Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Bills Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. S.L. GAME Legislative Council The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:33): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. S.L. GAME Legislative Council The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:33): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. When the Termination of Pregnancy Act passed the South Australian parliament in 2021, the then Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, gave a very clear assurance to the parliament. She promised that these laws would not result in healthy babies being aborted after viability for a maternal mental health reason. In fact, when asked directly in parliament on 17 February 2021 if a pregnancy could be aborted at 35 weeks if two doctors deemed a mental health threshold had been reached for an otherwise healthy unborn baby, Ms Chapman's answer was an emphatic 'No'. She said that if the only factor was the mother's mental health and if the baby was healthy then the safest outcome would be for that baby to be delivered alive. But here is the reality: in the first 30 months of these laws coming into force, 79 healthy, viable babies in non-emergency situations were deliberately killed in the womb after 22 weeks and six days. That is three reception classes that are no longer with us. That is not what the parliament was promised. That is not what South Australians were promised. It is a tragedy that demands action, and if we in this chamber fail to act now more South Australian babies will die. When people hear the phrase 'late-term abortion' many do not know what that actually means, so let me explain to you what happens to a baby after 23 weeks' gestation. As I explain this, remember that this has happened to 79 healthy babies in South Australia since July 2022 and up to December 2024. Under ultrasound guidance, an injection is given directly into the baby's heart or umbilical cord. The injection is a needle filled with potassium chloride or digoxin. It causes the baby to go through a painful cardiac arrest. When this injection is used to euthanase animals or to kill convicted criminals on death row, sedation is given first, with the intended protocol being to sedate death row prisoners before the potassium chloride is administered. In fact, the evidence shows that if the sedation given to prisoners is inadequate, potassium chloride causes excruciating pain as it travels through the veins and stops the heart. That is why there has been so much controversy about botched executions. We do not do this to prisoners or animals and yet we do do it to babies in South Australia. This underscores the inhumanity and sheer barbarism of what we are doing to babies through late-term abortion. Once the baby has been killed, the mother's cervix is prepared with drugs and labour is induced. Over the course of many hours, sometimes even overnight, she goes through contractions until she delivers her baby, but because of the injection that baby is delivered stillborn. The placenta is then removed and the mother is monitored for bleeding and complications. This is not speculation. This is the clinical process. This is what a late-term abortion is. It is the deliberate ending of the life of a viable, healthy baby, followed by induced labour and delivery. In South Australia, in just 30 months 79 healthy babies, babies who could have survived outside of the womb, have been killed in this way. This is not what the parliament was promised. This is not what South Australians were promised, and it must not continue. Some of you may be wondering how we know these 79 babies killed after 23 weeks were perfectly healthy. How do we know they were not aborted to save the mother's life? How do we know that? Because in South Australia's annual reports on abortion there are separate data records for late-term abortions required to save the mother's life or another baby's life, or required because of a disability. These 79 cases were not performed for either of those reasons. They were not emergencies. These babies had no life-threatening conditions. Their mother's lives were not at risk. That means that these 79 babies were healthy, viable babies and could have been born alive, yet their lives were deliberately ended in the womb. South Australians were told this would not happen. Parliament was promised it would not happen, and yet it has happened 79 times in just 2½ years. Indeed, 75 per cent of all late-term abortions in South Australia kill healthy, viable babies. We cannot look away from this. These were healthy children and their loss is a tragedy that demands justice. Opponents of this very sensible and compassionate bill will try to argue that this will put women at risk. For example, pro-abortion activist group Fair Agenda has stated its opposition to the bill and argued, 'A woman can need access to abortion after 23 weeks because of a catastrophic diagnosis for her own health,' or because she is trying to escape an abusive relationship. Let me be clear: no woman will die under this bill. This bill makes it crystal clear that if a woman has a catastrophic diagnosis for her own health, she can still access emergency care. This bill only removes the capacity to have a late-term abortion and kill a healthy, viable baby in circumstances where the mother's life is not at risk. Let's be clear about what good medical practice looks like. In a genuine emergency, where a mother's life is at risk—for example, with extreme pre-eclampsia, or even in non-emergency situations where her physical health is threatened—the safest and most effective treatment is to end the pregnancy by delivering the child alive. That can be done by emergency caesarean or by inducing labour without the need for foeticide. In fact, standard obstetric practice after the point of viability is exactly that: to deliver the baby. If the mother's health is at risk, doctors act quickly to deliver her child alive. What is not normal obstetric practice is to first stop the baby's heart and then proceed to delivery. This process of a late-term abortion takes much longer—at least 12 to 72 hours to complete—and is therefore not appropriate as emergency medical care for a woman in a truly risky situation. This shows us something very important: the deliberate killing of a baby after viability is not about protecting a mother's life. The safest, fastest and most compassionate medical treatment is to end the pregnancy and deliver the baby alive. But do not just take my word for it. Professor R.J. Norman, Professor for Reproductive and Periconceptual Medicine at the University of Adelaide and Founding Director of the Robinson Research Institute, has said this about South Australia's abortion laws: In this law, we are operating a dual standard. We deny human rights to a viable fetus, yet in premature birth we strive our utmost to preserve human life. Logically, there is no difference between the potentially disposable material in the womb at 23-plus weeks and the sacred, inviolable rights that are conferred upon the baby at birth. My recommendation is that in the case of a normal fetus the primary aim should be to deliver it alive and provide life-giving support for the child, and perinatal psychological support for the woman involved. Activist organisations like Fair Agenda argue that a late-term abortion is necessary in order to rescue a woman from an abusive situation. But let's stop and think about that. A late-term abortion does not rescue a woman from abuse, it does not remove her violent partner, it does not end her trauma. What it does do is end the life of a woman's child and then send the woman straight back into the very abuse that caused her pain in the first place. That is not compassion; that is abandonment. What vulnerable women in these circumstances need is genuine support and care, housing, safety, counselling and community, not a late-term abortion that compounds their trauma and robs them of their child. Some of you may be asking why now? Why introduce this bill so close to the end of the year? My motivation is simple: I want to save these babies, and I believe every South Australian wants the same. This should be an easy bill to pass. Both the Premier and the opposition leader voted for the substance of this bill when it was presented as an amendment in 2021. Tragically, that amendment lost by just a handful of votes, and now we are living with the devastating consequences: 79 healthy, viable babies have been killed. I wager most South Australians have no idea this is happening, nor have knowledge of the brutality of abortion up to birth. Through this debate and vote I will call, I will make it my mission to ensure every South Australian knows. I wish to acknowledge the broad support I have received for this bill, including from Love Australia, the Australian Christian Lobby, plus other pro-life groups and individuals. I also acknowledge Dr Joanna Howe, Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide, who has used her expertise to chair a committee of medical specialists in drafting this bill. These experts come from fields including obstetrics, gynaecology, neonatology, nursing, midwifery and psychiatry. You may wonder why these experts remain anonymous. The reason is simple: they have no choice. Our peak medical bodies, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists, the Australian Medical Association and others, are dominated by pro-abortion activists who do not reflect the membership's views on late-term abortion. For healthcare professionals to speak critically of this agenda is extraordinarily difficult, almost impossible. The people of South Australia want more from us. They do not want voices silenced. They want this debate to be heard properly and urgently because there are babies' lives on the line. I make this commitment today: whether this parliament passes this law this term or not, I am here for at least another four years and I will make it my mission to try to save these babies. South Australians were told this would not happen. Parliament was promised it would not happen—and yet it has happened, 79 times in just 2½ years. If we fail to pass this bill, more healthy, viable babies will die. We cannot look away. These were healthy children and their loss is a tragedy that demands justice. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.