The ramifications of denial of doctors’ conscience rights

Published on November 28, 2025November 29, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. In this article, Dr. Hobart looks at three areas of Victorian health law which violate the conscience rights of medical doctors and other health professionals.

By Dr. Mark Hobart

In Victoria first we had denial of conscience with regards to abortion in 2008. Then we had the denial of conscience with regards to the Covid gene therapy in 2021 . And now it is legislated that we have denial of conscience with regards to the promotion of euthanasia. These three government directives lead to the inability of the doctor to give his or her independent opinion regarding abortion, covid injections and euthanasia.

Abortion

According to the Victorian 2008 Abortion Law Reform Act,¹ a request for abortion to a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must be referred to a doctor who does not have a conscientious objection to abortion:

ABORTION LAW REFORM ACT 2008 – SECTION 8

Obligations of registered health practitioner who has conscientious objection
(1) If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.

It is the case now that if the doctor advises against abortion and then refuses to refer, he will be breaking the 2008 ALR Act. This is especially worrying if the woman is being coerced.

I was cautioned for this in January 2014² by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) when I refused to refer a woman for an abortion at 19 1/2 weeks for gender selection because the unborn baby was female and they wanted a boy. So, in fact, if a woman says she wants an abortion, she must be referred for an abortion.

Covid injections

In March of 2021, AHPRA issued a position statement³ for registered health practitioners and students regarding the COVID-19 vaccination.

If you opposed the position statement, you would have been suspended, as happened to me and to four other Victorian doctors. From the position statement (emphasis added):

Conscientious objection
In the case of a conscientious objection about receiving, authorising, prescribing or administering COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must inform their employer and/or other relevant colleagues (where necessary) of their objection as soon as reasonably practical. For example, a practitioner’s personal beliefs may form the basis of a conscientious objection to particular treatments. In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.

While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students. National Boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Queries about COVID-19 vaccination programs should be directed to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which are responsible for these programs.

COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media
National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.

Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
….
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service4 (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by AHPRA.

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates, usually three months duration, to my patients who were being forced to have the Covid injection. Had they refused, they would have lost their jobs and/or had an injection which was dangerous to their health and/or also conflicted with their religious beliefs because the injections are made using aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask them, about 50% of these patients had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a three months certificate saying that they should not have the injection.

I am still suspended now four years later. I will finally have a trial in April 2026 in which AHPRA/the medical board will attempt to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

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

Voluntary Assisted Dying

The Victorian government has amended⁴ the Voluntary Assisted Dying law to make it a requirement that doctors give information about VAD to their patients.

Possibly, from as early as December this year, doctors must advise that another practitioner may assist and give the person the information. You are also required to give information approved by the “secretary.”

From the amended legislation:⁵

“(2) If a registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—

(a) advise the person that another registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
(b) give the person the following information—
(i) contact details for the prescribed voluntary assisted dying care navigator service;
(ii) the address of an Internet site of the Department of Health that provides information about voluntary assisted dying.”.

Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying. This should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the Crimes Act with a penalty of five years in jail, it can’t be called that.

It can’t be called voluntary assisted death either, because it’s up to the patient to take the medication at their discretion. The doctor doesn’t need to wait around to make sure that the patient is dead, as the drug is supposed to kill them; this is usually phenobarbitone, which may or may not work. [See this article on why assisted suicide is neither dignified nor painless.]

Also the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication, but record the terminal condition which led to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more; for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or Neil Daniher’s motor neurone disease.

Now we come to the crunch. In past years, if you felt there was a genuine possibility that a patient would commit suicide, you would call the CATT team⁶ or the police surgeon to prevent it. In the more distant past, you could certify the patient yourself.

Yet according to this new legislation, if patients comes to you, as a doctor, requesting “assisted dying” and the information needed to access it, (i.e. they want to know how to commit suicide), instead of asking them why they want to commit suicide, you must give the advice on how to kill themselves, including information approved by the government secretary. I hope she’s a good secretary.

Implications for Catholic doctors

All the formerly Catholic hospitals are now influenced by the government to a large extent, for example St. Vincent’s and the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne. There are obviously others as well, and we have the example of the fate of the Calvary hospital in Canberra.

Obviously, these laws are insane. We are Catholic doctors. We cannot advise patients to kill themselves. We cannot stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort her child. We cannot stand by and agree with a medical treatment that we think is dangerous and has been recommended to the patient because the government says it is justified.

On the other hand, if we act on our consciences, we will not be able to practise medicine in our society. It is not only doctors but nurses who are at risk. They certainly won’t be able to do general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology. Endocrinology and psychology will be a big problem, as will plastic surgery and other forms of surgery be problematic. These include paediatrics and paediatric surgery. The implications are endless.

I believe Catholics were excluded from the professions in England following the Elizabethan persecutions and that this continued until 1871. Such restrictions on faithful health professionals are being imposed in C21st Australia and must be opposed at every stage.

Radical Victorian MPs want to force hospitals to provide abortions

Published on October 24, 2025November 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

by Kathy Clubb

Pro-abortion Victorian parliamentarian Georgie Purcell, of the Animal Justice Party, has used her pregnancy announcement, paradoxically, to promote the “perceived right” to abortion, as Endeavour Forum recently reported. Incoherence appears to be a way of life for Purcell, who defends the rights of ducks and greyhounds while advocating for the slaughter of innocent children in the womb — including two of her own babies. Now Ms Purcell has teamed up with Rachel Payne of the Legalise Cannabis Party to push for expanded abortion access in the already extremely permissive state of Victoria.

Payne and Purcell have released a report which they hope will garner support for their vendetta against Victoria’s babies. They claim that, despite abortion having been legal to full term in Victoria since 2008, women face multiple obstacles to accessing abortion due to a variety of factors. The Abortion Access Report identifies four areas which the two women believe need to be addressed so that Victorian women can gain greater and more straightforward access to abortions, and makes recommendations related to those areas of focus. An examination of the Report reveals the same disdain for pregnancy, for conscience rights and for women’s safety that is evident in modern “reproductive rights” debate.

Affordability

Following in the footsteps of the ACT, where abortions have been free since 2022, Payne and Purcell are demanding that Victoria taxpayers likewise fund abortions. Included in this demand is the specific call for those mothers not covered by Medicare to be offered chemical or surgical abortions for free — a clear reference to migrants and international students.

Yet these two minority groups — migrants and international students — are already accessing abortion due to the high cost of giving birth outside the Medicare system. Anecdotal evidence of this comes from members of the pro-life community who attended prayer vigils outside abortion facilities before the advent of exclusion-zones. They confirm that many non-citizens would gladly proceed with their pregnancies were the hospital fees associated with having a baby not so high.

So, despite the cost, abortion is far less expensive for non-Australians than having a baby; it is this problem which needs to be solved rather than attempting to reduce the cost of abortions.

Payne and Purcell also want the state government to examine its Patient Transport Assistance Scheme to ensure its policies, such as eligibility criteria and paperwork, are not raising barriers to abortion access.

Accessibility

According to the Abortion Access Report, 70 per cent of Victoria’s local government areas have no dedicated abortion provider, and 20 per cent have no chemical abortion provider, obviously a disastrous state of affairs for any advocate of child sacrifice.

In order to address this perceived need, Payne and Purcell want the Victorian government to expand its sexual and reproductive “health” hubs into even more areas, with what can only be called a eugenic agenda — the babies of migrants and the “economically disadvantaged” are being specifically targeted for more abortions.

Payne and Purcell are also demanding that any hospital which provides maternity care be also forced to perform abortions. These women’s continual certitude of the supposed equivalence of birth and death by abortion is quite staggering!

Another egregious defect of the Report is the lack of concern shown by its authors for women’s safety. Citing the latest guidelines for abortion provision, Payne and Purcell state that doctors who require pathology and ultrasounds prior to a mother’s abortion are causing unnecessary delays. Indeed, ultrasound-free chemical abortions, such as those procured via Telehealth appointments are being promoted as the “modern” and “straightforward” way of accessing abortion.

Yet although these diagnostics are not legally required, it makes good medical sense to perform them prior to an abortion. For example, if a pregnancy is ectopic (that is, the embryo is implanted outside the mother’s womb), then it is extremely dangerous for a woman to take the abortion pill. Since the location of an embryo can only be detected by ultrasound, it is very irresponsible of a doctor not to order one before prescribing a chemical abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition which should not be downplayed by those seeking to simplify abortion access.

Conscientious objectors

As the Report reminds us, pro-life doctors have a legal obligation under Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 to advise patients of their pro-life stance and to refer women to another doctor who has no objection to abortions. Of course, this is a gross violation of conscience rights as, despite that action being indirect, by referring a mother to a colleague, and knowing this will lead to a child’s death, a pro-life doctor becomes an accessory to that death.

Payne and Purcell claim that such referrals by pro-life doctors are often not being provided and want this to stop. The two women are requesting from the state government more resources in the form of officials designated to monitor pro-life doctors — in effect, to spy on them and turn them into the authorities.

This is an unrealistic and dangerous suggestion for a number of reasons. Economically, Victoria is strapped for cash and it would be most irresponsible to spend public money on policing confidential conversations between doctors and their patients, when, as the Report’s authors agree, many basic health services are not being provided in the state.

Secondly, it would be demoralising to medical professionals to have their privacy violated in this way. Only pro-life doctors would be affected; their actions should be contrasted with those of doctors who do refer for and perform abortions which leave their patients traumatised yet for whom there is no oversight.

Thirdly and most importantly for the privacy of all residents, the creation of a watchdog of this kind would set a dangerous precedent, one which would only cement Victoria’s reputation as a police state.

Included in this section is another call for publicly-funded hospitals to be forced to provide abortions; an end to the practice of — in the authors’ words — “corporate conscientious objection”. Failure of pro-life medical staff and hospitals to provide abortions is at the very heart of Payne and Purcell’s new campaign.

Workplace training

The final section of the Abortion Access Report is dedicated to increasing the number of abortion providers through more funding for training. A widely-circulated untruth is repeated: that it is stigma surrounding abortion which makes doctors reluctant to provide them. Nothing could be further from the truth as abortion is so ubiquitous that it is the doctors who are pro-life, and not pro-abortion, who are being marginalised!

Yet the lie must continue, for it covers the reality that many doctors simply do not want to perform abortions because they find it distasteful. The Report quotes another from 2024, providing the following statistics:

As of mid-2023, just 17 per cent of GPs in Victoria were providing medical abortions and only 19 per cent of pharmacists were dispensing the medication. Access to surgical abortion is even more limited, particularly in regional and rural areas. Across Victoria there are just 35 providers, and only 15 offering procedures beyond 12 weeks’ gestation.

To anyone who is shocked by the industrial scale of abortion, having 35 providers in Victoria alone, with 15 willing to perform late-term abortions, appears a disastrous state of affairs. Yet Purcell and Payne believe women need far, far more abortionists — one on every corner? — to ensure that every last unwanted child is eliminated in a timely manner.

The Abortion Access Report underscores a harmful undercurrent continually at play throughout Australia: that the abortion lobby is prepared to jeopardise women’s health and safety, and to push more and more vulnerable women into choosing death for their children over life. Its emphasis on squashing the rights of medical practitioners to exercise freedom of conscience highlights an authoritarian agenda that needs to be resisted at every opportunity.

About the author

Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.