This is a good rant. I don't really see how the new bill would have an impact on the practical effect on legal abortions except to regulate it more (ie. mandatory counselling and two doctors' recommendations, etc). I think the bill makes it more difficult to get an abortion (or at least make it more of a process) than before, so I've come to the conclusion that the pro-lifers against it have not even read the proposal.
The current version of the bill doesn't place any restrictions upon abortions prior to the 24 week mark.
There is no mandatory counseling requirement anywhere in the legislation though. The major role of the legislation is setting the requirements for an abortion and removing abortion offences from the Crimes Act and common law.
Mandatory counseling has been argued as a potential amendment, but in the bill's current form doesn't have it.
You'll find the bill here, http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/ Just select parliamentary documents, and it's the Abortion Law Reform Bill. It's only 11 pages all up and is fairly straight forward so it's bound to get starred by some lecturer, somewhere.
Because I'll be here all night ranting otherwise, I'm just going to be flippant instead of (once again) getting up onto my soapbox regarding this issue
( ... )
Consulting my crim book (it wasn't one of my stronger subjects), a fetus isn't a creature in being so strictly speaking it's outside the common law definition of murder. Authorities listed there lean towards requiring a viable birth before murder can occur.
The history section made me wonder; beyond Dudley & Stevenson's interesting facts I can't see why it is persuasive authority in understanding Davidson. Menhennit J didn't base his judgment upon that argued necessity defence.
If you want to soapbox, feel free to give me an e-mail & organise a time. I sent you a LJ message with my e-mail.
Actually, we were discussing this recently. WHat was pointed out was 'we're basically legalising what we already do'. Shoot, there are reasons to abort just before birth (though I can't think of any where it should have to be done so *late*), anywway. Raar.
Can you clarify : there's *no* child destruction crime *at all* now? Even for, say, people who beat up pregnant women and induce miscarriage? (Oh, gosh, forgive me, I used to watch desperate housewives.) What does this change practically mean?
As for reasons to abort prior to birth, I'll defer to your medical judgment. I'm just flagging the fact that the reasonableness requirement would likely be hiked in those circumstances
( ... )
Comments 10
Reply
There is no mandatory counseling requirement anywhere in the legislation though. The major role of the legislation is setting the requirements for an abortion and removing abortion offences from the Crimes Act and common law.
Reply
Hmm, how did I get that idea then? I blame bad newspaper reports. (I should probably read the bill for myself I know).
Reply
You'll find the bill here, http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/ Just select parliamentary documents, and it's the Abortion Law Reform Bill. It's only 11 pages all up and is fairly straight forward so it's bound to get starred by some lecturer, somewhere.
Reply
Reply
The history section made me wonder; beyond Dudley & Stevenson's interesting facts I can't see why it is persuasive authority in understanding Davidson. Menhennit J didn't base his judgment upon that argued necessity defence.
If you want to soapbox, feel free to give me an e-mail & organise a time. I sent you a LJ message with my e-mail.
Reply
They "tell the truth" in the sense that they do not state falsehoods, just horribly misleading statements.
All except the first point. On the website, they say the bill will "Legalise ALL abortions until the moment of birth."
This is clearly not true.
Reply
Reply
Actually, we were discussing this recently. WHat was pointed out was 'we're basically legalising what we already do'. Shoot, there are reasons to abort just before birth (though I can't think of any where it should have to be done so *late*), anywway. Raar.
Can you clarify : there's *no* child destruction crime *at all* now? Even for, say, people who beat up pregnant women and induce miscarriage? (Oh, gosh, forgive me, I used to watch desperate housewives.) What does this change practically mean?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment