Tag: Discrimination

LGBTQ

Sydney landlords shut down anti-Christian LGBTQ+ performances at heritage-listed former church

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported 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 Herald wrote 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. 

Christian

Historic ‘Christian Freedom Index’ launches at Parliament House

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

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.

by the Canberra Declaration Team

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.

The sixth driver is Islamist extremism — documented in the high-profile 2024 stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

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 report is available at australianchristianfreedomindex.org.au.

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. 

abortion clinic

Pastor in Northern Ireland fined for preaching near abortion clinic

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

A Northern Ireland court on Thursday (May 7) fined a retired Baptist pastor for preaching at a worship service near an abortion clinic, a move the minister called a “dark day for Christian freedom.”

by Chris Eyte  at Christian Daily

Coleraine Magistrates’ Court ordered the Rev. Clive Johnston to pay £450 ($565) following his conviction under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act 2023. Johnston, former president of the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, held an open-air Sunday service on July 7, 2024 within a protected “buffer zone” outside Causeway Hospital in Coleraine, County Londonderry.

The Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe) reported that the court considered Johnston’s conduct a criminal offense due to the “location and surrounding circumstances.”

The prosecution argued that because the service featured a large crucifix, hymns and a microphone, it amounted to an attempt to influence people accessing abortion services. Johnston maintained his sermon made no mention of abortion. Police body-worn footage showed Johnston’s group singing hymns and quoting Bible passages, including John 3:16.Stay informed with The Christian Daily NewsletterSign up

“The buffer zone legislation is so broad that holding a Sunday service has been found to be a criminal offense,” Johnston said in a statement after the hearing. “If someone is out there causing trouble, stirring up violence, harassing or verbally attacking people, then, absolutely, go ahead and prosecute them. But I wasn’t doing any of those things.”

The 2023 Act criminalizes conduct within designated zones intended to influence – or conduct considered “reckless” as to whether it influences – a “protected person” accessing abortion services. Judge Peter King found Johnston guilty of two counts: acting within a safe access zone with the intent or recklessness of influencing a protected person, and failing to comply with a direction to leave the zone.

King acknowledged Johnston as a “man of strong religious belief and good character” who has been publicly associated with anti-abortion views in the past. The judge concluded, however, that Johnston had “tested the law to the point where he broke the law.”

The court ruled that Johnston specifically chose the location because of the clinic’s proximity, meeting the legal threshold for conviction.

By Chris Eyte. 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.

pro-life groups

Pro-life groups lose European Union funding

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

The European Union blocked funding to two European pro-life groups charging that they do not adhere to “EU values,” specifically abortion, homosexual marriage, and gender ideology.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. and Kelly Heilman, J.D.

The European Union denied the Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE) EU project funding six times in recent years. The World Youth Alliance received three review letters from the EU, which are essentially threats to lose funding. Both groups are pro-life and pro-family and say they are being targeted for their pro-life and pro-family beliefs.

FAFCE’s President, Vincenzo Bassi, told the Italian Bishops’ daily newspaper Avvenire, that his group was the target of “ideological discrimination” based on the EU Commission’s latest LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy.

Bassi explained that the Federation’s latest request for funds was turned down because it emphasized the importance of the family in their application and it is known that FAFCE represents Catholic families founded on the union of one man and one woman. EU authorities decided that “this focus (on the family) could violate EU equality norms” and that the group did not carry out enough “gender analysis” in its programs, which could in turn lead to discrimination.

FAFCE is one of Europe’s original pro-life and pro-family groups. It represents Catholic family associations from across Europe in EU institutions since 1997 and operates on a shoestring budget. In recent years it has held events and campaigns to promote family policies, the protection of children, and to oppose abortion and surrogacy.

The World Youth Alliance (WYA) is a youth organization that promotes the engagement of pro-life and pro-family youth with international institutions. It has received EU project funding in recent years but appears slated to lose it all because of its pro-life and pro-family work.

WYA was recently accused by the George Soros funded group openDemocracy with spreading false information about abortion. As a result, a formal compliance investigation into the organisation’s funding was opened and it was officially denied project funding. WYA’s status for future grants has not been determined.

WYA says the EU Commission does not have a legal basis for denying them funds. They argue that the Commission is relying on non-binding political decisions as if they were binding law.

EU funding projects are run by the EU Commission as the executive branch of the European Union. In recent years the Commission has begun to speak of “EU values” as a threshold issue for participating in EU civil society space and receiving EU funds.

The EU values that the Commission is purportedly enforcing are found in the 1992 Treaty on the European Union. That treaty provides the Commission with the authority to take action against EU member states for a failure to uphold “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.” The Commission interprets these EU values to include homosexual and transgender issues as well as abortion and extrapolates that its mandate requires imposing these as ideological requirements on organizations that receive EU grants.

Discrimination against pro-life groups

These developments are part of a wider push by abortion and LGBT advocates to censor pro-family and pro-life groups and exclude them from participation in public debates. Several reports from groups funded by the EU Commission, the U.S. State Department, George Soros, and other progressive international actors call on international organizations to expel and deny participation to so-called “anti-rights” groups. Most recently, the “Next Wave Report” models this approach. It is authored by Neil Datta of the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights, an initiative of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network.

Most civil society organisations and charities in the European Union receive public funds and would not be able to operate without them. Unlike the United States, where the tax code encourages independent civil society institutions for religious, educational and charitable purposes, Europe does not historically have a robust civil society. Public funding from European institutions has tried to fill that gap. The difficulties of FAFCE and WYA face at the EU Commission show the tradeoff that happens when independent civil society organisations, including pro-life groups become dependent on public funds.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D. and Kelly Heilman, J.D.

C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

non-binary

‘Non-Binary’ Drivers get Cheaper Car Insurance Premiums

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Two of Australia’s largest insurers have confirmed that they charge male drivers hundreds of dollars more than ‘non-binary’ applicants for identical car insurance coverage.

by Kurt Mahlburg at The Daily Declaration.

Insurance giants NRMA and Allianz are offering dramatically cheaper car insurance premiums to Australian drivers who select “non-binary” on application forms.

The revelation first came from a listener, Ben, who contacted 2GB Sydney’s Ben Fordham Live to explain that when he used the same personal and vehicle details and changed only the gender field, he was quoted dramatically different premiums.

“At NRMA, for example, for a male customer, the policy costs $2,700, but for a non-binary customer, it costs only $1,900 — a difference of $800,” the listener wrote in an email to the program.

“At Allianz, it’s similar. For a male customer, the policy costs $2,800. For a non-binary, it costs $2,300 — a difference of $500. Same suburb, same car, same age, same driving history, same excess, same everything.”

The listener, Ben — who happens to share a first name with the show’s host — went on to detail how each insurer justified its pricing policy:

I asked both insurers to explain why gender identity affects a person’s risk profile. NRMA insisted it’s non-discriminatory, then pointed me to their premium and excess guide. Allianz went a step further and told me they couldn’t answer because it was a sensitive topic.

In other words, insurers are charging male customers hundreds more; non-binary customers get the cheapest rate. No data or explanation is provided. One insurer hides behind a document that doesn’t explain it. The other refuses to answer questions entirely.

Both insurers have since confirmed to The Daily Declaration that the cheaper price for ‘non-binary’ customers is intentional.

‘Absolutely Stunned At What I Found’

Ben Fordham noted the startling implications live on air. “I’m certainly shocked to hear about it,” he said, before speaking with the listener during Monday morning’s program.

Ben, 22, explained the process that led to his discovery. “I was just going through doing some quotes the other night in the process of purchasing a new car.”

“I found the box on there and I thought, ‘I’m just gonna give it a tick and see what it comes out with.’ Might be a bit of a joke. And yeah, well, a joke is right. I was absolutely stunned at what I found.”

Fordham clarified: “All of the other details were listed exactly the same?”

“Yes,” the caller confirmed.

Fordham summarised the situation for listeners: “Two of the country’s biggest insurers charging dramatically different car insurance premiums based purely on the gender identity you select. If you tick male, you pay more. If you tick non-binary, you pay less.”

When Fordham asked about female drivers, Ben reported that NRMA’s quote for a female customer came in at around $2,300 — still higher than the non-binary rate.

‘Non-Binary’ Loophole Confirmed by Producers

2GB Sydney confirmed the discrepancy via social media, showing the results when their own producers tested the so-called “non-binary loophole.”

Side-by-side quotes for the same comprehensive car insurance policy revealed a striking difference: $2,725 per year for a male applicant, compared with $1,943 for someone identifying as non-binary — a saving of $782.

The post, headlined “2GB PRODUCERS TEST NON-BINARY LOOPHOLE,” made clear that the only variable affecting the premium was the gender selection.

Monday’s segment closed with Fordham summarising the findings: “Insurers are charging male customers hundreds more. Non-binary customers get the cheapest rate. No data or explanation is provided. One insurer hides behind a document that doesn’t explain it. The other refuses to answer questions because it’s so sensitive. What in the world is going on?”

NRMA and Allianz Confirm ‘Non-Binary’ Discount

The Daily Declaration reached out to both NRMA and Allianz to confirm whether the cheaper premiums for ‘non-binary’ customers were intentional.

“NRMA Insurance recently introduced a non-binary option into the comprehensive car insurance quoting process to enable non-binary customers to be represented and recognised when applying for insurance,” an NRMA Insurance spokesperson confirmed, adding, “It’s important customers provide accurate information when purchasing insurance.”

“We will continue to refine our approach as we gain insight on driver behaviour to ensure policies and premiums are reflected appropriately,” she said.

The reply from Allianz was similar.

“At Allianz, we strive to be inclusive in our insurance offerings,” a spokesperson explained. “Due to the small percentage of non-binary individuals, limited data is available to assess risk accurately. Therefore, we currently default to the lower-priced gender option, which is typically, but not always, female.”

“Allianz will continue to refine our approach to policies and premiums to reflect updated information. We trust our customers to provide accurate information when applying for insurance.”

Both NRMA and Allianz place heavy emphasis on LGBTQI+ “inclusion” as part of their corporate identity.

According to NRMA’s website, the company’s SHINE network promotes “gender affirmation leave,” “all-gender bathrooms,” and policies designed to let staff “be their authentic selves,” framing these measures as essential to a “safe, welcoming environment.”

Allianz adopts similar language, describing its Pride network as committed to “furthering the awareness of LGBTQ+ issues” and positioning the company as an “employer of choice for LGBTQ+ applicants.”

Both NRMA and Allianz have achieved Gold Employer status on the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI), a benchmarking program administered by the LGBT activist group ACON, which receives funding from both federal and state governments.

by Kurt Mahlburg.

Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at Mercator, Intellectual Takeout, The Spectator Australia, The American Spectator and Caldron Pool.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. 

Sex Selective abortion

Sex-selective abortion means unborn girls are missing

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Sex-selective abortion is legal in Queensland and other Australian states, particularly among immigrants from India, China and Vietnam. Yet, feminists and other pro-choice activists are silent about this lethal form of discrimination.

By Hannah Newton, Cherish Life Queensland

Sex-selective abortion, that is the practice of ending the life of an unborn child based on that child’s sex, is often thought of as a distant problem confined to other parts of the world like Asia. However, new research has revealed that this lethal form of discrimination is not only happening in Australia, it is also likely happening right here in Queensland. Devastatingly, there is currently nothing we are doing to stop it.

Newly released study

A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published in PLOS Global Health analysed over 2.1 million births in Western Australia and New South Wales between 1994 and 2015.1 The authors found consistent, statistically significant patterns of male-based sex ratios at birth among certain population groups, particularly at the second or third pregnancy following one or more daughters.

In natural conditions, the sex ratio at birth (otherwise known as the SRB) is about 105 boys for every 100 girls. However, this study showed that the SRB exceeded expectations for children born to Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese mothers. For mothers from China, the SRB was 1.09 at second birth and markedly higher (1.34) at the third birth when the first two were female.2 This pattern was also observed for mothers from India. Indian and Chinese mothers had much higher induced abortion rates in early pregnancy than their Australian counterparts, which also coincided with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing. The authors concluded that this provided observational evidence that linked the male-biased SRB with prenatal sex determination followed by selective female-biased abortion.3

So what is non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)? This is a semi-recently introduced blood test that can reveal the sex of a baby as early as 10 weeks gestation.4 This timeline also conveniently falls well within the legal window for abortion-on-request in most Australian Jurisdictions. What this means is that parents can find out the sex of a baby early enough to legally terminate the pregnancy if they are disappointed.

While this data came from WA and NSW, the same cultural and legal conditions exist in Queensland, meaning that there is every reason to believe that similar sex-selection practices are occurring here.

Permissive abortion laws fuel the problem

Since the passing of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 (Qld), abortion in Queensland is legal for any reason up to 22 weeks gestation.5 Beyond 22 weeks, it can still be performed with the agreement of two doctors.

There is:

  • No requirement to give a reason for seeking an abortion
  • No restriction on terminating based on the sex of the baby
  • No delay in disclosing the baby’s sex via NIPT
  • No data collection or monitoring of why abortions are performed in Queensland

This legal environment effectively created the perfect storm for sex-selective abortions to occur undetected and unchallenged. Parents can learn the sex of their unborn child early, and if they are hoping for a boy but find out it is a girl, they can legally and quietly abort the baby. We must acknowledge this for what it is, gender discrimination.

 Let’s be clear: this is gender-based discrimination

Sex selective abortion is not a fringe concern. It is a form of gender-based violence that targets girls at their most vulnerable stage: in the womb. It says to girls, before they take their first breath, that they are not wanted or valued.

This practice has contributed to millions of “missing girls” globally, especially in China, where widespread sex-selection has created dangerous demographic imbalances and human rights crises.6 The United Nations has even condemned sex-selective abortion as a violation of women’s rights.7 However, in Australia we are turning a blind eye.

We cannot claim to uphold gender equality while permitting a legal system that allows girls to be aborted for simply being girls.

A glaring double standard: IVF vs abortion

Here’s the irony: in Australia, it is illegal to select the sex of a baby through IVF unless there is a medical reason (such as avoiding a sex-linked genetic disorder).

The National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, which govern reproductive technology, explicitly prohibit non-medical sex-selection. The reasoning is sound: allowing parents to choose the sex of their child for personal or cultural reasons would entrench gender bias and commodify children. And yet, while sex-selection through IVF is banned, sex-selection through abortion is entirely legal. This contradiction is staggering.

In one context, the government rightly says: you cannot choose your child’s sex – because girls and boys are of equal value. But in another says: you can end the life of your unborn baby if the child is not the sex you want – and we won’t ask why. 

This is not just a loophole, it’s a fundamental failure of consistency and principle and it is costing baby girls their lives. How can we ban sex-selection in the lab while turning a blind eye to it in the womb?

The lies used to justify it

Pro-abortion advocates often justify unrestricted abortion laws by invoking tragic scenarios – claiming that if abortion were restricted in any way, women would be denied care for miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. This is false.

In Queensland:

  • Miscarriage care is completely legal and is routinely provided
  • There is no law that prohibits health professionals from offering and administering life-saving treatment.

This argument is a scare tactic, used to distract from the fact that our current laws allow for abortion purely because the child is the “wrong” sex. This is not about reproductive healthcare, it is about ideological dishonesty and legal cowardice.

So, what needs to be done?

If Queensland is serious about protecting women and girls, we must take urgent steps to end sex-selective abortion. At a minimum the Queensland Government should:

  • Ban the disclosure of a baby’s sex before 20 weeks unless medically necessary
  • Prohibit abortion on the grounds of a baby’s sex
  • Introduce mandatory reporting requirements, including collection of data on reasons for abortion and a baby’s sex at termination
  • Implement clinical protocols in line with ethical standards that prevent misuse of NIPT for non-medical sex-selection.

Equality must begin in the womb

Sex-selective abortion is happening in Australia. It is enabled by silence, fuelled by ideology, and ignored by the very laws that claim to protect women. If we care about gender equality, we cannot look away.

Every unborn girl deserves the same right to life and dignity as a boy. Equality must begin in the womb. It’s time Queensland faced the truth – and acted to protect all of our babies.

By Hannah Newton. Republished from Cherish Life with permission. Cherish Life Queensland was founded in 1970 (as Right to Life Queensland), to advocate for the right to life from conception until natural death and remains one of the largest pro-life organisations in Australia.

  1. Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  2. Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  3. Gebremedhin AT, et al. (2025) Indirect evidence of sex-selective abortion practices to the imbalanced sex ratio at birth in Australian migrant populations. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5): e0004672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004672 Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  4. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), Pregnancy birth & baby https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/non-invasive-prenatal-testing-nipt#:~:text=Non%2Dinvasive%20prenatal%20testing%20(NIPT)%20is%20one%20way%20you,genetic%20conditions%20in%20your%20baby. Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  5. Termination of Pregnancy, Queensland Government. https://www.qld.gov.au/health/children/pregnancy/termination-of-pregnancy Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  6. Sex-selective abortions over the past four decades in China. (2025). Population Health Metrics, 23(6). https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-025-00368-y Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎
  7. Joint Statement by OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO. “Son preference” must end. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2011/06/joint-statement-ohchr-unfpa-unicef-un-women-and-who?utm_source=chatgpt.com Accessed 7 August 2025. ↩︎