Patients at some of Victoria’s largest Catholic-run public hospitals are being denied abortions, sterilisation procedures, and even access to contraception, despite these institutions being funded with taxpayer dollars. The clash between religious doctrine and state health policy has now spilled into the political arena, with two Victorian MPs preparing to challenge the status quo.
The issue is raising sharp questions about whether hospitals that operate within the public system can refuse to provide legal, government-funded medical services on religious grounds. For women seeking care, the consequences are immediate, often forcing them into longer wait times, transfers to other hospitals, or in some cases, complete denial of service.
The Scale of Catholic Influence in Victoria’s Health Network
Catholic Health Australia, through networks like St Vincent’s Health and Mercy Health, operates several major public hospitals across Melbourne and regional Victoria. These hospitals receive significant funding from the Victorian government—hundreds of millions of dollars annually—yet are governed by codes that reflect Catholic moral teachings.
In practice, this means procedures such as abortions, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and access to certain contraceptives are unavailable in these facilities. Staff members are bound by internal ethical directives, meaning doctors and nurses must refer patients elsewhere rather than provide the treatment themselves.
According to the Victorian Department of Health, around one in five public hospital beds in the state are in Catholic-run institutions. This gives the Church a substantial footprint in essential services, particularly in Melbourne’s inner city and some regional hubs. The scale of this influence is now central to the political debate.
Legal Abortion, Restricted in Practice
Abortion has been legal in Victoria since the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008. The law permits abortion up to 24 weeks and, under certain circumstances, beyond that threshold. Contraception and sterilisation procedures are also legally available and supported by Medicare.
However, Catholic hospitals rely on a principle of “institutional conscientious objection.” While the law allows individual doctors to decline performing abortions on personal moral grounds, Catholic facilities extend this objection to the entire hospital. The effect is that even patients admitted to public wards may face refusals.
Healthcare advocates argue this undermines the intent of Victorian law, creating what they describe as a “postcode lottery” in access to reproductive healthcare. A patient living within the catchment of a Catholic-run hospital may encounter far more barriers than someone admitted to a government-operated facility.
Voices from Parliament
The push to change this situation is being led by Independent MP Fiona Patten and Greens MP Sam Hibbins. Both have signalled they will bring forward measures to require public hospitals—regardless of religious affiliation—to provide the full range of legal reproductive services.
Patten, a long-time advocate for women’s health, has argued that publicly funded hospitals should not be permitted to refuse core services. “If you take public money, you should provide public healthcare,” she has said in recent interviews. Hibbins has echoed this view, calling the current situation “an inequity embedded into the health system.”
The Andrews Government (now Allan Government) has previously acknowledged the tension but has not forced Catholic hospitals to change their policies. With growing political pressure, the debate could intensify in the next parliamentary sitting.
Patient Experiences and Delays
Women’s health organisations have documented cases of patients being transferred between hospitals during emergencies, leading to distress and potentially risky delays. In some instances, women experiencing pregnancy complications that required termination were moved from a Catholic facility to another hospital that would perform the procedure.
These stories highlight the practical impacts of institutional objection. Even when referrals are made, travel and time delays can add significant stress. For rural patients, where options are limited, the consequences can be even more severe. The Women’s Health Victoria group has argued that “timely access is critical, and institutional barriers put patients at unnecessary risk.”
Catholic Health Australia’s Defence
Catholic Health Australia maintains that its hospitals are transparent about their policies and that patients are informed about what services are and are not available. Leaders within the network argue that forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortions or sterilisation would infringe upon religious freedom and the identity of their institutions.
Mercy Health has stated that while it does not provide abortions, it continues to offer a wide range of maternity, gynaecology, and women’s health services. “Our facilities remain committed to compassionate care, but within the framework of our ethical guidelines,” a spokesperson has said.
The Catholic position is that reproductive services are widely available elsewhere, and patients are not left without options. However, critics argue that accessibility and timeliness are compromised when referrals and transfers are the default response.
Ethical Tensions in Public Healthcare
The controversy underscores a broader question: how should governments balance religious values with public health obligations in taxpayer-funded institutions?
Bioethicists note that while individual conscientious objection is widely recognised, institutional objection on the scale seen in Victoria is relatively rare in comparable jurisdictions. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom generally require public hospitals to provide the full suite of legal reproductive services, with individual doctors retaining the right to opt out personally.
The concern in Victoria is that institutional objection gives faith-based providers disproportionate influence over service availability. Critics say this creates an uneven playing field and undermines the universality of public healthcare.
The Push for Reform
The proposed reforms by Patten and Hibbins are likely to focus on conditional funding. The idea would be to mandate that any hospital receiving public funds must provide all legal healthcare services, including abortions and contraception.
Such reforms would almost certainly face resistance from Catholic Health Australia, which has signalled it would fight to preserve religious protections. There are also political sensitivities. The Victorian Government has relied on strong partnerships with Catholic hospitals, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when capacity in the public health system was stretched.
Nonetheless, with reproductive rights becoming a sharper political issue globally, pressure for reform may gain momentum.
International Comparisons
Globally, the intersection of faith and public health remains contested. In Ireland, Catholic hospitals once dominated the system but were required to provide abortions after legal reforms in 2018. In Canada, Catholic hospitals are still exempt from providing assisted dying services, though provinces have imposed strict referral and transfer obligations.
In the United States, Catholic hospitals operate under similar ethical directives and now make up nearly one in six hospital beds. There, legal disputes have emerged over patients being denied emergency pregnancy terminations. These international examples illustrate that Victoria’s debate is not unique but part of a broader tension between faith-based care and secular law.
Public Opinion and Next Steps
Polling data from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission suggests the majority of Victorians support access to abortion without barriers. Advocacy groups believe this strengthens the case for legislative change. However, surveys also show strong community support for religious freedom, making the issue politically delicate.
For now, the spotlight is on whether the Victorian Parliament will take up reform in the coming session. If the legislation is introduced, the debate will likely expose fault lines between progressive and conservative MPs, as well as between government and powerful religious institutions.
Conclusion: A Defining Test for Victoria’s Health System
The brewing battle over abortion access at Catholic-run hospitals goes beyond a single procedure. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of public healthcare, the limits of religious freedom, and the rights of patients to receive legal medical services without obstruction.
As Victoria weighs these competing principles, the outcome will have consequences not only for women seeking care today but for the future design of the state’s entire health system. Whether the government moves decisively to enforce universal access, or continues to accommodate religious providers, will be a defining moment in the ongoing struggle to reconcile faith and public service in healthcare.
