"An objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother's convenience... To a pregnant 14-year-old struggling to grasp what's happening, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out", federal health minister Tony Abbott declared in an address he gave on March 16 at Adelaide University.
Abbott went on to argue that "it's hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations. What seems to be considered far less often is avoiding situations where difficult choices might arise. If half the effort were put into discouraging teenage promiscuity as into preventing teenage speeding, there might be fewer abortions, fewer traumatised women and fewer dysfunctional families."
His comments obscure the real issue regarding access to abortion. People are free to hold any individual moral viewpoint on abortion they choose. Contrary to Abbott's reference to women's right to have an abortion, the real issue is a woman's right to control her life as she sees fit — and this includes decisions on whether to have children, how many children and when. This is the basis of pro-choice arguments.
There is a problem when governments try to impose their absolute moral standards on the whole of society, without taking into account people's individual circumstances. This is particularly important and necessary in the current social climate in Australia.
Some statistics from the Socialist Alliance policy statement on women's rights, Gender Agenda, illustrate the increasing difficulties women face in Australia. Women's average earnings are only 66% of men's — less than they were relative to men's 10 years ago — and declining.
The workforce participation rate of women in Australia is now lower than any comparable industrialised country, and the proportion of women with full-time and/or permanent (as opposed to casual) employment is falling. Seventy per cent of all part-time jobs are held by women, but 22% of women working part-time would like more work hours.
Half a million women who want to be in the workforce are not, 32% of them because of lack of child care. State and federal government funding for women's services is less now than it was a decade ago, despite a steady increase in the number of women and children living below the poverty line.
When these statistics are considered in a broad social context, it becomes clear why it is not appropriate for politicians to spew out the same old rhetoric of women avoiding situations where difficult choices arise.
Hypocritical "pro-lifers" like Abbott blame women for taking "the easy way out" by terminating their pregnancies (without regard to the quality of life of those involved) when the reality is that termination is for many women a very difficult and traumatic experience.
A letter published in On Dit (the Adelaide University student paper) — written by a woman who had a termination after being sexually assaulted when she was 16 — made the following response to Abbott's speech: "I invite Mr Abbott to come and talk to some of the women who have had terminations, and see for himself the effect of what he has ignorantly labelled 'the easy way out'. It is anything but easy."
Instead of blaming women, perhaps Abbott should look at the responsibility that his government has to provide adequate levels of funding for child care, education, affordable housing and support services for women. His government should provide free, accessible and reliable contraception, instead of systematically cutting funding and deprioritising these services. The government has a responsibility to provide a real choice for women.
Melody Coutman
From Green Left Weekly, March 31, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.