Dean Dwyer/Australian Correspondent.
Anybody who understands the social pulse of Australia knows that the State of Victoria is the most socially progressive of Australia’s states and territories. Although many Victorians see that as positive, when it means the introduction of laws that directly oppose God’s principles governing life, believers see it as wicked.
Victoria’s current (and 50th) leader is Premier Ben Carroll. He has only held the top job for a few months after winning the leadership of the Victorian Labor Party following the resignation of the previous Premier. Since Victorians will head to the polls on 28 November 2026, they now have to endure the usual onslaught of campaign promises. Leading the charge is Mr Carroll, who is lobbying to remain as Victorian Premier. He describes himself as “fiscally conservative, socially progressive,” which, as it turns out, is political lingo for wanting to help Victorian mothers end the lives of their unborn babies for free.
In a 15 October 2026 X post, Mr Carroll succinctly stated: “Abortion is healthcare. Your bank account and your postcode shouldn’t be a barrier. We’ll fix that.” To avoid appearing one-sided in my criticism of Labor policies, I will point out that the opposition party (who have traditionally been fiscally and socially conservative) have indicated they will also pledge free abortions, much to the disappointment of supporters who have traditionally turned to them in order to act as a counterweight to the anti-God agenda of the Labor Party.
Undeterred by a growing movement against the practice of abortion, the Labor Party continues its war on the womb, firstly decriminalising abortion, then introducing safe access zones around abortion clinics and now by publicly funding free abortions up to 16 weeks’ gestation across the State of Victoria at an anticipated cost to taxpayers of $30 million over four years. But notice the deliberate choice of language in their aforementioned policy platform – abortion is healthcare. Although politicians glibly adopt the term whenever speaking about abortion, the reality is that no politician has been able to define what the term “healthcare” means, let alone why it is necessary to pair it with the word “abortion”. In fact, the National Health Act in Australia does not even define the term “healthcare.” Yet, despite the ambiguity, politicians continue to use the term ad nauseam as if it is the requisite language of those pursuing some noble cause.
The closest anybody comes in Australia to some type of formal definition is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which only goes so far as to speak about health in general terms by saying: “Health can be viewed as the presence or absence of disease or medically measured risk factors in an individual. However, more broadly, health is ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO 1946).” Sadly, so-called “abortion healthcare” takes the principle of disease and applies it to the unborn. Like a patient who claims medical success when their disease is gone, the success of an abortion procedure is measured by its ability to dispel a human life.
In the Declaration of Geneva (a modern version of the Hippocratic Oath) adopted by the General Assembly of The World Medical Association in September 1948 and amended by the 22nd World Medical Assembly held in Sydney, Australia in August 1968, one of the pledges read (emphasis added): “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Then at the 35th World Medical Assembly, which was held in Venice, Italy, in October 1983, the pledge was amended to read (emphasis added): “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat, and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Only a few words were changed, but it indicated a seismic shift in how the medical profession was beginning to view the matter of life and its beginning. No longer would many Western nations recognize personhood from conception, but instead, they would claim it was from birth. Then came the 2005 meeting when the pledge simply read: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life.”
As you can see, the medical profession quietly phased out its promotion of life beginning at conception, leading us to where we are today: the issue of abortion rights used by the political elite as an election sweetener. But the Creator of life is the one who retains the sovereign right to decide when life begins, not morally bankrupt politicians and a medical industry which has blinded itself to the obvious. Politicians have devalued life and even gone so far as to avoid calling an unborn person “life.” However, the Bible elevates the status of the unborn to valuable persons, even if society does not.
Although there are many verses we could turn to, we end with a clear declaration from Psalm 139:13-16: “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.“
