PHPA responds to RACGP regarding SA Bill for later abortion restrictions

Posted by 129sc on June 10, 2026

Pro-life Health Professionals Australia (PHPA) are concerned that the RACGP's public statement mischaracterises the legislation currently before the South Australian Parliament.

Dr Melissa Lai, senior Neonatologist and President of PHPA said the Bill seeks to restore a balance in considering the medical safety of the mother’s pregnancy, and providing ethically compassionate care for the in-utero infant, the second patient. “It fundamentally addresses the separate question of whether the life of an unborn child should be electively ended when they can survive apart from their mothers”, she said. After 22 weeks, this elective termination is typically achieved by feticide, prior to delivery of the infant stillborn, when there is no maternal emergency.

Despite repeated references to "restricting reproductive healthcare", the RACGP provides no evidence that requiring the delivery of a fetus without first inducing fetal death would undermine patient care, nor does it explain why an additional invasive procedure intended solely to ensure the death of the unborn child should be regarded as medically necessary.

“The RACGP says that abortion care is healthcare, but ignoring one patient in the mother-infant dyad is not healthcare,” Dr Lai said. The issue under consideration is whether intentionally ending the life of an unborn child, particularly one capable of being born alive, should automatically be regarded as healthcare, simply because it occurs within a medical setting.

The RACGP also asserts this practice is "evidence-based care" while providing no evidence that later abortions improves maternal health outcomes, with no regard for neonatal outcomes. As with any medical intervention, the burden should rest on those advocating the procedure to demonstrate that its benefits outweigh its risks.

The statement further elevates patient autonomy as though it were the only ethical principle relevant to medicine. Autonomy is important, but medical ethics has always balanced autonomy with obligations to protect vulnerable human beings and prevent harm. In abortions, there are two human beings directly affected by the procedure, yet the RACGP statement acknowledges only one.

“RACGP need reminding that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises that children require appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth,” Dr Lai said. This principle should not be ignored when considering legislation involving viable unborn children.

The South Australian Parliament warrants a respectful and evidence-based discussion of the actual proposal before it. Public debate should focus on whether feticide is medically necessary, ethically justified, and consistent with our obligations toward vulnerable human life, rather than incorrectly suggesting that any scrutiny of this practice constitutes an attack on healthcare itself.

Thousands are expected to rally next Wednesday night (17th June) at 5.30pm, outside Parliament of South Australia in support of the amendment Bill, at the time it will be debated.

DETAILS:

Event: Rally against abortion for babies who can survive

Location: Outside Parliament of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide

Date: Wednesday 17 June at 5.30pm - 6.30pm

PHPA Calls Outs Misleading Statements against Pro-Life Bill Made by Pro-Abortion Medical Bodies - The Daily Declaration