Page 2422 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The NSW legislation extends offences under the Crimes Act relating to the infliction of grievous bodily harm to the destruction by a person of the foetus of a pregnant woman, other than in the course of a medical procedure. NSW deliberately avoided creating the offence of manslaughter against an unborn child because this was highly problematic. I would support the introduction of legislation in the ACT similar to that adopted by the NSW parliament without hesitation, but I cannot support the bill.
I believe Mr Pratt is genuinely concerned about the right of a woman to safety during pregnancy but what I think is problematic about it is the way the bill assigns harm to the unborn child and not to the woman. I do not think Mr Pratt is deliberately attempting to restrict access to abortion. However, it is not surprising that there is a great deal of sensitivity about abortion rights at the moment. Those of us who feel very strongly about the right to safe, legal and affordable abortion have been alarmed by the so-called debate driven by members of the current federal government.
In this debate we have heard almost exclusively from male MPs bemoaning the number of terminations each year and using words to describe this as an “abortion epidemic”. Inaccurate statistics have been used to fuel this argument, together with gross generalisations about women suffering psychological problems following terminations. It is my understanding that there are no reliable national figures on the number of abortions performed in Australia; however, we know the number has been falling. Health Insurance Commission figures show that the number of Medicare funded abortion type procedures fell from 76,000 in 1997 to 73,000 in 2004. Many of those procedures were for spontaneous abortions or unviable foetuses.
We have also heard misleading arguments about late-term abortions, with anti-abortion proponents suggesting that some women are having late-term abortions at the same gestation as surviving babies born prematurely. All evidence suggests that abortions performed in the third trimester are very rare and are overwhelmingly the result of foetal abnormalities. They are always the result of considerable thought by and consultation with the affected woman. We need to remember that no abortion is ever undertaken lightly.
Given this, many women have felt that they are under attack. Women’s groups, and all other groups that are concerned about human rights, have been alarmed that hard-won gains in reproductive rights seem to be again under threat. It is therefore no surprise that legislation concerning pregnancy and harm to a foetus might set off alarm bells. I think we need to be very careful about protecting the rights of pregnant women to safety in carrying, bearing and delivering their child and their right to choice in the decision as to whether or not they will do that.
I believe this bill could have unintended consequences, and that there is an alternative route to achieve the desired outcome. I call on Mr Pratt—if he wants to continue down this road and have a third go—or the Attorney-General to produce legislation based on the New South Wales model, to discourage violence against pregnant women and send a clear message to potential aggressors without the complicated issue of assigning legal status to the unborn.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .