What freedom, when one choice denies another?

CONSCIENTIOUS objection is supposed to be a democratic right. It is enshrined in international covenants and is at the core of what makes us a democracy. So it is pretty disturbing when that right is eroded, as it has been in Victoria.

In that state we have come to the ironic situation where parliamentarians allowed to exercise a conscience vote have taken away others' right of conscientious objection.

Janet Gross is a general practitioner with a busy medical practice in Dandenong, a lower-income suburb with a large number of immigrants and refugees. Most weeks two or three patients come in with an unwanted pregnancy. They are usually confused and depressed, sometimes desperate. Many of them say they want an abortion. But Gross does not think abortion as a first resort is good medicine.

"I am sure that an unwanted pregnancy can be as devastating as a diagnosis of cancer," she says. "But there are issues that push women to desperation. For the patient, it is not an ideological issue. They all precede by saying: 'I have no choice.' For her it is practical, emotional, and they need breathing space."

Most of these women go on to give birth. Despite their initial reaction, they didn't really want to have an abortion in the first place. However, under the new abortion laws passed in Victoria, a caring GP such as Gross could be prosecuted if she refused to refer someone to have an abortion. It is not clear how far she can counsel against an abortion - counselling or breathing space isn't mentioned - but the law is definite that she could be brought before the medical board if she refused to refer someone determined to have an abortion. She has been told that a sign in her office stating that she will not refer for abortion puts her medical defence in jeopardy.

It isn't just doctors who will have to comply with these draconian laws. It exposes nurses who will not assist at abortions and pharmacists who refuse to supply abortifacients. Gross and other doctors I have spoken to are very distressed, and many of them believe that this is part of a concerted effort by a combination of abortion providers and their ideological cheer squad to simply drive anti-abortion doctors out of the profession.

So how is it that we have come to this situation? Why is it that a few committed radicals can do this? Why is it that Planned Parenthood and the abortion providers can get away with the tiresome ideological arguments for destroying a viable baby of 24-plus weeks? Why do they want to force other people to comply? How is it that the Australian Medical Association, which opposed the "no conscientious objection" provisions (clause 8), was ignored, as were most submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, not to mention the objections of eminent doctors such as Graeme Clark, inventor of the bionic ear?

This blithe ignoring of rational argument for life in favour of the irrational ideology of rights talk is a pattern that repeats itself whenever this issue is raised. It is questionable whether laws passed in such an atmosphere are valid and there have been questions on whether the Victorian law contravenes Australia's international human rights obligations.

But some insight into why and how this happens can be gained if we look at what has been an interesting week in federal parliament, where senator Guy Barnett has mounted an inquiry into public funding of late abortion through Medicare. It transpires that two submissions delivered to the inquiry are exactly the same: the submission from the Reproductive Health Alliance - that is, the abortion providers and their ideological mates - and another from the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. Word for word, the two submissions argue against abolishing Medicare funding. Claire Moore, chairwoman of the parliamentary group, has left herself open to allegations of collusion with abortion providers.

But that is not all: it gets worse. Not only were the reports from the pro-choice group and the parliamentary group the same, giving the impression that this large group of parliamentarians favoured keeping the Medicare schedule for late abortion, but the reports both argue for eugenics.

Both submissions say Medicare funding for second-trimester abortion should remain because removal "increases the likelihood of a greater number of persons being born with severe disabilities and high support needs" and "the financial cost of caring for a severely disabled child is high, not only for the family but for the whole community ... It is logical to assume that an increase in demand for disability services as a result of the abolishment of item 16525 (in health insurance regulations) will place a greater demand on what is already an underfunded and overwhelmed sector."

That sounds like eugenics to me and it rang the same bell for a few of the parliamentarians in the population group. All 41 were emailed to ascertain their views on this submission presented in their names. Only four replied.

Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock is anti-abortion and after being told about the contents of the report said: "I wish I had been told what was published in my name. Some of these groups think they own you! My views on the right to life are well known." Most of the members didn't know what the submission contained.

Senator Alan Eggleston from Western Australia, who is very concerned about eugenic abortion (he was born with a disability), has decided to resign from the group. Brendan Nelson, while not supporting Barnett's initiative, does oppose, as he puts it, the disturbing view of the report on people born with disabilities.

The only other person to reply was Julie Bishop. Her reply stated: "Years ago as a backbencher I put my name down for a parliamentary committee on population, but I have never taken part in any aspect of it. I have never been to a meeting, never voted on any issue, never read any submission and I know nothing of the report." Quite. And that might just be the problem.

MPs can protect themselves from the difficulties of such issues by opting out. A submission can be issued in their name and they may not know. But it raises the question of how much should they know, especially when matters of life and death are being discussed down the corridor.

Meanwhile, for Gross, things are a little different. For her, this issue is not remote. Matters of life and death confront her every day, but she cannot refer, she cannot become - as she believes - an agent of destruction of an unborn child, nor can she simply turn away from the immediate, real and practical problems faced by the woman.

There is something else. Gross, whose heritage is Jewish, lost all but two members of her extended family under the Nazis. For her the issue has a terrible resonance. It is as politically urgent and as professionally dangerous as any she is likely to face in her life. It is a pity most members of our parliament are not of her calibre.