Last month, Senator John Madigan introduced into the Senate the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill that would remove Medicare funding for sex-selection abortions.
There are reports that sex selection abortions currently take place in Australia for those couples who have a cultural preference for boys or for “family balancing” by parents who want a child of a particular sex.
The bill has now been referred to a Senate Committee for inquiry and report.
The Committee is seeking written submissions to the inquiry from interested individuals and organisations.
We encourage you to make a short submission in support of the bill to ensure unborn children are afforded the most basic of human rights: life.
Submissions must be received by Wednesday 24 April 2013.
Some points you might like to consider in your own words:
• Aborting an unborn child solely on the basis of gender is not a medical procedure and should therefore not be afforded Medicare benefits
• Medicare funding should be strictly limited to health procedures; taxpayers should not be funding decisions based purely on cultural or personal preference
• It is the duty of legislators to ensure every child, regardless of gender, is afforded the basic human right of life
• The law should protect the unborn given their vulnerable state, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
• By providing Medicare funding of sex-selection abortions, is contributing to the increase of this abhorrent act; the government should work to see a reduction in abortion.
For more information on the inquiry and how you can make a submission, visit the Senate inquiry website.
STATEMENT FROM MODE OF LIFE
We wish to express our severe concerns and disgust, as to the silent manner in which our political representatives in recent years, keep proposing and rushing through legislation within our parliaments. Policies, that have immense socio-ethical and legal consequences for our nation, and in this specific case financial consequences to all Australian taxpayers. Yet the public are neither informed, nor allowed time to examine such poorly conceived policies, which are passed off as “human rights” or as “empowering people with choices and freedoms”. What is more disgusting, is the lack of coverage given to such issues by the Australian media which, if forced to inform the public, couches the discussion in terms of rights and freedoms in order to inspire emotion and sway public opinion in favour of these so-called “liberal” and “progressive” policies.
Yet we ask, why do Australian political leaders and media seek to keep the public in the dark about such matters, and seek to influence their opinion to approve it? Furthermore, what is so progressive or liberal about such poorly conceived and inhumane legislation? Does it not smack of eugenics which groups like the Nazis advocated in World War II, or the genocidal hatreds of such groups like the Black Panthers in today’s world? Does it not remind us of this new market for “designer babies” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” scenarios? Are people so indifferent and blind, to what is going on in the world and our societies everywhere, or are they in denial because they do not want to take action? These are all questions which we contemplate at Mode of Life because we see and live with the everyday consequences of the actions of our “policy-makers”. However one cannot feel that we are like the Forerunner as a voice in the Wilderness who has been ignored and branded “foolish” or “crazy”. And we assure you, we are not trying to be melodramatic, because a similar situation arose some years ago within the state of Victoria, whereby the public were kept in the dark about some “amendments” regarding abortion, which took away a doctor’s right of conscience, allowed late term abortion which is a danger to both the mother and the child.
If we were to apply secular logic to the argument, if a woman wanted to abort, surely she would do so within the initial months of pregnancy in order to avoid risks to herself? Yet the Victorian legislation does not speak about the dangers or the procedures itself, and yet it was still rushed through parliament and approved. But in returning to the present legislation under discussion, is that public money through Medicare, is to fund peoples’ personal choice over the gender of their baby, and if they do not want that baby because of its gender, then they can abort it for free at public expense. In a court of law, this would be called discrimination on the basis of gender, and the courts each year deal with such matters pertaining to workplace relations between peoples of differing genders, as well as races and religions. The outcome of such discrimination cases naturally places the responsibility for compensation or corrections to abuses upon the offender, not the victim or some other third party, which in the case of this legislation would be the Australian public. Of course it could be argued that a couple or more specifically a woman, has the right to an abortion, but it is an elective procedure which is usually done on a person’s own conviction, not that it is to ensure health and survival, (such incidences are rare, and they are performed without hesitation in most countries). Therefore, no one is seeking to take away a couple’s right to abort, even if it could be argued that it is for a very superficial and discriminative inhumane reason (the basis of gender). But it should not be done at public expense, especially given that there are many childless couples who are subjected to much torment through the difficulties of birthing technological procedures, or the processes of adoption. Surely it would make better sense to allow these couples who wish to abort, to offer the very child they wish to dispose of, to a couple who struggle to have their own child. Or is it that we are being somewhat “dense”, “stupid”, “unprogressive”, “old-fashioned” or “fanatical” that we even bother to speak about and question the wisdom of “secular ideals” or Australian public policy?
With regards to Australian policy makers, especially the unelected governmental authorities (the “civil service”) who cannot be held to account for their actions and hold the real power, what is the motivations behind their actions? How are their actions democratic, or in the interests of democracy? It is without doubt that this behaviour is not representative democracy or the voice of the people, but is unmitigated tyranny and authoritarianism, but it is still dressed as democracy by their public relations lackeys. Such actions merely pave the way for the rise of maniacal, self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, genocidal, and corrupt dictators whose whims have to be appeased, otherwise torture, imprisonment, and death awaits those who oppose such evil. So we ask again, what really is the agenda or motivation behind the decisions and proposals that Australian politicians and the so-called “civil service”, are making on behalf of the Australian nation and people?