Abortion bill: MP Kevin Conolly proudly pro life
A conservative Sydney MP says his electorate has supported his pro-life position and his opposition to the abortion Bill.
Rouse Hill
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rouse Hill. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Pro-life Riverstone MP Kevin Conolly remains defiant over a threat to quit the Liberal Party if the “untenable” abortion Bill is passed through the Upper House.
Ahead of the Bill being debated in the Upper House on September 17, Mr Conolly said 90 per cent of feedback he received was in favour of his position.
“Like most members of parliament, I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone calls and people coming off the street,’’ he said.
“This is a matter of life and death. It’s a fundamental issue.
“Science and reason confirm that the child in the womb is a human being and here we are talking about being a human being.”
Mr Conolly said it had been a difficult debate for the Liberal Party.
“It’s been handled respectfully in the parliament but it has tested some people’s position and certainly means I’m one of them,’’ he said.
“I can’t see myself a member of parliament that would pass a Bill this extreme and in this manner.”
Mr Conolly said the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill was not just about decriminalising abortion but replaced common law with “open slather” and allowed women to have terminations after 22 weeks after consulting two doctors.
He also wants the Bill to allow doctors are free to exercise a conscience vote.
“People who want to have an abortion are going to do that,’’ he said.
“I find it gobsmacking we’d force that on doctors.’’
Former Labor candidate and Kellyville GP Dr Annemarie Christie, who opposed Mr Conolly in the March 23 state election, said the Bill passed in the Lower House reflected doctors’ current professional standards outlined by the Australian Medical Association.
“My position, as a doctor, is that I have a duty of care to the patient in front of me seeking help — in this case the woman,’’ she said.
“If I am unable to provide all the appropriate information — whether by lack of knowledge or by conscientious objection — I have a legal and ethical responsibility to refer her to another doctor who is able to provide the information and counsel her appropriately.
“The Bill, as put to the parliament, reflects these current professional standards. To legislate against this, can have unintended consequences in other situations (such as religious objection to blood transfusions or other procedures).”
Mr Conolly said he had a discussion with Ms Berejiklian about his position but declined to discuss what was held in the private conversation.
IN OTHER NEWS
