraldwrote one month later: when St John’s on Kent was built, “sunlight flooded through its windows. From its front door there was a view of the harbour.”
“Today the church is wedged between large commercial buildings.”
After the people had moved on, the church building was “rented out for secular purposes.”
In 1938 the church reintegrated the building back into its Christian mission. Priests from St Mary’s Cathedral proposed using the church as a hostel for the down and out.
Consequently, St John’s on Kent became the first site of the Matthew Talbot Hostel, Sydney’s long-running Saint Vincent de Paul’s men’s shelter.
From 1952–2020, the Gothic, Victorian-style, stone building served as the home of The Genesian Theatre, named after St Genesius, the patron saint of actors.
Now it’s being used by the LGBTQ+, who, with the monetary blessing of Labor politicians, are funding the mockery of Christianity behind the guise of “art” and “freedom of expression”.
As evidenced by the recent Australian Christian Freedom Index, the 21st century now offers plenty of examples showing the consequences of de-Christianisation.
The abuse of St John’s and the “be tolerant — don’t shove your religion down our throats — love is love” hypocrisy attached to it is one of the loudest.
Christians repeatedly deployed St John’s to serve the community; homosexuals are now using it to serve their own self-interests.
The difference between the two groups does not get any clearer than that.
By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration.The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.
Religious leaders in Victoria, Australia, have called on their Government to roll back its oppressive conversion therapy ban, warning that it criminalises conversations between parents and children, and prevents ministers from offering pastoral advice to those seeking it.
by The Christian Institute
Victoria’s infamous Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act criminalises any practice deemed to be ‘aimed’ at ‘changing or suppressing’ an individual’s ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’. The penalty is up to ten years in prison or a maximum fine of over A$200,000.
Not only does Victoria’s ban make it unlawful not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law also prohibits prayers about sin and repentance. Just as alarming, the guidance even said a parent discouraging their child from taking puberty blockers would be guilty of unlawful conversion therapy — this was only deleted following public backlash.
This video was created for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission two years ago. It shows how committed the government is to promoting gender ideology, and to minimising religious practise in Victoria.
Four years on from the Act coming into force, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has launched a review of the legislation.
In their submission to the review, a group of religious leaders with pastoral oversight for more than two million Victorians warn that the Act extends far beyond addressing harmful practices, and that its “broad overreach, ambiguity and ill-defined concepts of faith, has caused confusion in the community”. They say this is most notable among religious leaders and parents, who “appear to be disproportionately affected by the Act”.
Representing a range of religious traditions – including Anglican, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim – the leaders go on to say there has been “a chilling effect, particularly on religious leaders, many of whom feel constrained or unable to provide appropriate pastoral care to those seeking guidance for fear of breaching the law”.
Joanna Timm, Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute, commented:
“For years, activists have championed Victoria’s conversion therapy ban as the model for the UK to follow. That is why this latest intervention from religious leaders in Victoria is so significant.
“It puts paid to the claim that concerns about a UK conversion therapy ban are alarmist, and pulls back the curtain on the impact such laws have on ordinary church work and parenting. With the Westminster Government doubling down on its commitment to legislation, Victoria shows us what happens when activist demands are written into statute.”
NOTES
• There are already robust protections in law against abuse and coercion. Independent legal advice from multiple KCs is clear that any extension of the criminal law could breach no fewer than four rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights by criminalising ordinary church work, parental guidance and gender-critical beliefs.
• The Westminster Government confirmed in the King’s Speech that it intends to publish a draft ‘conversion practices’ Bill for England and Wales.
Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.
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.
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.
A landmark report released at Parliament House on Thursday found that nearly three-quarters of Australian Christians have felt pressured to conceal their beliefs in public, online or at work.The Christian Freedom Index revealed that 74 Acts of Parliament restrict basic freedoms.
Australia’s first comprehensive audit of Christian freedom — drawing on the survey responses of 10,808 Christians, over 40 documented cases, and 74 Acts of Parliament — was launched at a breakfast at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday morning, with cross-party parliamentarians and church leaders among those receiving a hand-signed copy of the report.
The inaugural Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) found that 92% of respondents in its flagship survey felt it is riskier to affirm Christian beliefs publicly than it was five years ago.
The report traces this near-universal perception of deteriorating freedom to the acceleration of restrictive legislation across all eight Australian jurisdictions over the same period.
“The right to religious freedom is being plundered in Australia,” Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney Anthony Percy said of the report. “This Index lays the ground for some rearguard action.”
Seven of the report’s eleven authors addressed the breakfast, with parliamentarians and church leaders also attending.
Among those present were Liberal MPs Alex Hawke and Julian Leeser, One Nation Senators Malcolm Roberts and Tyson Whitten, and Labor MP Alison Byrnes — a cross-party attendance the organisers said reflected the high stakes of Christian freedom in Australia.
A nation under legal pressure
The report’s legislative audit counted at least 74 Acts across Australia’s nine jurisdictions — six states, two territories and the Commonwealth — that affect Christian belief and practice, with nearly half enacted in just the last five years.
Between 2000 and 2020, an average of two such Acts passed each year. From 2021 to 2025, that average jumped to more than six per year — a more than threefold increase.
The ACFI Restriction Index, derived from an audit of 20 specific legislative restrictions, ranked Victoria as the most restrictive state by a wide margin.
Pastoral conversations and certain forms of prayer are now criminalised under Victoria’s conversion practices legislation; sermons on biblical sexuality can attract vilification complaints; and Christian schools face narrowed hiring exemptions.
Western Australia ranked as the least restrictive state, having resisted many of the impositions that have taken hold on the eastern seaboard.
The report identified six primary drivers of discrimination against Australian Christians — four external, two internal.
The first three work in sequence: secular progressivism has recast biblically orthodox belief as social harm; an expanding state apparatus has given that moral vision legal teeth; and the combined effect is a legal asymmetry in which religious freedom rests on narrow exemptions that can be litigated away or later repealed.
Two further drivers operate from within the church itself: doctrinal drift, where institutions have accommodated secular-progressive values at the cost of legal protection for those who will not; and what the report terms “misplaced meekness”: the belief that Christian humility requires silence in the face of injustice.
The silence gap
Survey findings revealed what the report calls a “silence gap” — the distance between Christians who had felt pressured to keep their beliefs private and those who had actually experienced formal marginalisation.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents — 73% — said they had felt pressured to conceal their beliefs in public, online, or at work. Only 25% reported having actually been denied opportunities or marginalised.
The chilling effect — where the fear of consequences reshapes behaviour before any penalty arrives — is outrunning formal discrimination, the report noted, with cultural pressure doing much of the work that law has not yet needed to do.
The survey also mapped the gradient of Christian freedom from the sanctuary to the public square.
Nearly half of respondents — 49% — rated Christians as somewhat or very free to conduct church ministry and worship. That figure fell to 24% for sharing faith in public, 19% for Christian education, 13% for workplace settings, and just 8% for Christian healthcare.
Asked specifically about Christian hospitals, 92% rated them as restricted, heavily restricted, or not free to operate according to their beliefs.
The report documented over 40 named cases spanning the first five of eight stages on an internationally recognised persecution scale, from ridicule and discrimination through to attack — the latter of which included the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari and the ACT government’s forced acquisition of Calvary Public Hospital in 2023.
The baseline is now set
Former Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies said the report “carefully analyses the erosion of freedoms in our country over forty years or more,” and called on parliamentarians and religious leaders to read it.
Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher said the index brought to light “recent attempts to minimise the role of faith in everyday life and exclude it altogether from the public square.”
The report also noted defensive wins.
In the Northern Territory, partial hiring exemptions for Christian schools were restored in 2025 after earlier amendments removed them. In New South Wales, pro-life groups and medical professionals worked together in May 2025 to defeat proposed extensions of abortion legislation that would have forced Christian hospitals to perform abortions. In Melbourne, the Royal Show reversed its decision to ban the Good News Booth — a Christian exhibit with 108 years of continuous history at the event — following concerted advocacy from Christians across Australia.
The report describes the Restriction Index and its companion survey data as a baseline against which future annual editions will measure change.
The index is designed to be published annually, with the next edition tracking developments across all Australian jurisdictions.
The Australian Christian Freedom Index is an initiative of the Canberra Declaration.
Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration.The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.
Child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer faces a November court showdown with Queensland Health after being fired for questioning gender-affirming care protocols for children.
The second showdown between Dr Jillian Spencer and Queensland Health is set for November.
Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA) announced the date in a recent statement published online.
This will be decisive, they said.
“The Court has allocated a two-week hearing window in the first two weeks of November.”
HRLA then added that the window will mark “a major step in what has become a closely watched case.”
Of special interest is Spencer’s professional protest against “no questions allowed” ideologically based “gender-affirming care.”
Her case, HRLA determined, is “at the intersection of proper care for vulnerable children, professional integrity, and the rapidly evolving debate around gender ideology.”
“Key deadlines have been met, including filing further evidence in February.”
“These court dates allow some certainty going forward,” HRLA explained.
Fired for asking questions
While the November date is welcome, Spencer’s case, they said, is another example of “the process is the punishment.”
A child psychiatrist with over 16 years of experience, and a mother of three, Jillian Spencer has had to endure “four years of legal proceedings.”
Recalling reasons for the legal challenge, HRLA said,
“This all happened because she, as a professional psychiatrist at Queensland Children’s Hospital (QCH), questioned the automatic ‘affirmation’ model of treating gender-confused children.
“Dr Spencer was concerned about untested and unproven treatments, including the use of puberty blockers, and the long-term effects they would have on young patients.”
The QCH suspended, then fired her.
In effect, Spencer wasn’t fired because she spoke disparagingly about those who identify as LGBTQ+. Spencer was fired because she dared to exercise her right to question the legitimacy of the ideology propping them up.
Spencer’s dismissal, HRLA argued, “reveals a failure in protecting fundamental freedoms in this country.”
HRLA’s case directs attention to discrimination against Spencer for freely sharing her views.
Spencer’s first case challenging her unfair dismissal from the Queensland Children’s Hospital went before the Qld Supreme Court in April.
This was a judicial review, Spencer said on X, “of the Termination Letter sent to me by the Queensland Children’s Hospital for speaking up about the harm to children from gender interventions.”
Questions asked, she added, were:
“Did the hospital adequately consider my implied right to freedom of political expression under the Constitution?
Did the hospital adequately consider my right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act?”
A judgment is yet to be handed down.
Forcibly removed from psychiatry conference
Spencer is in the free speech fight for the long haul.
She was allegedly assaulted by a security guard at this week’s Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) conference in Melbourne.
The guard appears to have forcibly removed her from the conference on Monday for silently protesting the college for cancelling Queensland Doctor Andrew Amos’ membership.
Her protest was a sign that simply read: “RANZCP kicked out Dr Amos. Why?”
This morning, I silently held up a sign at the @RANZCP Congress during the keynote speech. Security pushed me over, dragged me out, and cancelled my conference registration. @RANZCP CEO, Damian Ferrie, told me my sign counted as ‘advertising’ so wasn’t allowed. The College is so… pic.twitter.com/f1whVxZGp6
As an AusDoc report recalled, AHPRA banned Amos from clinical practice after he questioned “gender medicine on social media.”
RANZCP booted Amos soon after, which, AusDoc said, is an automatic response whenever a doctor is suspended.
Frustrated about how she was treated, Spencer took to X to further protest RANZCP.
The X post also called out “gender-activist psychiatrist colleagues [for] lying in chat groups, saying: ‘She lay on the floor herself’.”
Responding to claims she was hyping up the incident, Spencer added two screenshots of a statement given to Queensland police about the incident.
In the statement, she testifies to walking up an aisle holding the sign above her head.
This was held for about eight minutes, as she moved to a sitting area.
Spencer said security approached her, declared that the sign was prohibited and told her to leave.
Just over a minute later, the security officer allegedly pulled her to the ground, then apparently dragged her down the stairs.
Spencer said, “he continued dragging me to a flat area near the main stage.”
RANZCP’s CEO, Damian Ferrie, turned up and told Spencer the sign was advertising. He accused her of “disrupting the presentation and ruining it for 2,000 people.”
Rather than offer comfort or understanding, Spencer said Ferrie tried to take the sign from her. This was despite her obvious state of shock and tears.
“I just sat on the ground for the next 5 to 10 minutes crying,” Spencer testified.
Another security guard turned up, who helped Ferrie escort her out the door.
While Spencer was being removed from yet another medical forum, for simply asking questions, RANZCP was patting itself on the back for being “allies” of those who identify as LGBTQ+.
“It was a fantastic turnout this morning at the LGBTIQA+ people and allies morning tea at the RANZCP conference,” they wrote.
“Thanks to everyone who came along to connect and share their support for our LGBTIQA+ community.”
Spencer responded, “They’re smiling, and I’m bruised.”
The pictures, which show Queer flags plastered all over the room like it’s 1930s Nuremberg, only serve to validate Spencer’s protest.
PRIDE activism is harming professionals, the vulnerable and weakening Australia’s healthcare system.
They are not just demanding absolute, unquestioning allegiance in every aspect of life; they are cancelling evidence-based dissenters.
With the help of HRLA, Dr Jillian Spencer is holding the line.
Please consider actively praying for Dr Spencer and her family.
Also consider supporting the Human Rights Alliance’s important work here.
You can read The Daily Declaration’s ongoing and extensive coverage of Spencer’s fight for free speech here.
By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration.The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
