Victorians have not tended to welcome radical politicians. In a political moment where various forces are disguising their radical goals, Victorians need to watch politicians’ own words to understand what that candidate might mean for the state’s future. Is Moira Deeming a radical Christian politician?
To begin to answer that question, these are Moira Deeming’s words from 2021. In October of that year, not so very long ago, she wrote a sermon on “Australia’s Largest Christian News Site” The Daily Declaration declaring that “each” abortion is a “terrible evil.” Each one, according to Deeming, “wounds a mother and father, murders an unborn child.” Furthermore, and bizarrely, she declares that the abortion “ends a whole family line.”
Those of us with a more nuanced understanding of the psychological and medical stories about abortion know that there are a range of reasons that they are sought. We see that women who desire to be pregnant in America are dying because this imposition of theocratic rulings of complete abortion abolition are making emergency doctors too scared to treat women whose pregnancies are failing. That is before we tackle the fact that one faith’s moral rulings on such matters should not dictate the decisions made by, or stripped from, fellow citizens who do not belong to that faith.
For Moira Deeming in 2021, the individual is damaging their community, not just themselves. She mourns the “wider wounds to the losses felt by siblings, grandparents and barren families that would have given anything to have a chance to love and raise that child.”
By contrast the “abortion industry” is “powerfully seductive.” Healthcare providers are demonised as some predatory “industry” that “promises us with shiny human rights posters that we deserve to keep using sex selfishly and without consequence!”
People exercising their right not to be forced to give birth are, according to Deeming, tempted by the industry’s “promises to keep our darkest secrets forever away from the light. It promises to put an end to our deepest tragedies and even to heal us from them! Abortion promises us that unplanned parenthood is an unbearable bondage and that abortion can set us free.”
Deeming recognises the harms that can make abortion a solution. She acknowledges the “weeping, terrified, horrified daughters and granddaughters” as needing help.
Where would she send them? “To the Lord! To the Church! To Christians! That is our instant, and passionate answer.”
Deeming bemoans that young Christian women have turned to abortion, and not sought help afterwards, because they fear that their Christian community will turn on them for sinfulness in engaging in sexual activity or choosing abortion to hide the fact. She exhorts, “Brothers and Sisters, if we are to turn the tide against abortion, we must overcome the lies of abortion both inside and outside the Church.”
It is indeed a virtuous Christian who, like Deeming, commands her fellows not to drive Christian women to abortion because “they think that God’s people who are forgiven and beloved sinners, would refuse to forgive and love them!”
The format requires a prayer. Deeming exhorts that young women should find love and kindness to “save them from the evil lies of abortion.” She concludes: “Help us to lovingly persuade each member of our family, church, and community that abortion is not the answer but a terrible evil!”
Deeming’s sermon concludes with three “prayer points” that may have been written by her or by the site. They sit beneath her authorship.
-
- Pray for the restoration of FAMILY, FATHERHOOD and MOTHERHOOD in our nation.
- Pray for healing for MARRIAGES, protection for CHILDREN and restoration of the sanctity of LIFE.
- Pray for Revival, Renewal and Reformation for Australia, that our nation might return to God.
The capitalisations, unlike the multitude of exclamation marks, may not be Deeming’s choice. She may not be echoing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni: that may be the Canberra Declaration’s decision. Set beneath her signature, however, it grimly reminds that while Meloni, in her fascistic pronatalism, has only begun to chip away at abortion access, she has instead focussed on a steady attack on LGBTQIA+ equality.
Like Meloni and fellow travellers, Deeming marks out “human rights” as part of the enemy in this sermon. Rights are an impediment when one desires to impose one’s own punitive morality on the total population.
In 2020, Deeming’s sermon for The Daily Declaration demarcated the fight against abortion as the new Abolition movement. The characterisation of the forced birth movement as the new fight against chattel slavery is a trope taken direct from the American movement. She states, “Just like slavery in the 1800s, abortion is a powerful, profitable industry and a reflection of our culture’s contempt for the sanctity of life and depraved love of money.”
It may be, as stated in this sermon, that her intent is merely for prayer to change “hearts, minds and laws.”
Moira Deeming may not intend to begin steps towards banning the “terrible evil” inherent in “each” abortion. She may have decided that this is not her political goal. She came to Victorian politics, however, as Berne Finn’s protege. He is an abortion abolitionist, stating no exception even for rape can be made. Deeming belonged to his March for Babies organisation which has posted abortion abolition material. (It is alleged she was secretary, but this is wiped from the internet.) It may be that Deeming has had a moral epiphany since 2021, discovering that she cannot begin to impose her morality on the state.
Deeming may not intend a facile American war on Victorian schools on the matter of making LGBTQIA+ students feel included, but her past rhetoric is ugly. Nonsense such as this characterisation suggests otherwise: “Every single resource in schools is trying to change a child’s gender and sexual identity…”
She is also opposed to voluntary assisted dying.
Both “freedom” movement conspiracists and Christian Right extremists are committed to secrecy and deception about their allegiances in the intent to gain political power. Whistleblower Clare Heath-McIvor has described both the intense secrecy that surrounds Pentecostal groups’ intent to colonise “conservative” politics and the fact that these cults do not believe that members owe outsiders any truth.
Moira Deeming is cruel in her rhetoric around trans people. She did not find the presence of supportive Nazis at an anti-trans rally an adequate reason to leave the event, despite being a member of parliament at the time.
In America, the issue of abortion was selected by the nascent Moral Majority almost 50 years ago to galvanise an Evangelical voting base that believed the fight against abortion to be a Catholic oddity. Now, women are dying, Republican states are preventing the collection of data on the spike in pregnancy-related harm, and a Republican politician has introduced another bill attempting to win 20 years to life in prison for anyone who “transports” a teen to another state in search of an abortion. With the recent eruption of abortion as a Trumpist political issue in South Australia, Queensland and Canberra, it will not take nearly as long to roll back rights in Australia.
It matters particularly in the case of Moira Deeming, because Peta Credlin reportedly told “Deeming how she might avoid expulsion. “We need you to survive this,” Credlin wrote. “You will lead the party one day.” She has the support of Tony Abbott and the insurgent, Trumpist faction of the Victorian Liberal Party. One needs to question a candidate’s merit if even Scott Morrison reportedly found her too risky.
Victorians can choose to trust Deeming’s public characterisation that she is fighting for women. More cautious voters ought to reject her on the basis of her own words. She is not worth the risk.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
She won’t be getting my vote.
People can believe whatever they want and form cohorts, each believing theirs is the only “true” religion, but laws should not be based on “faith” or the rantings of loud self or group appointed religious types that occupy the moral high ground.
Wars are being fought, cruelty inflicted and significant damage done to society, all in the name of god.
As for Moira being opposed to voluntary assisted dying – why? Anybody going down that path isn’t expected to have a long run to go and the reasons why someone uses VAD often involves pain, extreme distress, etc. where it is cruel to prolong life.
We need to stop pandering to/being blindly led/conned by religions and remove “special” conditions, that allow hateful etc. utterances be made where they align with the religion.
Many religions have a hierarchy where the higher up put their spin on what god makes of current events. Given the lack of sightings in recent times of an omnipresent and omnipotent god, supposedly the maker of the entire universe and capable of any technology, we should be wary of what these “god conduits” have to say.
Australia is a democracy founded on judeochristian values. The judicial systems draws heavily on Biblical principles. Charitable organisations taught children and provided practical support for orphans, widows, thenpoor. Governments have chosen to utilise these organisations to administer aged care, childcare, refugee services. Many who do this work do so voluntarily. These people live according to Biblical principles. They understand everyone is free to make their own choice.
The issues of abortion and assisted dying are issues that affect Australia’s relationship with God. It is an issue of the sanctity of life.
Australia’s policies in relation to gender also affect our relationship with God.
I understand others may totally reject this but I wish to state the Biblical view. God is in control of all things and He has given us responsibility to do what He has said. This is a non negotiable be cause failure to do so breaks covenant and this results in God’s discipline.
He says to kings and rulers – woe to you who legislate unrighteous laws.
Israel did this and has been severely disciplined for 2000 years. Servants of Christ ( not all are in churches ) pray for our leaders of government so that Australia is under God’s blessing. However when nations break God’s laws God removes His hedge of protection and begins to invoke discipline. Discipline includes things like terror, plagues, financial distress, wars and defeat by enemies, captivity by others. When Australia sided with Hamas a terrorist organisation against Israel and supported a 2 state solution Australia became a goat nation, and goat nations will not survive in Xhrist’s second coming and will suffer in the Tribulation.
Believers are standing up for righteousness and Australia to continue as a blessed nation. Your article has interpreted Deening’s article and motives without understanding what believers are to do. We also do not have any right to judge, to mock, to bite and devour those who disagree.
Finally all of these changes are a response to the UN Agenda 2030, Pact for the Future and the Great Reset. If this continues the one world government described in Revelation 13 will be ready for Antichrist. No one can stop this but we can slow it down. I live in Queensland. I feel unsafe in my community because the police do not have sufficient resources, legislation and judiciary support. Twenty years ago it was not like this. We have drive by shootings, murders, horrific things happening to our children. People live in fear because they know what can happen to them. This is not the kind of country I want for my grandchildren. So I pray and like Deening advocate for change. Under the UN who is pushing Disinformation/ Misinformation laws so that no one will have the freedom to quote what God says because what God says is offensive to someone. You have labelled people like Deening and me as right wing extremists! I am 77 years old and terminally ill. This article is an example of journalism that seeks to polarise the public by not providing a balanced reporting.
This article is an example of journalism that seeks to polarise the public by not providing a balanced reporting.
Thanks for your input, Bev. Personally I read the article as an opinion piece, as is much of the content on AIMN.
Bev, thank you for expressing your views.
In your closing sentence, are you referring to your response or to Lucy’s article?
I find that the influence of religion in politics is divisive. When we look at the various religiously founded governments, we see oppression, we see restrictions of freedoms.
To claim that Australian democracy is founded on Judeochristion values is not entirely true. The laws of any nation which value lives and property are pretty much universal, they are not based on the Ten Commandments for example, the Ten Commandments begin with man’s relationship to god, and those ‘laws’ are not enshrined in the definitions of Australian democracy. No where is there a law which dictates an obedience to that god, to have ‘no other gods before me’,no laws exist that outlaw the making of idols, no laws exist that outlaw blasphemy, no laws exist to sanctify the sabbath.
There is no law which commands that we should honour our mothers and fathers.
The only laws which are made in the Australian democracy are laws to protect lives and property. Imagine if we had laws which prohibited coveting of our neighbour’s goods, capitalism would not exist!
On the question of abortion, as Lucy clearly points out, abortion is not necessarily the killing of an unwanted pregnancy. When the choice is to be made over the viability of the unborn’s life or the life of the mother, which life is more important?
When a woman has been raped and is pregnant, the father may be unknown, or may not want anything more from the woman than his sexual gratification, and is not in least interested in raising or caring for the child, what should happen? We used to force women to have that child, and the child is then adopted out, the woman ‘slut shamed’ for daring to fall pregnant. Or for daring to ‘lead the man on’ whether she did or did not.
As for assisted dying, I have witnessed the suffering of people who have died slow, agonising deaths. Modern medical procedures can keep people alive, but there comes a time when life will end. A friend who had signed the voluntary dying paperwork died peacefully recently, surrounded by friends. She did not need to use the procedure to end her life, but we all supported her, knowing that if she was in too great a suffering that the procedure could be intimated, at her request. I find that to be incredibly humane, compared to the time my father died, many years ago, after slowly fading away he was shipped off to hospital where he died alone, the system did not cater for any sense of humane treatment. He would have gladly gone the way of our friend, instead of alone on a verandah at a major hospital, pushed aside because he was going to die any way. We, his family got a phone call from the hospital to say dad had died.
Judeochristian values….. no, inhumanity.
I do hope that when your time comes that you will be surrounded by loved ones, that your passing is peaceful, that you do not suffer as my father did, and so many at that time who were shunted off to die alone.
Well said Bert, to which I respectfully add the following:
Thank you Lucy for your examination of some of the views of Ms. Deeming.
There’s no doubt abortion has long been a hot-button issue, particularly in the ‘civilized’ West, and as you note Lucy, the current situation in America is fraught with risk for women whose pregnancies are failing, along with concurrent risk for medicos who seek to intervene in emergencies.
I contrast the present situation in the US – both as to the violence inherent in much of the anti-abortion law and the belligerent commentary of many anti-abortionists with the earlier comment of President Clinton in 1992: “The decision to have an abortion should be between a woman, her doctor, and her faith. Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.”
https://www.columbia.edu/cu/moment/v0/103096/elec-clin.html
Hillary Clinton used similar language in her 2008 presidential campaign. From a strictly non-partisan perspective, it could be said that nothing since has changed the fact that abortion was always, and remains a matter of personal conscience and decision-making.
For those interested, a short history on how things changed in the US can be found here:
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18295513/abortion-2020-roe-joe-biden-democrats-republicans
Some time ago I came across a thoughtful (and short) discussion on abortion by a now retired historical theologian and teacher and I can recommend same:
https://foranothervoice.com/2022/05/19/thoughts-about-abortion-and-pro-life/
Selective biblical quotes about the sanctity of life and prohibitions on murder have never cut it with me, simply because logic demands opposition to all forms of killing. Whenever these days I am confronted by an anti-abortionist I ask them if they likewise vigorously protest the business of killing anywhere as well as condemning the ‘merchants of death’, but more particularly do they condemn the bestial slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
Whenever the issue of abortion is raised in Australia, I am conscious of how the ‘debate’ concentrates on the ‘afterwards’, which is to say on the pregnancy and the tendency to look to abortion as the solution, rather than looking at how that pregnancy may have been avoided in the first place by widely available practical advice and assistance on contraception; but unfortunately contraception tends to become subsumed by the larger issue of birth control, and for some the mere notion of contraception is abhorrent.
The only comment I can make on VAD is to ask opponents to consider not just the ‘sanctity’ of a human life, but the quality of that life, and of a person’s innate dignity; but more especially the enormous impact on family and loved one of a life deteriorating inexorably – either physically or intellectually; and then there’s the effects upon the individual concerned. For some individuals and families, the issue of unremitting pain carries with it an enormous and seemingly unresolvable burden.
But more generally, and having regard to ever increasing rates of dementia, what little debate there is on VAD becomes even more difficult. Consider this author’s comment in relation to his wife’s illness, where he says (in part):
“Her fate was predetermined by various of our leaders from multiple walks of life — politicians, religious people — some of whom profess compassion, but some of whom wouldn’t recognise it if they fell over it.”
[ https://johnmenadue.com/given-the-choice-would-my-wife-have-chosen-to-let-dementia-take-its-course/ ]
I’d be curious to know what advice a vigorous opponent of VAD would give to someone in that situation; always assuming of course that they would not be sufficiently crass to start quoting the Bible.