An open letter to the Premier of Victoria

Today I have the great pleasure of publishing a tremendously powerful open letter to the Victorian Premier, Denis Napthine. It relates to Victoria’s atrocious abortion laws that have legalised the murder of probably over 1 million children.


Dear Mr Napthine

I was delighted when you took over as Premier because of your principled stance in voting against the 2008 abortion bill.

What led you to make a 180 degree U-turn? Particularly disturbing is your insinuation that the issue of abortion is “settled” on the specious grounds that there had been a “vigorous debate”. In truth, that abortion always provokes an incendiary controversy unparalleled by any other issue, is proof that the matter is not settled at all. Other contentious issues, like the carbon tax, the mining tax and asylum-seeker policies, have also been vigorously debated and legislated, only to be reversed by incoming governments. Principled men like Wilberforce stick to their guns and fight for justice for decades despite losing many vigorous debates and votes along the way.

It is incomprehensible for a person to vote against a proposed legislation because it is a fatal denial of the fundamental human right to life and then to turn around and declare that this same injustice is a “right” in itself!

Equally disturbing is your statement that you and your government will do nothing to reverse this legislation to give even the slightest protection to the child in the womb. Your use of the meaningless euphemism “right to choose” rather than use the word abortion shows the extent to which you have succumbed to pro-abortion rhetoric. To describe the tearing apart of a child in utero as a “right to choose” is grossly insulting to the murdered child who has no choice at all.

Hitler once called the extermination of the Jews “the final solution”. Today we call the murder of an unborn child a “choice”. The chief mantra used by anti-abolitionists was that people had a choice: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t keep a slave”. This absurd and inane argument about choice is also used against people who regard abortion as the pre-eminent evil of our modern world. Justice entails a person standing up for the rights of those who are unable to stand up for themselves. You have turned from a protector into an aggressor, Mr Napthine.

A prime example of pro-abortion verbal contortions is Jo Wainer’s statement as reported on December 5 in the Warrnambool Standard: “The main concern is that Geoff Shaw might try to push through a change to referrals allowing doctors with a fundamental religious view to bar women from making a choice about their bodies.” It is little wonder that Jo Wainer does not want to face up to the reality that every abortion kills a child as the East Melbourne abortion business started by her late husband Bertram Wainer has exterminated over 300,000 babies since 1972.

 “Over three hundred thousand human deaths, Mr Napthine.
At one abortion business in Melbourne.”

A particularly sinister aspect of the 2008 legislation was that many MPs exercised their “consciences” to deny doctors their freedom of conscience in refusing to participate or collude in the killing of defenceless small human beings. When you said, Mr Napthine, “I and my government will do nothing which will reduce a woman’s right to choose”, does this mean you will also not support any moves to remove Section 8 of the act? Even The Age editorial in 2008 opposed this coercion of doctors.

It’s really only feminist ideologues (as well as those who profit from killing the unborn) who want to remove the doctors’ right to choose not to be involved in abortion. A mere 150 mostly student protesters gathered outside the Liberal Party HQ last week to shout out their support for the holocaust and their approval of removing doctors’ genuine rights. Across the street, observers were heard to laugh and remark, “This is the mob Napthine has buckled to.”

You should be far more fearful, Mr Napthine, of the thousands of good, peaceful, law-abiding families who sacrificed their Saturday afternoon to walk for the Babies in the CBD a couple of months ago. Unlike your pro-abortion friends, they will not throw eggs at you, nor hurl urine-filled condoms at you, nor bellow and screech obscenities at you, but they will simply choose at the ballot box.

Section 8 forces doctors to violate their fundamental moral convictions. These may be based on religious faith but not always. Conscience is the guardian of moral integrity. It is also the guardian of professional integrity. Why is abortion the one area which requires such draconian legal protection amounting to coercion to those who oppose it?

To illustrate how evil Section 8 is, I put to you the following scenario: If I offered you $100,000 to kill a person I hate, you would refuse, saying it was against your moral principles. If I then offered you the same money to refer me to someone who would do the killing, you would still refuse. Wouldn’t you?

Hundreds of committed prolife people worked hard at the 2010 elections to replace Emily’s Listers with prolife MPs. You can be sure they will be working just as hard in the state elections next year. Christine Campbell, who has tabled a petition of over 4,000 signatures calling for the repeal of Section 8, can leave Parliament with her head held high. As a known prolifer she actually increased the Labor vote in her electorate. Proof, Mr Napthine, that the voters admire a politician with unwavering principles.

Yours sincerely

Richard Grant

(Father of seven daughters and two sons and grandfather of 20, including one child in utero. Retired labour market economist)

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. This is my comment: Directly from Hansard during the debate of the Abortion Law Reform Bill in 2008, a quote from Denis Napthine, who voted against the Bill:
    “It is repugnant that a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion — and many doctors and health practitioners do — will be forced by this legislation to refer a woman to a practitioner who they know will perform an abortion. I think that is wrong.” Denis Napthine, from Hansard during the Victorian
    Abortion Law Reform Bill debate 2008.
    Flip. Flop. Flap.

    And you can watch this if you don’t know what we’re talking about.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest