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.

Georgie Purcell: a next-generation abortion advocate

Published on August 8, 2025November 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Victorian MP, Georgie Purcell, has understandably drawn criticism from the public for including a promotion of abortion during her pregnancy announcement. She recently made the announcement via a lengthy post on the social media platform, Instagram. Her prominence as a politician as well as her large social media following mean she is well-placed to push her pro-choice agenda onto impressionable Australians. Ms. Purcell represents a new wave of abortion advocates who make no attempt to hide their discrimination against the unborn or against the pro-life community.

A former stripper and topless waitress, Georgie Purcell is no stranger to controversy, initially positioning herself as an advocate for sex workers and as a role model for young Australian women. After joining the Animal Justice Party and being elected to the Victorian parliament, Ms. Purcell drew on her own abortion experience to lobby for increased abortion access for all Victorian women, especially in rural areas.

A Political Pregnancy Announcement

When Ms. Purcell recently made public her latest pregnancy, initially announcing it to her 212,000 Instagram followers, it included the following reference to her abortions:

“If you’ve followed my work for a while, you’ll know that this isn’t my first pregnancy. But it’s the first I’ve chosen to continue. As I prepare for motherhood (beyond cats, dogs, horses and sheep) I carry with me the stories of my abortions. They are not only part of my advocacy as a politician, but also part of who I am. I am more grateful than ever before that I have had access to choice so that I could do this on my own terms and timeline, and will always fight for everybody to have the same.”

Rather than expressing regret for aborting her first two children, Ms. Purcell seemed to relish the fact that she possessed the power to have them killed.

Elsewhere on the social media account, Ms. Purcell unironically states that Gaza is “currently the most unsafe place in the world for a child”. Without playing down the humanitarian crisis occurring in Gaza. it must be said that the most unsafe place for a child these days is in its mother’s womb. This fact seems lost on Ms. Purcell even though her own experience provides ample evidence.

Public Backlash

Understandably, members of the pro-life community responded to Ms. Purcell’s post by pointing out the inconsistency of joyfully welcoming some children while unashamedly disposing of others. This backlash was met with an article on the feminist website, Women’s Agenda, in which Ms. Purcell attempted to justify her position.

The article, entitled, Abortion will always be part of my journey, reiterated the content of her social media post and included her latest statements from the Victorian Parliament. Ms. Purcell told Parliament that her pregnancy “has only solidified [her] belief in reproductive choice” and went on to explain her gratitude for “access to options”. She decried the “anti-choice”, “anti-women activists” who criticised her promotion of abortion, saying that their comments renewed her passion for advocating for “reproductive rights”.

Yet, the backlash wasn’t only from the pro-life quarter: others, perhaps more closely aligned ideologically with the Animal Justice Party, have also criticised Ms. Purcell’s cavalier attitude to abortion. Ms. Purcell herself notes that many who believe in a woman’s “right to choose” one abortion may balk at the thought of two, considering that to be irresponsible.

Blaming Pro-Lifers

Ms. Purcell’s new-wave abortion advocacy includes laying the blame for any abortion-related inconvenience at the feet of the pro-life community. Despite being criticised by people who identify as pro-choice, Ms. Purcell prefers to aim her barbs at pro-lifers.

When speaking about the so-called “Safe Access” zones that operate in Victoria. Ms. Purcell openly states that her first abortion took place before the 150m exclusion-zones were introduced, and claims to have been “severely harassed” by pro-lifers as she entered the abortion business. Although that ‘harassment” allegedly consisted of being told she was “killing her baby”, was that not precisely the purpose of her visit? Is stating a fact synonymous with harassment?

No-one who is about to commit a grave error likes to be reminded of the fact, and experience shows that being told that one is about to kill one’s own baby has, in some cases at least, led mothers to re-evaluate their decision to abort their children. Unfortunately for Georgie Purcell’s first two children, that was not the case in her situation. Rather, she went ahead with her abortions, preferring to paint pro-lifers as the villains.

In an article she wrote in 2022, Ms. Purcell continued the blame-game, going so far as to accuse pro-lifers of forcing regional GP’s not to prescribe the abortion pills. She wrote that because there are fewer GP’s in the country they are “more vulnerable to being targeted by anti-choice activists.”

For someone who is so concerned about “choice”, Ms. Purcell seems reluctant to admit that some doctors live out their choice not to be a party to abortion. It is also doubtful that any doctor would appreciate being characterised as a weak, malleable personality who capitulates his or her pro-choice principles in the face of pro-life opposition.

Pro-life Hospitals Deny Care?

The discrimination by Ms. Purcell against conscientious objectors to abortion continues on the issue of abortion provision in hospitals. Like other abortion zealots, Ms. Purcell repeats the narrative that some hospitals, in refusing to perform abortions, are thereby denying women ‘lifesaving” care. She cites her own experience of needing a hormonal birth control device removed as it has dislodged and was in danger of perforating her uterus. She claims this led her to seek help at a non-religious hospital because “all over Victoria, there are hospitals conscientiously objecting to all reproductive healthcare services…”

It is difficult to believe that any hospital – even a Catholic one – would refuse to remove an IUD that threatened to perforate a woman’s uterus. Additionally, Ms. Purcell does not make it clear if she was actually turned away from a private hospital or whether she merely assumed she would not be helped. In any case, there is certainly no shortage of facilities where this kind of removal can be done and it seems polemical to suggest that religious hospitals should be accused of putting women at risk.

Dehumanisation is complete

It is Ms. Purcell’s references to animals that most blatantly indicate the direction in which abortion advocacy is now heading. By claiming that caring for cats, dogs and so on is no different from caring for children, the dehumanisation of the unborn is complete. In fact, the new narrative is that animals are actually superior to children in the womb.

For example, if an animal is too sick to continue treatment or is deemed to be unwanted, it is gently put to sleep, usually caressed lovingly in the arms of its owners or animal shelter staff as it passes away. Such an animal is assisted by caring, sympathetic veterinarians who do their utmost to provide a quiet atmosphere for the animal’s last moments.

Contrast this with the intentional death of a child in utero: it is either unceremoniously dismembered without sedation, as is the case with a first trimester surgical abortion, or it is starved via chemicals then violently expelled into a toilet. A baby in this situation is not held nor comforted and dies alone, surrounded by fear, rejection and cold calculation.

When it comes to the decision itself, of having an animal put down, this is usually the result of weeks or even months of consideration by a pet’s owner. Owners are usually grieved at the thought of having to make such a difficult choice. By contrast, an abortion, which we are told is “never an easy decision” is in reality often made without much hesitation or even forethought. Indeed, Ms. Purcell admits that as soon as she discovered her unplanned pregnancy at the age of 21, she “knew what she wanted to do.”

She explains, “I got an abortion because I didn’t want to have a child. I think that is important to say, because too often, we defend abortion by using the most extreme examples of why they’re necessary – such as sexual assaults and unviable pregnancies. But when it comes to making the decision to have an abortion, no one needs a justification or an excuse.”

Next-generation abortion zealots like Georgie Purcell are to be greatly pitied, since their lives eventually become one continuous justification of their abortions. They do untold damage to their living children who grow up knowing that they are lucky to be alive, yet are forced into imitating their mothers’ zeal for abortion. We must hope that Ms. Purcell soon realises the grave damage her example is inflicting on impressionable young women and men and that she somehow acknowledges her errors and finds a way to make up for her moral crimes – something that is never out of the scope of God’s mercy.

by Kathy Clubb