by Kathy Clubb

The most commonly proposed pro-life laws are those centred on limiting abortions above a certain gestational limit, but is it wise for those opposed to abortion to support them?

Such a measure has been put forward in South Australia by Independent MP Sarah Game, a member of the state’s parliamentary upper house. She has recently proposed an abortion amendment bill, which, if passed, would restrict access to abortions after 23 weeks’ gestation. 

In light of this proposal, it may be timely to look at what kind of pro-life laws are the most, or least, helpful for the pro-life cause. As will be shown below, there are better options than merely seeking to place an upper-limit on abortion availability. 

‘Term limits’ convey the wrong message

Paul Hanrahan, the Australian CEO of Family Life International, makes the point that, far from uniting the pro-life community, such laws create deep divisions due to the different principles being employed by opponents of abortion. 

While acknowledging that the media attention garnered by these bills does have the benefit of raising the issue of abortion in the mind of the public, he reminds us of the biblical moral principle that “we must never do evil to obtain a good” (Romans 3:8). He told Endeavour Forum that “This kind of bill embeds and lends support to the notion used most to defend abortion — ‘my body, my choice!’”

“It is wrong to ascribe an unborn baby’s “viability” to an arbitrary age, such as 24 weeks. All unborn children are viable from conception. The fact that they wouldn’t survive outside the womb until a later age is irrelevant. So long as they have time and nourishment, they are viable, living human beings and are entitled to the full protection of the law.”

Speaking specifically about Victoria’s failed Infant Viability Bill of 2016, Mr Hanrahan added,

“It was legally ridiculous to carve out an exception in the bill from prosecution for the mothers. Of course, we are all aware of the tragic circumstances some mothers are placed in, and that often they are cajoled or coerced into an abortion they don’t want. However, if a person complicit in a crime has reasons that reduce or negate their culpability, then the Court would decide that. They would then receive a reduced sentence or be found not guilty. The legislation cannot decide that in advance.” 

‘Exceptions’ undermine pro-life case

John Smeaton, of the UK’s Voice for the Family, heartily agrees. He believes that pro-life groups should not be “campaigning for politicians to vote for abortion in the case of rape, or in the case of disability, or in the case of a baby being below a certain number of weeks’ gestation”, concluding: “We will never defeat abortion by campaigning for politicians to vote for abortion in particular circumstances.”

In his article, “Upper-limit abortion legislation a step in the wrong direction for the UK’s anti-abortion lobby”, Mr Smeaton asks:

“Is it not likely that one of the reasons why the evil of abortion is so overwhelmingly accepted in particular circumstances by our fellow citizens, including by our fellow Catholics, is that pro-life groups themselves have almost universally been prepared to accept legalised abortion in certain circumstances?”

In the same article, he makes the additional point:

“Imagine it was lawful in our countries to kill children up to six months after birth. Imagine a parliamentarian putting forward legislation to stop the killing of children after three months, while authorising killings of children up to the three-month limit — and with exceptions for disabled children who could be killed up to six months or even later. It would clearly be wrong to vote for such a law or to campaign for such a law, however many lives, allegedly, such a law would save, on the [flawed] basis that it would be ‘a step in the right direction’.”

A realistic alternative?

New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, a member of the Libertarian Party, is currently putting forward a private member’s bill addressing sex-selective abortion practices. His Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Sex Selection Prohibition) Bill 2025 aims to outlaw abortions based on gender — the incidence of which has been documented in a Western Australian study published earlier his year.

However, with the text of the bill not yet available, the devil is literally in the details. Does the bill apply equally to boys and girls? Does it, like so many flawed pro-life laws, contain a positive right to abortion in its text, with sex-selection given as an exception to this right? This is the weakest part of any pro-life law, generally.

In practice, enforcement is often the most difficult aspect of a bill of this kind. Do we really expect our pro-abortion governments to provide the resources for policing abortion-providers in order to enforce a law like this? Or are abortion-providers expected to self-monitor and self-report? Are the parents desiring an abortion based on their child’s gender expected to reveal this as the reason for their abortion? 

Chemical abortions

Another alternative anti-abortion law is being put forward by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, August Pfluger, from Texas. The Republican congressman’s bill, named the Second Chance at Life Act, would mandate that chemical-abortion providers fully inform mothers about the possibility of reversing the drugs’ effects. This is meant to alert women to the possibility of their baby being saved if they change their minds part way through proceeding with a chemically-induced abortion. 

Yet even this is a fraught area, with possible unforeseen consequences. Dr Debbie Garratt, researcher and founder of the discontinued Real Choices Australia organisation, had this to say about the proposed law: 

“With all the pressures women experience toward abortion, I believe that for many, this could be experienced as a potential ‘way out’. 

“I can take the pill and still change my mind and it will be okay.”

This, however, is not the case. I coordinated a national network of doctors providing progesterone — a hormone that supports pregnancy — to women in such circumstances for five years, then coordinated a world-first clinical trial doing the same. 

While results are good, they are not guaranteed with treatment being time-critical. Gestational age also appears to make a difference. Therefore giving women a false hope that what they are about to do could be reversed does not resolve any issues and may add extra pressure.

Legislation should be focused on the provision of actual informed consent, including risks of mental health harm, and information about ways women can be supported to navigate whatever circumstances have prompted them to consider abortion. This information should be given to women both verbally and in writing, and a waiting period should be enforced. 

However, as all informed-consent legislation relies on the abortion-provider giving accurate and complete information — and we know that doesn’t happen now — it’s hard to see how it would be effective. 

I do think that those two things combined achieve the aim of educating about and highlighting the real reasons women seek abortion and ensuring women are informed about supports. A waiting period, which ensures some distance from the possible pressure of abortion-clinic staff, and time to seek out alternatives would also help.”

As the examples make clear, the only way pro-life legislation could work would be for an independent body to monitor abortion-providers to ensure that the laws were being adhered to. The chances of that happening while our governments are committed to supporting the abortion industry are slim to none.

Education is vital

Some states in the U.S. are taking a different angle when it comes to new pro-life laws. One example is Ohio, which has just introduced its Baby Olivia Act. The Act, inspired by a video created by the pro-life group, Live Action, requires public schools to expose children to scientifically-accurate depictions of prenatal development. Live Action’s video was made with input from medical experts and uses computer animation to show a baby’s development throughout its time in the womb.

In this way, legislators hope that children will grow up with an understanding of a baby’s humanity which would preclude them from seeking abortions later in life.

It is difficult to see any moral problems with this kind of legislation, and it could hold the key to creating a new generation of citizens who have the kind of respect for motherhood and parenting which would one day make abortion unthinkable. Not only children would benefit; teachers and parents could potentially have their pro-abortion opinions challenged by exposure to this kind of information.

Conclusion

The preceding examples show that the area of creating good pro-life law is full of pitfalls, and that wide consultation among many different groups is necessary — from health legislation experts, pro-life leaders and even from psychologists. No one person or group has all the answers when there is a risk of putting in place a morally flawed or practically unworkable law.

While there are ways to legislate that potentially decrease the public’s reliance on abortion, we must begin with the understanding that many proposed measures have the potential to do more harm than good.

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 LifeSiteNews, Family Life International, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.