Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of that Senate would be aware of the impending conscience vote in the parliament set down for 17 September. That vote relates to a motion to disallow item 16525 of regulations that provide Medicare funding under the Health Insurance Act of 1973. The aim of the disallowance motion is to withdraw Medicare funding for second trimester abortions and late-term abortions. There is also a pending conscience vote in the Victorian parliament regarding the freeing-up of access to late-term abortions. The effect of the federal motion and the state legislation is to bring to the parliaments for the first time a debate centred on late-term abortions.

The history of abortion debates in the past has focused on early-term abortions. It is true that late-term abortions are a modern-day phenomenon due to the advancement of medical procedures and scientific breakthroughs. Late-term abortions were not even contemplated in the 1969 Menhennitt judgement, which effectively introduced abortion on demand. It was a ruling for the early term. However, in the past decade or so the number of late-term abortions—at least up to 32 weeks—have increased, and there is estimated to have been over 300 in Victoria in the past year. These late-term abortions are undertaken not only in specialist private abortion clinics but in Melbourne’s leading hospitals, such as Royal Women’s Hospital, which undertakes some 44 late-term abortions per year.

The use and refining of ultrasound has enabled the contemplation of what was once unthinkable—that is, to abort on the grounds of a disability that is in the eye of the beholder. It is known that there are late-term abortions available for disabilities as minor as a cleft lip, or as acceptable a disability as dwarfism. A new category has also slipped into the vernacular, being ‘psychosocial’, which means that the baby is not wanted on social grounds. Regrettably, the disability of Down syndrome has become an increasing reason for late-term abortions.

Given that these issues are relatively new medical and social phenomena, this is an overdue debate in society. It is an issue that has been successfully hidden away, wrapped in society’s acceptance of early-term abortions, but the procedure is much worse, as are the reasons for it. The gravity of the issue is clearer. We are dealing with a fully formed, viable baby. If you are a pro-choicer, within the confines of past debates you would have specifically dealt with early-term abortions. There are competing rights in the early term between the adult and the baby. A clear choice is available. The answer that the pro-choicer gives is that the woman’s right reigns. However, the question is not the same for late-term pregnancies. There are no competing rights between the mother and the baby. The baby is viable at some 20 weeks and can live away from the mother. So the question in the debate on late terms is: do the adults have an unfettered right over the children?

This is the basic human rights question that society must decide. Another reason society must answer this question of limited or unlimited choice is because, as time goes on, the violence of the act increases. The medical process of the late-term abortion must be distinguished clinically from early-term abortion. The method is a more invasive and difficult surgical procedure. The doctor must undertake a greater physical and mental intent to terminate the baby as distinct from early-term pregnancies.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have listened very carefully to Senator McGauran. I am very reluctant to take this point of order but we have to be careful here about standing order 194, where it is not competent for a senator to anticipate a discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper. I am concerned that Senator McGauran may be offending that standing order. However, I try to be generous in these things, particularly because these are matters subject to conscience votes in this place and one has to be very careful about this. But the anticipation point is a reasonable one and it is often made, so I ask for your guidance on that. Perhaps you would ask Senator McGauran to ensure that he respects that in his contribution.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On your point of order, Senator Faulkner, the debate on the motion in September is quite specific in respect of items in schedule 1 of the Health Insurance Act. If Senator McGauran strays into that specific area, I will have no option but to rule him out of order because that is anticipating the debate. Senator McGauran, I draw your attention to the point of order that has been made and ask that you do not stray into that area of the debate.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr President, I will not refer to the coming debate, although I admit I did in the early part of my contribution. I was touching on the matter with regard to undertaking the procedure of late-term abortion and distinguishing that procedure from early-term abortion procedures. I said it was far more difficult surgically—it requires greater physicality and mental intent to terminate the baby. The truth of the matter is that these babies are strong and fight for their lives. Late-term abortion, therefore, is clinically different because the foetus is more mature and consequently larger. It has recognisable human appearances, a solid bone structure, a well-developed cardiovascular system and central nervous system, and is responsive to painful stimuli. It has been well featured in many pictures and documentaries that a baby in the womb responds to an invasion by a probing needle by placing its hands in front of its face to protect herself.

A fine example of this is the shocking yet wonderful story of Gianna Jessen, an American woman who survived abortion. Gianna has been in the parliament for the last two days, meeting with senators and relating her story of survival in the hope that she will inspire them. Gianna survived abortion at seven months of age by being saved by a nurse after being burned in the womb by a saline solution for 18 hours. To quote her:

I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered on April 6, 1977 at 6am in a Californian abortion clinic ... a nurse called an ambulance while the abortionist was not yet on duty ... this happened to me.

I will just read two paragraphs of Gianna Jessen’s biography:

Gianna Jessen does not quit. Giving up is not an option to her. Gianna has what she refers to as the “gift” of Cerebral Palsy. She weighed a mere 2 lbs at birth and the doctors said she would never be able to hold up her head, sit up, crawl or walk. She began to walk by the age of three years old with the help of leg braces and a walker.

Gianna doesn’t believe that her Cerebral Palsy takes away from her life, but, rather, enriches it ... she walks with a slight limp today and runs marathons. On April 30, 2005 she completed her first 26.2 mile marathon after running just over seven hours and was presented with the coveted blank blank award! On April 23, 2006 she completed the London Marathon as well. She is now determined to run marathons all over the place, because she was never supposed to even walk!

The irony of the story is that it is a beautiful story. To meet Gianna is inspirational. She is a very joyous person, a very courageous person, and like all of us she is alive, but she is not meant to be.

We meet many people in this wonderful job that we have. To meet many people—people of high office, low office and no office—is one of the great privileges of public life, and I would have to say that meeting Gianna has been the one of the great privileges. I would urge all senators, or as many as possible, to meet Gianna—whatever position or whatever side of the fence, if you like, that you take—because she is an inspirational person.

In conclusion, I am convinced that unless a line is drawn in the sand with regard to late-term abortions society will quietly, unnoticed perhaps, but surely fall into the practice of eugenics. Frankly, it is already being undertaken in so many clinics today. However, as a Senate, as a parliament or, more so, as a society, we need to draw a line in the sand on late-term abortions—I make the distinction quite clearly from early-term abortions; I hope I have made the distinction in my speech—otherwise we will quietly but surely fall into the practice of eugenics.