 |
| Tasmanian Coat of Arms |
134. Abortion
(1) Any woman who, being pregnant, unlawfully administers to herself, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, any poison or other noxious thing or with such intent unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever, is guilty of a crime.
(2) Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, unlawfully administers to her, or causes her to take, any poison or other noxious thing, or with such intent unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever, is guilty of a crime.
Charge:
Administering poison [or using means] to procure abortion.
135. Aiding in intended abortion
Any person who unlawfully supplies to or procures for any other person anything whatever, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, is guilty of a crime.
Charge:
Aiding in intended abortion.
164. Medical termination of pregnancy
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 134, 135 or 165, but subject to this section, a person is not guilty of a crime in relation to the termination of a pregnancy which is legally justified.
(2) The termination of a pregnancy is legally justified if –
(a) two medical practitioners have certified, in writing, that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman than if the pregnancy were terminated; and
(b) the woman has given informed consent unless it is impracticable for her to do so.
(3) In assessing the risk referred to in subsection (2), the medical practitioners may take account of any matter which they consider to be relevant.
(4) If it is impracticable for the woman to give informed consent, the two medical practitioners referred to in subsection (2)(a) are to make a declaration in writing detailing the reasons why it was impracticable for the woman to give informed consent.
(5) At least one of the medical practitioners referred to in subsection (2)(a) is to specialise in obstetrics or gynaecology.
(6) A legally justified termination can only be performed by a medical practitioner.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), no person is under a duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment, including any counselling authorised by this section, to which the person has a conscientious objection.
(8) Nothing in subsection (7) affects any duty to participate in treatment which is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman or to prevent her immediate serious physical injury.
(9) In this section –
"informed consent" means consent given by a woman where –
(a) a medical practitioner has provided her with counselling about the medical risk of termination of pregnancy and of carrying a pregnancy to term; and
(b) a medical practitioner has referred her to counselling about other matters relating to termination of pregnancy and carrying a pregnancy to term;
"woman" means any female person of any age.
165. Causing death of child before birth
(1) Any person who causes the death of a child which has not become a human being in such a manner that he would have been guilty of murder if such child had been born alive is guilty of a crime.
Charge:
Causing the death of a child before birth.
(2) No one commits a crime who by any means employed in good faith for the preservation of its mother's life causes the death of any such child before or during its birth.
165A. Infanticide
A woman who by any wilful act or omission, causes the death of her child (being a child under the age of 12 months), and who was at the time not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, and the balance of her mind being, by reason thereof, disturbed, is guilty of a crime, which is called infanticide, although, the offence would, but for this section, have amounted to murder.
Charge:
Infanticide.
Commentary:
Sections 134, 135, 165, 165A of the Criminal code are all in line with the Natural Moral Law.Section 164 of the Criminal Code was included in 2001 after an “emergency sitting” of parliament in which it passed both houses of parliament on December 24 of that year.This occured as a result of “[a] complaint at the Royal Hobart Hospital recently cast doubt over the legality of this practice [abortion]”1. The bill that amended the Criminal Code to include section 164 was introduced by the then Labor member for the Legislative council (upper house) seat of Rumney, Lin Thorp and Former Tasmanian Labor Health and Human Services Minister, Judy Jackson(members of the pro-abortion Labor group, Emily’s List) as a private members bill. It passed the lower and upper houses of parliament in just a few days!
The Lower House Debate can be read here, while the Upper House Debate can be read here (which includes within the Hansard a letter written by Archbishop Adrian Doyle of Hobart to all politicians on the issue)
Abortion is never in the physical or mental best interests of the mother, as can be read in my article, Abortion: Pain for Babies, Pain for Mothers
To read about the link between abortion and breast cancer see the following article:
“Abortion Has Caused 300K Breast Cancer Deaths Since Roe” (http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/14/abortion-has-caused-300k-breast-cancer-deaths-since-roe/)
1. Former Tasmanian Labor Health and Human Services Minister, Judy Jackson (19 December 2001) http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/HansardHouse/isysquery/a6d569c2-3c20-4c65-b33c-3c3342a0a63a/1/doc/#term0_1
