Australia: Doctor Could Lose His License for Refusing to do Sex-Selected Abortion

How do you define inconsistent?

Pro abortion people fought a bill we passed here in Oklahoma that was an attempt to discourage sex-selected abortions. Their excuse for fighting the legislation was that it was unnecessary, since no one wants a sex-selected abortion and no doctor would do them, anyway.

Half a world away, in Australia, a doctor is facing the loss of his medical license because he refused to do a sex-selected abortion or refer for a sex-selected abortion on a woman who was 19 weeks pregnant. According to a National Catholic Register article, the woman and her husband had decided to kill their unborn baby when they found out she was a little girl.

Now the doctor — not the couple — is under investigation by the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency.

So … which is it pro abortion advocates? Are we working the side of the argument where a woman has a “right” to kill her baby because it’s a little girl and anyone who refuses to participate in this is going to be punished, or are we pretending that such things don’t happen, which means there should be no laws against it?

Maybe it’s just a matter of which argument is most likely to keep abortion on demand absolutely unregulated and unlimited — except for medical practitioners’ right to say “no,” that is.

From the National Catholic Register:

MELBOURNE, Australia — A Catholic doctor in Australia could face suspension or the loss of his license for refusing to refer a couple who sought the sex-based abortion of their unborn daughter.

“I refused to refer the patient because there was no medical reason to do it, and it offended my moral conscience,” Dr. Mark Hobart told Nine News Australia.

“It’s very wrong, I don’t know any doctor in Victoria that would be willing to refer a woman who wanted to have an abortion just because of gender at 19 weeks.”

The 55-year-old doctor, who lives in the Australian state of Victoria, has practiced medicine for 27 years. He said the pregnancy was “well advanced.”

The married couple had asked Hobart to refer them to an abortion facility 19 weeks into the woman’s pregnancy, when they discovered they were having a girl but wanted a boy.

For the last five months, Hobart has faced an investigation from the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/australian-doctor-could-lose-license-for-refusing-sex-based-abortion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-14%2008:42:01#ixzz2hjm91QgU

HHS Mandate Loses Another Round with the Supremes
Pope Accepts Bishop Finn's Resignation
Cardinal George, Dead of Cancer at 78
Ds Win: Senate Sex Trafficking Bill Will Pay for Abortions.
  • Dale

    Last year, the US House of Representatives was considering a ban on sex-selective abortion (the proposal failed.) In response, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said “Rather than attacking a woman’s right to choose, lawmakers with a sincere interest in addressing gender discrimination should support policies that work to combat the bias and stereotypes that continue to plague our society.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57444735/house-rejects-sex-selection-abortion-ban/

    From her statement, it seems the leading pro-choice organization in the US holds a position that unrestricted access to abortions should be allowed. Keenan’s statement is similar to saying we shouldn’t have laws banning employment discrimination or sexual harassment, we should just change the bias and stereotypes which employers might hold, and that employers should be free to choose whatever they want to do.

    It is a strange position to take, but I suppose some libertarians might approve.

  • Zeke

    While I think this couple should be shamed for seeking an abortion because of gender, it seems pretty clear from the article that the doctor was not being asked to “do” the abortion, but simply refer them to another practitioner. It’s a pretty sad case for everyone involved.

    • hamiltonr

      So … if someone came to you and asked you to help them find a hit man to kill their spouse, you wouldn’t feel they were asking you to do anything wrong?

    • FW Ken

      Maybe it’s an Australian thing, but I read one account that they wanted a referral to an abortion clinic. Maybe that’s like me having a referral to a specialist from my primary care doctor? If so, he would remain culpable for providing an abortion.

  • pagansister

    How can anyone even consider aborting because they don’t want the gender of the baby? That is absurd! And just WRONG by any standards!

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      What difference does it make why they want to abort? If abortion is justified because it’s not really killing a human being, then why can’t anyone abort for any reason they so please?

      • pagansister

        After 12 weeks, as I have mentioned before, I feel a pregnancy should be taken to term. Gender is NO reason at any time for termination, partly because gender can’t be determined until the 4th month and by that time, too late. There are too many reasons why a woman may want to terminate,hopefully before 12 weeks. Already been thru this before so won’t go into it again. It’s the whole women’s right thing etc. :-)

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          OK, LOL, we won’t go through it again. If it’s wrong to kill after 12 weeks, I’ll never understand why it’s right to kill before. But let’s leave it at that.

          • pagansister

            Deal. :-)

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Why is a Catholic doctor even performing any abortion? I can’t speak to the law, but any abortion is an outrage. Why would a sex selection reason make the abortion any more or less immoral? Answer: Because killing girls offends feminists. I hope the feminists can see better now.

    • Dale

      Manny, the article doesn’t say whether or not the doctor performs abortions. It only says that the couple asked for a referral to an abortion clinic, and state law irequires a doctor provide such a referral.

      You made a good point about the misogyny of sex-selective abortion. From a pro-choice standpoint, a misogynist motivation for abortion isof no real significance since it doesn’t hurt a real person. Its kind of shocking when framed in those terms. From a pro-choice standpoint, a misogynist abortion is similar to a misogynist joke or remark; a distasteful choice but people should be free to make them.

      • pagansister

        In some countries ( China being one) many abandon a girl infant or take it to an orphanage (if the baby is lucky.). I taught an adopted little Chinese girl who had been found on a trash heap. The person who found her took her to an orphanage. I don’t agree with sex selection abortions—-as I mentioned above. Another thing—this would be a late term and there is no reason for that either, IMO. They should have this child and put HER up for adoption if they can’t handle a female child in their family!

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Agree with your second paragraph. A to the first, I would say hee article implies he at least refers people to have abortion. In this case he couldn’t do it for the stated reason.

  • Sus_1

    These parents that want to control the gender are in for a rude awakening as their kids grow. Parents can only provide guidance. You really have no control. Every time you think you have it figured out, they come up with something else to surprise you with.

  • jenny

    so scary….


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X