Abortion rights in Australia in danger

[dreamer_easy]

ETA: You must read 17catherines's comment below on late-term abortions. In brief, women who have a late-term abortion do so for serious medical reasons.

A number of powerful people without wombs are currently discussing the possibility of restricting the right of those with wombs to make medical decisions about said organ. In other words, stripping away women's abortion rights is back on the agenda in Australia. This could mean a ban on late-term abortions, and removing the Medicare rebate for the procedure.

After initially staying out of the fray, Health Minister Tony Abbott commented, "Are people being railroaded into this by parents, boyfriends and the culture of convenience? ... Do we really think 100,000 abortions a year represents Australia's best self?"

First off, the 100,000 figure is spurious. It includes non-abortion procedures carried out after a spontaneous miscarriage or when a baby dies in utero. Only South Australia keeps statistics on actual abortions.

The suggestion that women are not capable of making their own decision about abortion, or make that decision lightly, is simply untrue. It's also scariliy patronising. Of course women face pressure from partners or family when faced with the choice; that pressure may be to end the pregnancy or to continue it. How would removing or limiting our choice improve our ability to choose freely? Nor has Abbott put forward a strategy for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in Australia; in fact, he recently called for the morning-after pill to be made prescription-only, which would increase unplanned pregnancies.

The Governor-General Michael Jeffrey, by contrast, has called for education as a way of reducing those unplanned pregnancies. He also recognised that it's not a choice women make lightly. In fact, let me quote him:

Could I just say, that, obviously, abortion is a very, very difficult decision for anybody to undertake. If there were ways of reducing the numbers of abortions I think that would be great. If we could do it through better education, contraception, better understanding of relationships, so that unwanted pregnancies are lessened in some way.

Abbott's parliamentary secretary, Christopher Pyne, has called for a ban on abortions after 21 weeks; Special Minister of State Eric Abetz and incoming Queensland National senator Barnaby Joyce want Medicare funding removed for most abortions; the Deputy PM has said the number of abortions has got "out of hand".

But not all Coalition politicans support the bans. Finance secretary Sharman Stone says that Medicare records do not back the claim of an increase in abortions.

No-one is fooled by Abbott's rationalisations. We can only hope this nonsense is a fillip for Family First, and not any indication of the direction of government policy. However, since the government will shortly be able to pass any law it likes, we need to let Abbott know what we think right away, while he's still testing the waters. Please, write a polite letter or email - a short one is fine - and ask him to keep abortion legal, safe, and affordable for all Australian women.

Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

(02) 9977 6411

___

Further reading:

The fab Cyndi Tebbel puts the case that Abortion is a private decision.

The satirical newspaper Crikey! comments on media coverage of the issue, which has largely involved interviewing the wombless.

Adele Horin argues that Not just the unborn child deserves concern : "Abbott's obsession with abortion is not matched by a passion to help those children born into difficult circumstances." (I laughed hollowly at Abbott castigating Catholics for being more concerned about mandatory detention than about abortions. Such detention has devastating effects on children's health - precisely why it's illegal.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Treading carefully here, (the abortion debate tends to stimulate that sort of behaviour I've noticed ;-)) but the tone of your post seems to imply that "the wombless" should butt out of issues like abortion. Have I read you right there? Frankly in the ethical minefield that the abortion debate lays before the unwary, I'm willing to listen to anybody with a sensible opinion (although I realise the mileage on "sensible" can be particularly variable)in order to make up my own mind.

Just curious.

cheers

dave

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point - let me have a stab at addressing it.

There is something especially creepy, even sleazy, about powerful men wanting to force (primarily poor) women to produce babies, particularly when they're not also for preventing unplanned pregnancies nor for children's welfare. Basically, it's a small bunch of old guys trying to get control over the womb. Yuck.

There's a big difference between you having your personal say, and these guys legislating. They talk about "debate", but what they mean is a clampdown. Everybody gets to express their opinion, however they can, but ultimately I can't make your medical decisions, and you can't make mine; more importantly, the state can't make the individual's medical decisions.

[motiveforce.livejournal.com]

I think you sidestepped the question here.

Is this an issue of men legislating on what is in essence a women's issue?

To give my answer, no. It is an issue of the empowered legislating against the disempowered at the behest of an immoral socio-religious ethical code.

But that is just my wombless analysis.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

While I take your point, I don't think we can avoid the fact that the the empowered are men and the disempowered are women. These gents hold the view that, since they carry a Y chromosome, they have the right to push around those who don't. So there's an overlap here between the abstract principle (state vs individual, powerful vs powerless) and the concrete, flesh and blood reality (male vs female).

[motiveforce.livejournal.com]

Likewise good point.
To counterpoint, simply because these men believe they are superior thanks to their penii, does not mean we have to adhere to their definitions of masculinity and the female role. Making the question a Women's question forces the issues into the old duality, reinforcing the empowered male position. To do so in the current climate can isolate anti-feminist women and pro-feminist men from the position, which plays in to the male chauvanists agenda. Divide and conquest.
I don't think the nature of the group disenfranchised can be ignored, either, so your overlap point is on the mark. Care must be taken, though. It is a more complex issue than the old duality allows for, IMHO, and thus my personal abstract view.

[alryssa.livejournal.com]

Having been reading these, I've been meaning to ask: Would opinions from outside the country on any of these matters carry weight, coming from someone who's not a resident?

[motiveforce.livejournal.com]

Australian politicians do a very good job of ignoring any opinion that does not coincide with their current agenda. But moral support is always good.

I was deeply afraid of this turn of events. The election was not even cold in the ground... If Family First had gotten the decider in the senate, I would have given really good odds that they would have passed this through the lower house within a month.

Firmly in the "steps backward" phase of history now. I have no words for how evil this agenda is. If there was ever a cause since the inquisition fraught with religious idiocy and injustice, this is it.

AAAARGH.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Some weight, certainly - leaders do take world opinion into consideration. You could mention an Australian news story you read on the Web, or (better still) keep an eye out for a mention in your local press and tell them about that, even send a press clipping.

But my feeling is you've got enough to worry about in the US! :-)

[jblum.livejournal.com]

Well, you're American, right? So they should bend over backwards to please you. :-)

[17catherines.livejournal.com]

Good grief, I go away for a honeymoon, come back, and look what happens! I'm flabbergasted that this is moving so fast...

Putting on my Genetic Counselling hat for a moment (since I feel this is where I know the most), I can't help feeling that banning post-21-week abortions is one of the silliest places to start with this debate. You probably already know this, but these days most women are offered first or second trimester screening early in pregnancy. When I say offered, although there is theoretically informed consent, many women go ahead without really understanding what the screening test is for.

If you are unlucky, you find out about 14-15 weeks (at the earliest into the pregnancy, that you have screened at 'high risk' for one of a range of conditions - theoretically, we are looking for Down Syndrome, Trisomy 18, and, in second trimester, neural tube defects, but the way the tests work, other things might be picked up too. A 'high risk' means, you have unusual levels of hormones, the ultrasound had something unusual (usually a thickened nuchal fold), and we think your overall risk, factoring age, is somewhere less than 1 in 250 (obviously, you are given a more exact figure, but it is still only a probability). But you still don't know for certain if anything is wrong.

You find that out by having an amniocentesis - which can only be done after 16 weeks, if I recall correctly, and definitely takes 2 weeks to process.

So suddenly, at 18 weeks in, at the very earliest, you may be facing a very nasty diagnosis, without really having had much time to prepare for it. The child you are now thinking about terminating is not an accident, or if it is, it is one you decided long ago to carry on with. It is a wanted child - except now you don't know whether you can cope with this diagnosis...

If you terminate at this late stage, you have to go through labor. There is generally a waiting period of a few days to over a week before you can have the termination (this is about availability, not morals).

What I am saying, in a long-winded fashion, is that the majority of terminations after 21 weeks are for medical reasons. In fact, it is extremely difficult to have a termination after 22 weeks without a medical reason - I don't think it is possible at all after 24 weeks, except in an emergency (ie, hypertension - mother's life at risk).

When we target abortions post 21-weeks, we are not targeting the 'irresponsible women using abortion as a contraceptive' that some people like to wring their hands over. We are targeting women who have very frightening medical conditions, or who have found themselves with the prospect of raising a child with a very nasty illness.

Personally, I favour mother over fetus every time. But even if I didn't, this seems like the wrong end of the problem to start with.

Catherine, hopefully not too long-winded or over informed, and now she's going to have to write to the Health Minister, which was NOT on her list of things to do on her holiday...

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Thanks heaps - sorry to hit you with all this on your return. It's really blown up over the last week. I'd love to quote what you said above in the main body of my journal so more people will see it.

[17catherines.livejournal.com]

Feel free - in fact, I'm rather flattered! I should point out that I'm qualified, but not yet practicing as a Genetic Counsellor, so I've probably missed nuances. I intend to post a more coherent, detailed argument in my LJ at some point - but I think the thing is to get information available fast, which your journal will certainly do (since you've already started, and I'm still catching up a bit).

You should probably add a ) after 'at the earliest' - it seems to have got lost in all my enthusiasm!

Regards,

Catherine