A Liberal MLC has taken up the fight that Wagga MP Joe McGirr started in the lower house over abortion law changes and the rights of doctors not to participate in terminations.
During a marathon debate this month over a bill to decriminalise abortion in NSW, Dr McGirr unsuccessfully attempted to move his own changes.
Dr McGirr told Parliament that the bill in its original form would compel general practitioners to refer a patient to another provider for an abortion even if it conflicted with their personal beliefs.
Sydney-based Liberal MLC Scott Farlow told the upper house on Wednesday that he would introduce his own amendment based on Dr McGirr's lower house motion.
"General practitioners in particular have expressed (conscientious objection) concern to me, as they believe they are the most exposed under this legislation," Mr Farlow said.
"I will be supporting amendments, similar to those moved by the only medical doctor in this Parliament, Dr Joe McGirr, to address those concerns."
In response, supporters of decriminalisation have claimed that Dr McGirr's position on religious doctors having to refer patients for abortion was in conflict with a submission from the Australian Medical Association.
Wagga-based National Party MLC Wes Fang said Dr McGirr's position was "directly at odds" with what Parliament had heard from the medical industry's professional associations.
"When (Dr McGirr) says he has concerns from doctors, neither the college that is primarily responsible for that area of medicine - nor the overarching association - supports that position.
"You have to ask, was (Dr McGirr) moving that amendment in response to doctors, or in response to his own personal beliefs?"
The bill passed Parliament's lower house and debate in the upper house began on Tuesday, but the final vote has been moved to next month following an intervention from Premier Gladys Berejiklian.
In a statement, Dr McGirr welcomed the delay but called for more time to consider public input.
"Additional time will allow for the wider community consultation that I don't think was provided, ahead of the bill's debate last sitting," he said.
"There are a range of amendments set to be considered in the upper house, and I believe some include the suggested alterations made in the lower house.
"Given the number of submissions to the upper house inquiry last week, I would think a period of three months should be allowed. However, I acknowledge the value of the additional time."