Dear Mick V, I do indeed have eyesight problems, the remedy for which is wearing reading glasses. And where I have problems in understanding, my remedy is reading the relevant documents carefully. Please read again the statement of the law by Judge Levine: "it would be for the jury to decide whether there existed in the case of each woman any economic, social or medical ground or reason which in their view could constitute reasonable grounds upon which an accused could honestly and reasonably believe there would result a serious danger to her physical or mental health" (R v Wald (1971) 3 NSWDCR 25, at 29). This statement understands the "danger" of a pregnancy in relation to a woman's health in broad terms.

When you assert that "most of the 80 000 abortions procured each year are for economic or convenient reasons. The doctors know it, and that’s why they are looking over their shoulders", I would suggest that you have absolutely no basis on which to make that assertion. Or perhaps you would like to tell OLO readers, and the police, how you know the private facts in these 80 000 cases?

I would also note that law knows no category of "technically illegal". I have noted the use of this curious phrase by people who should know a lot better, even by people who think of themselves as pro-choice (like Catharine Lumby for example). The term "technically illegal" is at best nonsensical, and at worst indicative of a contempt for the rule of law.

I do agree with you (and Runner) that some things are wrong regardless of what the law in a particular state says.

Helen

Helen - who was Isabel Berners?

Dear Helen,

Since I am an ordinary Joe and not a lawyer and don’t speak or readily understand Legalese, when I used the phrase ‘technically illegal’ I was aiming at ordinarily understood language. That is, ‘technically illegal’ are those things that are not technically legal, or more simply put, actions that are outside of the law.

I reread the paragraph that you asked me to read. As I am not a lawyer, you may have to clarify a few things contained there within. Is a judgement made in the NSW District Court binding on the rest of Australia? The paragraph seemed to indicate the judge putting the fate of an accused ‘procurer of miscarriage’ into the hands of the jury. As I understand it, a jury could make whatever decision they thought best. Is that not right? However, I understand jury decisions do not set precedents that are binding on future cases.

"Most of the 80 000 abortions procured each year are for economic or convenient reasons. The doctors know it, and that’s why they are looking over their shoulders". You question this, but do you have a basis on which you can safely assert that you know enough of the private facts in most of these 80 000 cases to say that such is not the practice?

The law, as you explain it, relies heavily on case law. Excuse me for not being a lawyer capable of sifting through decades of cases decisions, but after reading your article, it seems that the statutes are fairly clear but are flagrantly out of step with current practice. This is not just my opinion, but seems to be a concern for the Labor party in Victoria. If the law was not a bit murky or confused, can you understand why Labor in Victoria is aiming to legislate on the matter?

Dear billie, Isopel Birners is a character in a novel by George Borrow, "The Romany Rye". It is one of the books I love the most (along with Borrow's "Lavengro"), and when I was a teenager, Isopel was a heroine of mine for various reasons -- along with Maggie Tulliver. I changed the spelling so that it wouldnt come up on a google search.....

dear Mick V, thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I will think about it and get back to you.

Helen