Reproductive freedom is one of the most controversial human rights in the globe. The right of parents to decide freely and responsibly if, when and how they give birth respects individual choice about whether to bring a child into the world, one of most important decisions human beings make across their lifetime.
Reproductive freedom means supporting birth control, contraception, access to abortion services and adequate health-care services for IVF and other assisted birth technologies. Opposition to reproductive freedom by conservative forces, in particular the provision of condoms, has contributed to the scourge of AIDS in Africa and caused permanent damage to women forced to use unscrupulous doctors to terminate unwanted pregnancies worldwide.
In Australia, it is not often we see a stark example of a human rights abuse. But the trial of two young people taking place in Cairns this week for procuring a miscarriage, a charge under archaic and seldom used provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, is an example of a fundamental challenge to the right to reproductive freedom in Australia.
For too long, the Queensland Parliament has relied on the exercise of discretion by police to not prosecute abortion crimes under the code as a means of avoiding broader public debate about the importance of decriminalisation. This case exposes how important, and urgent, legislative reform is, as well as how crucial it is to have progressive men and women in our parliaments.
EMILY’s List Australia has long been a champion of reproductive freedom. Being pro-choice is one of five principles progressive women must adhere to receive political, financial and personal support from the organisation. Several women in the Queensland parliament enjoy our support and we have no reason to question their loyalty to change. But blaming Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, or anyone of our supporters, for failing to reform a piece of legislation that pre-dates even the right of women to vote is counter-productive to affecting change in the best interests of women, and the partners who support them.
Progressive women represent less than a third of the Parliament and have only recently started occupying positions of real power. People who seek to blame progressive women for the continued prosecution of this case, fail to appreciate the stranglehold conservative, mostly male, leaders have over law and order. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Shifting blame on women, after centuries of male control over women’s bodies, including 100 years by the Queensland government, is disingenuous.
We have confidence in the judgement of Premier Bligh and others that a Bill before the current group of MPs in the Queensland Parliament would hijack the debate and take women’s rights further backwards. In politics, everything is about timing.
Incremental change is not popular — calling for revolution when it can’t be delivered makes for more interesting television. But incremental change — law reform inquiries, private members Bills requiring conscience votes, consensus building and other boring, but essential steps needed to take people with you on a journey for change — is what makes for lasting behavioural and social transformation.
This is why progressive women, such as Premier Bligh, need two things — first, the people of Queensland to elect more progressive MPs into their parliament and, secondly, the support of women’s movement and the community sector and the press to take a greater interest in the institutional structures that work to limit women’s control over their own bodies. Hopefully then we can eliminate the need for any other woman or couple to face the same human rights abuse being faced by Tegan Leach and her partner, Sergie Brennan. But, let’s be clear on who the enemies of reproductive freedom are and direct our energies accordingly.
Tanja Kovac is the national co-ordinator and Hutch Hussein is the national co-convenor of EMILY’s List Australia.
86 thoughts on “Blaming women not the answer to abortion law reform”
Liz45
October 13, 2010 at 6:20 pm@SHOOBA – And how come you know why women decide to have an abortion? Spoken to many have you? No contraception is 100% safe – they fail. Then, there’s women and girls who are victims of rape and incest – what about them? I have a friend who works in a clinic, and she frequently sees women who are covered in buises. Take a look at every state & territories stats for rape – then take a look at the number that go to trial, and the number who are convicted – about one tenth are reported, less than that many go to trial, and not many are convicted. Regardless, the victims have to cope with an unwanted pregnancy on too many occasions.
If people like you and John James were as strident in the quest to stamp out violence towards women and girls, I’d have more respect for your views – but you don’t. Just a heap of hot air about ‘two wrongs’ blah blah! My understanding is, that the majority of women who seek abortion are women from 29-? Already have enough children. Victims of abuse – domestic violence etc. Can’t afford to leave work. Contraception failed etc. No woman WANTS an abortion – many find themselves in a position where IN THEIR OPINION abortion is the only option. Perhaps you could advocate a system other than capitalism, where the emphasis is not on profit making, but people protecting?
@RII – Feminism is about equality and justice, and having the right to make up your own mind, whether it be abortion or the right to vote, or equal pay, or justice for indigenous women and their families, that’s what feminism is. Being dictated to by people who don’t give a fig about you or your health or financial position is supreme arrogance! The churches, men and women who are not facing this situation have no right to dictate their views on others! Feminists are united in supporting a woman’s right to choose. That does not mean that we’d personally have a termination, it means that as intelligent people, we are capable of coming to a decision about our own fertility – this includes contraception, pregnancy, birth and of course abortion! I have not had to face this situation(thankfully) but I have suffered a miscarriage, and I know how traumatic that was. I also know the difference between that situation and giving birth to 3 healthy babies. I don’t dictate to other women – I have respect for their abilities – and hopefully their partner!
@JOHN JAMES – You misrepresent the Victorian Law. My understanding is, that if a woman is carrying a foetus without any hope of it surviving outside the woman’s body, a termination is legally allowed. This will stop the hideous situation that happened last year(I think) where a woman’s foetus had died or would die, and she was forced to continue with that pregnancy for another week or so. This is completely different to your assertion.
I think you should post the part of the Legislation you claim that covers what you assert!
Jillian Blackall
October 13, 2010 at 6:36 pmThis article is making excuses where there are no excuses.
“Incremental change is not popular — calling for revolution when it can’t be delivered makes for more interesting television. But incremental change — law reform inquiries, private members Bills requiring conscience votes, consensus building and other boring, but essential steps needed to take people with you on a journey for change — is what makes for lasting behavioural and social transformation.”
What steps have been taken by the ALP in Queensland? None as far as I can tell.
Nin
October 13, 2010 at 7:09 pmHow sad to see such ignorant commentary even on Crikey.
1. Of course abortion is a feminist issue. It is very clear from WHO data that safe access to abortion services is associated with improved quality of life for women. Illegal unsafe terminations are still responsible for the death of thousands of women world wide. Although better access to contraception would seem to be a good solution, contraception is not 100%!
2. Victorian abortion law reform was a great step forward in the management of abortion services. No, there are not increasing numbers of babies being “left to die” although some may be having palliative care. The article in the Age was a huge beat-up of unsubstantiated hearsay. Other States should take the opportunity to clarify their own abortion laws following the Victorian model (as many did with its predecessor, the Menhennit ruling).
3. It’s true that the couple were using a TGA limited substance, the progesterone receptor antagonist RU486, obtained illegally from overseas. But why is RU486 so restricted in Australia? The published trial performed at Monash was reasonably successful with few patients requiring subsequent surgery and no serious adverse outcomes if I remember correctly. It’s restriction is political and linked to the Howard’s right wing views that wide avaibility of mifepristone would make “abortion too easily available”, a classic example of prejudice and misogyny. As well as States reviewing their laws, the federal government should revisit the RU486 issue.
Sancho
October 13, 2010 at 7:47 pmI hate to interfere with a round of Catholic hand-wringing over the modern fashion for not living in the dark ages, but where’s the outrage over vasectomies?
No, not a feminist issue just because the religious want to punish women only.
John james
October 13, 2010 at 8:07 pm@NIN..” How sad to see such ignorant commentary..”
Indeed, not just ignorant, but calculatingly misleading.
Palliative care? Why would an aborted baby need palliative care? Do dead babies need palliative care?
What’s palliative about formaldehyde?
Ignorance, thy name is bliss.
I’m not surprised to see this nonsense from apologists for this barbarism, but really, insisting on such an absurd distintinction as babies being “left to die” and babies requiring “palliative care” is just mind bending, but worse it’s a lie, pure and simple.
And ‘The Age’, Pravda on the Yarra, doing a “beat up ” on abortion. Seriously?
“..the published trial was reasonably succesful..”
If the end point is a dead baby, and traumatised women, yes!
But all the women you have died using this drug bled to death, at home, or died from overwhelming sespsis, at home, and were not closely supervised, having been told that the symptoms heralding their imminent fatal haemorrhage or septic hypotension, were perfectly normal.
Sancho
October 13, 2010 at 8:36 pmWhere are these dead babies, John James? Surely you’re not referring to embryos, which have as much humanity as a fried egg?
Nin
October 13, 2010 at 9:06 pmObviously there is no point in arguing with some people, but I’m unable to resist pointing out that the accused woman was only 8 weeks pregnant, a point at which even Aristotle did not view the embryo as a human being. In the Australian trial of RU486, women, far from being traumatised, reported that they found the experience preferable to a surgical termination.
And yes, like every newspaper, the Age does beat-ups…
John james
October 14, 2010 at 8:49 amAristotle, God bless him, didn’t have the benefits of ‘real time ultrasound’ to look, through the “window” into the womb.
Next time your girl friend is pregnant, before you pack her off to get rid of ‘IT’, ask to see the ultrasound.
Watch the beating heart.
Then think really carefully about the nonsense you’ve written in defence of the indefensible.
Shooba
October 14, 2010 at 11:44 am@LIZ45, One hundred thousand abortions a year in this country… I would respectfully suggest that the vast majority are committed by couples out of financial fear, shame, or bad timing. A tiny proportion would be rape or incest.
@Sancho, ignoring your oh-so-predictable shot at Catholics, any scientific journal worth the paper it’s printed on will tell you that life begins at conception. Where do you choose to draw the line? 24 weeks? 36 weeks? An hour into labour? When does that embryo beome human according to you, I’m interested to know.
I live in a state where a couple can abort their “embryo” and be praised by militant groups like Emily’s List for making a life-affirming and empowering decision. If, earlier on that same day, I had walked up to her and punched her in the stomach, causing the death of that “cluster of cells” I can be charged with murder.
What a sad, sad state of affairs.
I would like to iterate what RII said… this is not a femenist issue. Contraception, yeah. Abortion, no.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 14, 2010 at 12:54 pmJohn James, if I had even one ovary I’d ask you to get your rosaries off it. You have a forum in this democracy and are perfectly able to participate in a public debate about legislation (or the demands for and against it) but instead you want to root around in the private lives of others. Any others that you can get your ugly hands on. You can’t get pregnant so how can you possibly know the meaning of it? Oh, you read about it somewhere. Big deal.