• (03) 9385 0100
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Silence After Abortion Death!

Appalling news regarding the death of a Melbourne mother of two following an abortion at a Melbourne clinic in January 2024.  Especially appalling is the silence of Melbourne media.   I wonder why the only report in major media in Melbourne was the Herald Sun which ensures the true nature of the procedure is not revealed.

Daily Mail (Aus) did produced the following story online: READ MORE.


The fate of babies born alive after failed abortions is not known by many Australians.  Indeed it is Australia's darkest secret.  These babies - born alive, but unwanted - are left to die.  Listen to the live testimony by Professor Joanna Howe at the Senate Inquiry into the Human Rights (Children Born Alive) Protection Bill 2022 this year.

Submission to the Inquiry into the Human Rights (Children Born Alive) Protection Bill 2022 by Right to Life Australia Inc.READ THE SUBMISSION.

The question needs to be asked - what is the difference between a 23-week-old premature baby and a 23-week-old baby born alive during an abortion?

Professor Joanna Howe

Professor Joanna Howe

Should a 23-week-old premature baby and a 23-week-old baby born alive during an abortion be afforded the same care? Yes.

A bill to enshrine the rights of these children has been introduced into the Australian Federal Parliament.   The bill aims to remove the discrimination against the babies born alive which currently exists – discrimination against a child based on how that child was brought into the world.

On 30 November 2022 Nationals Senator The Hon Matthew Canavan, Liberal Senator Alex Antic and Senator Ralph BABET (United Australia Party) sponsored a private members' bill into the Australian Parliament - to protect the rights of children born alive after an abortion.

On 8 June 2023 the Senate Committee invited a number of organisations  including Right to Life Australia Inc. to an oral hearing where evidence was presented about the reasons and evidence about the bill.

Senator The Hon. Matthew Canavan explains in an article he wrote for CQ Today (04/12/2022 ) -that Australia has obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to protect babies born after the fatal attempt of an abortion.

Article 6 says "every child has the inherent right to life" and article 24 says that Governments must "ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children".

It is the right and obligation articulated in the Convention that the Senators' bill seeks to hold the Australian government to account.  The Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 requires health professionals to provide medical care to babies born alive during an abortion procedure.

This is no different than a child who is born premature, or at any gestational age. This bill would require all children to be treated with the same rights to medical care when they are born. This bill seeks not to discriminate medical care towards a child based on how that child was brought into the world.

A comprehensive new study of premature babies by Bell and colleagues1 in the United States is helping to redefine what it means for a premature infant to survive.
The study looked at 10,877 babies born between 2013 and 2018 and found a significant improvement in survival of those born between 22 and 28 weeks, compared to the past. Some 78% were rescued, compared to 76% of those born between 2008 and 2012.

This study showed that even those delivered at 22 weeks -- 18 weeks early -- had a chance of living. With active treatment, about 28% of them survived; among those born at 23 weeks, 55% survived. This study could change the conversation about the viability of babies, abortion, and babies born during abortion.

Canavan says the bill is necessary, because such protections for babies born alive do not currently exist in Australia. For instance, the State Government of Queensland's Queensland Clinical Guidelines – Termination of Pregnancy page 24 states if the baby is born alive, "do not provide life sustaining treatment", but rather "document date and time end of life occurs".

Critics of the bill have made several tenuous claims about the bill.. This includes the argument that this bill:

  • 'Is redundant, as there is a very low chance that the foetus will live, even with life sustaining health care',
  • 'Misrepresents (or misunderstands) the complexities of foetal viability.'
  • 'Seeks to regulate an extremely rare, if non-existent phenomenon.'

As shown in evidence at the Senate hearings held in Canberra Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022  these statements do not reflect available evidence.

Government figures from Queensland and Victoria show that hundreds of babies have been born alive after an abortion in the ten-year period between 2010-2020 (396 in Victoria and 328 in Queensland). We also know that the reasons to why women are having late term abortions are for "psycho-social' reasons, i.e   not based on the baby's medical condition.

Mary Collier - CEO The Right to Life Australia Inc. highlights the reality of babies born alive after abortion, citing Australia's Victorian state government's Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity report called Victoria's Mothers and Babies Report 2020.

She said, "Late-term abortions are not restricted to babies deemed ''imperfect' as many would have us believe. We know already that babies with Down Syndrome, club hand, cleft palate, and other conditions are subject to late-term abortions. What is unknown is that late abortions are being performed for a whole range of psycho-social reasons."

The study by Bell colleagues2 and looking at premature births shows infants at the lowest gestational ages -- 22 and 23 weeks – have a fighting chance of life if they are actively resuscitated.

"There has been a shift toward considering a more active initial treatment in prenatal discussions with families over the past several years in light of increasing data to support this approach," said Susan Hintz3.

Canavan states "How is this policy, how are these deaths, in accordance with our international obligation as a nation to every child having the right to life, every child having access to health care and reducing the deaths of babies?"

Ms Collier calls every Australian to seek justice for these babies, stating, "Every case of a baby born alive after an abortion must be referred to the coroner for investigation. These babies deserve the same care and attention as any other baby born alive at that gestation."

Right to Life Australia Inc. remains dedicated to protecting the rights of the unborn and will continue to advocate for legislation that upholds the sanctity of life.

What now?

Please write to your Senators and House of Representatives Members asking them to support the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022.  The Senate will produce a report on 31 August 2023 on the Inquiry into the bill.  This bill MUST progress to debate.

Click here to contact your Senators and MPs

1Bell, E., Hintz, S., Hansen, N., Bann, S., Wyckoff, M., DeMauro, S., Walsh, M., Vohr, B., Stoll., B,. Carlo, W,. Van Meurs, K., Rysavy, W., Patel, R., Merhar, S., Sánchez, P., Laptook, R., Hibbs, M., Cotten, M., D'Angio, J., Winter, A., Fuller, J., & Das, A. (2022). Feticide and late termination of pregnancy: an essential component of reproductive health care"Med J Aust 2022; 217 (8).  doi: 10.5694/mja2.51727


3Susan Hintz is works in the Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Paediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, and a co-author on this study.

STOP Calvary Hospital ACT government takeover

As you will be aware the ACT Greens-labor coalition government announced (10/04/23) it will take over ownership and management of Calvary Hospital in Canberra in July 2023. 

The government would be forcibly acquiring Calvary Hospital, its assets and essentially forcing all of the Calvary staff to work for ACT Health.   This is a blatant attack on the values of pro-life Catholic institutions.The grab for ownership and management of the hospital is unsurprising when a bill to legalise assisted suicide is expected to be introduced to Parliament later this year. Indeed the ACT government on 20/04/23 announced its intention to expand abortion services in the  ACT and is investing more than $4.6 million over four years to provide all ACT residents, including those without a Medicare card, access to free abortion services.

Whilst signing of petitions is appropriate, it is more important to express your concern by


Emails sent solely to MPs in the ACT will not be sufficient.  

Whether you live in the ACT - or elsewhere - please contact our Prime Minister and Senators for the ACT, the Hon Katy Gallagher and Senator David Pocock to voice your objection.   All correspondence MUST be respectfully worded. 


Write to:  The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Telephone: (02) 6277 7700 and leave a message
Email:   pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm      
Social media: @AlboMP facebook.com/AlboMP



Contact the 2 federal act senators 

Senator the Hon Katherine Gallagher - Telephone (Parliament House): (02) 6277 7400 and leave a message

Senator David Pockock - Telephone (Parliament House) (02) 6277 3117   and leave a message  


PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


"The closure of the ACT Calvary hospital - to be taken over by the ACT goverment is nothing short of appalling. However, it is not surprising as a bill to legalise assisted suicide is expected to be introduced to parliament later this year." said Margaret Tighe, President of Right to Life Australia. 
Calvary hospital in Canberra Australia is renouned for its exceptional care to both maternity patients, day surgery and those in at end of life including palliative care. 

"Has the ACT government forgotten the leading role in healthcare played by Christian hospitals throughout this country in particular the Maters, Calvarys and St Vincents?  These hospitals have helped train many nurses, doctors and other health professionals" she said.  She continued "Indeed it was Christians who first established such hospitals - mindful of Christ's teaching - Love one another as I have loved you.  The ACT government should hang its head in shame".

Right to Life Australia is rightly are concerned about the repercussions for pregnant, elderly and frail Canberrans. Already our office has received telephone calls from vulnerable ACT residents in nursing homes who are concerned about their safety as they see the ACT Goverment legislative agenda for euthanasia moving closer.
Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher has spoken out against the plan - "It's no secret the ACT Government want to force Calvary Hospital to provide abortions now and euthanasia and assisted suicide in the future. Taking the land, buildings and hospital equipment and transferring staff employment across to Canberra Health Services allows them to push their anti-life agenda right through the hospital."  See article in The Australian newspaper. Sydney Archbishop Warns of ACT Government Extreme Land and Assets Grab 16/5/23 

The real agenda behind the forced acquisition is revealed by the words of Walter Abheyeratna, the ACT president of the Australian Medical Association who stated in a radio interview with ABC that it was important to deliver public healthcare services ''without being bound by ideology.''  


Mr Andrew Barr, Chief Minister
Ph: (02) 6205 0011
Contact my Minister (external site)
GPO Box 1020,
Canberra, ACT 2601


or Tweet

For more information:

Phone Margaret Tighe President 0417 338 961



 Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP    Fenner

Ms Alicia Payne MP    Canberra

Mr David Smith MP    Bean



Right to Life Australia Chief Executive Officer, Mary Collier, testified on the 8th June 2023 before the Senate Inquiry on the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022. Ms Collier acknowledged women who have had abortions and who may be suffering - organisations like Abortion Grief Australia are there to help.

Ms Collier stated, "An unborn baby has an inalienable right to life. The words 'babies born alive after abortion' make one recoil with disbelief. It is difficult to accept that any baby is just left to die."

She emphasised the distress experienced by midwives who recognise these babies as human beings and questioned why even one baby born alive after an abortion would perish in isolation or be kept alive solely based on the desire of the parents.

Ms Collier highlighted the reality of babies born alive after abortion, citing the latest Victorian Mothers and Babies Report 2020. She said, "Late-term abortions are not restricted to babies deemed ‘’imperfect’ as many would have us believe. We know already that babies with Down Syndrome, club hand, cleft palate, and other conditions are subject to late-term abortions. What is unknown is that late abortions are being performed for a whole range of psycho-social reasons.

Regarding the need for legislation to protect these babies, Ms Collier emphasised "To survive the intended destruction of their tiny bodies is a miracle. These babies are SUPER babies. There were 724 babies born alive after abortions in Victoria and Queensland between 2010 and 2020. There is clear discrimination at the moment. There must be legislation to protect them."

In conclusion, Ms Collier called every Australian to seek justice for these babies, stating, "Every case of a baby born alive after an abortion must be referred to the Coroner for investigation. These babies deserve the same care and attention as any other baby born alive at that gestation."

Right to Life Australia remains dedicated to protecting the rights of the unborn and will continue to advocate for legislation that upholds the sanctity of life.

Margaret Tighe President or Mary Collier CEO
Right to Life Australia Inc.

Mifepristone in the US Courts: Chemical abortion on trial

Despite substantial evidence of real risks to the life and health of women from chemical abortion using the drug mifepristone (formerly known as RU486) the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been increasingly reckless in its progressively looser protocols for its distribution and use since first approving it in 2000 under an accelerated drugs program under the claim that pregnancy is a life-threatening illness and culminating in the January 2023 approval of mail-order distribution with no requirement for any in-person assessment of the pregnant woman.

A group of claimants headed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has achieved some initial success in holding the FDA to account for this recklessness.

US District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, in his ruling on their  initial application delivered on 7 April 2023, slammed the FDA's reckless, unjustifiable and unlawful 2000 initial approval of mifepristone as well as subsequent removals of safeguards in 2016, 2019 and 2023.1 He granted an injunction against the operation of the 2000 approval but suspended the operation of that injunction for seven days to allow an appeal to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Kacsmaryk noted that two women had died in 2022 after taking mifepristone. One woman was 7 weeks pregnant, but the other woman was 21 weeks pregnant which is 11 weeks over the 10-week FDA protocol limit. By not requiring an in-person visit and an ultrasound the FDA has facilitated such tragedies.

The judge also remarked that an "individual justice” and “irreparable injury” analysis also arguably applied to the “unborn humans” whose lives are extinguished by mifepristone, although he mainly focused on the evidence of harm to women.

In addressing the original 2000 approval under Subpart H which, by law, "extends only to drugs and biological products that target ‘serious or life-threatening illnesses’ and offer a ‘meaningful’ benefit over existing treatments”, he noted that even the Population Council acknowledged that “the imposition of Subpart H is unlawful” because “the plain meaning of these terms does not comprehend normal, everyday occurrences such as pregnancy and unwanted pregnancy.” 

He further noted that “this reading is also consistent with the fact that aside from mifepristone, FDA had approved fewer than forty NDAs under Subpart H by early 2002. And of those other approvals, twenty were for the treatment of HIV and HIV-related diseases, nine were for the treatment of various cancers and their symptoms, four were for severe bacterial infections, one was for chronic hypertension, and one was for leprosy.

The learned judge illustrated this obvious discrepancy in FDA’s practice by citing Sesame Street: “One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong.”

The judge scathingly dismissed the defendants argument that unaborted children of the women “who seek but are unable to obtain an abortion” are “expected to do worse in school,” “to have more behavioral and social issues, and ultimately to attain lower levels of completed education”; and “are also expected to have lower earnings as adults, poorer health, and an increased likelihood of criminal involvement” as relying on an intolerable use of “abortion to promote eugenic goals”. He noted that “Abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenic” but that though “eugenics were once fashionable in the Commanding Heights and High Court, they hold less purchase after the conflict, carnage, and casualties of the last century revealed the bloody consequences of Social Darwinism practiced by would-be Übermenschen.”

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in its decision upheld the District Court’s injunction against the FDA’s 2016, 2019 and 2023 protocols but overturned the injunction  against the original 2000 approval.2

Justices Engelhardt and Oldham ruled that "Defendants have not shown that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their timely challenges."

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 under an accelerated drugs program under the claim that pregnancy is a life-threatening illness. The approval was subject to a set of ““risk evaluation and mitigation strategies” (REMS), including:

  1. limiting the drug to pregnant women and girls for use through 49 days gestation;
  2. requiring three in-person office visits, the first to administer mifepristone, the second to administer misoprostol, and the third to assess any complications and ensure there were no fetal remains in the womb;
  3. requiring the supervision of a qualified physician; and
  4. requiring the reporting of all adverse events from the drugs.

The challenge to this 2000 decision by the FDA was, the Court of Appeals found, not sufficiently certain to succeed (The Court called it "admittedly a close question" on which "plaintiffs might very well prevail ... later in this litigation") because it may be barred by the statute of limitations so the Court of Appeal granted a stay on the comprehensive ban on mifepristone.

However, the Court of Appeals declined to grant a stay on other aspects of the ban as follows:

In 2016 the FDA abolished or varied the 2000 REMS, by:

  1. increasing the maximum gestational age at which a woman can use the drug from 49 to 70 days;
  2. reducing the number of required in-person office visits from three to one;
  3. allowing non-doctors to prescribe and administer the chemical abortions drugs; and
  4. eliminating the requirement for prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events from chemical abortion

In January 2023, FDA approved a modified REMS for mifepristone lifting the in-person dispensing requirement (thereby allowing mail order delivery of mifepristone to women who may never have been examined in person with consequently greater risks of it being taken by women with a pregnancy beyond 70 days gestation, with an ectopic pregnancy or with other risk factors.

The Court of appeals held that the challenge to the 2016 FDA decision appears likely to succeed on its merits and so this part of the ban imposed by the District Court pending appeal remains in place, as does the ban on the generic versions of mifepristone approved by the FDA in 2019 and the ban on mail-order provision of mifepristone as approved by the FDA in January 2023.

This would have meant that mifepristone could only be supplied in accordance with the 2000 protocols – Danco product only; up to 49 days gestation; and qualified physician supervision with three in-person visits.

This would clearly be an illegal abortion in many States (post-Dobbs) so this decision, while not as far-reaching as the original District Court decision would have been if it had gone into effect fully, would still have prevented many chemical abortions and protected many women from harm.

The Biden administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court in a split 7-2 decision delivered on 21 April 2023 stayed all the bans imposed by the District Court until the “pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.”1

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented without comment from the order.

Justice Samuel Alito explained his dissent from the order:

“As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations. In addition, because the applicants’ Fifth Circuit appeal has been put on a fast track, with oral argument scheduled to take place in 26 days, there is reason to believe that they would get the relief they now seek—from either the Court of Appeals or this Court—in the near future if their arguments on the merits are persuasive.
“At present, the applicants are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim.”

Addressing “the claim that Danco could not continue to market mifepristone because the drug would be mislabeled and that distribution could not resume until Danco jumped through a series of regulatory steps that would be largely perfunctory under present circumstances” Justice Alito noted “That would not take place, however, unless the FDA elected to use its enforcement discretion to stop Danco, and the applicants’ papers do not provide any reason to believe the FDA would make that choice. The FDA has previously invoked enforcement discretion to permit the distribution of mifepristone in a way that the regulations then in force prohibited, and here, the Government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections.”

In an entirely separate action, Life Legal Defense Foundation secured a victory against Danco for its failure to comply with basic labelling requirements under the US Tariff Act 1930 which required it to either identify China as the country of origin for the main ingredient in its product Mifeprix or to pay relevant marking duties to the US Government. In a deed of settlement Danco has agreed to pay a total of $774,269.08 with $116,140.35 of this going to Life Legal Defense Foundation for its role as relator in bringing the legal action on top of $46,220.28 for Life Legal’s expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

These court actions have shed some much needed light on the dangers of chemical abortion and the lawless, reckless behaviour of both its distributor Danco and the FDA.

Here in Australia, mifepristone abortions are available by telehealth up to 63 days of pregnancy, with a Medicare rebate available for “tele-abortion” since 1 July 2021.

1 Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362  USDC No. 2:22-CV-22 read more

2 No. 23-10362  USDC No. 2:22-CV-223 read more

3 Supreme Court article read more

Click here for e-newsletter