Blog

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.

Contact:
Margaret Tighe President or Mary Collier CEO
Right to Life Australia Inc.
rtl@rtlaust.com

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

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

WRITING a letter,  EMAILING AND making PHONE CALLS!

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. 

CONTACT THE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER 

Write to:  The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Telephone: (02) 6277 7700 and leave a message
Email:   pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm      
Social media: @AlboMP facebook.com/AlboMP

CONTACT THE chief minister of the act (Mr Andrew Barr) AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ACT AND USE THE EMAILS BELOW:  COPY AND PASTE ALL EMAIL ADDRESSES BELOW INTO A NEW EMAIL

barr@act.gov.au
berry@act.gov.au
braddock@parliament.act.gov.au
burch@parliament.act.gov.au
cain@parliament.act.gov.au
castley@parliament.act.gov.au
cheyne@act.gov.au
clay@parliament.act.gov.au
ed@parliament.act.gov.au
davidson@act.gov.au
davis@parliament.act.gov.au
gentleman@act.gov.au
hanson@parliament.act.gov.au
kikkert@parliament.act.gov.au
lawder@parliament.act.gov.au
lee@parliament.act.gov.au
milligan@parliament.act.gov.au
orr@parliament.act.gov.au
parton@parliament.act.gov.au
paterson@parliament.act.gov.au
pettersson@parliament.act.gov.au
rattenbury@act.gov.au
steel@act.gov.au
stephen-smith@act.gov.au
vassarotti@act.gov.au

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  

OR WRITE TO THE SENATORS C/- 

PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

QUOTATION FROM MARGARET TIGHE, PRESIDENT RIGHT TO LIFE AUSTRALIA INC.

"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.''  

Contact:

Mr Andrew Barr, Chief Minister
Ph: (02) 6205 0011
Contact my Minister (external site)
barr@act.gov.au
GPO Box 1020,
Canberra, ACT 2601
and

or Tweet
@ACT_Assembly
@CalvaryCareAUS
@Catholic_Voice

For more information:

Phone Margaret Tighe President 0417 338 961

 WHAT IS THIS?

 Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP    Fenner

Ms Alicia Payne MP    Canberra

Mr David Smith MP    Bean

When the NSW Parliament legalised abortion up to 22 weeks of pregnancy on request, and for broad reasons up to birth, in 2019, it nonetheless stated that “This Parliament opposes the performance of terminations for the purpose of sex selection” and empowered the Secretary of the Ministry of Health to make guidelines “that prevent terminations being performed for the purpose of sex selection”.

The Act also required the Secretary to “conduct a review of the issue of whether or not terminations are being performed for the purpose of sex selection”, and “prepare, and give to the Minister, a report about the review.” The report was to “include recommendations about how to prevent terminations being performed for the purpose of sex selection” and the Minister was required “to provide the report to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament”.

This Report, having been completed in December 2020, was finally tabled on 6 September 2021 – nearly two years after the Act commenced on 2 October 2019.

Alex Greenwich MP claimed during debate on these provisions in the Bill that “We have no evidence that terminations are occurring for the purpose of sex selection.”

The Report found that between 1 October 2019 and 30 September 2020 there were 13 notifications of termination of pregnancy performed for the sole purpose of sex selection.

The report attempts to make out that 10 of these notifications must have been made in error as they indicated the gestation of the unborn child was less than 9 weeks – a stage at which there is no reliable method of determining the sex of the unborn child.

However, it seems at least as likely that the gestational age was wrongly reported as that a medical practitioner inadvertently ticked “YES” rather than “NO” to this very clear question on the notification form “Was the termination carried out for the sole purpose of sex selection?”

Additionally, the Report found that 18 out of 183 abortion providers who responded to a survey conducted in November 2020 had received requests for abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection. Seventeen of these providers state that they inform the woman that the practice is not supported – including in some cases explaining to “the woman that the practice is not supported by citing the legislation”. However, one provider reported that those requesting an abortion for the sole purpose of sex selection are referred “elsewhere” – presumably to a provider willing to perform an abortion for this reason.

Alex Greenwich MP claimed during debate on the sex selection provisions in the Bill that “We have no evidence that terminations are occurring for the purpose of sex selection.” Well, we do now.

The Report fails to give due consideration to the available demographic evidence.

It states that “The practice of sex-selective termination of pregnancy could reasonably affect the human sex ratio, however the rare occurrence of termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection in NSW is unlikely to change the sex ratio. … In NSW, there has been no significant change in the pattern of sex of the baby since 1990.”

This ignores the extensive international evidence that abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection are prevalent in certain ethnic communities, predominantly Indian and East Asian, including evidence that this is occurring in Australia.

The most recent international study found that “The sex ratio at birth (SRB; ratio of male to female live births) imbalance in parts of the world over the past few decades is a direct consequence of sex-selective abortion, driven by the coexistence of son preference, readily available technology of prenatal sex determination, and fertility decline”. The study identified “12 countries with strong statistical evidence of SRB imbalance during 1970–2017, resulting in 23.1 million missing female births globally. The majority of those missing female births are in China, with 11.9 million, and in India, with 10.6 million.”¹

A more recent study found between 13 million and 22 million missing female births in India between 1987 and 2016 due to sex selective abortion.²

A series of studies of SRB among immigrant groups from countries known to have distorted SRB in Western countries including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Australia, has confirmed that sex selection for cultural son preference is a sufficiently widespread practice in some immigrant communities to be decisively reflected in the demographic data.

Kristina Edvardsson et al report that in Victoria, Australia, compared with the naturally occurring Male/Female (M/F) ratio as well as to the M/F ratio among births to mothers born in Australia, there was an increased ratio of male births to mothers born in India, China and South-East Asia, particularly at higher parities and in more recent times. The most male-biased sex ratios were found among multiple births to Indian-born mothers, and parity of two or more births to Indian and Chinese-born mothers in 2011–15.³

NEW SOUTH WALES: DEMOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR SEX SELECTION ABORTIONS

An SBS radio investigation reported in May 2015 on research conducted by demographers Nick Parr, Christophe Guilmoto and Gour Dasvarma et al using customised data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The data showed that for children born in New South Wales between 2003 and 2013 where both parents were born in China there was a male to female sex ratio at birth that clearly exceeded the natural range.

There were 11,963 boys born compared to just 11,038 girls, a ratio of 108.3 boys to 100 girls compared to the overall male to female sex ratio at birth in Australia of 105.7 boys to 100 girls. Based on this ABS data there were 279 missing girls at birth in New South Wales in this eleven-year period – an average of 25 girls per year from this immigrant community alone.

Similarly for children born in New South Wales between 2003 and 2013 where both parents were born in India there was a male to female sex ratio at birth that clearly exceeded the natural range.

There were 10,106 boys born compared to just 9,405 girls, a ratio of 107.4 boys to 100 girls compared to the overall male to female sex ratio at birth in Australia of 105.7 boys to 100 girls. Based on this ABS data there were 156 missing girls at birth in New South Wales in this eleven-year period – an average of 14 girls per year from this immigrant community alone.

This means nearly 40 girls per year may be missing each year in New South Wales due to sex selection.

Commenting on the data Australian demographer Professor Nick Parr said that "There has to be some form of pre-natal sex selection taking place. In my opinion the most plausible explanation is that there is sex-selective abortion occurring.”⁴

French demographer Dr Christophe Guilmoto agreed: “There are very few ways to influence the sex of your child so the most common is to resort to sex selective abortion”.⁵

The Report confirms this evidence by establishing that there were at least 18 requests for sex selection abortion and 13 notifications.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGED GUIDELINES

The Report made the following Recommendation to prevent the practice of termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection in NSW:

That NSW Health strengthen NSW termination of pregnancy providers’ preparedness to respond to requests [for abortions based solely on sex selection] by ensuring they have:

• a clear understanding of their responsibilities under the NSW Abortion Law Reform Act 2019
• access to evidence-based information on all pregnancy options available
• access to communication tools to support discussions with women
• clear pathways to refer women who request a termination of pregnancy for the sole purpose of sex selection to counsellors, social workers, other health professionals.

The Framework for Termination of Pregnancy in New South Wales was subsequently updated on 23 June 2021 and now includes the following provision:

Before performing a termination of pregnancy, it may be disclosed to the medical practitioner that the reason for the request is for the sole purpose of sex selection.  If this is the reason for the request, the practitioner must not perform the termination, unless not performing the termination will cause significant risk to the woman’s health or safety.

When a termination for the sole purpose of sex selection is refused, the medical practitioner must offer additional support and referral to counselling or other relevant services.

If performing the abortion is genuinely required to avoid a “significant risk to the woman’s health” it would clearly not be performed for the sole purpose of sex selection. So this provision is unnecessary, but could be used as an excuse to avoid the prohibition.

The provision allowing such abortions to be performed to avoid “a significant risk to the woman’s safety” is very disturbing. This suggests that such an abortion may be performed on a woman who is threatened by domestic violence if she does not have the abortion.

Women in this situation need to help and support from domestic violence – not for this domestic violence to be given effect to by the abortion of their girl children.

R Egan, Prolife Researcher

¹Fengqing Chao et al, “Systematic assessment of the sex ratio at birth for all countries and estimation of national imbalances and regional reference levels” PNAS May 7, 2019 116 (19) 9303-9311; first published April 15, 2019 read more

² Nandita Saikia et al., “Trends in missing females at birth in India from 1981 to 2016: analyses of 2·1 million birth histories in nationally representative surveys”, Lancet Global Health, 2021: 9: e813-821, read more

³Kristina Edvardsson et al “Male-biased sex ratios in Australian migrant populations: a population-based study of 1 191 250 births 1999–2015”, International Journal of Epidemiology 2018 Dec 1;47(6):2025-2037, read more

⁴SBS.com.au - Could gender-selective abortions be happening in Australia? read more

⁵SBS.com.au - Could gender-selective abortions be happening in Australia? read more