Together we represent the womens health, community
and legal sector in NSW. We work primarily with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged women in NSW, however our organisations have broad support across the state and our work is respected and recognised. Domesflc vlolence NSW Famlly Flannlng NSW F Collecflve Rape and Domesflc vlolence Servlces Ausfralla (lormerly NSW Rape Crlsls) Women's Elecforal Lobby Ausfralla Women's Healfh NSW Women's Legal Servlces NSW Why we urge you to oppose the Bill There has been no consultation We are concerned about how quickly this Bill has moved fo debafe ln fhe Leglslaflve Assembly. There has been no consulfaflon wlfh fhe women's secfor, and MFs have not been given the opportunity to consult with their communities. It is fundamental that when a Bill is proposed that purports to support women in NSW, that the views of women are sought. The amendment is unnecessary ln May 2010, The Honourable Mlchael Campbell OC was asked by the then NSW Government to review fhe Crlmes Acf 100 fo assess whefher fhe currenf provisions enabled the justice system to respond appropriately to criminal incidents involving the death of an unborn child. Mr Campbell concluded fhaf fhe currenf ollences allow the justice system to respond appropriately and there was no reason to change the law or to create a new offence. He fook lnfo accounf fhe 2005 amendmenf fo fhe delnlflon ol grlevous bodlly harm ln fhe Crlmes Acf which included the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm.
. The Bill gives legal personhood to a foetus If successful, this will be the rst piece of legislation in NSW that draws a distinction in personhood between a woman and the foetus she is carrying. In other We acknowledge the signicant pain and grief experienced following harm or loss of a foetus; however fhe Crlmes Amendmenf (Zoe's Law) Blll 2013 (No.2) ralses serlous legal and efhlcal questions for the womens sector. The Crlmes Acf 100 and specllcally fhe 2005 amendmenf fo fhe delnlflon ol grlevous bodily harm have been reviewed and found fo be approprlafe. An ollence ol fhls nafure causing destruction of a foetus already carries a maxlmum prlson senfence ol 25 years. There can be no suggestion that the existing criminal law is inadequate for responding to violent offences of this kind. The amendment before the parliament is unnecessary and inappropriate. Crimes Amendment (Zoes Law) Bill 2013 (No.2) 1 jurisdictions, recognising the foetus as an independent person has been the rst step towards prosecutions of women where they are deemed to have acted contrary to the interests of the foetus they are carrying. If passed, the new law would mean that if someone caused the destruction of a foetus, they could be charged with grievous bodily harm to the foetus, instead of being charged with grievous bodily harm to the pregnant woman. The Bill uses the term unborn child, which is incorrect and emoflve. Fregnancy lnvolves a zygofe and fhen an embryo in the early stages, which develops into a foetus. Upon live birth the foetus becomes a child. Until the foetus achieves an independent existence it should not be granted legal personhood in its own right. The Bill has the potential to undermine the reproductive rights of women Giving personhood status to a foetus may affect the lawfulness and accessibility of pregnancy termination in NSW, particularly for procedures carried out later in a pregnancy. Aborflon ls currenfly a crlmlnal ollence ln NSW. The courts have held that an abortion can be lawfully performed if it is necessary to prevent serious harm to the life or health of the pregnant woman, but there is no clear recognition of this in the Crimes Act. Given the uncertain legal status of lawful abortion in NSW, it would be extremely concerning to have a provision in the Crimes Act that recognises the foetus as a person. We believe there is a real risk that this provision could be used in the future to attempt to restrict the circumstances in which abortions can be lawfully performed. Reproducflve rlghfs are essenflal human rlghfs fhaf are conrmed in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Arf. 1(1)(e)). If accepted, this legislative change could weaken the right of women in NSW to access safe, legal pregnancy termination. While medical procedures and anything done by, or with the consent of, the pregnant woman concerned are excluded in the Bill, this is open to interpretation and may not be sufcient to protect the rights of the woman involved. For example fhe exempflon lor "medlcal procedures" may not be broad enough to cover medical (as distinct lrom surglcal) aborflons. Medlcal aborflon has recenfly recelved bofh TGA and FBS llsflng. There ls also no clarity around consent and the recent Senate Inquiry into the Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of People with Disabilities in Australia highlighted the issues that exist in regard to consent for medical procedures for people with disability. For further information: http://www.womenslegalnsw.asn.au/law-and-policy- relorm/zoes-law.hfml Contact Melanle Fernandez, Chalr, Women's Elecforal Lobby Ausfralla, 0402 334 28 Georgla Foffer Bufler, Convenor, F Collecflve, 0488 217 535 Denele Crozler, Chlel Execuflve, Women's Healfh NSW, 0414 780417 Karen Wlllls, CEC Rape and Domesflc vlolence Servlces Ausfralla, 041 43807 Jodl McKay, Dlrecfor, Communlcaflons, Governmenf and Communlfy Allalrs, Famlly Flannlng NSW, 0414873 Carolyn Jones, Senlor Sollclfor, Women's Legal Servlces ln NSW, 8745 00 We urge you not to support this Bill. 2 http://ourbodiesourchoices.good.do