There was a devastating report this past week that the Queensland Supreme Court had authorised an abortion for a 12-year-old girl who was nine weeks’ pregnant. The child’s father is just 13.
The court’s decision was the result of an application made by a Queensland hospital for authorisation to conduct the termination.
Australian law says that for a minor to have capacity to consent to any medical treatment, they must possess “sufficient intellectual capacity and emotional maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the procedure to be performed.”
Where this is not the case, a parent is usually able to provide consent, but abortion is considered to be such a big decision that parents can’t consent; court approval is required.
In this case, hospital staff were not convinced that the girl—known only as E—had sufficient capacity to consent and so sought a court order. After hearing testimony from E as well as her doctor, midwife and psychologist, the judge decided that the abortion was in E’s best interests and gave approval.
Interestingly, the decision is known to E’s mother and grandmother, as well as the baby’s father, but has been kept from E’s sister and father. Allegations were made that were he to find out, E’s father could “lose it” and possibly become violent.
There’s nothing about this case that is not tragic.
You have a 12-year-old girl who is currently suspended from school for riding an e-bike through the grounds and swearing at a teacher, who is distant enough from her father and sister that this has been kept secret from them, pregnant to a 13-year-old, and being told by everyone involved that abortion is in her best interests.
I’m not going to use this column to argue the point on that one. Suffice to say that while I do not believe an abortion will prove to be in E’s best interests, I did not expect the doctors or the courts to come to a different conclusion.
Instead, I want to highlight that, aside from the abortion, there was nothing said about anything else that might be done for E.
For example, E is 12 and obviously not mature enough to be having sex. Instead of any suggestion that E should continue to see a psychologist or be offered some other intervention, the judgment merely noted that while she is having an abortion, E and her mother intended that the long-active contraceptive, Implanon, also be inserted into E’s arm.
Instead of trying to address E’s problematic sexual activity, those who are supposedly acting in her “best interests” want to ensure she can continue the problematic behaviours without the potential consequence of pregnancy.
Rather than the hospital requesting the court to sanction not only the abortion, but also to mandate some ongoing psychological care for E, those entrusted with her care just sought the bare minimum, and the judge did not make the authorisation contingent on any type of counselling.
No one suggested that child welfare services make a visit to the home to investigate why a 12-year-old is acting out in the way she is, or to see if there was any reason for E to be fearful of violence from her father.
Instead, the judge noted that “E’s mother believes that E shows maturity beyond her years,” and said that this observation was shared by the midwife and psychologist. With respect, the small insight into E suggests anything other than maturity.
Obviously, the end of the life of an innocent unborn child is the main tragedy in this case. Also tragic, however, is that every person who declared themselves to be acting in the “best interests” of E, the other child before the court, did nothing except enable her to continue on the same destructive path.