March For Life Brisbane 2023 - Highlights

Scroll below for YouTube Playlist (speeches & highlight reel)

Overview

Thousands of Queenslander's - young and old - marched in Brisbane's CBD on Saturday April 22 with a simple, yet powerful message in the fight for pro-life issues: Pro-life equals Pro-woman.

A crowd of around 2000 gathered at Speakers Corner right outside Queensland Parliament House for a rally before marching the streets. Speakers included leading members of the pro-life movement, Dr Joanna Howe, Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide, Wendy Francis of the Australian Christian Lobby, Queensland Senator Matt Canavan and former Queensland Senator, now Sky News Presenter, Amanda Stoker.

First up was an inspired speech by Dr Joanna Howe. Her words included heart-breaking abortion testimonies, statistics on abortion. Wendy Francis spoke on the reality of abortions happening because of unborn children being diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Senator Canavan spoke on the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill which he has supported in the Senate. Amanda Stoker's speech focussed on the value of motherhood and equality for the unborn.

Cherish Life executive officer Matthew Cliff said he was delighted to see such a large turnout and welcomed the opportunity to educate and equip people on pro-life issues.

Below is the YouTube links - featuring all the speeches and including a highlight reel. 

March For Life Brisbane 2023 - YouTube Playlist

Catholic Leader Article

On 1 January, Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) became eligible for Queenslanders.

Due to the hustle and bustle of the Christmas period, this piece of legislation may have slipped under the radar for most people in the state, but make no mistake, this is a historic milestone - and a disastrous one at that. For the first time in Queensland’s history, euthanasia have become a form of ‘health care’.

Along with the decriminalisation of abortion in recent years, VAD further expands on what Pope John Paul II identified as the ‘Culture of Death', which has permeated its way through the states’ healthcare system. One may wonder how this new legislation will affect Queensland in both the short and long term? Well, there is one country that does provide insight as to what the future may hold and that is Canada.    

MAID’s Rapid Rise

In Canada, euthanasia or MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) was introduced in 2017. Within the same year, there were 2,838 MAID patients.[i] In 2021, just four years later, more than 10,000 people ended their lives through MAID. Euthanasia is responsible for over 3% of deaths in Canada.[ii]

From Last Resort to First Option

As MAID becomes more widely accepted, concerns are being raised. Dr. Ewan Goligher, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Physiology (University of Toronto), writes MAID ‘is no longer seen as a desperate option of last resort but rather as one “therapeutic option” among many’.[iii] He adds that ‘some patients with disabilities or mental illness reported that assisted death was proposed to them without their instigation.’[iv]

Furthermore, Dr. Kevin Yuill, Associate Professor of American Studies (University of Sunderland) notes: ‘Tragically, MAID is increasingly being seen as a solution to people’s distress, no matter the cause.’[v] He adds, ‘In August, for example, an army veteran seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and a traumatic brain injury was rightly outraged to be offered MAID by an employee of Veterans Affairs Canada, entirely unprompted.’[vi] The shift away from being a last resort is slowly being prescribed as an answer to all forms of distress. This is a warning to Queenslanders.

Canada’s Delay On Mental Health Expansion

Disturbingly, there was a plan in place from March 2023 onwards to extend MAID for mental health issues. However, by God’s grace, these plans have been delayed indefinitely, with Justice Minister David Lametti having heard from medical experts that the healthcare system could not handle the number of patients.[vii]

Yet, the tragic demand for MAID for mental health problems is notable. Yuill writes that, ‘In 2021, for instance, 17.3 per cent of people cited ‘isolation or loneliness’ as a reason for wanting MAID. In 35.7 per cent of cases, patients believed that they were a ‘burden on family, friends or caregivers’.[viii] Dr. John Maher, a psychiatrist and editor of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, adds his shock when a patient discussed the possibility of turning to MAID ‘because of his belief no one will ever love him’.[ix] One wonders how long until Canada buckles under the pressure of demand. This is a warning to Queenslanders.

The Jennyfer Hatch Story

Of course, this is all tragic reading. Yet, what underpins the whole discussion is a flawed theory of health care as a solution to a broken system. When philosophical discussion passes into legislation that affects the lives of real people, we can expect heart-breaking stories to emerge. One such story is that of Jennyfer Hatch.[x]

Jennyfer gained national and international attention when she ‘starred’ in an elegant film entitled The Most Beautiful Exit. Bankrolled as part of a marketing campaign by a well-known Canadian fashion chain called La Maison Simons, it was essentially a visual homage to MAID.

However, despite the stunning visuals, the melodic music, and the enlightened narrative, behind the scenes everything was not what it appeared. What the ad fails to mention is the reason Jennyfer chose death was because she was abandoned by the Canadian healthcare system.

Speaking at her memorial service, her friend Tama Racker said “She was such a fierce advocate for her own health and she was let down over and over and over again.”[xi] She added, “Our (health-care) system is very broken and part of what Jennyfer wanted to do is get people talking.”[xii]

In fact, as already reported by Michael Cook of Mercatornet, Jennyfer wanted to live. Speaking to CTVnews, she said:

“I thought, ‘Goodness, I feel like I’m falling through the cracks so if I’m not able to access health care am I then able to access death care?’ And that’s what led me to look into MAID and I applied last year”.[xiii] Tragically, her suffering was validated enough to be accepted for MAID but not a good enough reason for additional state services.

In Canada, there are many more stories like Jennyfers. Medical Press highlights that many are choosing MAID ‘not to avoid suffering from illness, but because society had failed to provide them a chance to live with dignity.’[xiv] Again, a warning to Queenslanders.

What Can Queenslanders Expect?

Tragically, the Queensland Government has now adopted the same philosophy of healthcare as Canada. Death is no longer the tragic result of disease and suffering; it has now become a “cure”. As of 1 January this year, healthcare providers and practioners will now be offering, prescribing, and providing patients death within the arsenal of their medications.

So what can Queenslanders expect? In the coming months and years, a litany of tragic stories will be told just like Jennyfers. Stories where patients are prescribed death as a solution to their suffering rather than a healthcare system that actually cares for the health of their patients.

Plans are already in place to facilitate the demand for euthanasia. Due to a federal law that prohibits ‘inciting or counseling suicide over the phone’, for the most remote areas, doctors with expertise in euthanasia will be flown in to administer the fatal procedure.[xv] Of course, this is all at the expense of the Queensland Taxpayer.

Commenting on the alarming strategy, Brisbane Archbishop Mark Coleridge tweeted: “So the Queensland government has decided to send FIFO medicos into regional areas to euthanise people but not a dollar for better palliative care… airfares and death are cheaper, I guess.”[xvi] The Archbishop’s tweet highlights the controversial nature of this policy.

What Can We Do?

We must demand that the Queensland government, unlike Canada, instead of offering death, should invest money in the very best medical and palliative care system that money can afford. This is true health care, not getting rid of people in their time of greatest need.

For churches and society at large, as Dr. Goligher writes, Queensland needs:

‘… communities where assisted death is inconceivable because the weak, the aged, the disabled, and the dying are regarded as priceless members of the community. We can be a place where those who suffer enjoy the devoted companionship, love, and support that reminds them of their value and bears them up through pain. This is, after all, what all of us long for.’[xvii]

How To Respond?

• Whom To Contact – We urge supporters to write, email or telephone their Queensland Member of the House of Representatives and/or your 12 Senators (in Federal Parliament).
• Raise Awareness – More Queenslanders need to be aware of the effect of Voluntary Assisted Dying and the stories of individuals like Jennyfer. Therefore, please share this article as widely as you can, with all your friends and on social media platforms.
• Support Cherish Life - Either by volunteering or financial donation (or both) as we seek to provide a voice for these unjust laws and advocate for alternative options to VAD.
• Prayer - Finally, we would ask those who are Christians reading this article to keep this recent development of VAD in your prayers. Ask God for His intervention and ask others within your church community to do the same.

Matthew Cliff

Executive Officer

[i] MacPherson, James. “Death: a dystopian love affair,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/12/death-a-dystopian-love-affair/

[ii] Douthat, Ross. “What Euthanasia Has Done to Canada,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/03/opinion/canada-euthanasia.html

[iii] Goligher, Ewan C. “Canada Euthanized 10,000 People in 2021. Has Death Lost Its Sting?,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november/canada-euthanized-10000-people-in-2021-maid-assisted-suicid.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=article

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Yuill, Kevin. “How Canada became a world leader in euthanasia,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/26/how-canada-became-a-world-leader-in-euthanasia/

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Gaind Sonu, Karandeep. “Canada delays expanding medical assistance in dying to include mental illness,” Accessed February 13, 2023. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-12-canada-delays-medical-dying-mental.html

[viii] Yuill, Kevin. “How Canada became a world leader in euthanasia,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/26/how-canada-became-a-world-leader-in-euthanasia/

[ix] Yuill, Kevin. “How Canada became a world leader in euthanasia,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/26/how-canada-became-a-world-leader-in-euthanasia/

[x] Cook, Michael. “A Canadian retailer exploits a young artist’s euthanasia to market its fashions,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://mercatornet.com/a-canadian-retailer-exploits-a-young-artists-euthanasia-to-market-its-fashions/81559/

[xi] Cook, Michael. “Jennyfer’s story: better off dead,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://mercatornet.com/jennyfers-story-better-off-dead/82166/

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Gaind Sonu, Karandeep. “Canada delays expanding medical assistance in dying to include mental illness,” Accessed February 13, 2023. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-12-canada-delays-medical-dying-mental.html

[xv] Bowling, Mark. “It’s a ‘death regime’ say Queensland bishop opposed to government plan to fly in doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives,” Accessed February 13, 2023. https://catholicleader.com.au/news/its-a-death-regime-say-queensland-bishop-opposed-to-government-plan-to-fly-in-doctors-to-help-terminally-ill-patients-end-their-lives/

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Goligher, Ewan C. “Canada Euthanized 10,000 People in 2021. Has Death Lost Its Sting?,” Accessed February 13, 2023, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november/canada-euthanized-10000-people-in-2021-maid-assisted-suicid.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=article

Children Born Alive Protection Bill Re-Introduced

On 30 November 2022, Senators Alex Antic (Liberal Party, South Australia), Ralph Babet (United Australia Party, Victoria) and Matt Canavan (LNP, Queensland) introduced the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 into the Australian Senate. This collective effort comes after the original bill, sponsored by former LNP MP George Christensen, lapsed when the House of Representatives was dissolved ahead of the federal election in May 2022.

Queensland Health’s Gruesome Guidelines

The goal of this Bill is to ensure that a child who is born alive because of a failed abortion procedure is entitled to the same level of medical care and treatment as any other newborn child.

The current Queensland Health guidelines for ‘termination of pregnancy' make for gruesome reading. In point 5.4.3 under the heading ‘Other fetal considerations’, Table 23 details what is to happen in the case of a live birth[i]:

‘Do not provide life sustaining treatment (e.g. gastric tubes, IV lines, oxygen therapy)’

In other words – leave the child to die! 

Australians Unaware of Horror

Tragically, the instances in which children are born alive due to a failed abortion are not as rare as you might think. Joanna Howe, Associate Professor in Law at the University of Adelaide, says: “In Victoria and Queensland in the last 10 years, 724 babies have been born alive and I hate to say it, but actually left to die. They have no rights to medical treatment, no rights to palliative care.”[ii]

Senator Antic adds, “In 2016, something like 33 babies met their fate in Victoria, so this is appalling stuff. It really is staggering to most people.”[iii] With regards to Queensland, in 2021, Cherish Life revealed that from 2005 to June 2019, 318 babies were born alive and left to die.[iv]

Shockingly, most Australians are totally oblivious that this law exists, as Howe points out, “I think most Australians don’t even know that babies are born alive … and have no legal rights under Australian law”.[v]

A Human Rights Issue

Ultimately, we are talking about a human rights issue. As the explanatory memorandum for the Bill explains:

‘In Australia, the protection of all human life is core to the values we uphold as a nation. The purpose of this bill is to enhance Australia’s human rights protections for children by ensuring that all children receive the same medical care and treatment as any other person, including those born alive as a result of termination.'

It is likewise important to add that the Bill exempts mothers of babies born alive from prosecution. Instead, it ‘seeks to enshrine an offence for health practitioners that contravene the duty to provide medical care or treatment to a child born alive.’[vi]

Backlash Against The Bill

Now surely you would think that this Bill would be noncontroversial and purely a matter of parliamentary procedure. However, there has been a small backlash from those who promote anti-life ideology. For example, Monash University’s Dr Shelly Makleff writes that the Bill is ‘clearly another move in a playbook to create more barriers to abortion care’.[vii] Astonishing. To suggest that the Bill creates more barriers to abortion care is nonsense. In no way does this Bill prevent access to abortions. As the terms state, the Bill only provides life-sustaining treatment to children born because of a failed abortion. In fact, if abortion access does increase, then the tragic irony is that there will only be an increase in the number of children born alive and left to die.

Furthermore, regarding Bills such as these, Makleff adds that it is ‘widely agreed upon by medical experts and scientists that they’re medically unnecessary’.[viii] Another absolutely staggering claim!  Given the figures detailing the number of live births, along with the fact that point 5.4.3 even exists within Queensland Health’s termination of pregnancy guidelines, to say that lifesaving treatment for these children is medically unnecessary is incomprehensible. Even if just one life were saved, surely the Bill would be worth it? You would have to be inhumane to be against it.

These children deserve a chance at life. Take, for example, the story of Gianna Jessen, whose mother at 7 and ½ months pregnant decided to go to Planned Parenthood in the US (the world’s largest abortion provider) and was counselled to have a late-term abortion. The procedure was intended to be straightforward: A saline salt solution was injected into the mother’s womb, the child was supposed to gulp the solution and burn from the inside out. The mother was then to deliver the dead baby within 24 hours. However, to everyone’s surprise, on 6 April 1977, Gianna did not arrive dead but alive at a Los Angeles abortion clinic. Gianna went on to be adopted. [ix]

Again, even if only one life like Gianna is saved, then clearly the Bill is worth it!

Bill Raises Concerns Across Party Lines

This is why even senators such as Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Perin Davey, who describes herself as “100% pro-choice” said that the idea of children born alive as a result of a failed abortion not receiving adequate healthcare “concerned her.”  LNP MP for Bowman (QLD) Henry Pike said the Bill “raised an important issue”.[x] With regards to the Labour and Green’s Parties, Senator Antic, said:

“It will be an interesting litmus test for Labor and the Greens, who talk about being pro-human. We are not talking about interfering with rights relating to the procedure of abortion – we are simply talking about giving medical care to children that are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. So it strikes me as being an absolute no-brainer.”[xi]

Nationals and Coalition leaders David Littleproud and Peter Dutton are yet to comment.[xii]

How Can We Respond?

So how can the Australian public respond?

• Contact Your Senators - Start by getting in touch with your 12 Senators, asking them for their own position on this Bill.
• Raise Awareness – More Australians need to be aware of what is happening with regards to these innocent children. Therefore, please share this article as widely as you can, with all your friends and on social media platforms.
• Support Cherish Life - Either by volunteering or financial donation (or both) you can seek to provide a voice for these innocent children who are being left to die.
• Prayer - Finally, we would ask those who are Christians reading this article to keep this Bill in your prayers. Ask God for His intervention and ask others within your church community to do the same.

Matthew Cliff

Executive Officer @ Cherish Life

[i] “Queensland Clinical Guideline: Termination of pregnancy,” Queensland Health, accessed 16 January 2023, https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/735293/g-top.pdf

[ii] Joanna Howe (@drjoannehowe), “Breaking News,” Instagram Post. November 30, 2022. https://www.instagram.com/p/Clk6avLD4-C/

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] “CHILDREN BORN ALIVE PROTECTION BILL - WE NEED YOUR HELP!” Cherish Life Website, accessed 24/01/2023, https://www.cherishlife.org.au/babies_born_alive

[v] Joanna Howe (@drjoannehowe), “Breaking News,” Instagram Post. November 30, 2022. https://www.instagram.com/p/Clk6avLD4-C/

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] “Political push to 'protect' babies born alive after abortion,” The OZ, accessed 16 January 2023, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-oz/news/political-push-to-protect-babies-born-alive-after-abortion/news-story/a6fa6d5e922ae894793939d332557324

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Gianna Jesson, “One of the best Pro-Life speeches EVER! Gianna Jesson abortion survivor Full video”, YouTube 22 August, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWMmx6eBjU&t=89s&ab_channel=JenniferJohnson

[x] “Political push to 'protect' babies born alive after abortion,” The OZ, accessed 16 January 2023, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-oz/news/political-push-to-protect-babies-born-alive-after-abortion/news-story/a6fa6d5e922ae894793939d332557324

[xi] Senator Alex Antic, “Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022”, YouTube 8 December, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJMbcCMGw4&ab_channel=SenatorAlexAntic

[xii] “Political push to 'protect' babies born alive after abortion,” The OZ, accessed 16 January 2023, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-oz/news/political-push-to-protect-babies-born-alive-after-abortion/news-story/a6fa6d5e922ae894793939d332557324

CherishLife
http://www.cherishlife.org.au/

What Is Happening?

On the 28 September, the Senate, led by Larissa Waters of the Greens Party, called for an inquiry into what they described as ‘universal access to reproductive healthcare’. This inquiry will be carried out by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee with a report due by the 31 March 2023. [i] The ultimate goal here is to remove any restrictions that there may be in accessing abortion across Australia.

Now don’t be fooled, within the terms of reference (areas where the committee will focus its investigation) when you read phrases such as ‘reproductive healthcare’ or ‘reproductive health’ or ‘termination of pregnancy’ - instead read abortion or more shockingly read the killing of innocent unborn children. Across Australia this will be the horrific effect of increased access to ‘reproductive healthcare’ - a reality that they want to keep hidden from you.

Why We Need Your Voice?

Why do we need your voice? Well just who will be paying for this increase in access? The abortion providers maybe? For example, Marie Stopes. No, YOU - the taxpayer.

The Senate Committee has called for submissions from the public asking for their input into the inquiry. Therefore, we appeal for you to send in a submission. This inquiry not only provides a unique opportunity to challenge those who are pushing this aggressive agenda, but also to advocate on behalf of organisations and individuals who are carrying out the invaluable work of offering alternatives to abortions such as pregnancy crisis centres and adoption agencies.

Writing A ‘Submission’.

Please don’t be daunted by the task of writing a submission. Essentially, think of it as a letter or email. The submission can be as extensive or as brief as you like.

Below we have identified areas in which to engage with the terms of reference. You may wish to include these areas in your submission also. Please know that individual letters no matter how big or small make a tremendous contribution. Once you have completed your entry, you may wish to circulate this email to others who could also send in a submission.

Areas To Engage With The Inquiry.

A. General Areas.

Below we have listed a couple of general areas regarding the terms of reference which you may wish to focus upon in your submission or letter.

I. Biased Terminology.

We wholeheartedly reject the choice of phrases used within the terms of reference. These phrases promote terminology that seeks to hide the true reality of what ‘reproductive healthcare’ actually involves. Throughout the nine terms there is not one mention of the word abortion. Instead that word has been carefully substituted for slogans such as ‘reproductive health’, ‘reproductive healthcare’ and ‘termination services’.

II. No Mention of Alternatives.

In addition to the choice of phrasing, we are also astonished that there is no mention of alternatives for women who may be seeking non-abortive pregnancy care or even support for women who are suffering from post-abortion trauma.

B. Specific Areas. 

Below we have identified a selection of areas specific to the points in the terms of reference in which you may wish to focus your submission or letter:

I. Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph states:

‘Barriers to achieving priorities under the National Women’s Health Strategy for ‘universal access to sexual and reproductive health information, treatment and services that offer options to women to empower choice …’

We strongly assert that unless the information provided includes the reality of what an abortion is, what an abortion destroys and the long term physical and mental effects of having an abortion, then removing these ‘barriers’ does not empower choice but in fact disempowers choice. The crafting of the terms of reference is silent on any alternatives being available. Therefore, without the full information available to them women will be left uninformed with regards to the range of choices they have available.

II. Term ‘b’.

Term b states:

‘Cost and accessibility of reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy care …’

With reference to the phrase ‘pregnancy care’ in point ‘b’ we urge the committee to include in the investigation the invaluable work that pregnancy crisis centres and adoption agencies are already undertaking across Australia. To omit their voice would truly be appalling.

Furthermore, if recommendations are made available to increase abortion access across Australia then again we would expect and request similar funding be made available for crisis pregnancy centres and adoption agencies.

III. Term ‘i’.

Term ‘i’ states:

‘Any other related matter.’

This is an area and opportunity for you to raise any other concerns you may have with regards to the inquiry.

Submission Details.

We do not have much time as submissions are due by close of business on Thursday, 15 December 2022.

Below are the two options available for making a submission:

1. By email to [email protected]
2. Written submissions to:

Committee Secretary,

Senate Standing Committees On Community Affairs,

PO Box 6100,

Parliament House,

Canberra. ACT. 2600.

Again, please know that any individual letters, no matter how big or small make a tremendous contribution. Please remember that once you have completed your entry to circulate this email to others that could also send in a submission.

If you have any questions or queries please feel free to get in touch via email at [email protected]

[i] Parliament Of Australia. “Universal access to reproductive healthcare.” Accessed 18 November 2022. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/ReproductiveHealthcare

Yours in Life,

Matthew Cliff

Executive Officer.
http://www.cherishlife.org.au/

Cherish Life is one of the largest pro-life groups in Australia. Since 1970 we have been advocating for the right to life from conception to natural death.

Would you please consider partnering with us by donating to our work. Through your generous financial support we are able to continue this invaluable work. Please click on this link to become a financial partner. 

On Thursday 16th September 2021, the Queensland Labor Government passed legislation which  legalised both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. The legislation is entitled the "Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021" and will take effect on 1st January 2023.

The passage of this Act represents a parting of the ways in Queensland from a medical system that strove to support the dying but did not attempt to pre-empt the natural event of dying to one that facilitates the taking of life by the patient him/herself or by involving a medical practitioner or nursing practitioner to perform the action. Not only does the state permit its citizens to take their own lives, it is also dangerous because it can lead to wrongful deaths by several ways. It can involve people who would have wrongfully accessed assisted suicide because of a wrong diagnosis, a wrong prognosis, or suffer coercion, elder abuse, untreated mental anguish, or because they had little or no access to palliative care specialists and felt they had no other choice.

There are also grave concerns that there will be an increase in non-assisted suicide rates because of a suicide cognation effect that often accompanies euthanasia or assisted suicide being legalised.

Aspects of the Act include: 

1. Queenslanders with a 12 month prognosis who are over 18 years old would be eligible for euthanasia or assisted suicide, upon the approval of two doctors who don’t have to be specialists. Nor is there a requirement for the patient to be examined by a specialist at any stage of their illness.

2. The two approving doctors can be junior General Practitioners with little or no specialised training in end-of-life management. (Palliative care specialists train for at least four years full-time after graduating with a medical degree.)

3. Doctors with a conscientious objection to euthanasia or assisted suicide would be forced to refer patients for it, and therefore be complicit in the outcome of a patient killed.

4. Health institutions whose charter is opposed to euthanasia (e.g. Catholic Health Australia and UnitingCare as well as many others) would be compelled to refer patients who qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide upon request. In the case where the patient is a permanent resident of a facility, like an aged care home for example, the institution would be forced to let the assisted suicide or euthanasia take place on the premises by an outside doctor coming in to kill the patient or the poison being delivered to the facility. 

5. No mental health checks. There is no requirement for those requesting assisted suicide to be assessed by a mental health expert like a psychiatrist, yet mental anguish and depression is often one of the main drivers for requests for euthanasia, as data from other jurisdictions shows. 

6. No requirement to be seen by a specialist in the area of the patient’s suffering, e.g. an oncologist for cancer patients. 

7. No requirement for a patient to be seen by a palliative care specialist. 

8. Inequitable access to euthanasia and palliative care. If passed, this law would allow people with a 12 month prognosis to access euthanasia straight away, but they may not be able to access palliative care until a few weeks or a few months before the end of life (and in some cases in regional Queensland they may have no access to palliative care at all). Very concerningly, when Western Australia passed its assisted suicide legislation, an amendment to the Bill which would have given regional WA the same access to palliative care as assisted suicide was voted down. 

9. The deceptive language in the Bill - even the term “voluntary assisted dying” makes it sound like people are accessing palliative care when in fact it is euthanasia or assisted suicide. 

10. The Bill allows people with a prognosis of 12 months to access assisted suicide. In other Australian jurisdictions the legislation stipulates a six month prognosis, so it allows access six months earlier than all other assisted suicide legislation in Australia. 

11. Trying to talk someone out of assisted suicide could put you in jail for up to 7 years. 

12. Death certificates would be falsified for people who access assisted suicide to record their underlying sickness as the cause of death instead of suicide or euthanasia.

13. A doctor or a nurse can raise the idea of assisted suicide in the context of discussing other end-of-life options. This is incredibly dangerous, as a patient would no doubt be feeling unwell, distressed by their prognosis and very vulnerable.

14. It legalises both assisted suicide, where the doctor prescribes poison for the patient to take, and euthanasia, where the doctor administers a lethal injection to kill the patient either via syringe or a drip. 

Additional considerations are:

• Queensland has a woeful palliative care funding deficit to the tune of about $250 million per year according to Palliative Care Queensland. This is despite many calls for substantial increases to palliative care funding from the Australian Medical Association, Catholic Health Australia (the largest provider of health care after the government) and Cherish Life through our parliamentary petition to the Queensland Government (thank you those who signed, we achieved almost 8,000 signatures!). The palliative care deficit is most felt in regional Queensland where some areas have no palliative care services at all.
• Queensland Health only has 134 dedicated palliative beds.
• Queensland already has almost the highest suicide rate in Australia. In Victoria, in the year after assisted suicide was legalised, the non-assisted suicide rate increased by 13%, and in Canada since euthanasia was legalised in 2016, the total number of suicides (both assisted suicide and non-assisted suicide) increased by 400% over just four years. The Netherlands has recorded an increase in non-assisted suicides of 10% since it legalised euthanasia in 2008.
• The Australian Medical Association, Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, and 107 out of 109 national medical bodies are opposed to euthanasia of any kind. 

Roe v. Wade (1973) has been overturned!

These are the days prayed for and worked hard for! 

In the USA right there are pro-lifers dancing in the streets, as the Supreme Court of the USA has this past hour made a ruling with a vote of 6 - 3 judges in a case which completely nullifies the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade (1973).

Roe v. Wade (1973) is the US Supreme Court decision that signed the death warrant of 62,000,000 American babies who were legally aborted under this defunct judicial legislation from 1973 until now.

US pro-life groups expect the overturning of this abortion legislation will lead to around half the states in the USA moving to make abortion illegal.

States likely to make abortion illegal following the overturning of Roe v. Wade marked by red  - infographic by Live Action.

What can only be described as a pro-life reformation and the beginning of a new era, was massively helped along by former President Trump’s appointment of three (3) conservative judges to the US Supreme Court.  

What does this mean for Australia and the rest of the world? A LOT. Firstly, in time there's likely to be many babies saved as a result - we are so thankful!! Secondly, if the USA can do it, with God's help, so can we. Conceded we have a different system of government, but it's undeniable there is a turning of the tide and increasingly people are horrified by abortion, even abortion to birth. 

Today we are celebrating with our US pro-life peers and giving thanks for this glorious breakthrough in the fight for life. Just think how many more babies will be born!

Let's keep contending, we can do it, Australia!

CLICK HERE FOR POLLING RESULTS

GREAT NEWS! National polling on whether babies born alive in abortion should be given medical care reveals the vast majority of Australians want these babies cared for! 

Among those who express a view on this issue, three times as many say they support care for babies born alive in these circumstances as oppose such care.

The full poll results can be accessed HERE

The national survey commissioned by Cherish Life Queensland was conducted on 14 -17 July 2021 by YouGov online with 1506 Australian voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9%. A full methodology statement is available at https://au.yougov.com/results/apc

The respondents were asked the following question:

Termination of pregnancy is permitted in all Australian states and territories under various circumstances after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This is referred to as a ‘late-term abortion.’ 

Sometimes a baby is born alive in a ‘late-term abortion’ procedure. Which is closer to your own view about babies born alive after a late-term abortion procedure? 

1. They must be given medical care to the same extent as other premature babies. This would be life-sustaining care if they are viable and compatible with life.  RESPONDENTS: 56%
2. They should not be given medical care and can be allowed to die. RESPONDENTS: 18%
3. Don’t know. RESPONDENTS: 26%

The full poll results can be accessed HERE

It's encouraging that the vast majority of Australians understand these poor little babies are worthy of care and medical intervention the same as a 'wanted' newborn baby. It's our hope that this poll will provide the Morrison Coalition Government with the courage to allow George Christensen's Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021, to go to a vote this term, either by adopting the legislation as a government Bill or allowing a Mr Christensen to table the Bill as a Private Member's Bill with a conscience vote. Without the Prime Minister's permission, the Bill will not go to a vote this term of government.

We've been honoured to support Mr Christensen's Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021 since its inception last year. Most recently Mr Christensen spoke about his Bill at the Brisbane March for Life held in May 2021, where around 4,000 Queenslanders marched. Mr Christensen's speech can be viewed here.

Mr Christensen is scheduled to introduce the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021 to the Australian House of Representatives on Tuesday 10 August, just weeks away. If passed it will be a national first, where there is a win for the rights of babies, instead of tragic loss after loss as has been the heartbreaking case in Australia over the past few decades.

It's time to fight to take back ground and save lives.

To donate towards the fight for life.