131207-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Terri Kelleher Re Abortion-Gay Marriage Issues

Page 1
Terri M Kelleher tkelleher@family.org.au Victorian President Australian Family Association 5
7-12-2013
Cc: Gabrielle Walsh President of the Victorian Branch of the National Civic Council and National Secretary of the Australian Family Association gwalsh@family.org.au 10
Health Services Commissioner, Complaints and Information (61 3) 8601 5200, Telephone: 1300 582 113, Fax No.: (61 3) 9032 3111 E-mail: hsc@health.vic.gov.au
Medical Board of Victoria, Medical Board of Australia, 15

Doctor Joanna Flynn, Chair, Medical Board of Australia G.P.O. Box 9958, Melbourne VIC 3001
VIC Board Members

Dr Laurie Warfe (Chair) Dr John Carnie Ms Kerren Clark Mrs Paula Davey Dr Peter Dohrmann Mr Kevin Ekendahl Dr Felicity Hawker Dr William Kelly Associate Professor Abdul Khalid Professor Napier Thomson Dr Miriam Weisz Dr Bernadette White Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner Community Member Community Member Medical Practitioner Acting Community Member Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner Community Member Medical Practitioner
LifeSiteNews.com 20 Mr Geoff Shaw Member of Parliament Geoff.Shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au AHPRA Street address: Level 8, 111 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000 Mailing address: AHPRA, GPO Box 9958, Melbourne, VIC 3001 Re Abortion and gay marriage issues 25 Terri, I read your article in RFA Quarterley Report and like you to pass this correspondence also to those listed as CCs, where I was unable to get their email addresses. As indicated below in the quoted 10-10-2013 correspondence I was a candidate in the Broadmeadows District 2011 by election and so was Dr Hobart.
7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 1
Page 2 Personally I am opposed in principle to abortion albeit recognises that there may be real (not fake) incidents where abortion is justified, such as where it is a matter of life or death or where a small child was impregnated.
5 I have included below a USA decision in Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html and this may also be considered, albeit as we have a different constitution the question then ought to arise what were relevant abortion, if any, legislation governing the colonies at the time of federation. Also, does the State have a right to legislate as to abortion at all, where the Commonwealth deals with not only access and custody 10 but also with child support, which includes a male to contribute towards the pre-natal cost during pregnancy. If indeed one were to hold that abortion is between a woman and her doctor up to about 24 months (albeit I do not accept a test of time rather take it a life is created from conception) then 15 the State clearly has no business to interfere in that regard either with how a doctor conduct himself. While the USA court related to USA abortion history, obviously for the Commonwealth of Australia what should be established what was the situation in the colonies at the time of federation. 20 Also, the Framers of the Constitution specifically wanted to give the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers in view that it wanted to stop fathers robbed of access by their wives, where they moved interstate, having to re-litigate access in other States. As Commonwealth laws are applicable throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. 25 What however must be clear that parental rights (albeit at the time only in regard of divorces) clearly was intended to be part of the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers. Hence, where now the states in 1986 referred it legislative powers in regard of children of non-marriages to the Commonwealth of Australia, then clearly parental rights in that regard also was referred to the Commonwealth. 30 Hence, I cannot as a CONSTITUTIONALIST accept that the States can have any legislative powers as to abortions, nor amend any existing legislation, as it is now a Commonwealth legislative power. We have to be clear that: 35 HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Captain RUSSELL: Therefore, if we are endeavouring to create a constitution not for to-day, but for people unborn, we ought [start page 827] not to look upon the subject from the narrow point of view as to which of the colonies produces most revenue or consumes the greatest quantity of dutiable articles; but we ought so to frame our constitution that it shall apply to all parts of Australia without unnecessary interference with the various constitutions in the immediate future. END QUOTE
40
45 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.This Convention has made a very great advance in these particulars on the work of 1891, and perhaps one of the greatest advances has been this, that the free people which is to be constituted shall under this provision be free to alter the Constitution themselves, care only being taken that it is done deliberately and faithfully; that work of that character, which may affect the destinies of unborn generations, shall be done only under circumstances which insure that thought and reason shall prevail, and that, in making Page 2 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
50
Page 3 amendments, we should take that much security for the protection of our children and their children after them. END QUOTE
5 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and
LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE . HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
30
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is considered by all of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic concern. We do not want to interfere with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a thing as this it must be the Federal Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will introduce the greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen. Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. END QUOTE HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE
40
45 .
50
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE
55
.
Page 4 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]: Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted. END QUOTE
Ironically the High Court of Australia is to rule on same sex marriage as a civil contract to be 10 within State/Territory legislative powers, where in my view it is not. When I laid out and connected garden lights using 240 volt power it may be held this was electrical work, but as it was by way of extension lead it was lawful, but it doesnt make me to be a qualified electrician. When I renovate and replace internal walls, fit doors, replace floors, rebuild the kitchen, etc, 15 doesnt mean that because I am a de facto builder I then can claim to be a builder! Because people may consider themselves to be living in a marriage kind of environment it doesnt mean they should then be qualified to constitute a marriage. One may ask will the High Court of Australia deal with matters such as on the issues I raise or will it simply divert from it arrive at a wrong conclusion? 20
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE
25
30
35
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
END QUOTE
40 And, as Dr Hobart has a religious objection, for I understand this to be, then clearly the Commonwealth cannot interfere with this and his services which are paid for by the Commonwealth of Australia clearly excludes any form of conscription. 45 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
50
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 4
Page 5 END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
10
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15
20
25
30 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON: After the old subsection, which gave the Commonwealth power to deal with the subjects of marriage and divorce, have been added these words: Parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants.
35
The committee seemed to feel that if the social questions of marriage and divorce may be handed over, it would be well if these social relations, so intimately connected with marriage and divorce , should also be added. In place of that sub-section which dealt with river navigation, a very important change has been made. END QUOTE HANSARD 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE XXIV. Parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants:
40
45 END QUOTE
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 5
Page 6 QUOTE 23. Marriage and divorce; [start page 1036] 24. Parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants; END QUOTE
5
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.
10
15
20
25
The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub clause. It is proposed by the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the Council and Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments than those which the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with reference to lunacy. The hon. and learned member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear for the exercise of that power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear that it might be exercised to the fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power exercised at all, we should find strong arguments used for the taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a strong argument would be offered for the state taking over the whole of the benevolent institutions of the various colonies which have to deal with children, and they would become federal institutions. If you do that you must do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you interfere with the children in these institutions you will have to take over the institutions for the infirm and the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to any federal interference with what the people conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this colony a law modelled upon the English law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights. That question of parental rights is one which opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of interference between parents and their children under a proposal of this character. The state laws, up to the present, have been perfectly effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon. members against applying federal action to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply those arguments now in my vote. [start page 1083] The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are some of the other matters in the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that if the commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the subject of marriage and divorce without having the power to legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may arise-that the judge, having to pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of the custody of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one law with respect to the issue relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the custody of the children will have to be under a totally different and varying law. The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?
30
35
40
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned member suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at the end of the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto." Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems to me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which involves everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 6
45
Page 7 on that, also to regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to think is in the minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal authority to interfere with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a position of slavery. This is a control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might come into operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce, and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better to leave the sub-clause as it is and consider the matter further later on. The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what I forgot, namely, a suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would involve the probability of the commonwealth having to take over the control of the institutions? Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that. The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics! Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used against him. It would be just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say that the federal authority are to take control of all institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that hon. members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the cases, and, that as this affects one part of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law and under federal control. The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand, "custody and guardianship of infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without any qualification, would apply to destitute children. It would be better for the state authorities to control the custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot. They have opportunities of inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their condition if they are destitute and neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and allow the sub-clause to remain as proposed to be amended by the leader of the Convention. The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-clause as it is. I can understand that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws with respect to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children; but supposing that the children went into another state, and were thus taken away from the law of which the previous state approved, and came under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing with such matters, and under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the guardian was not able to again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed under his own law. His own law might be good enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed against would be out of the jurisdiction of his state. Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force! The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however good his own law was, he would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying character. The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in this matter. Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction! The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good enough as a record of the action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court in the other state; nor would it make the law of the other state subsidiary to the law of the state which contained that record. Page 7 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
45
Page 8 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as meaning proof? The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain enough.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says: The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and judgments of the courts of the states. The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has jurisdiction.
10
Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile! The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given the most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
15
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law! The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is a corollary as far as marriage is concerned. [start page 1085] The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
20
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the parent over the child! The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights, why not the obligations? The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the hon. gentleman wants to exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws of all the colonies are exactly the same in respect to the matters mentioned here, and there is very little probability of their being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants are concerned. We want to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal parliament power to legislate on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the enforcement of state laws through the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent or guardian, and being out of the jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the parent or guardian resides, and I think it is necessary to have one uniform law on this matter as well as in regard to marriage and divorce. The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned, power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and includes the whole region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children. The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
25
30
35
40
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and guardianship of children have relation to parental rights. 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 8
Page 9 Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted? The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move: That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto." This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
10
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal with the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in another, it will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation to deserted wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think we might leave the matter to the Drafting Committee. Amendment agreed to. Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to. END QUOTE
15
20 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html
Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem. Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we Page 410 U. S. 117
25
30
35
40
have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 198 U. S. 76 (1905): "[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." END QUOTE
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Page 9 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 10 Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint, he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes, and Page 410 U. S. 121 that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. END QUOTE
10
15
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws. END QUOTE
20
25
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion. [Footnote 12] END QUOTE
30
35
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May, 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization": "The first of these causes is a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening." "The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life. . . ."
40
45
"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the
Page 10
Page 11 foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, Page 410 U. S. 142 and to its life as yet denies all protection."
Id. at 776. The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id. at 28, 78. In 1871, a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation,
10
"We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 268 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id. at 3839, recommending, among other things, that it
15
"be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child -- if that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -- aye, and men also, on this important question." END QUOTE
20
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE
25
The resolutions asserted that abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to violate personally held moral principles. [Footnote 38] Proceedings Page 410 U. S. 144
30
of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a complementary opinion. [Footnote 39] END QUOTE
Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [Footnote 45] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 11
40
Page 12 conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. END QUOTE
5
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE VIII The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 141 U. S. 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. END QUOTE
10
15
20
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. END QUOTE
25
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE
30
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. END QUOTE
Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, Page 410 U. S. 157 for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 12
40
45
50
Page 13 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [Footnote 54] Page 410 U. S. 158 All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [Footnote 55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. MageeWomens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa.1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.E.2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. at ___, 285 N.E.2d at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 Page 410 U. S. 159 Ohio St.2d 65, 275 N.E.2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.
10
15
20
25
30
B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. Page 410 U. S. 160
35
40
It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 13
10
Page 14 position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [Footnote 59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [Footnote 60] The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from Page 410 U. S. 161 the moment of conception. [Footnote 61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. [Footnote 62] In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. [Footnote 63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few Page 410 U. S. 162
15
20
25
30
courts have squarely so held. [Footnote 64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. [Footnote 65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. [Footnote 66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. X
35
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches Page 410 U. S. 163 term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling." With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 410 U. S. 149, that, until the end of the 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 14
40
Page 15 first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion Page 410 U. S. 164 during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
10
15
Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE XI To summarize and to repeat:
25
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. END QUOTE
30
35
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 410 U. S. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. [Footnote 67] This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important Page 410 U. S. 166
40
Page 15
Page 16 state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available. END QUOTE
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mom-who-would-have-aborted-daughter-born-with-spinbifida-wins-court-decisi
QUOTE
10
Mom who would have aborted daughter born with spina bifida wins court decision over misdiagnosis
BY MICHELLE KAUFMAN, NEW ZEALAND CORRESPONDENT
Tue Dec 03, 2013 14:07 EST Tags: abortion, new zealand
15
20
AUCKLAND, New Zealand, November 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Zealand Court of Appeal has decided that the parents of a baby who was born in 2007 with spina bifida, despite being given a clean bill of a health at a 20 week ultrasound, may be eligible to receive compensation under the nations accident compensation scheme. The mother, whose name has not been released, has claimed that had she been given the correct diagnosis after that scan, she would have aborted her daughter. "We consider that the continued pregnancy of the appellant following a misdiagnosis in the 20 week scan is capable of being an injury suffered by the appellant, the court ruled.
25
Although the routine anatomy scan was performed at 20 weeks gestation, no anomalies were found by the radiographer. Independent specialists have examined the scan images and found that there was evidence of spina bifida present. The mother argued that he continuance of the pregnancy was a personal injury and has been seeking compensation. However, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has argued that compensation cannot be paid out as the situation does not meet the criteria for personal injury. Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! Ongoing operations and physiotherapy is part of daily life for the family. The child walks with the aid of a walking frame.
30
35
Page 16
Page 17
Previous appeals to the District and High Courts have been dismissed. The case has now been referred back to the District Court, where it will be decided whether the mother would have been able to obtain an abortion under New Zealand law. An abortion after 20 weeks gestation can only be obtained lawfully in New Zealand if the person doing the act believes that the miscarriage is necessary to save the life of the woman or girl or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health. The ACC says that the woman would not have been able to obtain the abortion. Disability advocate Mike Sullivan is appalled at the decision. This is what happens, he says the children become reduced to nothing wrong even to exist.
10
The underpinning attitude behind the decision is that those with disability, both born and unborn are the true burden on society, he said. Earlier this year, Philip Schmidt, the lawyer representing the mother, noted that whatever the Courts decision, it will have a significant influence on what claims for pregnancy-related injury will be covered by ACC in the future.
15 END QUOTE We had a few years ago a woman (in Australia) committing suicide because of suffering cancer. After her death it was discovered she never had any cancer. And this is the problem at times that people rely upon tests that may or may not be defective. They may abort a 20 child which later is found to have no abnormalities (as was as I understand it recently a case reported in the media where the woman decided not to have an abortion and the child was born healthy!)
25 While it may be argued that women may abort because of a failed relationship, I view this never should mean the MURDER of the unborn child. My view is that where a woman freely engages in sexual activities then by this she gives up her right to decide what happens with her body if a child is conceived. You cannot have it that a person causing the death of an unborn child can be held legally liable but the child unborn child 30 somehow has no rights in itself. When a woman tells you; I can feel my baby is kicking, and even ask you to place your hand on her belly to feel it, then this is soon in the first part of pregnancy well before the 24 or so weeks gestation and to hold that the baby is not having a person status, when it kicks or is perceived to kick the mother by its movement, then how can one divorce the childs own conduct 35 of movement, not at all controlled by the mother not to be of an independent sole, even so still within the mothers body. DISCLOSURE In my case, one of my daughters nearly lost her life after an abortion having gone 40 horribly wrong, and while since I had more than 12 grandchildren with my other children, nevertheless my daughter who had the abortion is childless and desires to have a child. She was forged to have an abortion at the time because her then boyfriend claimed this
Page 18 religion doesnt allow a child before marriage. She fell for that crap. It is one thing not to have sex before marriage but to claim not to have a child before marriage is not to any religion I am aware of.
10
While I was also a candidate in the 2011 Broadmeadows by election I do not recall having had any communication at the time with Dr Hobart, and as such my writings are not because of some friendship, etc, but because I view the man is entitled to pursue his political and religious rights as provided for in the Constitution, within witch in s106 the States are created subject to this constitution and this includes any relevant legal principle embedded in it. QUOTE 10-10-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Senator John Madigan senator.madigan@aph.gov.au 10-10-2013 Re: Dr Mark Hobart and the ABORTION issue, etc John, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view you might like to appropriately consider what I have set out below, in a very limited manner.
15
I do have an issue with the Family Court of Australia dealing with unmarried couples, but for 20 now I will not get into that as such, as to prevent this correspondence to be even longer then it will already be. The issue is what is a marriage and what extend should the Commonwealth of Australia, so the Family Court of Australia, be involved in matters.
.HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
25 QUOTE
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]: Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted. END QUOTE
30 On that basis, we cannot accept so called civil contracts by any state between people of the same gender, because it would violate the domain of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE . Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
35
40
45
Page 18
10
15
Page 19 criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE . Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
20
25
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
30 For this, I view, the purported legislation of civil contracts between same sex couples by any state would be unconstitutional and ULTRA VIRES, and so invalid de novo!
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE
35
40
45
50
What we are faced with is however that apart of my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that the debt to the Commonwealth purported legal provisions regarding overdue Child Support is 55 unconstitutional, we must consider also that you cannot have so to say the cake and eat it.
.
Page 19
Page 20 We have that when a woman falls pregnant then legally the biological father can be held liable for financial support, but the woman somehow by Victorian State legislation can abort the child, with a disregard of the biological fathers rights.
In my view, where the Commonwealth has placed a financial liability upon a biological father 5 then this must include he has by this certain rights.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE And HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE . Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over which the states are to be supreme even under federation. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
When one consider that the states are created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution and s109 makes clear that the State law will be subordinate to Commonwealth law then I view the Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 conflicts with the Commonwealth 30 legislation and legal principles embedded in this constitution. . No one can be held accountable to duties and obligations without associated rights. Therefore it must be implied that a biological father having a obligation to financial support a pregnant woman during and after a pregnancy then by this he must be perceived 35 to have gained legal rights and cannot be denied any input as to any contemplated abortion. The very purpose of the Framers of the Constitution to provide for the Commonwealth of Australia to have legislative powers as to marriages and custody and guardianship arising from a 40 divorce was because at the time many a man had fought a hard battle in a colonial court only for the mother to move inter colonial and then the father had to litigate all over again, and so the federal legislative power would avoid the re-litigation. Therefore, the issue was of a relationship that had broken down between a husband and wife to ensure appropriate laws could be enacted to deal with that. 45 . Because a marriage is a civil contract then one cannot accept that those who are not married or those in a same sex relationship can enter a civil contract, the domain of the Commonwealth of Australia using State legislative powers.
Page 20
Page 21 As you may be aware The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was amended by referendum to include: The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
10 END QUOTE Again:

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE
15
Therefore, where the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to provide for sickness and other medical expenditure then I view the State cannot legislate that a doctor must assist in an Abortion 20 or refer a woman to another specialist/medical practitioner to obtain an Abortion as it would be an inroad into Commonwealth legislative powers. The State would basically dictate the Commonwealth that it must pay for the abortion, this even so the Commonwealth has been promoting births by providing a baby bonus. Neither do I accept that the State can have any legislative powers to make a doctor to act contrary 25 to his/her beliefs to be involved, being directly or indirectly with an abortion as it would offend the constitutional provision that a doctor can not be subjected to some form of civil conscription, which clearly would be by the provisions of the Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, for example, that the State couldnt avoid duties on import such as rails because it was a Commonwealth legislative power. Likewise, I view the 30 state cannot legislate to cause a doctor to be committed to perform an abortion contrary to his/her beliefs nor be committed to advise a patient to attend to another doctor who made do so. . The legislation does refer to the doctor knows and as such a doctor could merely claim not to know another doctor in that field and that may be the end of it. 35 However, suppose a doctor does advise the patient to attend to another doctor and this other doctor then causes problems or even the patient dies, where then lies the legal liability of the doctor who referred the woman to another doctor? . Again, in my view, the legislation Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 was beyond the legislative 40 powers of then State of Victoria. for these and other reasons.
45
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE MBLY&speech=68892&activity=Second+Reading&title=ABORTION+LAW+REFORM+BILL&date1=19&date2 =August&date3=2008&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only. Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This Page 21 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 22 option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
Title House Activity Members Date Page
ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL ASSEMBLY Second Reading MORAND 19 August 2008 2950
19 August 2008 ASSEMBLY
5
Page 2950 ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL Introduction and first reading
10 Ms MORAND (Minister for Women's Affairs) introduced a bill for an act to reform the law relating to abortion, to
amend the Crimes Act 1958 and for other purposes. Read first time. Second reading Ms MORAND (Minister for Women's Affairs) -- In accordance with section 48 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, a statement of compatibility for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 is not required. The effect of section 48 is that none of the provisions of the charter affect the bill. This includes the requirement under section 28 of the charter to prepare and table a compatibility statement and the obligation under section 32 of the charter to interpret statutory provisions compatibly with human rights under the charter. I move: That this bill be now read a second time.
15
20 END QUOTE
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COU NCIL&speech=70146&activity=Second+Reading&title=ABORTION+LAW+REFORM+BILL&date1=12&date2= September&date3=2008&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only. Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
25
30
Title House Activity Members Date Page ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL COUNCIL Second Reading JENNINGS 12 September 2008 3792 Page 22
Page 23 12 September 2008 COUNCIL Page 3792
5
ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL Second reading Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) -- In relation to the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 and consistent with the practice that was adopted in the Legislative Assembly I make the following statement. In accordance with section 48 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, a statement of compatibility for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 is not required. The effect of section 48 is that none of the provisions of the charter affect the bill. This includes the requirement under section 28 of the charter to prepare and table a compatibility statement along with the obligation under section 32 of the charter to interpret statutory provisions compatibly with human rights under the charter. That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Motion agreed to. END QUOTE
10
15 I move:
20 In my view, where the bill in effect allows the killing/murder of an unborn child or may even result to the killing/murder of a child that was still born alive, after an abortion procedure, and where it purports to make it a criminal offense for a doctor, like Dr Mark Hobart, to exercise his duties/obligations/conscious decision as a doctor to preserve life, 25 even that of an unborn child, then I view a Section 48 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility statement should have been provided. If indeed it can be held that because the Commonwealth through Medicare funding Abortions and also any consultation to a doctor then s116 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 30 Act 1900 (UK) applies and the states cannot undermine this, then the Welsh 1970 case applies. As I successfully used in both appeals on 19 July 2006 against the Commonwealth of Australia in the County Court of Victoria.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT including SUBMISSIONS By the Defendant, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.
35 For 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970 ), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
40
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354. 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356. 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 23
45
50
Page 24 extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. And;
5
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
10
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link: Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
15
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged. And
20
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law. And Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights. What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as
25
30 this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as
this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned. END QUOTE
35
Because Medicare funding (a Commonwealth of Australia funding) was used then I view this 40 makes it a Federal issue, not a pure State issue, and State criminal laws cannot interfere with Commonwealth provisions. To give an example: When Mr Robert Hulls was Attorney-General of the State of Victoria he then demanded that I 45 would stop using the word JUSTICE in my material such as MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL as he held it would purport that I was part of the Justice Department and failing to stop using this he would take me before the Supreme Court of Victoria. I responded that in view that it is a Commonwealth of Australia registered trademark and a registered business name then I was lawfully entitled to continue to use this trademark as the State of Victoria couldnt override 50 or otherwise interfere with my constitutional rights to use my registered trademark. needless to say that this was the last I heard of him. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) the Supreme Court of Victoria purports that because the commonwealth didnt legislate to a specific speed detection 55 instrument then the State can do so. The truth is that it cannot, as indicated by the Framers of the
Page 25 Constitution once the Commonwealth commences to legislate then no new laws on the subject matter can be enacted by a State. See also my set out in 130904-COMPLAINT Ref Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301-CONSTITUTIONAL issues etc published at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati 5 . What we need is the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!), a c onstigtutional council that advices the Government, the People, the Parliament, and the Courts as to the true meaning and application of the constitution.
10 http://www.isaiahone.org/debates-over-human-rights/religious-freedom-and-human-rights/victorias-abortion-lawits-charter/ QUOTE
Victoria's Abortion Law & Its Charter

15
Those who feel a Charter would fail the Christian community point to Victorias Abortion Law Reform Act (2008) as evidence that while Charters claim to protect religious views, they dont in practice. It is said that the amended law specifically clause 8 forces Christian doctors to go against their religious conscience. The Victorian Government disputes this claim. If, however, we assume that the Law breaches religious conscience rights, what happened with Victorias Charter? It states in section 14 that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. The Abortion bill should have been reviewed by the Charter, in accordance with the requirement that all bills tabled in Parliament have a statement of compatibility accompanying them (s 28). At that point the provisions in s 14 of the Charter and elsewhere would have injected a new dynamic into Parliamentary debate including the pertinent question of how compatible the proposed legislation was with the Governments own Charter of Rights. But the Statement of Compatibility did not take place. Why? In a second reading speech the Minister stated: In accordance with section 48 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, a statement of compatibility for the Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 is not required. The effect of section 48 is that none of the provisions of the charter affect the bill. This includes the requirement under section 28 of the charter to prepare and table a compatibility statement and the obligation under section 32 of the charter to interpret statutory provisions compatibility with human rights under the charter. I move that this Bill be now read a second time. What is section 48? It is a special clause (or savings provision) unlike any other in comparable Charters globally. It states: Nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction
20
25
30
35
Some Christian leaders declared that the special exclusion of the Charter from abortion is evidence of the secularity of Charters. In public hearings for the National Consultation the Australian Christian Lobby declared: From a faith perspective there is for me a real crisis of confidence in an instrument [a Charter of Rights] which purports to protect human rights and yet in both the act and, Victorian examples, given as possible models by charter proponents, the act explicitly excludes the right to life of a child before birth (July 2009) What is not acknowledged in the above speech, nor in comments by many others in the church, is the role of the Catholic Church in s 48. The clause was the product of negotiations between the Victorian Government and the Catholic Church over concerns that a Charters potential effects on abortion legislation. The Church wanted to exclude the Charter from having effect in regard to abortion. Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, noted this in an interview with the ABC on 23 September, 2008: It has to be remembered that abortion was specifically precluded from the charter, that was actually at a request after discussions with the Catholic Church
40
45
50
So it was not secularists who led to the creation of this clause. Despite the central role of s 48 in sidelining the Charter from its normal requirement to scrutinise legislation, church commentary has consistently omitted any reference to it. This is misleading Christians, who deserve to know the full story about the Charter. Whether it was correct to use s 48 to avoid a compatibility statement is disputed. The Victorian 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 25
Page 26 Governments Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) noted problems with emplo ying s 48 as a reason for not tabling a Statement of Compatibility. It sought a written explanation as to why such a Statement should not be tabled, particularly in light of questions it had about the compatibility of the Bill (including clause 8) with the rights in the Charter, for instance:
The Committee refers for Parliaments consideration the question whether the provisions of the Bill constitute an undue trespass to rights or freedoms within the meaning of the Act. (Alert Digest No. 11 of 2008) Critics of the bill may have wanted a much clearer answer about the imposition to freedom of conscience potentially raised in clause 8. However, post WW2 bills of rights tend not to be overly detailed and specific in order to give room for local legislatures to do fine interpretation on, for instance, the point at which human life begins. Bills of Rights are often criticised for this, for being too general, however when very specific rights are defined, the ramifications can be problematic. A salutary example is the USs Second Amendment on the right of people to bear arms (carry weapons), which was adopted in 1791, and is often seen as counterproductive in todays society. Hence, human rights instruments tend to defer to legislature to determine the specific detail of at what point, for instance, it is appropriate to allow termination of the unborn. Does this imply that a Charter of Rights has no role to play in abortion debates? Not at all. Even strong opponents of a Charter saw the potential benefits of Victo rias Charter. For instance, Professor Greg Craven and Timonth Ginnane believed the Charter could perform a powerful review function:
10
15
20
As soon as this is appreciated, the rights of the Charter line up to do battle with this repressive [abortion] legislation Inconsistency between the Abortion Bill and the Charter will not be enough to make these repulsive provisions illegal. But it will allow a judge to declare these impositions fundamentally inconsistent with Victorias human rights regime, adopted less than two years ago. (The Australian, October 6, 2008) There was a clear problem (in their view) balancing the Charters provisions in s 14 with the Bill. They also saw that the use of s 48 had meant that Parliament could ignore the Charter. However, they pointed out another step of review was available under a Charter through the courts. This is really what Charters are designed to do in relation to legislation create additional check and balance in the system (hence the existing Australian versions are called dialogue models, as they encourage the different arms of government to reference each other). Despite these potential benefits, Professor Craven and others staunchly opposed a federal Charter. The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, opposed a Charter in any form whatsoever. His view was that the electorate would hold the Government accountable for laws which fail human rights. In a statement on the Archdiocese website he wrote: I fear a charter could be used or abused to limit all sorts of freedom, and religious freedom. Already in Victoria legislation is attempting to coerce prolife doctors to cooperate in abortions. However that government will answer for this in the next and subsequent elections. (Human Rights 18 Oct, 2009) But how feasible is it that clause 8 of the abortion bill will become an electoral decider? In 2007 the Australian National Universitys Australian Election Study released findings on abortion and electoral success. It found that 77% of winning candidates in federal elections were pro-abortion. Moreover, 61% of the electorate favoured readily obtainable abortion versus 35% who wanted abortion restricted to special circumstances and only 4% who wished the practice banned. The older age profile of those against suggests that support for more lax abortion laws will continue to rise (only those in the 75+ age group in 2007 opposed abortion by a majority). So, one wonders what likelihood there is that the Victorian electorate will make more restrictive abortion laws an electoral liability for the Government? Yet, ballot box accountability was claimed by many church leaders as the best way to properly protect rights. The Abortion Reform Act is not an example of the Charter letting Christians down. At one level it is a cautionary tale about the potentially negative effects of relying on blanket exclusion clauses, which in this case came from political negotiations with the Church. The true lesson of the abortion debate is not that Charters fail religious rights. It is that we need clear statements about rights which are empowered to promote and protect us, rather than pure and simple reliance upon politicians. END QUOTE
25
30
35
40
45
50
Below I have also quoted some Hansard records of the Victorian Parliament and it may be noted 55 that during the debates in 2007 it was argued that doctors should not be at risk of litigation in
Page 27 regard of performing abortions but then during 2008 (perhaps of the momentum gaining for the bill to pass) then it was argued that a doctor should be required to perform an abortion in emergency or committed to refer the woman to another doctor. As such the original argument to avoid ,doctors to become in litigation was now caused to make a 180 degrees turn about that the 5 innocent doctor not wanting to participate in what may be deemed murder of a human being now could be forced to do so anyhow.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
10 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE . HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE
15
20
25
Dr Mark Hobart as I recall was listed below me on the ballot paper for the by election of Broadmeadows, and where the is a DLP member opposed to Abortions then I view he is entitled 30 to pursue his constitutional rights of freedom of political and civil liberties that are fundamental and enshrined as legal principles in the constitution. . It is not that Dr Mark Hobart was involved in a criminal act by doing something that he knew or would have known was to be harmful to a certain person or persons, rather that he exercised his 35 constitutional rights to practice medicine as he held he was committed to. QUOTE 19 July 2007 Hansard 40
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the provision of safe and competent health services to women having an abortion and bring legislation regarding abortion into line with community expectations by abolishing the offences of unlawful abortion in the Crimes Act 1958 and in the common law.
END QUOTE
Part 1Preliminary Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 No. 58 of 2008 QUOTE PART 1PRELIMINARY 1 Purposes The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform the law relating to abortion; and (b) to regulate health practitioners performing abortions; and (c) to amend the Crimes Act 1958 (i) to repeal the provisions relating to abortion; and 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 27
45
50
Page 28 Victoria 2 (ii) to abolish the common law offences relating to abortion; and (iii) to make it an offence for an unqualified person to perform an abortion; and (iv) to amend the definition of seriousinjury to include the destruction of a foetus other than in the course of a medical procedure. END QUOTE
The following purports that doctorts will no longer be haunted by criminal prosecution where in 10 reality they now will for doing no more but to exercise their constitutional rights to protect the life of an unborn child.
QUOTE 19 July 2007
Hansard
15
The uncertain legal status creates an atmosphere whereby it is acceptable to harass women and doctors in ways that would not be tolerated in any other service, or for any other section of the community. As a result many doctors and hospitals and clinics are discouraged, if not outright stopped from providing termination services. Doctors in Victoria have had their homes sprayed with graffiti, been followed when travelling to and from work, had their children threatened, and they and their staff are regularly picketed, yelled at, and abused. These forms of harassment make it very difficult to attract doctors and nurses to work in abortion services. If abortion were legal then these attacks could be countered more readily, or would not occur at all. The current legal situation places doctors and their staff in an invidious position. It deters young doctors from training to provide abortions, and it provides ammunition for those in society who harass and abuse doctors involved with abortion. This further exacerbates the crisis in service provision as older doctors retire and younger doctors do not replace them.
20
25 END QUOTE
QUOTE 21 August 2007 21 August 2007 COUNCIL
30
Page 2480 CRIMES (DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION) BILL Withdrawn Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) -- I move:
35
That this order of the day be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn. The Premier, John Brumby, announced yesterday the government's intention to seek advice from the Victorian Law Reform Commission on removing abortion offences from the Crimes Act by March 2008 and then to put before the Parliament a bill to modernise the law so that it reflects community standards and current clinical practice. I have welcomed the Premier's announcement because it is an important and timely step towards updating the law and protecting women and their doctors from the threat of prosecution in Victoria. END QUOTE QUOTE 17 July 2007 This bill will do just that by removing the fear of prosecution for women and their doctors and by ensuring that a termination is dealt with as a health issue, and not as a crime. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned for Mr P. DAVIS (Gippsland) on motion of Mr Rich-Phillips. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 26 July. END QUOTE 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 28
40
45
Page 29
One may also question that if a doctor, for example in private practice, is charging Medicare for his services, then engaged by this in a contract with Medicare, a Commonwealth entity, how then can the State interfere with this services to place conditions upon this one has to ask? 5 It may be noted that the legislation refers to items such as (b) to regulate health practitioners performing abortions; and (ii) to abolish the common law offences relating to abortion and not at all to make it a criminal offence for not engaging or assisting directly or indirectly in abortions. 10 Therefore, the Act doesnt disclose any main purpose to criminalise for a doctor to refuse to get involved in any abortion issues. In fact the statement (ii) to abolish the common law offences relating to abortion means it neither can be an offence not to engage in an abortion procedure because it still relates to abortion While the act was held not required to be provided with a statement I view that to cause any 15 person to become a criminal for doing what is the fundamental rights of any unborn baby to be given the right to live and be born should have required a human rights declaration. . Apart of any rape (not faked rape) where it may be essential to protect the sanity and health of say a young girl, it should ordinary be held that when a female engage voluntarily in sexual 20 intercourse knowing she may fall pregnant then no excuse can exist to abort the unborn baby. In my view this has absolutely nothing to do with the right of a woman to decided about her own body, as by engaging voluntarily in sexual intercourse she abandoned this sole right, at least until any pregnancy was completed by the birth of the child or children created as result of the sexual intercourse. 25 Neither should the community be held at ransom to pay for a pregnancy to be aborted merely because a woman may no longer desire to continue with the pregnancy. If a person can be charged for causing the death of an unborn baby then one cannot argue that somehow if the women herself decide to abort killing the baby then somehow it is all right. 30 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F11dd62
3c-68aa-46b1-856b-0bffdb0e664a%2F0176%22
Senator John Madigan (part of his maiden speech)

QUOTE Thursday, 25 August 2011 Page: 5624 I am a senator representing the state of Victoria, the state that, in 2008, passed the worst abortion laws in the Western world. They would be the worst in the entire world, but we can be proud of the fact that in this matter Victoria is not quite as bad as the current occupiers of Tiananmen Square. These laws have been described as the most inhumane laws ever passed in this country. Some members on both sides of the house opposed themunfortunately, not enough. In the last few weeks I have received thousands of emails on the live export trade. I was sickened by the sight of animals treated so inhumanely but what I will never understand is how people can so easily turn away from the even greater suffering we cause to our own children. Life at every stage is precious. No joy comes from a violent loss of life. I urge those senators who are unfamiliar with the scope of the Victorian laws to examine them in the hope they are never repeated in other states and may one day be repealed. Everywhere I go I meet Australians who feel that they have lost their voice and that no politician from either side of the fence could give a damn about their future or the future of their families and communities. Year after year workers, families, farmers and small businesses are alienated by decisions of successive governments that allow and, apparently, encourage the easy sell-off of Australian companies, Australian jobs and Australias future. Every year ordinary Australiansthat is, the people we are supposed to represent and Page 29 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
35
40
45
Page 30 defendlose more and more control of their land and its resources. These ordinary Australians actually own this countrynot us, their elected representatives; not the multinational corporations; and not the overseas buyers of our resources, our farms and our future. We are the representatives of the Australian people, not their masters.
5 END QUOTE Before quoting more extensive from Hansard records I may highlight that I have pursued numerous other constitutional issues, such as the s101 Inter-State Commission where both my November 2009 request to be appointed as Inter-State Commissioner was ignored by then the 10 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the then Leader of the Opposition Mr Malcolm Turnbull. On 2 July 2013 I then made the request again and Mr Kevin Rudd again ignored this and Mr Malcolm Turnbull albeit making known to look into the matter (no longer being the leader of the Opposition) nevertheless failed to respond back further about this issue. This, even so s101 requires there always must be as Inter-State Commission as the wording shall be is mandatory. 15 And Mr Tony Abbott now is intending to fund road projects that fall under the s101 Inter-State Commission, hence, his conduct would be unconstitutional. Ignorance of such issues, and like the issue of misusage of parliamentarian privileges while they are not MPs, after an election is called until the return of the wri ts, indicates that my position and service as a CONSTITUTIONALIST is very important. 20 People like Dr Mark Hobart may not have suffered if a person such ass myself as a CONSTITUTIONALIST were to have been consulted about constitutional issues in the first place.
25 Hansard records re Abortion issue

http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COU NCIL&speech=55604&activity=Governor's+Speech&title=Address-inreply&date1=13&date2=February&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Page 201 Address-in-reply Debate resumed from 20 December 2006; motion of Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) for adoption of address-in-
30
35 reply.
Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -END QUOTE And http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COU NCIL&speech=55604&activity=Governor's+Speech&title=Address-inreply&date1=13&date2=February&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE On most social issues I believe people should be largely free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. The
40
45 contrasting issue is of course abortion, because I believe, for good reasons, that human life begins at conception.
This is not an article of religious faith but is a conclusion based on logic, knowledge, experience and reason. Page 205 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 30
Page 31 The unborn person is admittedly human life at its most immature, its most vulnerable, its weakest, its most defenceless. Surely, however, the young, the defenceless and the weak deserve more rather than less legal protection.
5 In addition to the unborn requiring justice, babies who are born alive after undergoing attempted abortion procedures
are as entitled to respect and medical attention as anybody else. This is not often talked about, but there are around 50 such cases a year in the United Kingdom, suggesting an annual rate of perhaps four or five in Victoria. Investigations have been held in other states into babies being neglected after surviving attempted abortions. One baby in Sydney was discovered crying in a waste bin. Victorian law should make it explicit that medical personnel are obliged to help such babies. To me this is a central issue -- the limits of government and individual power. To have no reasoned and reasonable position on the limitations of such power is to conspire silently in creating a world where the abuse of power has no limits. I congratulate the government on making this chamber a forum for a true multitude of counsellors. I hope to be a
10
15 counsellor on behalf of the unrepresented, including children in non-government schools and the unborn, who have
no voice at all. I also hope to speak for those who did vote but are underrepresented, including the aged and the disabled and the supporters of minor parties. They voted -- not to bring down a government, but to counsel it. They voted -- not for the carefully crafted image of a major party, but for their own firmly held beliefs. They voted -- not for power, but to be heard.
20 I share at least some common ground with every member here.

I look forward to working with other members who have expressed concerns which I share on challenges including homelessness, crime, environmental protection, public transport and our water crisis. The government has a strong mandate, so I expect to vote with the government quite often. Wisely, however, Victorians also want their government to be accountable, so I will the vote for measures which the government may not like, to put it under scrutiny which is fair, reasonable and close. I may fail but will aspire to emulate the courage and dedication of the DLP's founders in working for the enduring ideals and values of the Democratic Labor Party -- for Australia, for workers and battlers, for families, for life. END QUOTE
25
30
http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COU NCIL&speech=59039&activity=Second+Reading&title=CRIMES+%28DECRIMINALISATION+OF+ABORTIO N%29+BILL&date1=19&date2=July&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+% 29
35
QUOTE (Red colour and underlining added) Whole Speech First Match New Search
40 Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only.
Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
CRIMES (DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION) BILL COUNCIL Second Reading BROAD 19 July 2007 2144 Page 31
Page 32 19 July 2007 COUNCIL Page 2144
5
I consider that the bill is compatible with, and does not limit, the human rights protected by the charter. Candy Broad, MP Second reading Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) -- I move:
10
That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to ensure the provision of safe and competent health services to women having an abortion and bring legislation regarding abortion into line with community expectations by abolishing the offences of unlawful abortion in the Crimes Act 1958 and in the common law. It is estimated that one-third of all Australian women will undergo a therapeutic termination of pregnancy, otherwise
15 known as abortion, at some stage during their lives. These women are our friends, our sisters, our partners, our
children. We have a responsibility to ensure the provision of safe, legal and accessible medical services to them. Abortion is currently included in sections 65 and 66 of the Victorian Crimes Act. These sections provide that the criminal offence of 'unlawful abortion' can be committed by people within one of two broad categories. The first category comprises pregnant women, who self-induce their own abortion, or who might be regarded as a party to an unlawful abortion performed by another person. The second category comprises providers of abortion services. That is those who perform therapeutic termination procedures, or assist in the performance of those procedures, by obtaining or supplying drugs or instruments. The actions of people engaged in activities in the conduct of pregnancy termination services, other than the actual performance of surgical procedures or the ordering or administration of drugs, may come within the statutory provisions or be regarded as aiding and abetting the commission of an unlawful abortion. This could include a doctor who refers a pregnant patient to a termination clinic, nurses or counsellors undertaking assessment or providing psychological support, and even administrative assistants performing routine administrative tasks. It is conceivable then, that currently, the actions of all people involved in operating a termination service could attract criminal liability.
20
25
30 Safe, if not legal, abortion became a reality for women in Victoria in 1969 when Justice Menhenitt ruled in the
Victorian Supreme Court that abortion was lawful if it was considered necessary to safeguard the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman and that the circumstances were not out of proportion to the danger to be averted. This was an important ruling for women and doctors at the time and was a major contributor to the end of so called 'backyard abortions'. It was appropriate at the time and reflected community attitudes.
35 While the Menhenitt ruling was an important development in the provision of safe abortions, the ongoing inclusion
of abortion in the Crimes Act means that women seeking an abortion and the health professionals who assist them are open to the risk of prosecution. This situation presents a significant barrier to accessibility. The decision to continue or terminate an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy is always difficult and the reasons women may choose to terminate a pregnancy vary. The British Medical Association identifies a number of reasons why women seek abortion at various stages of gestation and difficulty in accessing services is a key reason given. Greater Melbourne is serviced by only a handful of private clinics and public hospitals. The scarcity of public services forces women into the private sector where costs are higher. Rural women, in particular, are disadvantaged by the current legal status of abortion because it can result in hospitals and doctors not providing a full range of medical services to their communities, including reproductive health services, and including termination services. In rural and regional areas of Victoria, such as in my electorate of Northern Victoria Region, the situation is critical with few private clinics and access to terminations in public hospitals limited or unavailable. Women in rural communities also face barriers such as low numbers of general practitioners, particularly those who bulk bill, long waiting lists and potential concerns
40
45
50
Page 2145 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 32
Page 33 regarding confidentiality when needing to access abortion services. This situation discriminates against women financially and geographically. As an example, research undertaken in the north-east of the state in September 2006, identified only two local
5 services that provided termination of pregnancy and both of these were in fact over the border in NSW. The only
other option for women in this area seeking an abortion is to travel to Melbourne and access a clinic there. This requires the women to leave their homes, families and jobs, and travel to Melbourne, undergo the termination, often stay overnight in the city and return home. Not only do they need to find the money for all of these additional expenses but the need to travel at short notice may compromise their confidentiality and limit their support base immediately before and after the termination. The lack of access to abortion services for women in the Loddon Mallee region has also been acknowledged by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bush Talks. Women in Northern Victoria Region are not alone in experiencing difficulties in access, as it is a problem common across the state.
10
15 The uncertain legal status creates an atmosphere whereby it is acceptable to harass women and doctors in ways that
would not be tolerated in any other service, or for any other section of the community. As a result many doctors and hospitals and clinics are discouraged, if not outright stopped from providing termination services. Doctors in Victoria have had their homes sprayed with graffiti, been followed when travelling to and from work, had their children threatened, and they and their staff are regularly picketed, yelled at, and abused. These forms of harassment make it very difficult to attract doctors and nurses to work in abortion services. If abortion were legal then these attacks could be countered more readily, or would not occur at all. The current legal situation places doctors and their staff in an invidious position. It deters young doctors from training to provide abortions, and it provides ammunition for those in society who harass and abuse doctors involved with abortion. This further exacerbates the crisis in service provision as older doctors retire and younger doctors do not replace them. President, I am not alone in the belief that abortion should be safe, legal and accessible. Independent studies show that the majority of Australians support access to termination of pregnancy. Indeed, the 2003 Australian survey of social attitudes found that 81 per cent of those surveyed believed a woman should have the right to decide whether or not to have a termination. In addition, a 2004 study published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies reported that 96 per cent of Australians did not consider abortion to be wrong. The Australian survey of social attitudes also found that among Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, members of the Uniting Church, and members of the main non-Christian religions, support for a woman's right to choose was 72 to 86 per cent. Now, almost 40 years since the Menhenitt ruling, it is time to modernise the legislation and bring it into line with
20
25
30
35 current community attitudes.

The bill strikes a crucial balance between community concerns and the need to protect women and their doctors from prosecution. The main features of the bill are that it: 1. repeals the two statutory provisions detailing the offence of 'unlawful abortion'. These are sections 65 and 66 of the Crimes Act 1958, which make it a criminal offence for a woman to unlawfully procure her own miscarriage and for any other person to procure or assist with the procuring of a miscarriage. 2. abolishes any common-law offences of unlawful abortion to remove any doubt about the existence of those criminal offences. This is necessary as a court would be reluctant to infer that 'unlawful abortion' offences had been removed without any clear reference to the common law.
40
45
3. creates a new criminal offence that applies to any person who carries out an abortion unless he or she is a medical practitioner, or performs the abortion under the direction or supervision of a medical practitioner. The bill makes necessary amendments to section 10 of the Crimes Act 1958 that are consequential on the repeal of section 65 and expressly preserves the remaining provisions of the offence of child destruction so that the offence is unaltered. Passing this bill would decriminalise the therapeutic termination of pregnancy. The offence of 'unlawful abortion' would cease to exist in the Crimes Act 1958. Consequently, it would become possible for medical practitioners to provide quality pregnancy termination Page 33 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
50
Page 34 Page 2146 services without the risk of criminal prosecution. The removal of legal ambiguity would also protect other health
5 professionals and support staff involved with pregnancy termination. And, perhaps most significantly, women, who
are best positioned to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health, will no longer have to fear prosecution if they decide to terminate a pregnancy. Reform of this nature is long overdue. The provision of pregnancy terminations would continue to be regulated by relevant health professional practice and standards guidelines, but the fear of prosecution for the offence of 'unlawful abortion' would end. However, this bill is not everything for everyone. The right to abortion on demand does not exist now and this bill does not provide for abortion on demand. Termination services may be refused where they would put a woman's health at risk and where service provision would require a departure from professional standards. This means that current practice will continue. The bill would neither alter the number of abortions performed or the way in which services are regulated. What it would do is remove legal ambiguity and ensure that therapeutic termination services are safe and provided professionally. This bill has been very carefully considered. It is a measured and responsible approach to updating the legislation. I
10
15
20 note that during the recent debate in this house on the Infertility Treatment Amendment Bill, many members, on
both sides of the debate, expressed concern about the need to protect women. This bill will do just that by removing the fear of prosecution for women and their doctors and by ensuring that a termination is dealt with as a health issue, and not as a crime. I commend the bill to the house.
25 Debate adjourned for Mr P. DAVIS (Gippsland) on motion of Mr Rich-Phillips.

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 26 July. END QUOTE
30 http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COU
NCIL&speech=59882&activity=Second+Reading&title=CRIMES+%28DECRIMINALISATION+OF+ABORTIO N%29+BILL&date1=21&date2=August&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION' +%29 QUOTE
35 Whole Speech
First Match New Search Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only. Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
40
CRIMES (DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION) BILL COUNCIL Second Reading BROAD 21 August 2007 2480 Page 34
Page 35 21 August 2007 COUNCIL Page 2480
5
CRIMES (DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION) BILL Withdrawn Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) -- I move: That this order of the day be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.
10 The Premier, John Brumby, announced yesterday the government's intention to seek advice from the Victorian Law
Reform Commission on removing abortion offences from the Crimes Act by March 2008 and then to put before the Parliament a bill to modernise the law so that it reflects community standards and current clinical practice. I have welcomed the Premier's announcement because it is an important and timely step towards updating the law and protecting women and their doctors from the threat of prosecution in Victoria.
15 Given yesterday's announcement I seek the approval of the Legislative Council to discharge my private members bill
as an order of the day and to withdraw the bill. I do so because I believe there are significant advantages associated with the process outlined by the Premier compared with the process associated with a private members bill. These advantages include the substantial resources available to the government and the Law Reform Commission compared to an individual MP.
20 In stating this fact I wish to acknowledge the generosity of many individuals, including members of both houses of
Parliament, former MPs, doctors, lawyers, health workers, academics, members of the community and organisations who have so freely contributed to developing the private members bill. In particular I wish to acknowledge the members of the Association for the Legal Right to Abortion for the research and information they have provided to other MPs and myself and members of the Labor Party for their support.
25 I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Parliament, including parliamentary counsel, the library and the
clerks. I believe the work all these people have undertaken will be of great assistance in participating in the process announced by the Premier and in achieving the
30 Page 2481
objective of laws that reflect contemporary community attitudes and are simple, clear and transparent. I look forward to being part of the consultation process in developing a government bill, and I encourage all MPs and members of the community who care about these issues to participate.
35 Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) -- This is a disappointing day in many ways. Many people were looking forward
to the debate on this bill and have been looking forward to it since Ms Broad foreshadowed the bill some months ago. One can only say that the process since then has been somewhat shambolic. Indeed it was shambolic before then. We would all remember, I am sure, before the election last year, it was widely rumoured that the government would move to decriminalise abortion. The rumours were followed by a series of heated denials that any such thing would occur. Those denials were of course made by the then Premier. Given those denials it should not be surprising that Ms Broad's bill was proposed. Now the bill itself has been aborted with some vague promise of something next year. This is clearly a vitally important community issue. The deluge of letters, emails and telephone calls to my office and to the office of just about every other member, certainly every other member that I have spoken to, indicates the strong, deep community concern that a good many Victorians have about the thousands of babies killed before birth every year. It is something that people are deeply worried about and something that they would like to see debated, and indeed stopped, as a result of action within this house. I would warmly welcome debate on this most basic issue of human rights. I say bring on the debate. I would like to see it brought on this week, but obviously that is not going to happen.
40
45
50 But I say bring on the debate so that the truth -- and that is something that is missing largely in the abortion
debate -- can be told and we can perhaps at some stage in the not-too-distant future take the first steps towards protecting the most vulnerable and defenceless members of our community, the unborn. 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 35
Page 36 Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- Several weeks ago the bill to decriminalise abortion was introduced into this chamber, and I concur with Mr Finn that it is disappointing that some of the issues raised in the speech which accompanied that introduction are not going to be aired and considered by this chamber because there were many, many falsehoods in that speech and many fundamental errors of fact.
5 I preface my brief remaining remarks with the caveat that I do not intend to try to make women who have
collaborated in abortion feel bad about themselves or about anybody else. Once the abortion has been done, there is no point to that. However, I would like to work towards deterring future abortions. I would also like to make the point that my attitude against abortion, the reason why I believe that abortion is properly a part of the Crimes Act, is not based on moral considerations but on the fact that abortion involves harm to other human beings. Indeed that is what our criminal law should be doing: preventing people from doing harm to other human beings. In the case of abortions, it is the worst thing that you can possibly do to somebody: to take their life when they are so young. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) -- Order! I remind Mr Kavanagh to speak to the motion and not enter into debate on the issue.
10
15 Mr KAVANAGH -- On the motion, Acting President, Dr Bernard Nathanson, who was previously the leading
proponent of abortion in the United States and whose actions resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision of the United States Supreme Court, admits personal responsibility for 75 000 abortions, which he now calls 'a crime against humanity'. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) -- Order! Mr Kavanagh needs to speak just to the motion and not debate
20 the question.
Mr KAVANAGH -- I express disappointment that the bill will not be debated, because there are a lot of things that should be said about the content of the proposed bill. END QUOTE
25 http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&speech=5538
6&activity=Petitions&title=Abortion:+legislation&date1=13&date2=February&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09an d+%28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Whole Speech
30 First Match New Search

Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only. Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
35
Title House Activity Members Date Page Abortion: legislation ASSEMBLY Petitions CAMPBELL; CRUTCHFIELD 13 February 2007 161
13 February 2007 ASSEMBLY Page 161
40
Abortion: legislation 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 36
Page 37 To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of the undersigned residents of Victoria draws the attention of the house to proposed amendments to the Crimes Act which will ensure that no abortion can be criminal when performed by a legally qualified medical practitioner at the request of the woman concerned.
The implementation of this legislation will allow abortions to be legal in Victoria right up to birth. This will only increase the thousands of children who die needlessly each year through abortion and will add to the existing social problems in Victoria resulting from such a high abortion rate. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria vote against amendments to the Crimes Act that will decriminalise abortion in the state of Victoria.
10 By Ms CAMPBELL (Pascoe Vale) (344 signatures) Mr CRUTCHFIELD (South Barwon) (228 signatures)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 END QUOTE
15 http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&speech=5935
1&activity=Petitions&title=Abortion:+legislation&date1=7&date2=August&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+ %28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Whole Speech
20 First Match New Search

Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only. Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
25
Title House Activity Members Date Page Abortion: legislation ASSEMBLY Petitions CAMPBELL 7 August 2007 2516
7 August 2007 ASSEMBLY Page 2516
30
Abortion: legislation To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of the undersigned residents of Victoria draws the attention of the house to proposed amendments to the Crimes Act which will ensure that no abortion can be criminal when performed by a legally qualified medical practitioner at the request of the woman concerned. The implementation of this legislation will allow abortions to be legal in Victoria right up to birth. This will only increase the thousands of children who die needlessly each year through abortion and will add to the existing social problems in Victoria resulting from such a high abortion rate.
35
40
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria vote against amendments to the Crimes Act that will decriminalise abortion in the state of Victoria. 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 37
Page 38 By Ms CAMPBELL (Pascoe Vale) (11 309 signatures) Tabled. Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Burwood be considered next day on motion of Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood).
5 Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Pascoe Vale be considered next day on motion of Ms
CAMPBELL (Pascoe Vale). Ordered that petitions presented by honourable member for Nepean be considered next day on motion of Mr DIXON (Nepean). Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Benalla be considered next day on motion of Dr SYKES
10 (Benalla).
END QUOTE http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&speech=5947 3&activity=Petitions&title=Abortion:+legislation&date1=9&date2=August&date3=2007&query=true%0a%09and+ %28+data+contains+'ABORTION'+%29 QUOTE Whole Speech First Match New Search
15
20 Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page only.
Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.
Abortion: legislation ASSEMBLY Petitions NEVILLE; TREZISE; MULDER 9 August 2007 2641
25
Page 2641 Abortion: legislation
9 August 2007 ASSEMBLY
30
To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the house: 1. the avowed desire of some members of Parliament to decriminalise late-term abortion; 2. there are around 90 000 abortions in Australia annually, which is 5 per hour, or 1 every 6 minutes; 3.
35
the command of Almighty God 'You shall not murder' in Exodus 20:13; His clear instruction that human life begins at conception, as stated in Psalm 139:13-16; Matthew 1:18, 20, 21; and Luke 1:39-44; and His express command not to kill the unborn in Exodus 21:22-25; 4. the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception, with its own DNA, blood group, blood type, separate blood supply, heartbeat and gender; Page 38 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 39 5. the fact that today's modern medicine and medical treatment ensures a high survival rate for babies born prematurely, as early as 23 weeks' gestation and improving continually ('67 per cent survival at 23 weeks: Royal Women's Hospital' in Premature Baby Debate Needed: Pike, the Age, 07/06/05). The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:
preserve and retain the current provisions of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 that make it a crime to deliberately kill babies capable of living outside the womb (section 10 'Offence of child destruction'); expand the provisions of sections 65 and 66 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 to prohibit all forms of abortion at any stage of pregnancy, excepting those extremely rare instances of indisputable medical emergency where the mother's life can only be saved at the expense of the unborn child;
10
require, through appropriate legislation, that all such emergency abortions be performed with the goal of delivering the baby alive together with supply of modern medical care for the premature baby. By Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine) (139 signatures) Mr TREZISE (Geelong) (166 signatures) Mr MULDER (Polwarth) (1510 signatures) END QUOTE
15
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/theperch/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gender_selective_abortion_sick/ QUOTE
Gender-selective, late abortion; sickening

64 Comments | Permalink 20 The Perch Blog
Wendy Tuohy
April 28 2013 (1:34pm) News News today that a Melbourne couple succeeded in obtaining a gender-based abortion, is stomach 25 churning. The procedure was carried out when the mother was approximately 19 weeks pregnant. The subtext is that this may well have been a cultural issue, and the story reports the father was very insistent the couple would not carry a baby girl to term. Neither go anywhere near justifying what a doctor did for them, and for which he or she will not be investigated. Its just inexcusable that a specialist carried this out. 30 On Friday I supported the likely funding on the PBS of the abortion pill RU486, which causes spontaneous miscarriage at less than seven weeks gestation. I said I dont like the idea of pregnancy terminationwho would?but the reality is it is legal and there is an accepted need for early termination. As I said, I believe in many cases the mental health and life outcomes of the mother, if forced to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, are 35 compelling. I know many believe a termination is a termination and the number of weeks gestation is irrelevant. Though I expect to be accused now of wanting it both ways (freedom for women in early pregnancy to be able to terminate, and protection of fully-developed babies), I believe there are shades of grey. 40 Our society accepts early termination to the point where it is accepted under law. It doesnt mean you have to like it (some of us go so far as to be sterilised when we have completed our families, or believe we are too old to safely carry more babies, in order to never face that awful choice). But I cant see the day when we will ever accept selection out of babies nearly half way through a pregnancy on gender grounds or for any other social reason.
Page 40 And I cant understand how any licensed health practitioner could be persuaded to either. Babies can be kept alive from as early as 23 weeks now in Victoria, thanks tour extraordinary health services.
I feel sick about todays story. But I still defend a womans right to safe, legal, early termination, 5 without judging her or her partner to be killers. END QUOTE
10
15 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
9-10-2013
The email quoted below was forwarded to Peter regarding his article but it should be understood is merely a kind of introduction to indicate that Dr Mark Hobart had in my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST every right to exercise his constitutional guarantied political and civil rights regarding the Abortion issue. The man stood clearly as a candidate on this issue (in a 20 political election) and therefore it is beyond question what his political views are. It is totally irrelevant if one may or may not agree with his views, as what is important is that we have a constitution (by which in s106 the states are created subject to this constitution) that has embedded his constitutional rights he now can rely upon. One may also question if the state can legislate at all as to doctors in view that the constitution 25 was amended by referendum to give the Commonwealth legislative powers as to doctors but not as to force them to a conscription. Hence, not even the Commonwealth could force a doctor to act contrary to his political beliefs. therefore the new laws enacted since the amendment of the constitution may be for this also unconstitutional and without legal force. As I proved on 19 July 2006 in the 5 year litigation against me, by the Commonwealth of 30 Australia in the County Court of Victoria, that compulsory registration/voting is unconstitutional. And the Australian Electoral Commission as did the Victorian Electoral Commission in its elections published at the time My How-To-Vote Cards that compulsory registration/voting was unconstitutional. Despite the perception that compulsory voting is legal it is unconstitutional. 35 I have not a shred of doubt that in this case Dr Mark Hobart is entitled to exercise his constitutional rights! Regrettably, most electors, when voting, fail to understand how important my message was about their constitutional rights. And perhaps Dr Mark Hobart himself may at the time the election was held, in which we both were standing as a candidate, not understood how significant 40 it was, until now. It is regrettably often only when people end up in problems that they may realise the importance of their constitutional rights, but in the mean time they can be scarred for life, and incur huge cost to defend themselves, and yet this may have been avoided had they just been more concerned as to try to understand why I stood as a candidate on constitutional issues and voted
Page 41
for me. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Apart of the constitutional issues my writings in my published books have made clear that I view that a woman engaging voluntarily in a sex act that result to a pregnancy by this has given up the 5 right to decide about her own body as she willingly accepted to create or risk to create another life and must be bound to this. It is not an issue that the woman has no right over her own body, as that is clearly an irrelevant argument. A simplistic example is: A landlord has ever legal right to conduct his affairs about his property as he desires, however if he engage in a lease then he loses certain rights as they will be subject 10 to a verbal/written contract he voluntarily engage in, unless something extra ordinary eventuates that a court may not enforce all or some of the lease conditions. As such, the woman engaging in a sexual act that she reasonably knows she can become pregnant by this has so to say sub-leased her body to the tenant (the child/children) created, and is bound by this, unless a court/doctor were to find that in an emergency situation an abortion was justified. 15 Where a female becomes pregnant due to a rape then in certain circumstances it may be justified that the victim of the rape was to have an abortion. However, as I understand it, once a police officer of Lalor made known that 9 out of 10 cases he investigated as to alleged rape actually turned out to be consentual sex, and the female concerned made the rape claim (such as married women) to seek to cover up in the event they had fallen pregnant by their so to say one-night 20 stand. Therefore, we need to be careful a woman doesnt use the rape claim to get rid of a foetus when in reality she voluntarily engaged in the sex act. And, as much as the Commonwealth holds the legal principle that a biological father is responsible for the cost (or some of it) during and after the pregnancy then he also must have a right as to the pregnancy, as so to say women cannot have the cake and eat it. 25 Neither should a woman be permitted to challenge the paternity of the man who was held to be the father, once shed had acknowledged him to be the father (being the husband or otherwise) because it makes children nothing more but a financial commodity for women to extract if not blackmail a man for monies she knows or reasonably knows she is not entitled upon. As such commits fraud! 30 As I successfully submitted to Trevaud J in the 1980, a child must have a biological father, and so no woman should be able to challenge the paternity of the husband unless she first prove by proper evidence that there is an alternative biological father. Trevaud J then made orders for the wife to file an affidavit listing all the men with whom she claimed to have had sexual intercourse with at the time of each pregnancy. Well, the wife never 35 filed the affidavit, and the paternity case was because of this at an end. If a man causing a child to be aborted by violence, etc, can be convicted for this then a woman likewise should face the same legal responsibilities, as again where she voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse that she reasonably could have been aware may cause her to become pregnant, then she must be deemed to have given up to certain rights, and that she is bound to carry the 40 child until born at the very least.
QUOTE BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 41
45
10
Page 42 Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~ END QUOTE
Wed 9 October 2013 5.53am Re your article about Dr Mark Hobart and the Abortion issue 15 From CC 20 inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au Peter, Dr Mark Hobart was a candidate in the Broadmeadows by-election 2011, as I was also as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. I was in my How-To-Vote cards promoting the constitution and the rights of citizens. 25 Let me quote parts relevant to Dr Mark Hobart also:
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles 30 which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE
Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To peter.rolfe@news.com.au
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
40 .
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten , END QUOTE
45 And
Page 43 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, 5 which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was 15 wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 20 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
25 END QUOTE
. HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
30 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution ,
END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
35 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in
prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE . Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100. Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is
45 exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the
Commonwealth. END QUOTE 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 43
Page 44 . HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END 5 QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have
10 to wipe it out."
END QUOTE And Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution)
15 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
For the above also I view (considering your article at 20 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished/storye6frg6n6-1226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf )that Dr Mark Hobart is constitutionally entitled to refuse to do anything contrary to his political rights as embedded as a legal principle in the constitution. Regretfully, when I promoted the constitution, etc, it was generally not understood how important the constitution is about our rights. 25 See also my blog at www.scrfibd.com/inspectorrikati and my website http://www.schorelhlavka.com/ Gerrit . Constitutionalist & Consultant 30 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209 35 . Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated. If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to 40 consider the content appropriately! A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
Page 45 Melbourne doctor's abortion stance may be punished - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished/story-e6frg6n61226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf
by: Peter Rolfe From: Herald Sun April 28, 2013 9:00PM The Perch: Have your say with Wendy Tuohy A MELBOURNE doctor who refused to refer a couple for an abortion because they wanted only a boy has admitted he could face tough sanctions.
10
Dr Mark Hobart, who stood as a candidate for the Democratic Labor Party, which is anti-abortion, at a byelection for the Victorian state seat of Broadmeadows in 2011 and remains a member of the party, fears he could be punished for refusing to give the Melbourne couple a referral after discovering they were seeking an abortion because they didn't want to have a girl. Obstetricians have proposed parents be banned from knowing the sex of unborn babies until it is too late to terminate, to prevent gender-based abortions.
15
By refusing to provide a referral for a patient on moral grounds or refer the matter to another doctor, Dr Hobart admits he has broken the law and could face suspension, conditions on his ability to practice or even be deregistered. But he was willing to risk punishment in pursuit of principles. He said he did not believe any doctor in Victoria would have helped a couple have an abortion just because they wanted a boy.
20
"I've got a conscientious objection to abortion, I've refused to refer in this case a woman for abortion and it appears that I have broken the rules," he said. "But just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right." The Sunday Herald Sun yesterday revealed the couple had asked Dr Hobart to refer them to an abortion clinic after discovering at 19 weeks they were having a girl when they wanted a boy.
25
Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 specifies the obligations of registered health practitioners who have a "conscientious objection" to abortion. Under the Act, if a woman requests a doctor to advise on a proposed abortion and the practitioner has a conscientious objection, he or she must refer the woman to a practitioner who does not conscientiously object.
30
"That is the letter of the law," he said. "It leaves me in limbo. "It's never been tested ... it is a very complicated area." Medical Practitioners Board spokeswoman Nicole Newton said doctors were bound by the law and a professional code of conduct.
35
"The board expects practitioners to practise lawfully and to provide safe care and to meet the standards set out in the board's code of conduct," she said. Another doctor who was brought before the Medical Board in January for airing his views against abortion was cautioned and warned he could be deregistered if it happened again. peter.rolfe@news.com.au - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-bepunished/story-e6frg6n6-1226631128438#sthash.UMwisIPD.dpuf
40
http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908
OBrien: Abortion bill a violation of hard-won rights - See more at: http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908#sthash.GYAEWo1p.dpuf
45
By Pazis on Apr 29, 2013 with Comments 0 A Bill designed to curb sex-selection abortion must be seen for what it is: a way for anti-choice activists to claw back the hard-fought right for women to terminate a pregnancy, writes Susie O Brien. Can you imagine aborting a healthy foetus just beca use you discovered it was the wrong sex? 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 45
Page 46 Its almost unimaginable; most of us would be happy with a healthy baby, regardless of whether it s a boy or a girl. Over the weekend, Melbourne GP Dr Mark Hobart told the Sunday Mail that he had seen a couple that wanted to abort a female foetus because they wanted a boy. Most doctors agree that this sort of thing does occasionally happen, but it is very, very rare. Another Victorian case from a few years ago involved a couple who terminated twin boys for gender reasons: They had three sons and had previously lost a girl soon after birth, so they desperately wanted another girl. Again, its abhorrent. You would think that any couple that lost a child would be grateful for the gift of twins of any gender.
10
But just because most of us are against abortion on sex-selection grounds, it doesnt automatically follow that we should support a federal Bill to limit access to Medicare for it. The Bill has been moved by Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, who is well known for his prolife views.
15
What you need to know is that Dr Hobart is also a member of the DLP, and ran for the seat of Broadmeadows as a candidate at the last state election. His views must be analysed with this in mind. Im certainly not suggesting Dr Hobart is not telling the truth. I spoke to him yesterday and he seems like a decent, honourable man. But he is staunchly pro-life and a member of the party seeking to restrict access to abortion on the grounds of sex selection.
20
I also spoke to Senator Madigan yesterday, and he confirmed that Dr Hobart was critical in helping draw his attention to the issue: he is not an innocent bystander. Senator Madigan told me that people think they can bump a child off just because it is a girl: its morally repugnant. I agree with him on this, but I dont agree with his solution. The point is that although it clearly does happen, it is certainly not widespread and there is no evidence to suggest that Medicare funding is involved. I asked Senator Madigan how widespread the occurrence of sexselection abortion is and he told me it was hard to know because of limited data. They dont want the truth out there, he said conspiratorially. A recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia reviews the reasons women seek an abortion and sex selection is not one of them. In any case, Australia has a perfectly normal and natural balance of males and females born: 105.7 males to every 100 females. Senator Madigan, who calls himself pro-life and pro-people, says anyone concerned about womens rights ought to support this legislation. But I beg to disagree. As I stated earlier, I am totally opposed to abortion on the basis of sex selection. But this particular piece of legislation violates the rights of women to access publicly funded abortions and thus should not be supported.
25
30
35
Tellingly, this legislation is not supported by either the Australian Medical Association or the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. But the debate is having an impact. Some doctors are even calling for people not to be told the sex of their child until it is too late to end the pregnancy; again, this is ridiculous. Ninety-six per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, so there is no reason for this to happen.
40
The point is that, as Senator Madigan points out in his speech to Federal Parliament on the Bill, it is not illegal to have an abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus. The law does not require women to give a reason for an abortion. If Mr Madigan wants to change the law and make women who want to have abortions give a reason, and then make some reasons (such as sex selection) illegal, then it is his right to do so.
45
There would presumably be a major outcry because such a move would be a gross violation of the rights of women. As many womens health groups are suggesting, this would surely discriminate against some groups of women and jeopardise the health services they receive.
50
In his speech to Parliament, Senator Madigan talks of an increase in the number of requests for sex-selection IVF for family balancing reasons. He notes that many are concerned that these same couples may be resorting to sex-selection abortion when their requests are denied. 7-12-2013 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 46
Page 47 This is ludicrous. There is a big difference between couples asking whether it is possible to have a baby of one sex or the other through IVF and aborting a foetus because it is the wrong sex. Senator Madigans Bill must be seen for what it is: a way for anti -choice activists to claw back the hardfought right for women to have abortions. The same thing is happening in other countries such as Canada and the US. Making the decision to have an abortion is not easy. But in this country it is a free choice and we should not be allowing politicians especially those who will never be in this position personally to limit womens right to publicly funded abortions. source: adelaidenow.com.au
10
SBBCNEWS.COM
- See more at: http://sbbcnews.com/australia/?p=908#sthash.GYAEWo1p.dpuf Well, I will see if you are going to stand up as a sentry! 15 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE
20
25 Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(
Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 10-10-2013 CORRESPONDENCE 30 Well the above certainly may give some people a better understanding about constitutional rights, and perhaps it may assist to defeat the I view unconstitutional legislation to force a medical practitioner to act contrary to his moral codes, political and/or religious rights 35 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(
Our name is our motto!)
Page 47

131207-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Terri Kelleher Re Abortion-Gay Marriage Issues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

131207-G H Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Terri Kelleher Re Abortion-Gay Marriage Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Terri M Kelleher tkelleher@family.org.au Victorian President Australian Family Association 5

Medical Board of Victoria, Medical Board of Australia, 15

VIC Board Members

35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 5 END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) QUOTE

10 END QUOTE Again:

Page 22 option is only available if a speaker is not already selected.

Title House Activity Members Date Page

19 August 2008 ASSEMBLY

Page 23 12 September 2008 COUNCIL Page 3792

Victoria's Abortion Law & Its Charter

Senator John Madigan (part of his maiden speech)

25 Hansard records re Abortion issue

20 I share at least some common ground with every member here.

Title House Activity Members Date Page

Page 32 19 July 2007 COUNCIL Page 2144

35 current community attitudes.

25 Debate adjourned for Mr P. DAVIS (Gippsland) on motion of Mr Rich-Phillips.

Title House Activity Members Date Page

Page 35 21 August 2007 COUNCIL Page 2480

30 First Match New Search

13 February 2007 ASSEMBLY Page 161

20 First Match New Search

7 August 2007 ASSEMBLY Page 2516

Title House Activity Members Date Page

9 August 2007 ASSEMBLY

Gender-selective, late abortion; sickening

15 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To peter.rolfe@news.com.au

25 Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

You might also like