Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 129–130 | Cite as

Reply to ‘The Other Abortion Myth—The Failure of the Common Law’

  • Leslie CannoldEmail author

My experience with academic lawyers when it comes to the law of abortion is that if there are five in a room, you’ll have six different opinions about what the law says. Invite those who advise abortion service-providers working in clinics or public hospitals, and you’ll get an even greater diversity of views.

So it is with wry amusement that I respond to the certainty of Kate Gleeson that my understanding of the law—that it is unclear and in need of reform—is wrong.

Gleeson asserts that that the common law regime operating in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland is clear, certain and preferable to other regulatory regimes.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) disagrees. On page 16 of its 2008 Final Report on the Law of Abortionit notes that, “The law of abortion in Victoria is unclear.” It notes further that, “it is not possible to describe the current state of Victorian law with reasonable precision.” The report states that the law in both NSW and Queensland, the other...


Criminal Code Public Prosecution Abortion Service Skilled Provider Zealand College 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Anthropology, & Social Inquiry (PASI)University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations