Well said, Human Interest.

No-one's personal/religious beliefs have sovereignty over the health and well being of another person. It is that simple.

The new Victorian law has finally acknowledged that women can and do make responsible with regard to their fertility and health and have every right to do so.

Many years ago I had to seek an abortion due to both a medical treatment I was receiving, which could be detrimental to the embryo, and also I was in no way fit or ready for motherhood. I didn't realise that my regular GP was anti-abortion under any circumstances. However, to his credit he did refer me to someone who could help me. However, I had to endure his anger - he claimed that the medical treatment would not harm the embryo (in contradiction to everything I had been advised, I had been warned not to get pregnant during treatment for that very reason). I was already very upset and the doctor's attitude added significantly to my distress. I didn't even bother with his referral and found another who understood and would help me. Fortunately I lived in a big city, but I have to wonder at the pain, suffering and trauma experienced by women in rural areas who cannot access suitable care in situations as fraught as an unplanned pregnancy.

Never thought I'd say this but, Thank you Brumby Government.

Seems I do have something further to say on this after all. Firstly, about the Brumby Government. In today's paper I see that they have attempted to bring in new legislation that could limit the participation and free speech of people in councils for previous activist roles. Then I also see today that they now want women accessing fertility treatments to undergo police checks. I think this is a fascinating development myself and look forward (not) to the day they announce that all pregnant women should also have to undergo these checks. I think the Brumby Government is overdoing the red cordial and firing off legislation left right and centre.

The bringing in of the clause that coerces objecting doctors to refer was I think more than half baked in the research department. Then I've yet to see a estimate of how many people it will effect - do we have 'four' objectors or 'thousands' who are really clogging up the works and are a problem?

Then is it going to work? Probably not, the objectors will still refuse to comply and the Government can pretend they are doing something to access women's access to reproductive services, while not spending a penny. This will not help women access reproductive services in country areas at all.

Then is there actually a need for this clause? 20,000 abortions happened in Victoria last year so it seems the objectors are not standing in the way of abortions happening.

To be continued.

I’m going to ignore the nonsense Cook utters (e.g. the 20.000 ‘children’ who die every year) but I think it’s worth to look at the real: whether or not doctors, who have a conscientious objection to abortion, should have the right to refuse performing one.

While I strongly support the pro-choice stance on abortion, I also like the thought that people should have as much freedom as possible.
McFly already talks about absolute freedom and extremes, which is a tempting topic, but I prefer to stay on the topic of abortion and whether medical staff should have a choice.

I feel that Medical staff should have the freedom to conscientiously object to perform an abortion, but at the same time no woman should be deprived of her freedom of choice and denied access to safe abortion.

I'm not sure how to juggle this.
Perhaps doctors, who do not wish to perform abortions, simply have to make sure that they seek employment in an area where there is another doctor who has no such conscientious objection and that they refer the woman to this doctor. This should come as a condition and responsibility with their right to refuse to perform abortion.

It’s nonsense to object to referring a woman to an abortion doctor.
It’s like refusing to give directions to people to the nearest furniture store because the store sells leather sofas and you happen to be a vegan.

Women's choice should have priority over a doctor's choice if there is no doctor in the area who is willing to perform abortions.
The consequences for a woman who has been denied abortion are far more serious than the consequences for an anti-abortion doctor who is required to perform an abortion.

Billie says that only when Julian McGauran gets married etc can he comment. That's not a very smart comment, Billie.

That's like saying that you can't comment on whether slavery is right or wrong unless you have a sugar cane plantation or are in some other way directly involved. That's nonsense.

No one has more right than another to declare on the issue of whether it is right or wrong to abuse or kill other human beings; we all have a moral duty, if we see that there is slavery or killing of innocent human beings, to be part of the solution.

On the surface, with reference to his address, marital status, details of his life in the public domain, Julian McGauran's life style choices don't show empathy for women or understanding of the strains of family life. Thus I think he absolutely should not try to control women's fertility.

i have experienced abortion from both sides of the fence .

My mother was having twins, one was aborted, i was recalcitrant, and the surgeon refused to complete the job a few weeks later. (too late, said he).

I knew of this through my aunts, cousins, - and my father (who had never talked to me directly but whom i had overheard talking to my successive step-mothers) confirmed it to me on our last meeting (1993) : "your mother did not want any children, then she was having twins, she did something about it.. we never knew if the one who died was a boy or a girl, but you still came along, and you were a girl ! I so much wanted a son, but you were a girl..." the resentment was thick in his voice..

My mother was a very devout catholic, but had never connected religion with gynocology... to her, a foetus received a "soul" only at the time of birth... then (1931) this question was debated, from the pulpit, mortal sin, murder, etc... my mother became ridden with guilt. I was a very troublesome child, mumps, hooppingcough. My parents' small business was very demanding ("corner shop" + cafe + meals + a boarder - in the days when the grocer did all the weighing and packing, etc) It was during the "great depression", customers were begging for credit, suppliers wanted cash. Guilty and over-tired, my mother fell into despair, attempted to rid both of us of this hard life, she was taken to hospital, the day she was discharged she jumped out of a second floor window and died from peritonitis. My father was left with no help-mate, no business (could not sell as in a small town a suicide was a bad omen - but still owed money to the bank) no job, no roof (accommodation went with the business) and, as he often mentionned over the years, lumbered with a 4 year old, and, to cap it all, a girl !! yes, yes, RU486 would have been preferable ... see you later !