{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017488076311605722, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01192368839427663, 'mean_word_length': 5.201970443349754, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Crimes amendment (Zoe's law) Bill 2013 (No 2): paradoxical commercial impacts of the conservative agenda on fetal rights.

In 2013, Liberal MP Chris Spence introduced a Private Member's Bill to the New South Wales Parliament, reinvigorating an earlier Bill introduced by Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile. If passed, the Bill would have bestowed legal personhood on fetuses of 20 weeks or more for the purpose of grievous bodily harm offences in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Bill had the potential to undermine freedom of choice for women in relation to abortions prior to the point of viability (capacity for fetal existence outside the womb) as well as other decisions concerning pregnancy and childbirth. One hypothesis is that legislative measures such as this that support the rights of the fetus are well intentioned initiatives by those for whom the fetus is an essentially independent entity or symbol of innocence and moral purity whose existence must be protected over and above the interests and independent decision-making capacity of the mother. This column explores this hypothesis in the context of the paradoxical negative commercial implications of such legislation on multiple areas involving fetal-maternal interaction including surrogacy.