Right and it’s not like, of all people, Andrew Wilkie doesn’t understand the value of privacy and to be free of surveillance. Not with his background and that of his wife.
There are a few other things that are somewhat less than clear here too.
For example, take a look at: 12(2), 13(1), 14(1), 14(2), 14(3) and 15.
Would those in combination be enough to guarantee a woman’r right to an abortion? It’s like the whole thing is geared towasrds delivering it, but then they chicken out and maybe even do worse. Firstly due to not just confirming it outright and secondly by following those rights with a whole bunch which would lean towards preventing access to that type of reproductive healthcare. Not to mention the continued bias which places the traditional nuclear family at the pinnacle of all human existence. Even the phrasing of the opening of Article 17 underscores this bias.
Side note: if I see any male member of this party pipe up with ill conceived comments and effectively non-existent research while indignantly trying to make “concerned” statements on this topic and using terms like “late term abortion,” “partial birth abortion,” “after week N, only in a medical emergency” and so on; you will get flamed and you will get told to shut the hell up. Every single one of those arguments are completely spurious crap and I do, in fact, have the great, big, enormous piles of research to prove it. Obviously anyone who has seen the pinned tweet on my Twitter account should realise that I’ve had plenty of practice winning this argument already.
So there are som useful medical safeguards in there, but because there is only have the right to refuse any medical treatment without the right to obtain certain necessary treatment, it would be possible for the law and doctors to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term against her will. That may not be quite so likely in Victoria these days or in Canberra, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s already happened in Queensland. In fact, I’m already on the record regarding precisely this type of issue (scroll down about half-way through that page; also archived here and here.).
I have no doubt that women, most likely young women, are receiving incomplete or inadequate options in Queensland due not to the resources or their circumstances, but due to the religion of their doctors. In that kind of environment a Bill of Rights which does not explicitly provide for complete personal and bodily sovereignty is one which will not truly deliver equal recognition of those rights.
So while it might, arguably tick the marriage equality box fairly well, which obviously has some additional relevance currently, it misses a far more fundamentalissue. Presumably this is political and that the intention was to simply avoid talking about abortion in order to secure the support of either religious organisations or organisations with religious ties.