MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Friday May 30, 2014



A Queensland judge's ruling that children's birth certificates be fabricated underscores the urgent need for legislative reform to protect the rights of kids, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.



ACL's Queensland director Wendy Francis said Justice Ann Lyons' ruling to eliminate two children's biological fathers from their birth certificates was lying to the children about their origins and denying them their human rights under international law.



"Governments have a duty to always act in the best interest of the child. Justice Lyons' ruling means urgent legislative changes are needed to put the rights of children ahead of the desires of adults," Ms Francis said.



Article 7 of the United Nations Rights of the Child says that "children have the right to know their parents and as far as possible be cared for by them".



Ms Francis said the LNP promised to amend the Surrogacy Act to protect the rights of children and urged the Government to meet its election commitment.



Recent parliamentary inquiries in New South Wales and Victoria and a Senate inquiry had all found that donor conceived children had been severely traumatised by not knowing their biological origins.

Children miss out on a mum or a dad usually because of tragedy or desertion.



Where this occurs we as a society rightly provide financial and moral support to single parents.



Where children are orphaned the State usually seeks to provide a mother and father replacement family through adoption.



In all cases, the best interests of the child are paramount.



We have also rightly condemned and apologised for practices that led to the stolen generation and forced adoption practices of the past.



The recent debate about same-sex marriage has highlighted the issue of parenting by same-sex couples.



A number of studies have been conducted which seem to suggest that kids raised by same-sex couples fare no worse and possibly even fare better than kids raised by heterosexual parents.



The most recent, a survey of existing studies from here and overseas, was conducted by sociologist Dr Deborah Dempsey on behalf of the Australian Institute of Family Studies.



A key message of Dr Dempsey’s survey is that: “Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual families.”



The same-sex marriage lobby was quick to say that Dr Dempsey’s survey of the studies means the debate about same-sex parenting is over.



However, it is known that data for most of these studies has come from self-selecting samples and mainly from lesbians from a higher than average socio-economic demographic.



Lesbian parents who have high incomes and are well-educated unsurprisingly report that their kids are doing well and they most likely are.



While increasing, the numbers of same-sex couples parenting children remain very small. Dr Dempsey says 33 per cent of lesbian women in Australia have children and 11 per cent of homosexual men have children.



Around two percent of the Australian population is homosexual or lesbian but not all are in couple relationships.



With such small numbers, particularly for male homosexual parenting, it is perhaps too early to be drawing  conclusions.



The studies also, by-and-large, do not discuss the ethics of using Assisted Reproductive Technologies such as surrogacy and donor conception to sever a child’s link to a biological parent so that it can be given over to others.



Surrogacy and donor conception support groups indicate there are problems and already three Parliamentary inquiries have examined donor conception practices in Australia.



The Senate inquiry, with the agreement of all political parites including the Greens, recommended a prohibition on donor anonymity. This is something that does not suit many same-sex parents.



There are deep ethical issues which need to be discussed openly and dispassionately if we are to legislate a new definition of marriage.



The debate is about far more than the love of two people, there are consequences for children which need far more rigorous investigation.



The overwhelming conclusion of the vast body of social science research is that kids do best when raised by their biological mother and father.



Common sense and the evidence of past practices of child removal tell us that a child’s biological parents matter to the child, regardless of the love provided in alternative arrangements.



Yes two men can love a baby, but is it right to have removed that baby from her mother?



Are fathers an optional extra?



These are important ethical questions that should be front and centre of the debate about redefining marriage.



Once a new definition of marriage is legislated, these questions become obsolete. In fact, they become inappropriate.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: IS IT HARMLESS?



by Patrick J. Byrne (re-published with the permission of the author)



News Weekly, October 12, 2013.



Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes not only the legal definition of marriage, but all the social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that service and support marriage, family and children.



Yet, the lobby pushing for redefining marriage argues that same-sex marriage does no harm to anyone else, so it should be legalised.



In the Australian Capital Territory there is a same-sex marriage bill before the legislative assembly, and in New South Wales a similar bill is planned.



These bills are proceeding despite the federal parliament’s decisive vote last year against redefining marriage, and despite such legislation being inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act.



Schools: If marriage is redefined in law, it would be legal to teach same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual issues in schools. In fact, the courts may invoke anti-discrimination law to force these issues into schools.



The Australian Education Union’s policy declares that “homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and intersex need to be normalised” in education (AEU Policy on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People, 2006). 1.



In 2006, the NSW Attorney-General’s Department produced a Learn to Include: Teachers Manual for primary schools. It provides a range of resources for teaching about same-sex parents in primary schools.



Advisors for the project included the Lesbian Health Project Officer, ACON Western Sydney; NSW Anti-Homophobia Interagency; the Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, University of Melbourne; Education & Health Promotion Programs, Unit Family Planning Association Health (NSW); NSW Anti-Homophobia Interagency; and the NSW Teachers’ Federation. 2.



After same-sex marriage was legalised in California USA, the Fair Education Act 2011 was passed. It was co-sponsored by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and Equality California.



This law requires the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history in California schools. 3.



Children: Same-sex marriage will greatly affect future children, denying many their birth right to their true biological identity.



Not only will it result in more children being born of donor conception and surrogacy, but the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) lobby is campaigning to have the birth certificates of children adopted by same-sex couples to be changed to record the same-sex couple in place of the biological parents (“LGBT rights in Australia”, Wikipedia). 4.



Already, the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby offers online advice about lesbian parenting laws in NSW. It’s “Q&A” section answers the question, “How do I get a new birth certificate for my child with our names on it?” 5.



A Sydney district court ruled in 2011 that a man who acted as a sperm donor to a lesbian couple had “no contractual right” to be on the birth certificate of his biological daughter (Sydney Daily Telegraph, August 18, 2011). 6.



The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended — in the interest of same-sex parents — that birth certificates should be open to recording any of the “birth mother, birth father, lesbian co-mother or gay co-father” (Same-sex entitlements, Australian Human Rights Commission, p.107). 7.



This stands in contrast to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which says: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” 8.



While the GLBT lobby wants to replace biological parents’ names on birth certificates with the names of same-sex partners (“psychological” parents), there have been three inquiries into the rights of donor-conceived children to know their “biological” origins. These inquires were by: the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry (2011), the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) and the NSW Legislative Assembly (2012). 9, 10, 11.



All three inquiries recommended that donor-conceived children should have a right to access their biological mother/father.



Businesses will also be affected by same-sex marriage, particularly those associated with wedding services — photographers, caterers, function hire places — and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Same-sex marriage law greatly increases the reach of anti-discrimination law.



In the U.S. state of New Mexico, where same-sex marriage is legal, the state’s supreme court last month found photographer Elaine Huguenin guilty under the New Mexico Human Rights Act of refusing to provide her services to a lesbian couple’s wedding (Christianity Today, August 22, 2013). 12.



Two weeks after legislators in the U.S. state of Oregon passed a same-sex marriage law, a local maker of old-fashioned wedding trolleys was forced to shut down his business after being hounded by the GLBT lobby for refusing to supply a lesbian wedding function, according to the Baltimore Sun (December 25, 2012).



The paper noted, “Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost.” 13.



In Europe, a draft piece of European Union law known as the Equal Treatment Directive will, if passed, drastically increase pressure on business, particularly in countries recognising same-sex marriage. It will force businesses to provide goods or services that contravene their consciences on threat of being hauled before the courts if they don’t. 14.



Churches will gain only temporary exemptions from involvement in same-sex marriages, at best.



Less than two weeks after same-sex marriage was signed into UK law, a lawsuit was lunched against a Church of England parish for refusing a wedding ceremony for two gay men. 15.



Last year, over 30 GLBT and rights groups told an inquiry into proposed consolidation of Australia’s federal anti-discrimination acts that there should be no exemptions, or only minimal exemptions, for churches and schools (News Weekly, May 26, 2012). 16.



Furthermore, in 2012 six ALP senators presented a dissenting report against the Senate inquiry recommending a same-sex marriage bill. These included: Senators Mark Furner, Ursula Stephens, Helen Polley, Alex Gallacher, Catryna Bilyk, Mark Bishop, Glenn Sterle.



In commenting on the bill’s exemptions clauses for the churches, to ensure that “ministers of religion will not be compelled to solemnise same-sex marriages”, the six ALP senators said:



“While churches remain at the mercy of legislation for such protection, it does not guarantee this protection, as events in Denmark and Scotland in recent times have shown. Denmark has passed legislation to compel churches to officiate at same-sex ceremonies and Scotland is considering same-sex marriage with no church exemption.



“In addition to churches and ministers remaining at the mercy of the government of the day, church-run schools could be subject to anti-discrimination laws as to what they can teach on the subject of marriage.” 17

Patrick J. Byrne is national vice-president of the National Civic Council. 

-



References:



1. Australian Education Union Policy on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People, As adopted at the 2006 Annual Federal Conference. http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/gay_lesbian_bisexual_transgender_and_intersex_people_2006.pdf



2. Learn to Include Teachers Manual: Learn to Include Educational Series Teaching and Learning about Diverse Families in a Primary School Setting, Editor: Vicki Harding, NSW Attorney General’s Department. 2006.



http://www.dialog.unimelb.edu.au/lesbian/pdf/Learn%20to%20Include%20teachers%20manual.pdf



3. FAIR Education Act: LGBTQ-Inclusive Lessons and Activities, gsaNetwork. http://www.gsanetwork.org/files/resources/National%20LGBTQ-inclusive%20lessons%20%26%20activities.pdf



http://www.gsanetwork.org/FAIR/lessons



4. LGBTI Rights/Same-Sex Relationship Recognition Summary Table, LGBT rights in Australia, Wikipedia, as of September 23, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia



5. Lesbian Parenting Laws in NSW, Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW). http://glrl.org.au/index.php/Rights/Parenting/New-Lesbian-Parenting-Laws



6. Donor is young girl’s dad no more as lesbian wins court battle, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), August 18, 2011.



7. Same-sex entitlements, Australian Human Rights Commission, pg. 107.



8. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/SSSE_Report.pdf



9. Donor Conception Practices in Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed%20inquiries/2010-13/donorconception/report/index



10. Inquiry in Access of Donor-Conceived People into Information about Donors, Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2012. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lawreform/article/1468



11. The inclusion of donor details on the register of birth. NSW Legislative Assembly Inquiry, 2012. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/7E4018E851966190CA25792D0017F32F



12. Ted Olson, “NM Supreme Court: Photographers can’t refuse gay weddings”, Christianity Today, August 22, 2013.

URL: www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html



13. Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business, The Baltimore Sun, December 25, 2012. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2972475/posts



14. "European Faith Made Private", First Things, June/July.



http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/05/european-faith-made-private



15. ‘I am still not getting what I want’: Gay couple suing church for refusing ‘wedding’, LifeSite News, August 2, 2013.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed/



16. Push for new laws to attack churches, schools, by Patrick J. Byrne, News Weekly, May 26, 2012 http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5191&s=FUGWcM



17. Dissenting report by individual Labor senators, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, June 6, 2012.

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Friday 4th October 2013



Tasmanian MLCs' should reject Independent MLC Ruth Forrest’s latest attempt to legislate a new definition of marriage, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.



“Yet again we are seeing legislation by fatigue. People are sick and tired of this debate and keen to move on,” ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said.



“There is no new information from New South Wales – the legal advice remains the same. It is likely that any attempt to usurp Commonwealth power over marriage will end up being tested in the High Court,” Mr Brown said.



“Tasmania has an economy in dire straits and yet some of our politicians are more interested in a third go at euthanasia, a second go at same-sex marriage and a draconian abortion bill.



“The priorities are all wrong.



“Kevin Rudd just tried to fight a federal election with a promise to legislate same-sex marriage within 100 days and recorded the lowest Labor vote in 100 years.



“The party of same-sex marriage, the Greens, lost 600,000 votes,” Mr Brown said



Polling commissioned by ACL and conducted by JWS Research immediately after the September 7 election found that same-sex marriage was a low order issue with voters.



Just 13 per cent of voters rated it as a top three issue with just four per cent of Coalition voters putting in the top three. A staggering 72 per cent of Greens voters were not energised by same-sex marriage.



“In the past 12 months same-sex marriage bills have been defeated in the federal House of Representatives, the Senate, the Tasmanian Parliament and the South Australian Parliament. Voters on September 7 were underwhelmed by the issue.



“Surely it is time to move on.”



Mr Brown said if Ms Forrest wanted same-sex marriage she should explain why it would then be ok for some children to be removed through Assisted Reproductive Technology from their biological parents.



“This is the real social justice issue of this debate – the right of children to know and be loved wherever possibly by their natural parents. This is denied them through same-sex marriage.



“There is no discrimination against same-sex couples under Tasmanian or Commonwealth law but same-sex marriage will entrench inequality for children.



“It further normalises fatherless and motherless children. How can this be in children's best interest?



“The marriage debate is about redefining an institution which has deep significance for a lot of Australians from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.”



Mr Brown said some politicians seemed focussed on introducing as much radical social policy as they could before the March 2014 election.

A media release by FamilyVoice Australia last week highlights parents' concerns about a push to end TV restrictions. Below is a copy of the release. 



---



Parents alarmed by push to end TV restrictions



“Angry parents are telling us how strongly they oppose the new push by commercial TV stations to allow adult programs to be broadcast day and night, abolishing current time zones,” FamilyVoice Research Officer Ros Phillips said today.



“SA Attorney-General John Rau has spoken for many when he said he would be appalled if his children were exposed to material that displayed violence and blurred the lines with soft-core pornography.  He pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect parents to monitor every single program their kids watch on TV, particularly during school holidays.”



Mrs Phillips said a petition begun less than 24 hours ago, urging Communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull to keep TV clean for kids, already has 140 signatures and counting.



Ruth Morrison of Launceston said: “I have sons, aged 7 and 4.  It would be very unhelpful for our family to have to deal with this change, and unhelpful to the healthy development of my sons.”



Ros Phillips said an increasing number of children are growing up in homes where parents are physically or mentally absent.  These parents are unlikely to use parental locks or direct children to ABC channels.



“Free TV is really saying that because children can now watch potentially harmful material on mobile phones and other devices, they should be able to watch it on TV,” Ros Phillips said.  “Hello??  We need to provide protection for children on the other outlets as well!”



Ros Phillips said that over the years, Free TV has been steadily watering down the TV Code of Practice.  The G time zones after school and daytime on weekends have already been abolished.  Content guidelines have been progressively made more vague and less enforceable,” Mrs Phillips said.  “The new proposal is yet another backward step.



“It’s hugely worrying because kids as young as 11 are already accessing pornography,” she said.  “The 60 per cent rise in ‘serious incidents of a sexual nature’ in SA schools over the past three years should be a wakeup call.”



MEDIA RELEASE, FAMILYVOICE AUSTRALIA, 12 SEPTEMBER 2013

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Thursday 12th September 2013



A referendum of the Australian people should decide the future of marriage following a report today that Kevin Rudd may introduce a private members' bill to redefine it in the new Parliament.



Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said the issue of same-sex marriage achieved an incredibly high profile during the election campaign but proved not to be a vote winner for Mr Rudd and Labor.



“Any analysis of Saturday's election must take into account that this issue was front and centre of Labor's campaign but failed to attract votes amongst the broader Australian community,” Mr Shelton said.



“Mr Rudd's bullying of Christian Pastor Matt Prater on Q&A last week has caused many people to worry about freedom of speech and freedom of belief should the law on marriage be changed.



“There are many Australians who for reasons of conscience will always believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and will want to teach their children this,” Mr Shelton said.



“Mr Rudd's tone suggested that there was no place in Australia for these beliefs.”



Mr Shelton said it should not be up to politicians to change a law that would impact so heavily on freedom of speech, belief and religion.



“The far-reaching consequences of changing the definition of marriage mean a conscience vote of the Australian people, not politicians, is what is needed.”



Moves by the ACT and NSW parliaments to introduce same-sex marriage meant Australia risked having a hodgepodge of marriage laws when in reality the marriage power resided with the Commonwealth.



ACL's election panel webcast to 300 churches last week heard former Attorney-General Robert McClelland and former deputy prime minister John Anderson both call for a constitutional referendum to settle this matter (see from 40:53).



“I think the High Court will ultimately, if there is a change in the law, be required to determine what the constitutional founders meant when they included the marriage power in the constitution,” Mr McClelland said.



“I don't think that's a comfortable place for the High Court to be. I think if there is going to be any reform in this area, and I don't think there should be, but if there is it should be through the public debating it through the course of a referendum.”



Mr McClelland reminded the audience that his 2009 reforms to 85 laws meant there was no discrimination against same-sex couples.



Mr Anderson said he was “deeply troubled by the lack of civility” in the debate.



“I think this debate puts politicians under unbelievable pressure because the community is so polarised.



“I actually think this now needs to go to the people.”



Mr Anderson said a referendum should come with a “publicly funded, properly articulated yes and no case”.



He said there should also be an honest acknowledgement of what changing the law on marriage would mean for freedom of belief and the right to express that belief.



He also said the rights of children, wherever possible, to be raised by both their biological parents should be part of the debate.

One of the groups representing independent Christian schools is Associated Christian Schools in Queensland.



Their executive officer Lynne Doneley has put together a federal election statement which parents of children in Christian schools may be interested to read.



Click here to read the article.



A key question Lynne explores in a very thoughtful way is what is the primary purpose of education? Is just to prepare kids for a job, or is there a high purpose?

By Paul O'Rourke, CEO of Emily's Voice.

The anger isn’t new, but the recent intensity of my rage has shocked even me. It’s always there, sitting just below the surface, rising and falling like the molten rock in an active volcano, bursting to life in response to seismic shifts in society. I like to think it’s usually a controlled and measured righteous indignation, but sometimes my white-hot anger is out-of-control, fuelled by my utter frustration and a despairing disbelief that society can be so blind to the damage that abortion causes women, children, relationships and, ultimately, society. Our colossal stupidity to this fact constantly astounds me. Abortion is a national tragedy; it's by any objective measure inhuman, disturbing, barbaric, illogical, unjust and a crime against the weak and vulnerable, the very ones a civilised and caring society is meant to protect. 



Don't tell me to settle down, that it's none of my business, a woman's right, not really a baby, is necessary to prevent child abuse, save a relationship, stop overpopulation, ensure every child is a wanted child, and prevent women having backyard abortions using coat hangers. The debate has been reduced to these clever and yet false catchphrases; another being: "If you don't like abortion then don't have one.'' Substitute any other crime for the word "abortion'', and you realise the stupid and sinister nature of the rhetoric.



We want to tax, encourage or scare smokers out of their filthy habit, end the whale hunt, protect the rainforests, save the orangutans, protect the planet, and ban factory farming, while equally defending and promoting the right of any girl or woman, independent of any man, to kill her child, damage herself, as well as current and future relationships. We’re rightly outraged at the annual deaths of 15,000 Australians from smoking-related causes, but blindly accept the annual deaths of 80,000 little Australians through abortion as somehow unavoidable. Why? It makes no sense.



How is it that we can we see through the Japanese claims that they need to kill lots of whales to study them, but fail to see that abortion is wrong because it ends the life of a human being and wounds many others? Whales have rights, but not unborn children.



Surely only the blind and deceived can believe that a child nestling safely at the entrance to the birth canal is a fetus, not really human, or with any inherent value or rights, but the infant to emerge at the other end is a human baby. It makes me think of the line from Seinfeld when Jerry asks George how to beat a lie detector: "Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it.''



My wife and I watched in stunned disbelief the Sixty Minutes story on Aussie actor Mary Coustas who sacrificed through "selective reduction" two of her triplets conceived through IVF, only to lose the third, stillborn at 21 weeks. It was a tragedy on many levels. Mary  told how they took pictures of the stillborn child, cuddled the baby and grieved with friends. Months later, As part of the healing process, she returned to the delivery room with a grief counsellor to remember the loss.



There are two groups whose views are conspicuously absent from the discussion about abortion: The first are the women who are the victims of abortion, the walking wounded whose lives have been deeply damaged by a decision often made under duress, when they were vulnerable, and often without all the information needed to give informed consent. The pain didn't go away after a few days as promised, no matter how hard they tried to pretend. They suffer, most silently, as those supposedly representing their best interests presume to speak on their behalf about the merits of abortion.



Perhaps outspoken feminist Germaine Greer was having a bad day when she described abortion as a "humiliating and painful procedure presented to women as a privilege".



The other group never represented are children, and yet theirs are the lives and futures we are stealing. Try to explain to those under 14 why us enlightened adults, again speaking on their behalf, have decided some children deserve to live, and others not. Explain to them why some of their siblings, cousins and potential playmates didn’t make it into the world. Look them in the eyes and tell them some children were rejected because mummy and daddy had enough children, wanted a boy instead of a girl, couldn't afford a baby, or would prefer a perfect baby, one without defects. Make sure to tell them it was a "difficult decision" for those involved.



My anger exploded again this week to unprecedented levels when Tasmania’s Chief Medical Officer Dr Craig White, a career health bureaucrat, told the Legislative Council hearings into abortion that legalising abortion would ‘’improve the health and wellbeing of Tasmanian women’’, and that abortion was “just another medical procedure’’. Dr White, on behalf of the Health Department, would like abortion-on-demand to 24 weeks. I imagined the respected health professional, dressed in a dark and moderately-expensive suit and tie, delivering his carefully-prepared speech impassively and yet with all the authority and confidence that accompanies his decades of experience and learning. I imagine the same women who think pro-life men are ignorant and automatically disqualified from the abortion debate partly because they are men, complimenting Dr White on his speech and thanking him for his time. Little children would remark:  “The emperor has no clothes.”



I’m angry because people are influenced by Dr White as he defends the indefensible along with a small but well-funded, well-prepared and incredibly strategic-thinking minority who are literally getting away with murder. Most Australians have no idea there are around 80,000 surgical abortions each year. They mistakenly believe that we need abortion because a woman will die without one, that she has been the victim of sexual assault, or that her offspring has a severe disability. Most people are dumbfounded when told these make up around 3% of all abortions. I know, because I spend half my life telling people the truth about abortion and watching their stunned reaction. "Really? 80,000 a year? A third of all women of childbearing age?  That can't be right. I didn't know there were so many, or that most were for emotional or financial reasons.'' So much for abortion being safe, affordable and rare. We have tolerated 80,000 annual abortions for more than two decades.



It’s true that 60-80% of Australians are generally in favor of abortion, yet most are strongly opposed to the financial and emotional reasons why 97% of abortions occur. Our research earlier this year shows Tasmanians are against abortion, even when the child has a mild disability or abortion is being considered for financial or lifestyle reasons. Australians want fewer abortions, believe women should be given alternatives, more support and independent counselling. The experts, the enlightened progressives, large sections of the medical community, the media and, of course, the abortion business, talk-up abortion like every woman needs one. And so comments such as Dr White's largely go unchallenged. We've become comfortably numb, or should it be comfortably "dumb''.



I want to ask Dr White to comment on our research, and defend his comments about abortion being good for women with respect to research released in just the past three years by Coleman; Calhoun et al, and Bellini and Buonocore which conclusively and definitively show the physical and mental health consequences of abortion.



I want to ask him if it’s true that around 10% of do-it-yourself abortions using wonder drug RU 486 fail, requiring women to have a surgical abortion to finish the job.



I want to ask him if he has ever read Melinda Tankard Reist’s book, Giving Sorrow Words, containing dozens of personal accounts of traumatic abortion experiences from women who responded to a small newspaper ad inviting submissions. How does he explain such widespread and profound pain and regret?



I want to ask Dr White to confirm that Tasmanian women can already access abortion-on-demand, without a GP’s referral, by getting the endorsement of two doctors, both working at any of the State’s abortion clinics? Given that I already know the answer is “yes,’ I’d like to ask Dr White if he believes the proposed legislation for Tasmania simply provides a safer legal environment for abortion clinics to expand their businesses.



I want to ask him how much an abortion costs and, based on the market potential, how much can abortion clinics make each year? I wan to ask Dr White if it's accurate to call an abortion facility a ''clinic'', given pregnancy is not a sickness or disease, and no one gets "healed'' as a result of the procedure.



Given his comments about abortion being “just another medical procedure’’, I want to ask Dr White to explain how unborn children are aborted at 24 weeks, and whether they feel pain, knowing full well they do. I want to ask Dr White at what age does an unborn child have a heartbeat, knowing that the answer is 28 days after conception.



I’d wait for his answer and then respond: “So, isn’t it true that almost all abortions stop a beating heart?”



I want to remind Dr White, and those who share his views, that they only get to express their opinion about the need for abortion because their mothers chose not to have one. It should be bleeding obvious, but I'm astounded at how easily those who have a life want to prevent others from having one, if the mother should so choose. It's all about choice, so long as you are the one with the choice.



But most of all, I want Australians to wake up to the far-reaching effects of abortion, and to get angry, really angry, so angry they do everything within their power to protect the unborn and defend women; to rail against the lies, the injustice and the heartlessness of a world gone mad.

Paul O'Rourke is a husband, father of three adult children and grandparent of four children. He is an advocate for children, writing and speaking widely on issues relating to children. He has authored five books, including Why Satan Hates our Kids: How Children are Suffering and Why the Church Should Care.

MEDIA RELEASE



For release: Tuesday 6th August 2013



The Australian Christian Lobby will email 100,000 people the views of their local candidates on marriage in the lead-up to the election.



ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said he had emailed ALP and Coalition candidates and as many minor party candidates as possible seeking their views.



“We will be doing our best to let as many people as possible know where their local candidate stands.



“We will be urging people to vote for a candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who will support upholding the definition of marriage,” Mr Shelton said.



“Changing marriage does not have to be inevitable and the election is an opportunity for people to make their views known in the privacy of the polling booth.”



In the past 11 months, same-sex marriage bills had been defeated in the Federal, Tasmanian and South Australian parliaments.



Mr Shelton said the Australian Christian Lobby supported the Rudd Government’s removal in 2008 of invidious discrimination against same-sex couples and was pleased two parliamentary inquiries found there was no practical discrimination in Australian law against same-sex couples.



“There is no reason to change the definition of marriage," he said.



“Changing the definition of marriage means we are saying as a society that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer an ideal nor an essential building block for raising children to know the love and nurture of their biological parents.



“This is a radical change in our social norms and one that should not be undertaken lightly.



“Equal love might be fine for adults but changing the Marriage Act has ramifications far beyond same-sex couples.



"The perceived benefit in redefining marriage doesn't outweigh the impact it will have on society's understanding, value and role we place on man-woman marriage," he said.

The Hansard of last week's debate on a same-sex marriage bill in the South Australian parliament is now available to read online.



The private members' bill for state-based same-sex marriage, introduced by Member for Port Adelaide Dr Susan Close, was defeated in the House of Assembly on Thursday “on the voices”, no division having been called. Thirteen members spoke against the bill, whilst only five members spoke supporting it.



Member for Finniss, Mr Michael Pengilly, commented on the nature of the marriage debate, saying "I do not believe that there is a fair and equitable debate going on regarding this matter. We seem to be inundated with those who wish for same-sex marriage to be put into legislation and there seems to be an overwhelming campaign by the media to try to orchestrate that. At the end of the day, the media do not get a vote in this chamber, nor do they get a vote in the federal chamber, or any other state for that matter".



Mr Pengilly went on to say "I personally would never support two people of the same sex having a union that is called a marriage. I have no problem with the union, but I would not support it being called a marriage. I have very strong views on this. Of the three issues before this parliament today—that is, euthanasia, prostitution and this—this is the one I am most opposed to, absolutely, because I think the family is the base of our community. It has been the base of our lives, and I think this is a real challenge to that".



Mr Martin Hamilton Smith, Member for Waite, urged Christians to be more vocal on the issue: "I would appeal to churches of any faith or denomination to be more vocal on this issue. Silence is the enemy. Get out there and express your view as the advocates for the case are expressing their view. There are many people who may not have a religious conviction who would oppose this measure anyway, based on their fundamental core values and their sense of what is right and what is wrong, and what is good for the community going forward".



The importance of the church's participation in the democratic process was highlighted also in Liberal Member for Schubert Ivan Venning's speech. He told the parliament "the Lutheran Church has been my rock, my wisdom and my strength, and I am not going to budge. I have had much good advice and many good arguments put to me by the Lutheran pastors in my electorate and I would not go past that. I thank them all very much for their support and confidence in me to stand here and say, no, we would not support this".



The importance for children to be raised by both a mother and a father was an argument also put forth by opponents of the bill. The Hon Tom Kenyan, Member for Newland, said "We recognise that having children, raising children within this traditional relationship of men and women, has been good for society. It has helped build society. So often, the only thing people have to fall back on is their family. It is what has provided a nourishing environment for so many people to be raised in, so that they go out and do good for those around them".



This is the third time in recent months where legislation to change the definition of marriage has been rejected; a bill in the Senate failed to pass in June, and the Tasmanian parliament rejected a bill in September last year.



Click here to read the full Hansard of the South Australian debate.