Thank you for your article "Is the abortion law reform in Victoria enough?" [GLW #768]. I appreciate your comments about Canada (one correction: the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League has been defunct for about 5 years, and a different national group has formed to fill the gap: the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada).
I see the new Victoria law has now passed second reading. This is a huge step forward compared to the previous situation, and congratulations to pro-choice campaigners for mostly decriminalising abortion. However, it's strange and unfortunate that a new law was passed, rather than repealing the old one completely, as was done in the ACT in 2002.
The new law perpetuates or creates a number of serious problems:
Abortion after 24 weeks is still restricted, with doctors and healthcare professionals subject to professional misconduct charges if they perform an abortion without permission or outside the criteria. The law takes the decision out of the hands of women completely, and gives it to doctors and legislators.
The gestational limit removes much medical discretion from doctors, giving it to legislators instead. Doctors are being threatened with punishment simply for doing their job of saving women's lives and health. This may keep down the number of providers, thereby hindering access to late abortions, the most desperately needed ones.
The gestational limit validates the assumption that women and doctors are having/performing "frivolous" abortions right up to the point of delivery, so the state must control these amoral people. Late abortions are only done for compelling reasons, and no-one but women and doctors should be making these difficult decisions.
Women's lives and health are subject to a fetal right to life after 24 weeks. In effect, this gives fetuses official legal representation by the state. This negates and undermines the active safeguards that society already has in place to protect the interests of fetuses — they're called pregnant women.
The gestational limit is symbolism that sends a strong anti-woman message. It's a vestige of 20th century thinking that could not comprehend that women should or could exercise a right to abortion, so it's disappointing to see it being newly reinforced in 2009 in Australia.
Experience from the ACT and Canada is clear that decriminalising abortion completely does not increase it, and certainly does not increase late abortions. The Victoria legislature apparently chose to ignore this evidence, which means the law is purely political.
The law perpetuates the notion that abortion needs extra legal control, even though there's no reason abortion practice can't be regulated just like any other medical procedure.
The law gives the opposition fuel to keep fighting (and possibly winning). The law itself will serve as a tool to interfere with abortion rights — by passing amendments and other restrictions, initiating court challenges against it, serving as an ongoing focal point for pubic debate and opposition, etc. If there was no law at all, the anti-choice would not have a convenient platform from which to agitate against abortion.
I invite you to read my article at < http://www.arcc-A HREF="mailto:cdac.ca/action/dont-need-abortion-law.html"><cdac.ca/action/dont-need-abortion-law.html> on why no laws are needed on abortion.
Joyce Arthur
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
[Abridged.]