SALRI Report’s Faulty Premise

Please read carefully the logical progression of these pivotal yet disregarded mandates by the proponents of this Termination of Pregnancy (abortion up to birth) Bill.

FROM THE SA LAW REFORM INSTITUTE (SALRI) REPORT 

https://law.adelaide.edu.au/system/files/media/documents/2019-12/Abortion%20Report%20281119.pdf

Page 12

“The SALRI review is governed by its Terms of Reference from the AttorneyGeneral…Further, SALRI is not considering the complex moral question of when life begins, as it does not fall within the scope of its Terms of Reference.” 

 The Attorney General deliberately set the Terms of Reference to exclude any ‘moral’ questions or ethical issues regarding the fetus. 

This is not in line with the spirit and intent of the original abortion laws in our state. The ethical and moral aspect was important to our government as well as our community back then. Will we agree to that changing?

 “SALRI acknowledges the current fundamental legal premise that ‘legal personhood’ does not acquire until birth (although this premise is questioned). ‘The common law principle that a fetus is not a person, with legal rights, until born’, as the VLRC noted, ‘is a fundamental part of our legal system’. ‘The common law has always taken the view that legal personhood – possession of the legal rights and protections held by all people – does not arise until a fetus becomes a person by being “born alive”’

 “…it is beyond the scope of this review for SALRI to revisit or question this fundamental premise of both civil and criminal law.

Footnote 31: The question of the precise status of a fetus and if it is a ‘person’ and any legal rights or recognition raises complex moral, philosophical, theological, medical and legal questions and is beyond the scope of this review.

Because the actual ‘status’, and therefore value of a fetus is ‘beyond the scope’ of the review, the Terms of Reference which were set by the Attorney General, then this has been deemed to be irrelevant to the review. This is the very review that has informed the content of the Bill.

SALRI have also deferred to ‘common’ law only and ‘legal’ rights only. But our parliamentarians are obliged and directed to have regard and give precedent to ‘human’ rights when legislating law.   

COMMON LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS SCRUTINY AND THE RULE OF LAW

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/common-law-rights-human-rights-scrutiny-andrule-law

“Common law recognition of rights generally lacks the provisions contained in the human rights treaties for obligations on governments to take active measures to promote and protect human rights, in addition to refraining from acting inconsistently with rights”

“The responsibilities of the Committee [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights], and the requirements for legislation to be accompanied by Statements of Compatibility with human rights, are defined by reference to seven major human rights treaties to which Australia is party:

(Includes)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The clear directive to our members of parliament is to be aware that ‘common’ law (the premise of which SALRI has deferred to) can lack essential human rights provisions and that they are compelled to ‘promote and protect human rights’ and to refrain from ‘acting inconsistently with rights’

There is even an obligation when legislating to provide ‘Statements of Compatibility’ with human rights, in the case of this Termination of Pregnancy Bill’ with regard to The Convention of the Rights of the Child. 

THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text

Preamble 

“Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, be reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

Article 6

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Could the responsibility of our members of parliament to unborn children capable of living their own life be any clearer?! Just to confirm again….

Declaration of the Rights of the Child
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-declaration/

Preamble
“Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

The General Assembly
“Proclaims this Declaration of the Rights of the Child to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organisations, local authorities and national Governments to recognise these rights and strive for theire observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:”

TELL YOUR MP THEY ARE BOUND BY THESE MANDATES 

TO VOTE AGAINST LEGALISING ABORTION TO BIRTH IN ORDER TO PROTECT VIABLE UNBORN CHILDREN

 

TELL THEM IF THEY VOTE FOR ABORTION TO BIRTH,

FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, YOU WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM!

 

South Australians care about their children, ‘before as well as after birth’.