NSW Premier Chris Minns and Opposition Leader Mark Speakman slam anti-abortion activist Joanna Howe over misinformation, bullying claims
NSW Premier Chris Minns has joined Opposition Leader Mark Speakman in accusing an anti-abortion activist of spreading 'misinformation', hours before parliamentarians vote on a hotly contested bill seeking to expand access to abortions in the state.
Mr Minns accused campaigner Dr Joanna Howe on Wednesday of spreading an 'enormous amount of misinformation' on social media, but noted he did not blame her for a rumour that consciences objectors would be compelled to perform abortions.
'It's whipped up a lot of good people in the community, believing that the reform changes, the legislative changes, are far more extensive than they are,' Mr Minns said.
'I think that there are genuine differences, particularly when you have a matter as sensitive as abortion.
'It's not helped by putting an enormous amount of misinformation.
'As for threatening politicians about what you will and won't do, well that's a matter for activists. But, generally speaking, Australian politicians, regardless of their background or ideology, react incredibly poorly to that kind of threat.'
Mr Speakman on Tuesday night accused Ms Howe, who is self-described as 'the lead advocate' against the bill, of 'brazen bullying' following an email in which she told the Liberal leader she would halt a campaign targeting Labor seats.
'Should Premier Minns vote for the bill and enable its passage, I will be leading a 20-month campaign across five marginal seats that are currently Labor-held but are also in socially conservative electorates,' Mr Speakman said Ms Howe said.
'However, if you choose to vote for the bill, I will be left with no other choice but to suspend my planned campaign against Labor in order to lead a public campaign aimed at
encouraging a grassroots opposition to you as Liberal leader.'
In response, Mr Speakman said he would 'not cave to brazen bullying like this nor to the Americanisation of NSW politics. I will vote according to my conscience and balance difficult and sensitive ethical, social, moral and medical concerns.
'I thank all constituents who have contacted me. I have carefully considered their sincere and varying views. I will therefore vote for the bill. I think that, on balance, the bill will make no material difference to the rate of abortion in NSW.
'It will not interfere with freedom of conscience and will probably lead to better, not worse, health outcomes for many pregnant women seeking abortions.'
Mr Speakman said some opposition to the bill was 'based on misinformation' and that 'the attacks on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion in the original bill have now been removed by successful amendments.'
The Liberal leader described the bill as a 'shadow of its former self' and could 'no longer be characterised as a 'radical Greens bill'', noting that there was 'no way I could have voted for the bill in its original form'.
Those views were somewhat reflected by Mr Minns on Wednesday.
The Premier told the media he would support the bill 'in its current incarnation'.
'I couldn't have supported the removal of conscientious objection, but it's not in the bill anymore,' he said.
The bill, introduced by upper house Greens MP Dr Amanda Cohn in February, would expand access to abortions by allowing nurse practitioners to supply medication to terminate pregnancies of up to nine weeks in gestation.
It will be voted on tonight in the NSW Legislative Assembly where, if passed, it will become law.
The vote comes after a raft of amendments, including the removal of provisions to empower the Health Minister to compel public health services to comply with directions to offer abortion services and would require practitioners who object to abortion to refer a patient to someone who will perform the abortion.
The bill has stirred fiery debate since it was tabled.
In a parliamentary debate last week, upper house Liberal MP Chris Rath compared abortion to the Nazi genocide of Jews, stating 'it is bizarre that abortion is increasingly being categorised as a human right to health care'.
Mr Rath later apologised for the statement.
In Facebook video on Wednesday, Ms Howe claimed Mr Speakman's speech had been leaked to the media 'because they think it will stop me from speaking', and vowed to publish the email to 'let you guys decide' if she was a 'bully'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Israel-Iran conflict: Ten maps tracking key nuclear sites, targets and US military bases
Israel struck the Natanz nuclear facility, Iran's main uranium enrichment site, on Friday during the first wave of attacks. Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, told the BBC on Monday the centrifuges underground in Natanz were 'severely damaged if not destroyed altogether.' Iranian state television reported on June 20 that Israel had attacked the unfinished Arak heavy-water reactor, with the IAEA confirming the reactor had been hit and that it had not contained any nuclear material. Iran's fallback site, Fordow, remains a stronghold, and likely will remain unless the US joins the conflict in earnest. Despite Israel's repeated airstrikes on the facility, only the US has the 'bunker buster' bombs, and the planes to transport the bombs, that could damage the subterranean facility. By June 20, about 3200 Australians in Iran and Israel had registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade for support, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said in a press conference. The Australian embassy in Tehran is closed, Wong confirmed on June 20, with staff leaving Iran by road. Australian Defence Force personnel were also deployed to assist with evacuations, not for combat, Wong emphasised. 'We urge Australians who are able to leave Iran to do so now,' Wong said. Where has Iran struck in Israel? In response to Israel's attacks on Friday, Iran launched Operation True Promise III, firing missiles and drones on targets including the Kirya compound, one of the most sensitive and heavily guarded sites in Israel. On June 13, it was reported at least one Iranian missile had struck near the skyscraper Marganit Tower, a major communications hub inside the compound. Loading Established in Tel Aviv in 1948, the Kirya is Israel's central military headquarters. It's often described as Israel's equivalent to the United States' Pentagon, serving as a symbol of national security as much as it functions as the hub of the Israel Defence Force's operations. By Wednesday morning, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps released a statement claiming it had 'gained complete control over the skies of the occupied territories' after launching two missile barrages at Israel overnight. According to live broadcasts, however, Israel's Iron Dome was still intercepting missiles. On June 19, southern Israel's main hospital, Soroka Medical Centre, was hit by an Iranian missile, leaving several wounded and causing extensive damage, according to a spokesperson for Israel's Foreign Ministry. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, meanwhile, said after the strike that the ballistic missile was supposed to hit the nearby Israeli military and intelligence quarters. Where are Iran's nuclear facilities? South of Tehran lies the Natanz Nuclear Facility, a complex at the heart of Iran's enrichment program housing several buidings including: the underground Fuel Enrichment Plant and above-ground Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. The Fordow enrichment facility is also south of Tehran, and is notably underground, making it harder to destroy. Loading Further south, on the outskirts of Isfahan, Iran's second-largest city, is a large nuclear technology centre that includes the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant and uranium conversion and storage facilities. On the Gulf Coast is the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, which is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant and uses Russian fuel that Russia takes back once it is spent. Further north, in addition to Tehran's nuclear research reactor, is the partially built heavy-water research reactor in Khondab, formerly known as Arak, which Iran previously informed the IAEA it planned to start operating in 2026. Why is Iran's Fordow nuclear base a target? Dug deep into a mountain near Qom is the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which is one of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear sites, built in secrecy and designed for survivability. Loading It was exposed through Western intelligence in 2009, and its capacity to enrich uranium levels close to weapons-grade is what alarms the superpowers and makes it critical to Iran's nuclear program. In 2023, according to the IAEA, uranium enriched to a purity of 83.7 per cent was found at Fordow. Nuclear weapons need an enrichment level of 90 per cent. The fact that Fordow was designed as a fallback facility should other nuclear sites be compromised makes it a key stronghold for Iran, and a prime target for Israel – but it's understood Israel would be hard-pressed to destroy it without help from the US. Why does Israel need the United States' assistance to target Fordow? Fordow's underground nuclear facilities are understood to be 80 to 90 metres beneath the mountain's surface. It's impenetrable, even if Israel used the most advanced 'bunker buster' bombs in its arsenal for targeted aerial strikes. The 13,608-kilogram GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) is thought to be the only 'bunker buster' bomb that could reach the core buried below Fordow's surface, though that would still be likely to require multiple strikes. Loading Capable of burrowing through 60 metres of steel and rock before detonating, it was developed by the US and is its largest non-nuclear bomb. Israel has requested it from the US, and the request has been denied multiple times. Only a B2 Stealth Bomber, 20 of which are in the US Air Force's active fleet, could carry the bomb due to its sheer size. How large is the United States' military presence in the Middle East? Iran has said it would target American military bases in the Middle East should Trump enter the conflict on Israel's side. The US has a significant military presence in the Middle East. The Council on Foreign Relations says there is a broad network of sites spanning at least 19 locations, eight of which are permanent. The permanent sites are understood to be in Israel, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Since October 7, 2023, several attacks purportedly by Iran-backed forces have occurred. Notably, in January 2024, three American soldiers were killed after a drone hit the Tower 22 military base in Jordan, near the Syrian border.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Unpolished' Rogan's style wins the popular vote
Jordan Baker's article on Joe Rogan started off strong and nuanced, but ultimately fell short in a few areas (' Joe Rogan is unpolished. So why do men idolise him? ' June 15). At least three times Baker calls Joe Rogan a vaccine sceptic, yet does not include any evidence for this (such as a quote) other than just saying he is mates with RFK Jr. I'm a long-time listener of Joe Rogan and I thought this was a bit unfair. Baker also claims that Rogan declined an interview with Kamala Harris, yet the only evidence relating to this actually points to the opposite. Rogan has said he reached out to Harris, as well as Tim Walz, JD Vance and Donald Trump. I consider myself very left-wing, yet appreciate Rogan's generous and accommodating approach to conservatives and people who don't fit into mainstream politics, media and science. What journalists like Baker fail to consider is that to get three hours of unfiltered commentary from these people, you can't hammer them with questions Laura Tingle-style. I believe if a podcast is good enough for Bono and Bernie Sanders to appear on, then it's good enough for me to listen to. Wesley Thomas, Lilyfield Motley mobs Parnell Palme McGuinness is right, of course, about the loathsomeness of online mobs, and some of the treatment she received after appearing on the ABC's Q+A is truly disgusting (' I loved confronting the lefties on Q+A ', June 15), but these extremists aren't the only online group guilty of 'lazy thinking'. If you've ever been on the sewer that is X, formerly Twitter, and engaged with those challenging the Australian election result, the provision of social welfare, the plight of Ukraine, the championing of diversity in all its forms, the human rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and refugees, or the benefits of sunscreen (yes, I kid you not) and the efficacy of vaccines, you'd know what I mean. Idiots, zealots and trolls who subscribe to 'maxi-hatreds' come in all stripes, from far left to far right. Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown Palme McGuinness suggests that the ABC's Q+A audiences didn't reflect the spectrum of community opinion as evenly as they were purported to. She seems not to have considered that they may have been representative of public opinion. Perhaps those representatives of social conservatism, to whom she refers as feeling intimidated and outnumbered when they go on such discussion panels, should consider why their contributions often meet such resistance from an audience that may, in fact, represent a fair balance of Australian social opinion. Alynn Pratt, Grenfell Parnell, since you are at the extreme right of opinions, those with views to the left of you aren't the 'left-wing mob', rather they are in the sensible centre. Peter Kamenyitzky, Castle Hill Young at heart The joy and exuberance exhibited in Sam Mooy's photo is simply wonderful (' Want to be bright? Talk to a 90-year-old ', June 15). The regular experience of the youthful meeting of young and old minds raises us all up as a community. Our public schools and our aged care facilities should all be commended for their deep links. It is a very special program and should be widened where possible around the state. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Digital Trojan horse': Social media ban sparks fears of ‘surveillance state snare trap'
Liberal senator Alex Antic says the new social media ban for children under the age of 16 is a 'digital Trojan horse,' sparking fears of a surveillance trap. 'This is, first of all, never going to work, secondly, this is really nothing more than a digital Trojan horse for the surveillance state,' Mr Antic told Sky News host James Macpherson. 'Everybody has to go through the process of recognition and ID in order to make sure the kids aren't using social media. 'This is going to be biometrics and facial ID for everyone … the surveillance state snare trap is on us.'
