{"id":13694,"date":"2013-04-05T22:41:08","date_gmt":"2013-04-05T11:41:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/?p=13694"},"modified":"2013-04-10T12:57:37","modified_gmt":"2013-04-10T01:57:37","slug":"abortion-tas-anglican-submission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/2013\/04\/05\/abortion-tas-anglican-submission\/","title":{"rendered":"Abortion Tas: Anglican submission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today we submitted the\u00a0Anglican Church of Tasmania’s Submission-Church-Submission<\/a>\u00a0to the Draft Bill and Consultation Paper<\/a> proposed by the Tasmanian Government’s Health Minister as a private member’s bill.<\/p>\n

I am very grateful to the small team who worked so hard in such a short time to lodge a thoughtful response. I am especially grateful to Revd Will Briggs, Bishop’s Research Officer, for his sterling work in research, writing the draft documents and coordinating the final submission. Thank you.<\/p>\n

With others, we protested the\u00a0initial 2 weeks response time given by the Tasmanian Health Minister\u00a0and it was extended to 4 weeks!\u00a0However, this time frame overlapped with the time we had been given by the Government\u00a0to lodge our submission on the Euthanasia legislation. Well may we say:\u00a0rushed\u00a0policy making is poor policy making<\/a>!\u00a0Moreover, rushed policy is not\u00a0only a dis-service to Tasmanians\u00a0in governance but\u00a0dismissive and divisive of our community.<\/p>\n

This Tasmanian Government has made it very hard for us to engage effectively because of bringing out proposal after proposal for major social change. This rushed and turbulent process\u00a0has been unnecessary and it has added distress to our community when life is already very challenging for many Tasmanians.<\/p>\n

Some excerpts from\u00a0 the Anglican Church of Tasmania’s\u00a0Submission:\u00a0 Firstly, Broad Concerns & then the Table of Contents:<\/p>\n

\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Broad Concerns<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a02.1 The Changes Are<\/i><\/span> Significant<\/h3>\n

The key provision of the draft Bill is to move the regulation of terminations out of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.\u00a0 These laws had previously been adjusted in 2002 so as to effectively decriminalise a process for providing and obtaining terminations in Tasmania.<\/p>\n

The Minister is of the opinion that the proposed changes in the current Bill are simply a matter of fixing unforeseen implementation problems[i]<\/a> and that there is no in-principle change to what was decided in 2002.\u00a0 This is simply not the case.<\/p>\n

The Bill makes significant changes both in and around the provision of pregnancy termination.\u00a0 It is a significant movement away from the balance and resulting equilibrium of previous debates.\u00a0 It is not reasonable to extrapolate from the status quo into new absolutist territory.\u00a0 Yet this is what the Bill would do.<\/p>\n

The changes that would occur, if the Bill were to pass the Tasmanian parliament, are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A change in the fundamental framework of regulating termination of pregnancy. Criminality would be the exception, not the rule.<\/li>\n
  2. The removal of any reference to the existence of the unborn child.\u00a0 The subject of a termination, whether lawful or unlawful, would be the mother alone.<\/li>\n
  3. The removal of any requirement for assessment of the mother or her child for terminations up to and including 24 weeks gestation.\u00a0 This would effectively introduce \u201cabortion on demand.\u201d<\/li>\n
  4. The broadening of the assessment required for terminations after 24 weeks gestation so that social and economic circumstances are grounds for proceeding.<\/li>\n
  5. A new obligation for medical practitioners with conscientious objection to facilitate the procuring of a termination by making a referral.<\/li>\n
  6. A new obligation on non medical \u201ccounsellors\u201d, a broadly defined category that ostensibly includes anyone who is in a position to offer advice to a pregnant woman, to make a referral.<\/li>\n
  7. The creation of geographical areas in which existing public order laws are augmented by restricting ill-defined \u201cprescribed (sic) behaviours\u201d and peaceful protest.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These are not minor changes.\u00a0 These are profoundly significant changes in areas of discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and, most sadly, life and death.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a02.2 Fundamental Concerns<\/h3>\n

    The issue of terminations has previously been addressed by the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania, in particular through public statements by Bishop John Harrower who said at the time of the 2002 changes to the law:<\/p>\n

    \u201dWhile I am very concerned about the health of mothers, the lives of unborn infants are no less important.\u201d[<\/b>ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Our broad position derives from this simple recognition of the value and humanity of both the unborn child and the mother.\u00a0 We therefore have a profound and fundamental disagreement with the following provisions of the Bill:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The effective introduction of \u201cabortion on demand\u201d for pregnancies up to 24 weeks gestation is an extreme implementation of the so-called \u201cright to termination.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 It provides few safeguards to the mother, and certainly none to the child.<\/li>\n
    2. The broadening of provision of late-term terminations to include all forms of psychosocial and economic factors gives no consideration at all to the viability, health or welfare of the child.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      A secondary concern is the provisions in the Bill which relate to freedom of conscience and civil liberties.\u00a0 We disagree strongly with:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The introduction of an obligation, on pain of penalty, to facilitate terminations through referral.\u00a0 This requirement is impractical and unconscionable.<\/li>\n
      2. The limitation on civil liberties based on geographical areas and the communication of certain points of view is novel and unnecessary.\u00a0 Nothing has been presented that suggests existing harassment, privacy, and public nuisance laws are inadequate.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
        \n
        \n

        [i]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Source: http:\/\/www.examiner.com.au\/story\/1352311\/give-us-time-church\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        [ii]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bishop John Harrower, Media Release, December 12, 2001<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n
        \n
        \n
        \n

        Table of Contents<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        1. Overview<\/p>\n

        1.1\u00a0 Terminology<\/p>\n

        2. Broad Concerns<\/p>\n

        2.1\u00a0 The Changes Are Significant<\/p>\n

        2.2\u00a0 Fundamental Concerns<\/p>\n

        3. The Case for Change Has Not Been Made<\/p>\n

        3.1\u00a0 …because unplanned pregnancies occur<\/p>\n

        3.2\u00a0 …because current regulation is under criminal law<\/p>\n

        3.3\u00a0 \u2026because current law acts as a barrier to healthcare services<\/p>\n

        3.4\u00a0 …because the law needs to acknowledge women as capable decision makers<\/p>\n

        3.5\u00a0 …because the law needs to recognise that a termination is a safe medical procedure<\/p>\n

        3.6\u00a0 …because the law needs to recognise community standards<\/p>\n

        4. Criminalising Matters of Conscience<\/p>\n

        4.1\u00a0 Conscientious Objection and the Duty to Treat<\/p>\n

        4.2\u00a0 Obligation to Refer<\/p>\n

        4.3\u00a0 Access Zones<\/p>\n

        5. Recommendations<\/p>\n

        5.1\u00a0 Embrace a Life-Affirming Vision for Tasmania<\/p>\n

        5.2\u00a0 Withdraw the Bill<\/p>\n

        5.3\u00a0 Monitor and Review Properly and Transparently<\/p>\n

        \n
        \n
        \n
        \n

        \u00a0See the whole Anglican Church of Tasmania Submission<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        See also, Killing Baby Girls: Belief and its Consequences<\/a>\u00a0 my initial Bishop’s Pastoral Letter: Abortion Law for Tasmania?<\/a>\u00a0 and Claire van Ryn’s, UPDATE: Tasmania\u2019s Proposed Abortion Law Changes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        Also, Abortion Tas: Hospital Chaplain\u2019s perspective<\/a>\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0We care for the mother & the unborn\u00a0child<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Today we submitted the\u00a0Anglican Church of Tasmania’s Submission-Church-Submission\u00a0to the Draft Bill and Consultation Paper proposed by the Tasmanian Government’s Health Minister as a private member’s bill. I am very grateful to the small team who worked so hard in such … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13694"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13694"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13744,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13694\/revisions\/13744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}