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”
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 14, 2010 at 3:38 pmShooba, I notice you are back, full of unevidenced opinion and mistaken commentary. Have you listened to the news today? Have you heard that the abortion trial in Cairns returned two ‘not guilty’ verdicts? How can you “respectfully suggest” anything when you treat facts with contempt?
And when you write about the “her” in a couple as a “cluster of cells” that you could punch until dead (that’s what you wrote), then it would be a sad state of affairs if you weren’t charged with murder. Have you been reading the same old tome as JJ?
Shooba
October 14, 2010 at 4:40 pmHugh, I’m confused as to the point of your post. You seem to jump around a little. I was respectfully suggesting that only a small proportion of abortions are due to rape or incest. That’s hardly an earth-shattering claim, as it’s entirely true. I would never want to gloss over such evil acts though, so I said “respectfully.” How is this related to the Cairns trial? They were found not guilty, which surprised no-one at all. As has been mentioned more than once, the pro-abortion lobby are the ones making the most media noise about the trial, which was unlikely to ever judge them for aborting, but more likely to judge them for importation. They were found not guilty. So be it. Add their child to the 100,000 other abortions in this advanced Western democracy fully capable (yet seemingly unwilling) to support people financially and emotionally during parenthood.
The second point you seem to be addressing (although I can’t be sure, since your post reads quite poorly) is when I highlighted the paradox of law in Victoria. You seem to miss my point. I can punch a woman in the stomach while she is on her way to an abortion clinic. I would never ever do so, but hypothetically. If the child inside of her dies as a result of my punch, I can be charged with the murder of that child. However, if I had never thrown the punch then an hour later she could have aborted that child with the state offering it no protection whatsoever. Does that outline it better? Would you care to offer an explanation as to why that is the case? I would also ask you to answer the question I posed to Sancho… when is a fetus a human? 6 weeks? 24 weeks? An hour into labour? If you can definitively answer that question I will be impressed, since thousands of brilliant pro-abortion minds before you have tried and failed. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of in embyonic development is that life starts at conception.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 14, 2010 at 5:18 pmShooba, this is what you wrote yesterday:
“Ummm… No mention of the fact that the couple is actually on trial for the illegal importation of a controlled substance? They’re not on trial for procuring an abortion. They’re on trial because they bypassed pharmaceutical importation laws and brought drugs in from Ukraine without going through the proper channels.”
If I had asked you what the trial in Cairns was about, and had added a provisional personalised commendation such as “…If you can definitively answer that question I will be impressed, since thousands of brilliant minds before you have tried and failed”, I would be dismally impressed with your inventiveness. No, I would be.
You comprehensively demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. And you are certain of it.
Shooba
October 14, 2010 at 5:30 pmOk, I think I understand what you’re saying this time. You’re highlighting that I (incorrectly as it turned out) said that they were not on trial for procuring an abortion. You got me. They were. Because in QLD it is only legal to abort to save the mother’s physical or mental wellbeing. Of course, this changes absolutely nothing.
And yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of my points on the actual topic being discussed. You also ignore my questions regarding what I will dub “the punch hypothetical” and the “when is a fetus a human” question.
Please read over your rants before posting them, they are barely decipherable. If you feel up to the task of answering my questions, feel free to respond.
Q1: Why can I be charged with the murder of an unborn child if I punch the mother, yet the unborn child can be aborted with no legal protection whatsoever?
Q2: When is a fetus a human?
Q3: If abortion-on-demand is a fundamental human right, then should we ignore the concept of “missing women” in China and India, hundreds of millions of children who are aborted simply for being females?
Hugh, I look forward to trying to translate your response.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 15, 2010 at 8:29 amShooba, the questions you pose are like relics of religious curiosity – how many angels fit on the head of a pin? You apparently believe abortion is murder, no exceptions. You are stuck with that concept. It blocks access to any other view. I can’t help you.
Shooba
October 15, 2010 at 9:18 amYou apparently believe abortion is fine, no exceptions. You are stuck with that concept. It blocks access to any other view. I can’t help you.
None of the questions I posed even begin to hint at religion, which is typically the insult pro-abortionsists fall back on. Your oh-so-witty rosaries-ovaries rhyme is uselss when (like myself) someone who doesn’t believe the bible argues against abortion. My religious views are my own, but they have nothing to do with the questions I asked. They are completely irreligious questions based on logic and law. Obviously you are not capable of answering them, which is no suprise whatsoever, given the low calibre of your responses so far.
Cheers.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 15, 2010 at 12:45 pmNo Shooba, you are not free to impose a philosophy on me (“abortion is fine”) and I didn’t say you were religious. You invent pseudo-philosophical riddles which simply don’t interest me. Like, “when is a fetus (sic) human?” To me, that question is completely irrelevant to the question of whether women should have access to, and legislative protection for, comprehensive health care including abortion. But I gather that you have posed this as a fundamental question which must be answered in a satisfying way before you can participate in the democratic process. That is your prerogative.
Shooba
October 15, 2010 at 2:23 pmIf you look back, you’ll see that my imposition of philosophy was simply a response to you doing the same.
The question of when a fetus is human may not interest you, but it is entirely relevant when discussing legislative change. The government must decide when humanity begins, and must decide when a child is affording protection under law. At the moment it is a grey area.
I asked three questions. You acknowledge (without attempting to answer) one, and ignore two. I’m beginning to suspect you’re not interested in an exchange of ideas but more interested in making sweeping statements or (for some reason) mentioning the democratic process.
My questions form the backbone of decision-making in regard to legislation. The status of a fetus as either human or subhuman is entirely relevant in law. I bring up “missing women” to show the hypocrisy that is inevitable when framing abortion as a womens’ issue.
I am a realist. There is a tide against pro-life campaigns and Australia is slowly slipping down the path towards abortion-on-demand. What an absolute tragedy and what a shocking example to leave the next generation. You are typical of this movement, Hugh, and I would feel sorry for you if the topic as a whole didn’t enrage me to my core. I make no apologies for feeling anger at the situation, and I direct my anger where it will have the most influence – not at women, but at politicians. I would ask those questions of politicians. You, clearly, are not up to the task of addressing my logical and rational questions.
Lady White Peace
October 15, 2010 at 3:13 pmAll of your pontifications are of no value. Unless you are a woman you have no idea what you are talking about.
So all of you men who think they have a right to dictate their philosophy, viewpoints and opinions on what we women do or do not do to our bodies…..GO AWAY AND GO PLAY WITH YOUR NEW MOTOR CAR OR GO MAKE SOME LAWS THAT IMPEDE YOU FROM HAVING SEX SINCE YOU ARE 50% RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITUATION. In other words mind your own business.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
October 15, 2010 at 3:33 pmShooba, you state that in order to frame legislation about abortion a government must “decide when humanity begins”. You reach this conclusion without any reference to any framework of logic. Legislation has been passed about medical malpractice, murder, robbery, fraud or genocide without any reference to ‘when humanity begins’, so why should you, a male, make special pleading against reforms about womens’ health and welfare legislation?
You claim that the “… status of a fetus as either human or subhuman is entirely relevant in law…”, without reference to any law. I think you are wrong-headed about that and I pointed out in an earlier post that you have form in this area having already made stuff up about the law and that court case in Cairns. Pro-life campaigns are not about law reform.
Clearly you have a big problem with the concept of abortion on demand. You are “enraged to the core”. Rage usually arises from real or perceived injustice. You are enraged by what you see as an injustice to another – in this case the unborn foetus. You frame the foetus (someone else’s foetus) as a person, you rage on their behalf and no one listens. You don’t rage on behalf of the woman or yourself. You aren’t interested in the public policy issue. You just want to vent your anger at politicians – which is interesting because they are the ones that can act but they can act against your anger as well. If you think this is a shocking example to leave the next generation then so be it. I think it is high time our legislature dealt with the disgraceful example/s we inherited from past generations. It’s not an absolute tragedy it’s reality.