Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2578 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

regarding there own bodies. In practice, abortion in the ACT is both freely available and easily accessible.

I feel this is the key comment in this letter which encapsulates the position that I stand for and which I would like to see the Assembly stand firmly on. These doctors go on to say:

A very real risk seen by those of us at the coalface is of young women in emotionally vulnerable situations, being pressured into hasty decisions that they do not have adequate time to consider. Three days is a trivial price to pay for a small amount of breathing space, which provides more opportunity for informed, well-considered choices.

They finish off by saying:

Leaving current provisions in law causing no harm and prevents no woman accessing an abortion.

What is the harm in that? The quote continues:

Removing current provisions however involves major risks and hazards for no practical benefit for any woman or to our community.

I also quote from a letter from a community group known as the Real Alternatives for Women Society. This is a very sensible letter. Their spokesperson says:

Dear Mr. Pratt,

I am a science graduate with honours, a secondary teacher of seven years and a young mother. I am very passionate about the welfare of women, family and community as a whole. I wish to express my deep concerns over the options for women/Berry abortion campaign. Ironically the words 'freedom of choice' and 'options for women' are inappropriately used in an abortion campaign which lacks rationality, promotes naivety and seeks to rob women of their reproductive rights.

How many of us would undergo any serious medical procedure without first finding out what is involved, what the risks are and whether there were any other alternatives? The Health Regulation (Maternal Information) Act (1998) requires that women be informed of an abortion procedure, the risks and options available to them. Indeed it is unthinkable in this day and age that this information not be required to be given to women. The push to remove requirements to information is a push for naivety. This to me as a woman is offensive and patronising.

I am quoting the spokesperson. She continues:

It would impede and jeopardise my ability to make an informed and free decision. It is similarly naïve and contrary to the testimonies of many women to say that abortion providers. Doctors will always, objectively give to every woman all the above information.

Current legislation also requires a waiting or 'cooling off' period of three days from when a woman books in for an abortion and when the medical procedures take place. How many of us book in for a non-emergency procedure and expect it to be

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .