NationStates Jolt Archive

On the back of one of the most bountiful budgets in known history, the State of Queensland, Australia, is about to face down a massive legal crises. The State Government has long dained the importance of a woman's right to choose, whoever the right-wing lobby group 'Queensland Right to Life' has raised a legal stickler to the newly legalized 'abortion pill.

RU-486, was only legalized in Australia, after the power to approve medical treatments in Australia, was stripped from the Federal Minister for Health, a Catholic, by an unsual Act of the Senate. The Act was originated in the Senate by the Women's Caucus and a motion was passed instructed the Lower House to ratify the the Act and return it the Senate for vote.

However, dispite a feirce fight and constitutional fancy footwork, RU-486 may not come into use for North Queensland women, just yet, in spite a move by Proffessor Caroline de Costa to important the drug for use in rural communities.

Queensland Right to Life raised a 1986 District Court ruling, in which the Court established abortion was only legal for use when a mother's life was in danger. This poses massive concerns as the State Health Department routinely performs voluntary abortion procedures and has one of the country's most liberal abortion policies.

The risk to women's rights and the practice of medicine in rural communities is great, and may take the embattled State Legislative Assembly to over-ride the county-binding ruling and preserve Australian values, specifically the belief in that a person may excercise governance over their own bodies.

Sources
'The Courier Mail', 7/6/06
'Queensland Law Reports'

Only when I do it.

Crap. They're everywhere. :mad:

Crap. They're everywhere. :mad:
My feelings exactly.

Last time I recalled, abortion is legal in Canada. I personally think abortion should be recognized in Australia as well.

Last time I recalled, abortion is legal in Canada. I personally think abortion should be recognized in Australia as well.

Abortions are available throughout Australia, but their legal definition varies from state to state. Here in Victoria, they have (if I remember correctly) been decriminalised, but not legalised. An abortion can be performed if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger. In effect, all you have to do is see a GP, who will refer you to a hospital/abortion clinc.

Abortions are available throughout Australia, but their legal definition varies from state to state. Here in Victoria, they have (if I remember correctly) been decriminalised, but not legalised. An abortion can be performed if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger. In effect, all you have to do is see a GP, who will refer you to a hospital/abortion clinc.
It's a similar thing here, with the MD of the aborton clinic or hospital giving the OK usually. However, I believe the issue was what constituted a medical excuse.

I’m no expert on the structure of the Australian government. Fuck, I don’t know anything about it, but in the US:

Supreme Court > local fundies

Somebody need to take this shit all the way to the top in Australia.

Here they weaseld the law in under the pretense that the women might be made mentally unstable if they had to go through with a pregnancy.
Yeah well they also don't seem to understand who pregnancies work because some women are repeat offenders.
Sure maybe 1 maybe 2 but 4+WTF???
Get yourself sterilised or close your legs!Born on a mountiain,raised in a cave,licking and sticking is all I crave
I am pretty sure abortions are free here(Tax payer funded)
So of course i'd be pissed!

Last time I recalled, abortion is legal in Canada. I personally think abortion should be recognized in Australia as well.
Canada legalizes everything sensible or just.

My feelings exactly.
Shotguns anyone?

are you saying that abortion is only legal in queensland (or is it all australia) if the mothers life is in danger but in practice its freely available to any woman requesting one?

there doesnt even have to be some checking up on doctors to see that they are following the law? if every abortion request is granted by the doctor that is evidence that he is not making sure that it really is the life of the mother at stake.

is there an actual law on the subject or just a court ruling? y'all need to change that or those right to life jackals will hound you until the law is obeyed.

edit:
is it a mixed metaphor if i use jackal and hound together like that?

are you saying that abortion is only legal in queensland (or is it all australia) if the mothers life is in danger but in practice its freely available to any woman requesting one?

there doesnt even have to be some checking up on doctors to see that they are following the law? if every abortion request is granted by the doctor that is evidence that he is not making sure that it really is the life of the mother at stake.

is there an actual law on the subject or just a court ruling? y'all need to change that or those right to life jackals will hound you until the law is obeyed.

edit:
is it a mixed metaphor if i use jackal and hound together like that?

It's a bit complicated & varies between states, but it's more along the lines of abortion is freely available when (in a doctor's assesment) the mother's mental or physical health is in jeopardy. It doesn't have to actually be a danger to her life. There is both legislation & common law to support it.

About 6-12 months ago, the conservative federal goverment tried to float the idea of tighter abortion laws, but were defeated by the opposition & female members of their own party. The states, who control the health systems anyway, are all currently run by Labour governments, so I can't see abortion being outlawed any time soon.

Victoria, the state where I live, has actually had some debate recently about (for want of a better word, it's late here) loosening abortion laws. Legislation about it will most likely be put before parliament after the next election (due later this year).

Canada legalizes everything sensible or just.

Thats why Marc Emery faces extradition to the US and a life sentance for selling pot seeds and "laundering" the money into political speech, right?

It's a bit complicated & varies between states, but it's more along the lines of abortion is freely available when (in a doctor's assesment) the mother's mental or physical health is in jeopardy. It doesn't have to actually be a danger to her life. There is both legislation & common law to support it.

About 6-12 months ago, the conservative federal goverment tried to float the idea of tighter abortion laws, but were defeated by the opposition & female members of their own party. The states, who control the health systems anyway, are all currently run by Labour governments, so I can't see abortion being outlawed any time soon.

Victoria, the state where I live, has actually had some debate recently about (for want of a better word, it's late here) loosening abortion laws. Legislation about it will most likely be put before parliament after the next election (due later this year).

*Points to Australia* That is the kind of mess that pro-lifers want to cause here. A patchwork of laws that change from state to state and sift on the whims of politicians.

It isn't a right if you have to get permission.

Last time I recalled, abortion is legal in Canada. I personally think abortion should be recognized in Australia as well.

Not quite.

Canada's approach on abortion has been to ignore it. There are no laws that govern abortion in Canada. No one has ever determined whether, legally, abortion is murder. No one has ever passed a law protecting the mother's right to choose.

Abortion occupies a sort of extra-legal position where politicians are afraid to talk about it.

Not quite.

Canada's approach on abortion has been to ignore it. There are no laws that govern abortion in Canada. No one has ever determined whether, legally, abortion is murder. No one has ever passed a law protecting the mother's right to choose.

Abortion occupies a sort of extra-legal position where politicians are afraid to talk about it.
It's legal because it's not banned. It's not extra-legal. There's no law that govern the use of shampoo and yet, shampoo is legal.

But, yeah, it could be better governed.

Not quite.

Canada's approach on abortion has been to ignore it. There are no laws that govern abortion in Canada. No one has ever determined whether, legally, abortion is murder. No one has ever passed a law protecting the mother's right to choose.

Abortion occupies a sort of extra-legal position where politicians are afraid to talk about it.
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, if isn't ILLEGAL, then it's LEGAL. There is no such thing as "extra-legal." You don't need to have every single detail of your life accounted for in advance by a law for or against.

Since US law is based on British law, and I believe so is Canadian law, I'm guessing the principle is similar.

Last time I recalled, abortion is legal in Canada. I personally think abortion should be recognized in Australia as well.
It's only legal because of the Charter of Rights and Freedom and an obsecure clause hidden deep within the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that life (this is paraphrased) only begins when the embilical cord is cut, when the infant takes it first breath or is able to function out of the womb.

But, yeah, it could be better governed.

Yeah, the government could completely step out of the equation and allow adults to govern their lives as if they were, well, you know...adults.

*Points to Australia* That is the kind of mess that pro-lifers want to cause here. A patchwork of laws that change from state to state and sift on the whims of politicians.

It isn't a right if you have to get permission.

Actually, I think you've got the wrong impression. It's not a mess due to a patchwork of laws. There are quite strong legal protections for abortion laws, through legislation and common law. Also, there really isn't much political or popular support for pro-lifers. It's the legal nature of the federation of Australia, that states make their own laws on these sorts of things. Abortion is widely available throughout Australia.

I get the feeling that abortion will stay in this kind of limbo for a LONG time.

To understand this, you need to know a bit about Queensland's past. It was run for a long time by a conservative bible bashing National party Premier, and abortion was illegal here under his government. After his party were pushed out of power in the mid 80s, those anti-abortion laws, and more than a few others, were slowly broken down.

That process is still happening. Joh and his cronies ran this state how they pleased, and there is plenty of legislation that belongs in the dark ages that is still on the books, or in the process of being destroyed. To give you an idea of what it was like under Joh's govt, I went to high school here in the late 70s/early 80s and my school still had segregated classes for boys and girls, and girls were still required to pass a mothercraft course. Years after it had been dropped by the rest of the country. As well as the segregated classes, we had segregated courses. Girls weren't allowed to do things like woodwork, metalwork or technical drawing (drafting), boys weren't allowed to do commerical subjects (bookkeeping, typing ect) or home econonmics like cooking. It was a seriously backward screwed up system under old Joh.

Abortions are available throughout Australia, but their legal definition varies from state to state. Here in Victoria, they have (if I remember correctly) been decriminalised, but not legalised. An abortion can be performed if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger. In effect, all you have to do is see a GP, who will refer you to a hospital/abortion clinc.
Thats a good law but what if the baby is badly disabled like sevear downs sindrome or blind and death it whoudent be fair to let them live and suffer i shoud know my unborn sibling was terminated because of down sindrome it was a very troumatic time but at least he is not living in pain

Abortion is legal in just about every civilised country on the planet.

Not a clue what they are on about.

Thats a good law but what if the baby is badly disabled like sevear downs sindrome or blind and death it whoudent be fair to let them live and suffer i shoud know my unborn sibling was terminated because of down sindrome it was a very troumatic time but at least he is not living in pain

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's available in those cases too.

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, if isn't ILLEGAL, then it's LEGAL. There is no such thing as "extra-legal." You don't need to have every single detail of your life accounted for in advance by a law for or against.

Since US law is based on British law, and I believe so is Canadian law, I'm guessing the principle is similar.

True, but because there's no broad law, any jurisdiction as the power (none has yet exercised it) to ban abortion itself. If the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan, for example, decided that abortion was bad, they could prohibit it.

Though, that would probably run afoul of the same constitutional limits on government that felled the child pornography laws.

I’m no expert on the structure of the Australian government. Fuck, I don’t know anything about it, but in the US:

Supreme Court > local fundies

Somebody need to take this shit all the way to the top in Australia.
Here's the official court hierarchy:

Magistrate's Court -> District Court ->Supreme Court -> Court of Appeals
(Those are all state bodies. All cases appear before a Magistrate first, misdemeanors are tried by a Magistrate, crimes are committed for trial by a Magistrate and either sent to the District or Supreme Court for trial. Essentially only offences under State Legislation enter this system, which is most offences)

Federal Court -> Federal Appeals Court -> High Court of Australia
(Federal crimes -eg Treason- appear before the Magistrate's Court for committal and are then sent to the Federal Court to be tried. The High Court is the highest body of the judiciary and has the power to strike down legislation, dismiss parliament, sack a Prime Minister, create common law binding over statute law and enlarge their own powers, where doing so preserves the rights of the Australian democratic system. The High Court interprets the Constitution)

are you saying that abortion is only legal in queensland (or is it all australia) if the mothers life is in danger but in practice its freely available to any woman requesting one?

there doesnt even have to be some checking up on doctors to see that they are following the law? if every abortion request is granted by the doctor that is evidence that he is not making sure that it really is the life of the mother at stake.

is there an actual law on the subject or just a court ruling? y'all need to change that or those right to life jackals will hound you until the law is obeyed.

edit:
is it a mixed metaphor if i use jackal and hound together like that?
Basically the law is it is only legal where a woman's well being is in danger, this is very open to interpretation

True, but because there's no broad law, any jurisdiction as the power (none has yet exercised it) to ban abortion itself. If the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan, for example, decided that abortion was bad, they could prohibit it.

Though, that would probably run afoul of the same constitutional limits on government that felled the child pornography laws.
There doesn't seem to be one type of system that will actually prevent one group from trying to take away the rights of another group. Sometimes I think the only thing to do to preserve rights for all citizens is just to keep slogging up to our hips through a constant round of legal struggles and court cases, town by town, state by state, nation by nation, rinse and repeat from now until the next Golden Age (or the sun engulphs the earth, whichever comes first). I guess this is what the old guard used to call "fighting the good fight."

There doesn't seem to be one type of system that will actually prevent one group from trying to take away the rights of another group. Sometimes I think the only thing to do to preserve rights for all citizens is just to keep slogging up to our hips through a constant round of legal struggles and court cases, town by town, state by state, nation by nation, rinse and repeat from now until the next Golden Age (or the sun engulphs the earth, whichever comes first). I guess this is what the old guard used to call "fighting the good fight."
Well, that's the way it has always been. The Liberals push civil rights and secularism as far as they can go, the Conservatives push stability and religiousness as far as they can go. As long as both groups are strong enough, the system works. Nietzsche described this in "The Birth of Tragedy" and claimed it has been this way for thousands of years.

Well, that's the way it has always been. The Liberals push civil rights and secularism as far as they can go, the Conservatives push stability and religiousness as far as they can go. As long as both groups are strong enough, the system works. Nietzsche described this in "The Birth of Tragedy" and claimed it has been this way for thousands of years.

It's called Negative Feedback ( in engineering ) and I don't trust a system that doesn't do it.

It's called Negative Feedback ( in engineering ) and I don't trust a system that doesn't do it.

I don't trust systems that engage in hysteresis.

Well, that's the way it has always been. The Liberals push civil rights and secularism as far as they can go, the Conservatives push stability and religiousness as far as they can go. As long as both groups are strong enough, the system works. Nietzsche described this in "The Birth of Tragedy" and claimed it has been this way for thousands of years.
This is true. I hate it when Nietzsche is right. ;)

Not in SD, and hopefully a ban will be passed in my lifetime.

Abortion is racist, pure and simple.

Not in SD, and hopefully a ban will be passed in my lifetime.

Abortion is racist, pure and simple.
Source for evidence to support this assertion, please. And I mean a real source, not some page of unattributed abbreviations that looks like you've been reading your alphabet soup again.

EDIT: BTW, this thread is talking about Australia -- a place where they give even less of a crap what happens in South Dakota than the South Dakotans do (hard to imagine that would be possible, but there it is).

Source for evidence to support this assertion, please. And I mean a real source, not some page of unattributed abbreviations that looks like you've been reading your alphabet soup again.

EDIT: BTW, this thread is talking about Australia -- a place where they give even less of a crap what happens in South Dakota than the South Dakotans do (hard to imagine that would be possible, but there it is).

Go read on what Margaret sanger intended to do with Abortion using Planned parenthood. Made me super angry, even though I'm not any part black.

Something about reducing the negro population, if I am correct. :eek:

Go read on what Margaret sanger intended to do with Abortion using Planned parenthood. Made me super angry, even though I'm not any part black.

Something about reducing the negro population, if I am correct. :eek:
Do you know what the term "presenting a source" means? It means, you go look up an article (preferably more than one from different authors/organizations) on the internet that backs up your claims (that means somebody other than you saying these things) and post the links here so others can read them and either be convinced or else have fun debunking them and you.

You think you can handle that, "officer"?

This is true. I hate it when Nietzsche is right. ;)
I hate it when people discover I stole my ideas from Nietzsche...

It's legal because it's not banned. It's not extra-legal. There's no law that govern the use of shampoo and yet, shampoo is legal.

Not quite, there are probably laws on what chemicals may be put into shampoo, or what it may be tested on.

Crap. They're everywhere. :mad:
This is news to you?

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, if isn't ILLEGAL, then it's LEGAL. There is no such thing as "extra-legal." You don't need to have every single detail of your life accounted for in advance by a law for or against.

Since US law is based on British law, and I believe so is Canadian law, I'm guessing the principle is similar.
If there is no legal guarantee of the right to an abortion it is much more vulnerable to those who want to crush it. There are also issues of what pracitices are acceptable, hygiene standards, etc.

Here they weaseld the law in under the pretense that the women might be made mentally unstable if they had to go through with a pregnancy.
Yeah well they also don't seem to understand who pregnancies work because some women are repeat offenders.
Sure maybe 1 maybe 2 but 4+WTF???
Get yourself sterilised or close your legs!Born on a mountiain,raised in a cave,licking and sticking is all I crave
I am pretty sure abortions are free here(Tax payer funded)
So of course i'd be pissed!
Actually they weasled the law as it stands in by pretending that the feotus is a mini capitalist style entrapenuer and that women are subject to the authority of such entrapaneurs, and most crucially pregnant women are so emotionally and mentally unstable that as a group, they cant be trusted to make such a decision. Of course a feotus is not a mini capitalist style entrapenuer, and most pregnant women as a group are at least as mentally and emotionally stable as any other similar group. So clearly the restrictions on abortion in New Zealand are based on mythology and prejudice...
It's actually not your business how many abortions a person has, having an abortion is not in probably every single instance you are refering to, an offense, 0 offences hardly is consistent with a description of 'repeat offenders'.
I personally suspect that more than 99.999 recuring% of abortions are no business of yours whatsoever. You worry about what goes on between your legs, that is the extent of any legitimate right you have to interfere in the reproductive choices of consenting-adults.

Yeah, the government could completely step out of the equation and allow adults to govern their lives as if they were, well, you know...adults.
Yes, because adults always act sensibly. :rolleyes:

When East Canuck says better governed, he doesn't necessarily mean "more restricted".

Abortion is racist, pure and simple.
Err, how? :confused:

Go read on what Margaret sanger intended to do with Abortion using Planned parenthood. Made me super angry, even though I'm not any part black.

Something about reducing the negro population, if I am correct. :eek:
What is your racial background?

What your talking about is one American nutcase's view of abortion, not the practice itself. For example, how is abortion racist in those countries which have little to no racial minorities?

One of the main rights established by the United Nations is the right to reproductive freedom. Our body is our choice, and you can't deny sex to people. If the Australian fundies really cares about women, they would pay to raise children, instead of trying to force their morality on the rest of us.