A Right To Life, a Right To Freedom

The Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, has recently weighed into the abortion issue, claiming that the rate and ease of abortions in Australia (including the full Medicare funding of abortions) be re-examined.

Further, some members of Parliament (such as Peter Garrett, who Votes FOR trees and AGAINST women’s rights to freedom) have called for a ban on abortions over 21 weeks, forcing the pregnant woman to have an ultrasound prior to the abortion (to understand what she would be terminating) and the removal of Medicare funding of abortions.

Unfortunately, the Governor-General has also decided to break with convention and participate in the debate, which is wrong for two reasons: firstly, the Governor-General should never participate in political or at least topical debate, even if he prefixes the discussion with the non-partisan, non-committal “it should be looked at”. Secondly, it is wrong because while the notion of abortion may be acceptable or not acceptable depending on a moral, ethical or religious standpoint, Government should not play a role in deciding to remove the rights of women, who for whatever reason, may decide to handle their pregnancy in any particular way.

To put it bluntly, the hand of Government should not be in a woman’s womb.

Thankfully, some high profile members of the medical community have spoken up against this new political debate. Let’s hope that the rights of women are maintained and that there are no changes to abortion law.

Constantine Frantzeskos

2 Comments

You are not signed in. Sign in to post comments.


  • I actually liked what the GG had to say. Headlines blared “GG wants zero abortion rate”, but if you read the articles, GG-MG-MJ said that a reduction would be nice, be it from 100 000 to 80 000 or 20 000, or even zero, but that this should come from education and availabilty of contraceptives.

    You say the GG should never participate in a ‘topical’ debate.
    On the same day, GG-MG-MJ also spoke of an innitiative he plans to begin in order to improve our nation’s poor literacy and numeracy rates. Should he also not participate in this ‘topical’ discussion, as Nelson wishes to trial a ‘phonics’ approach (yeah, thanks Brendan. Like that doesn’t already play a part – note a part, not the whole – of any literacy program)?

    alivicwil 15 years ago


  • Yeah good point about participation in the debate. However having broad goals for the country and advocating particular policies are a sort of fine line…

    If the GG decides that “kids should be reading more” then that if fair enough but if he advocates policies or spending or any Government driven initiatives then it is wrong.

    Just in the same way it would be wrong for him to be advocating anything, even if it is a valuable and good idea. Let’s take for example issues such as: The Republic, The Homeless, Aboriginal Welfare… Then it becomes an issue of him driving the policy debate, which I think is wrong and involves him in the political process.

    Members of Parliament should be doing that, not the GG.

    conno 15 years ago


Comments are closed