Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak regarding the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2020 introduced into the South Australian legislative council on 14 October of this year. This bill seeks to radically change South Australia's current abortion laws under the pretence of decriminalisation. However, its characterisation in those terms is flawed, as, in truth, this is an abortion-to-birth bill.

Since 1969, abortion at up to 28 weeks pregnancy has been legal in South Australia if two doctors agree that it's necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of the woman, or the child is likely to be born with a serious abnormality. A conscience clause enables medical practitioners to elect not to participate in the abortion.

This new bill stands for the following: for pregnancies up to 22 weeks and six days, a single health practitioner can abort the foetus—it might be a doctor, it might be a nurse—and, for pregnancies over 22 weeks and six days, two doctors must sign off that the procedure is medically appropriate. Even at 22 weeks and six days, a fetus is viable. It has a heartbeat and it can feel pain. Medical practitioners who refuse to be involved in these procedures are also obliged to find another practitioner to take their place.

Due to the graphic and sensitive nature of full-term abortions, people do not often talk about the reality of what takes place. However, if our South Australian parliament is willing to legislate for full-term abortion, it's time that we start having some of these uncomfortable conversations. So this is what we're talking about. The doctor will administer an injection of potassium chloride or other compound into the heart or the head of the unborn child to ensure that that child is dead upon delivery. A uterine evacuation is then performed through the summary dismemberment using long metal forceps—that is, by grasping and pulling off limbs for removal. The brain is then usually removed by suction. The skull is crushed for easy evacuation.

Understandably, the trauma experienced by those who have been through such a dreadful experience will last a lifetime. I've received many emails and telephone calls from concerned South Australians who have rightly looked beyond the simple rhetoric of decriminalisation, South Australians who can see through the cautious use of language and understand that what parliament in South Australia is being asked to endorse is a brutal bill which will allow abortions up until the day of birth.

At a time when our state is dealing with the effects of COVID-19 and businesses are struggling to keep their doors open, it is difficult to understand the logic in pursuing this bill at this time. While it's important to note that this legislation has not been introduced by the government, the reality is this bill was commissioned by the South Australian Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, and introduced into the South Australian Legislative Council by human services minister Michelle Lensink. This would be disappointing under normal circumstances; however, it's even more disappointing, as in 2018 the South Australian Attorney-General provided an interview to the Australian Christian Lobby in advance of the state election. During that interview she was asked the following question:

Given that the advances in medical science mean that children are now capable of being born alive at 24 weeks of a woman's pregnancy, would you support a review of section 82A(8) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 which says that "evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive" with a view to bringing it into line with current medical science and so changing the period to 24 weeks?

The answer was:

A Marshall Liberal Government will not be introducing legislation on this issue.

The Attorney-General also seeks to rely on the part played by former Liberal and Country League Attorney-General Robin Millhouse in supporting the bill to reform law in relation to abortion, as it was his action that brought it into play in 1969. This is done to enliven the case for Liberal Party involvement in this new bill. However, the Attorney-General has omitted to note that Mr Millhouse himself grew to lament that legislation. telling TheAdvertiser newspaper in 2014:

I deeply regret that the medical profession—and the lawyers—interpreted the law too widely …

It has become abortion on demand. I didn't intend it to be that. The best thing was to leave individual cases to the judgement of the medical professional.

…   …   …

We've got abortion on demand. I have taken the rap for it. It is something I regret.

I pass no judgement upon those who have been through one of these experiences and I understand that nobody takes this form of procedure lightly, but this is a very serious subject and it requires a very serious debate. Those who promote it must be prepared to justify it without the need for name-calling and without the need for shouting. What is required here is consultation and a robust debate on the merits of this bill, a contest of ideas rather than a barrage of slurs.

Regardless of the above, the final equation will be a simple numbers game. Who in our state parliament will stand tall? Who will rise above the noise to do what is right and stand side by side with the unborn? Who are the brave soldiers of North Terrace? South Australians await the answer.