Uploaded January 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This is Australian comedian Geraldine Hickey. To be fair, I didn’t know of her until a viewer pointed out one of her posts—thank you. This is her Instagram where she writes: “Hello, I’m a comedian and I like Birds.” I don’t know if she means the feathered kind or women, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
By the looks of it, she was on the Australian version of I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! in early 2025. But the post we’re actually interested in is this one in the middle. She wrote: “Took my wife out for fancy dinner to celebrate her doing 300 abortions for the year!”—punctuated with a single exclamation mark.
This wasn’t just a one-off. She published this same post across her social media including Threads and Facebook. She clearly was making sure this ‘milestone’ didn’t go unnoticed.
Her wife, Catherine Bateman, a Nurse Practitioner, also posted about this on LinkedIn. She wrote: “300!!!!!”—with five exclamation marks—“I just completed my 300th medical abortion prescription consult for 2025!”
The excitement is palpable.
Just to be clear, she wasn’t performing surgical abortions. As a Nurse Practitioner, she was facilitating the prescribing of abortion medications.
But here the happy couple are clinking glasses to a “job well done.” 300 human beings never to see the light of day.
My take on this is simple: A person of reasonable mind would never celebrate the loss of life, even if they agree that an abortion is a perfectly ethical procedure.
It would be like a palliative care physician celebrating 300 terminal sedations. Of course, a person of reasonable mind would naturally feel that is not appropriate. Terminal sedation is viewed as a medical necessity rather than some kind of ‘achievement’ to be cheered.
Or it would be like a trauma surgeon celebrating 300 amputations—except, of course, the amputees lived to tell the tale. The loss of a limb is considered a serious and sombre clinical event. Publicly celebrating the volume of amputations is a direct violation of the professional duty to treat every patient’s case with gravity rather than as a statistical trophy.
That makes me think that these two ladies aren’t particularly secure with their stance. They feel that in order to justify their crusade, they have to act in a celebratory tone and post it all over social media. I think they know that what they’re doing is at least morally questionable, but in order to mask their cognitive dissonance, they play up abortions as some kind of ‘fun’ or empowering lifestyle choice.
Abbie Chatfield, another Australian “celebrity,” didn’t mince words when she shared her view on abortion. She said: “I love abortion. I think if you’re pro-choice, you should love the medical procedure… If you say you are pro-choice, yet you go, ‘I’m not going to say that I love it or celebrate it’, then you aren’t quite there… Because realistically, you still have a lot of shame around abortion, and you still see some sort of loss from an abortion.”
Again, it would be like saying you ‘love’ amputations. That you should be celebrating the medical procedure of cutting off limbs. But I should point out the obvious: an amputation is a procedure designed to help someone survive. An abortion is a procedure designed to ensure someone doesn’t.
Usually, reasonable people and medical professionals celebrate lives saved or illnesses prevented, not body counts. Ethics clearly isn’t this couple’s strong suit.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
This is Australian comedian Geraldine Hickey. To be fair, I didn’t know of her until a viewer pointed out one of her posts—thank you. This is her Instagram where she writes: “Hello, I’m a comedian and I like Birds.” I don’t know if she means the feathered kind or women, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
By the looks of it, she was on the Australian version of I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! in early 2025. But the post we’re actually interested in is this one in the middle. She wrote: “Took my wife out for fancy dinner to celebrate her doing 300 abortions for the year!”—punctuated with a single exclamation mark.
This wasn’t just a one-off. She published this same post across her social media including Threads and Facebook. She clearly was making sure this ‘milestone’ didn’t go unnoticed.
Her wife, Catherine Bateman, a Nurse Practitioner, also posted about this on LinkedIn. She wrote: “300!!!!!”—with five exclamation marks—“I just completed my 300th medical abortion prescription consult for 2025!”
The excitement is palpable.
Just to be clear, she wasn’t performing surgical abortions. As a Nurse Practitioner, she was facilitating the prescribing of abortion medications.
But here the happy couple are clinking glasses to a “job well done.” 300 human beings never to see the light of day.
My take on this is simple: A person of reasonable mind would never celebrate the loss of life, even if they agree that an abortion is a perfectly ethical procedure.
It would be like a palliative care physician celebrating 300 terminal sedations. Of course, a person of reasonable mind would naturally feel that is not appropriate. Terminal sedation is viewed as a medical necessity rather than some kind of ‘achievement’ to be cheered.
Or it would be like a trauma surgeon celebrating 300 amputations—except, of course, the amputees lived to tell the tale. The loss of a limb is considered a serious and sombre clinical event. Publicly celebrating the volume of amputations is a direct violation of the professional duty to treat every patient’s case with gravity rather than as a statistical trophy.
That makes me think that these two ladies aren’t particularly secure with their stance. They feel that in order to justify their crusade, they have to act in a celebratory tone and post it all over social media. I think they know that what they’re doing is at least morally questionable, but in order to mask their cognitive dissonance, they play up abortions as some kind of ‘fun’ or empowering lifestyle choice.
Abbie Chatfield, another Australian “celebrity,” didn’t mince words when she shared her view on abortion. She said: “I love abortion. I think if you’re pro-choice, you should love the medical procedure… If you say you are pro-choice, yet you go, ‘I’m not going to say that I love it or celebrate it’, then you aren’t quite there… Because realistically, you still have a lot of shame around abortion, and you still see some sort of loss from an abortion.”
Again, it would be like saying you ‘love’ amputations. That you should be celebrating the medical procedure of cutting off limbs. But I should point out the obvious: an amputation is a procedure designed to help someone survive. An abortion is a procedure designed to ensure someone doesn’t.
Usually, reasonable people and medical professionals celebrate lives saved or illnesses prevented, not body counts. Ethics clearly isn’t this couple’s strong suit.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn




![The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality
Ever since the second modern Olympic Games held in Paris in 1900, Olympians have been broken into two distinct categories: male and female. I know—that sounds absurd in the modern world. But it’s true; people back in 1900 thought that men and women were different when it came to sports. They were sexist, they were transphobic, they were probably even—dare I say it—racist.
But fast forward 120 years or so, and biological reality is now questionable. Now, in the name of inclusivity, we’ve seen a push to allow athletes to enter female-only competitions based on how they identify.
For example, my male stallion—who identifies as a female human—recently entered the Queensland 100m final. Not only did she win the age championships, but she also broke the world record. See? Women can do anything!
But enough joking around. Let’s get back to the real world, where the new strategy for breaking female records apparently involves being a biological man.
But in the year of our Lord, 2026, something strange has happened—something that went completely against the approved script. As the ABC simply put it: “Trans athletes banned from competing in Olympic Games.” Apparently, the IOC has decided that only biological females will be allowed to compete in female events from now on. What? That’s crazy! Only females can compete in female events?! Who could have possibly seen that coming? Unsurprisingly, this “return to reality” has caused absolute chaos and controversy—at least in some circles.
The new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry—the first female and the first African to hold the office—made her decision very clear. She said:
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.”
In classic, “impartial” ABC style, they’ve questioned the move with headlines such as: “Warnings of abuse as trans women banned from Olympic female events,” and “Australian Olympic Committee backs Olympic transgender rules despite human rights concerns.” Human rights concerns? What about the rights of women to actually have a fair competition in their own category?
The Conversation, of course, got in on the sanctimonious moralising, claiming: “The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield.” And we can’t forget The Guardian: “Human rights experts raise concerns over Olympics transgender women athlete ban: Critics say new IOC guidelines violate fundamental human rights.”
That’s right—I was born a man, went through puberty as a male, and have increased bone density and other physical advantages, but now, as a trans woman, it’s my “fundamental human right” to dominate biological women in the Olympics!
Just to be clear, nobody is saying trans women can’t compete. They just can’t compete in the female category.
Unsurprisingly, The Guardian brought race into this. They actually claimed: “Athletes who are intersex or have differences of sex development, including cisgender women, will be overly affected by the new guidelines, with women of colour likely to be disproportionately targeted due to their appearance.”
What are they even saying here? That “women of colour”—whatever that means this week—are more likely to “look like men” and therefore face more scrutiny?
So, is this Korean sprinter more likely to be tested? What about this Indian tennis player? Who exactly are they talking about? It seems the only ones “targeting” women based on their appearance are the very journalists claiming to protect them.
The Guardian also interviewed human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden, who is firmly against the move. She warned:
“If these rules are adopted… your daughter… may be subjected to sex testing just to participate. Worse, it creates a culture where [someone] feels entitled to question whether your daughter ‘looks female enough’ to belong. That is not protecting women’s sport. That is policing girls’ bodies… The IOC’s new guidelines will be unlawful in Australia… Moving towards exclusionary, invasive rules is not only unnecessary, it is a step back over 25 years.”
But exactly how “invasive” are we talking here? The Conversation spells out the process:
“The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample. Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene [the gene associated with men’s sexual development] will be banned from the women’s category.”
So, a cheek swab. One time. To ensure the category for biological females actually contains… biological females.
So, what do you think? Has the IOC finally made the right move here? Or is the very fabric of human rights and the future of civilisation at risk because we’ve gone back to defining a woman as… a woman? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—I’m sure they’ll be civil.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cokAfcq6phA/mqdefault.jpg)





