Agnes Loheni referred to her SOP 460. She talked about recognition of the rights of the unborn child, and I know there's the language of the "unborn child". Abortions that take place before nine weeks, or even before 12 weeks, do not entail an unborn child. It is not an unborn child, and I reject the language of that—that this somehow is a debate about unborn children. It is about women making a decision early in their pregnancy and being able to do so safely and properly. I reject Agnes Loheni's arguments, and indeed the arguments of others who have said, including Simon O'Connor, that the criteria set out in proposed section 11, in clause 7 of the bill, are somehow meaningless. They are not. They are very clear about the post - 20 week decision on abortion that a woman takes with her medical practitioner, and so they refer to a qualified health practitioner only providing abortion services to a woman who is more than 20 weeks "if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the abortion is clinically appropriate". That does have meaning. There's got to be a medical basis to it. It has to meet clinical criteria. I go back to the points I've already made about the standards to which our health professionals now must conduct themselves as way different and way beyond anything that prevailed 40 years ago. It is different. Those standards are set, they are articulated, they are accessible to the public, and they are enforced by professional organisations as well as the Health and Disability Commissioner. So there is meaning attached to that. 