Soon after winning the Queensland State election on 26 October 2024, the new Liberal National Premier, David Crisafulli, unexpectedly moved a motion in the Parliament to ban any discussion of abortion and to prohibit the introduction of any Bill dealing with this controversial topic for four years.

Consequently, following the successful adoption of the motion, parliamentarians cannot amend, or even discuss, Queensland’s liberal abortion law, the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018. The present law allows termination of pregnancy for up to 22 weeks for any reason.

This ban has now created a headache for the government because, a few days ago, Robbie Katter of Katter’s Australian Party unsuccessfully moved a motion in Parliament to have the ban overturned.

Katter’s action coincided with the publication of a distressing image of a 16-week-old baby who, it is alleged, was born alive after an abortion.

Both the Queensland hospital and the Health Service chief executive have indicated that they are aware of the image circulating which they say represents a ‘serious breach of confidentiality’. Queensland Health and the state government are seeking the removal of the image from social media.

It was reported, but not confirmed, that the baby was seen sucking his thumb and left to die on a metal tray without receiving medical care and treatment. Professor Joanna Howe of the University of Adelaide was interviewed on Sky News Australia about this episode, lamenting what she alleges as the inhumane treatment of the baby following the abortion.

On Monday, there was a ‘Public Gathering for Queensland Babies’, which described the present practice as ‘a moral emergency which no voter can ignore until’. The protest, held next to Parliament House, focused on the unwillingness of the Crisafulli government to even consider Katter’s Termination of Pregnancy (Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024, adoption of which could save the life of innocent babies.

This baby, referred to as ‘Baby Samuel’ by Ms Howe, is the latest in a growing list of babies who are alleged to have been left to die after a failed abortion. The shocking image of the baby sucking its thumb is heart-rending and is emblematic of a heartless, inhumane society that appears to deprive these babies of proper medical care and treatment.

There is now a debate within the community about whether the right to privacy, being investigated by Queensland Health, prevails over the right to life for these babies who meet such a tragic end.

There are many problems with Crisafulli’s abortion-related ban. His successful motion to block debates on abortion in the Queensland Parliament is incompatible with democratic decision-making. If democracy means that members of Parliament should be allowed to discuss any issue that is relevant to their electorate and the state, then a gag order is an unprecedented and egregious infringement of MPs’ right to free speech and to properly represent the best interests of their electorate. Of course, the Labor opposition, outgunned in Parliament, cannot do very much but bemoan the existing ban, not because of its attack on democratic values, but on the ground that it would not be possible to expand abortion services in the state!

But, quite apart from democratic concerns, what about the right to life? The right to life is expressly protected by Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which, ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.’

Many believe it is simply inhumane to let a human being die without providing any medical care and compassion. If the prematurely delivered baby is alive after an abortion and responds well to medical treatment, surely it must be possible in such circumstances for the baby to be adopted? Although some speakers at the ‘Public Gathering for Queensland Babies’ event discussed the right to life from a Christian perspective – certainly a sensible approach – basic rules of ethical conduct required politicians to value and protect this right that ‘Nature’ has bequeathed to humankind?

Recently, we have seen too many examples of Australia’s ‘culture of death’ that rejects the sanctity of life principle, such as voluntary assisted dying. This is particularly ironic when one considers that many of these politicians who in the recent past coerced the entire population to take an experimental vaccine, supposedly to save lives, are the same who support such things as late-term abortion for the unborn and so-called assisted suicide for the elderly.

As Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), such a culture of death ‘betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of the “the strong” against the weak who have no choice but to submit’. The Pope’s point is a not-so-subtle reference to the modern trend for people to arrogate to themselves the power of controlling the uncontrollable. Our modern time is an unending and endless search for control, including how people are born and die.

Surely, this reckless indifference to life is disturbing, but unmistakable, evidence of a decaying civilisation, and any motion in the Queensland Parliament to wash its hands of the problem, like Pontius Pilate when allowing the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, will only exacerbate and hasten the decline.

This issue of the dreadful fate of babies born alive after an abortion is likely to resonate with the public and will inevitably become a major election issue at the next election scheduled for October 2028.

The disgraceful treatment of this issue by the Crisafulli government may well sway many people not to vote for the LNP. In addition to Katter’s Australia Party, One Nation has already indicated its intention to change the law if it wins government. What is certain is that the name ‘Baby Samuel’ serves as a directive to our politicians to respect life. It is also a reminder that there is only a fine line between compassionate human conduct and indifferent cruel behaviour.